At 02:35 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On 28 Jun 96 at 8:05, GSCHERL wrote:
>> As in the case Robert Bacal discussed, the salesman who
>> believes that if he can get people to listen clearly, and with
>> an open mind, they will truly see the benefits of the product
>> he is selling (and in turn can also feed his family). In this
>> belief, the salesman may use methods which, to other people,
>> appear dishonest or unscrupulous, but are in reality ways to
>> get the prospects to get past the constant chatter of his every
>> day mind and truly listen.
>
>Garry, I am quite amazed to see such a position in this particular list.
>First, "the salesman may use methods which to other people APPEAR
>dishonest but are in reality ways to get the prospects to get past the
>constant.....etc.
>
>Are you saying that it is alright to misrepresent the truth to get a sale
>(or to "help") a person to find THE WAY? It is one thing to point out
>potential benefits as a sales technique--it is another to lie. I am sure
>you are aware that such a practice is against the law.
There are literally 1000's of advertising messages hitting us every day.
How many of those do you think actually tell you the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Is use of hyperbole and other sales techniques
immoral? Think of any commercial from any soft drink company, what "truth"
is presented? A "baited" promise is often made to "hook" the prospect into
listening. Is this acceptable or not? My response, to quote Charles
Swindoll, "Who do they think they are kidding?"
IMHO 95% of what is seen on television is designed to get you to spend
your money on a product. It is the advertisers who decide what programs
are scheduled. They choose programs that will appeal to the demographics
their product is designed for. The other 5% I leave open for those who
will argue with me that there is something of value to watch.
>But, how do you think lying contributes to a learning organization?
OK, it can't. However, can an LO lie?
>Second, I find your position (not you, but your position) appears to me to
>be patronizing, manipulative and condescending, since it assumes that
>others don't know best so must be lied to, or mislead to get their
>attention. Perhaps this is not what you are intending?
Those of us on this list may be the least susceptible to unscrupulous
advertisers/marketeers, but what is the sad reality, is that it is
ocurring every day. In some cases the company believes that it's products
exist for benefit of the customer. In other cases the company believes
that the customer exists for the benefit of its product and profit. An LO
can exist within either. To grow and increasingly benefit the customer or
to grow and increasingly exploit the customer. Could a LO company sell
cigarettes?
What was the last thing you (meaning whoever is reading this list)
purchased? What caught your attention about that product? Was that
technique acceptable? or was it manipulative? What could anyone say or do
to get you to look at their product or opportunity? There are marketing
organizations sitting around working on that very question all the time.
Having been "Sold" by a certain technique once will put up the defences to
that technique later. If the product was not worth the expected value
then the sales technique may seem to have been unscrupulous and anyone
using that same technique in the future may be placed into that same
category by association.
Archie
Archie Kregear
kregear@lims.lockheed.com
"We can have more than we've got because we can become more than we are."
-Jim Rohn
--Archie Kregear <kregear@lims.lockheed.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>