One of the most important lessons I've learned is that when someone else has something you want, you need to be smart about how you get it. When you've got nothing, that means you are at the mercy of others (seller), whereas, if you have everything, they are at your mercy (buyer). Ironically, despite the fungible nature of money, people often find themselves in both situations at the same time. This notion is the origin of the bartering culture.
Everything is a negotiation
The equation is that you need something, and the other person offers something. Sales, marketing and social engineering can make up for deficits on both sides of the negotiation table.
Quid Pro Quo Transactions
These impact you from the 'buyer' side. An example might be to buy a MacBook. If you buy it from Apple directly you expect a certain product, with certain protections in place. For the most part, you are in a position where you should be able to simply demand (albeit politely) that they maintain their side of the bargain.. you gave them cash, they give you a product. This also applies to buying a flight using cash, or using miles. Social engineering here is less important, though still offers value.
Seller side transactions
Anything.. odd.. should be viewed as a seller side transaction. If you go to Walmart to buy MO, you are actually in a seller side transaction, as you NEED them to agree to the deal in order to be successful. This puts you into the position of weakness.
If you try to take the quid pro quo approach to these transactions you cause strain on the transaction, which eventually results in total elimination of the sales channel. And who loses? The store (buy side) who earns 70 cents, or you, who clears off $1000 of gift cards netting anything up to $40?
Domination within Seller Side Transactions
Most humans are more familiar with quid pro quo. And they often expect seller side to be the same. Sales is a scary or dirty word to many people. The reason (I believe) is that when you sell you open yourself up to the possibility of rejection, and of being socially dominated. In other words, if you ask something of someone, you allow them to exert their judgement and will over you, which some people take personally. In the animal world, this is a bit like having your pee peed on, or maybe your leg...
How to deal with domination
It is possible to 'win' seller side transactions through social domination, but doing so brings a broader risk, of resentment, and feelings outlined above, rejection, and inferiority. If you were to do this at a Walmart, you can walk out with the 'Win' but you also might set into motion a burning desire to stop that feeling happening again. For example, you might get a CSR who suddenly wants to find a reason for what you were doing is wrong or illegal, and start cobbling together rules on structuring in order to help them prove their point.
Ever wonder why some Walmarts allow gift cards and some do not? It is because a person was motivated enough to find a reason to stop them, even though the corporate policy does allow them. This is retaliation to domination. It is natural. Some guy, or series of guys acted in an entitled (buy side minded) and dominating manner too many times, and they shut it down.
Catching flies with honey
If you learn to recognize when you are dominating, or approaching a transaction as an entitled buyer, you can recognize when to dial that down. Any transaction that is MS related should be considered sell side. The moment you think you are entitled to 'buy' you start damaging the deal. Some people you encounter simply will not want to trade or barter with you, and you need to recognize that, appease them, and move on.
Countering domination
The natural inclination is to fight back. So the 'annoying Mgr or CSR' that you encounter is often channelling that from their past, perhaps from another annoying customer, or even from some childhood drama. If you encounter someone trying to dominate the transaction, the key is to not counter dominate (a pissing contest) but instead to assuage or pander to them.
Remember - on the buy side, where you have the power.. you can tell them to whistle dixie. But on the sell side, they hold the power. Being unable to navigate this social powerplay will cause broader problems.
Logic doesn't work, you can't out argue them. It isn't about terms and conditions. It isn't about rules.
Its about PEOPLE.
The only way to win is to take the big picture view, and try to empathize with these people, if you can find a way to understand the root of their objection to the trade, you can often work 'with them' to resolve it. This is how you 'activate' a store. In the past I've given a nervous manager more info than required, such as a phone number or other things so they can reach me if their boss has an issue with the transaction etc. On the other hand, if I had just dominated the transaction, I might have got it completed, but she would have spent time later plotting how to 'get even'.
Remember adages like 'its a marathon not a sprint' or 'lose a battle, win the war'. It is ok to lose in the sense that you don't always get things your way. And when you do think like this, remember you aren't letting them dominate you, there is no shame in not 'winning' that transaction, because, when you are on the sell side, you have no entitlement to the trade, you are on the wrong side of the table.
Everything is a negotiation
The equation is that you need something, and the other person offers something. Sales, marketing and social engineering can make up for deficits on both sides of the negotiation table.
Quid Pro Quo Transactions
These impact you from the 'buyer' side. An example might be to buy a MacBook. If you buy it from Apple directly you expect a certain product, with certain protections in place. For the most part, you are in a position where you should be able to simply demand (albeit politely) that they maintain their side of the bargain.. you gave them cash, they give you a product. This also applies to buying a flight using cash, or using miles. Social engineering here is less important, though still offers value.
Seller side transactions
Anything.. odd.. should be viewed as a seller side transaction. If you go to Walmart to buy MO, you are actually in a seller side transaction, as you NEED them to agree to the deal in order to be successful. This puts you into the position of weakness.
If you try to take the quid pro quo approach to these transactions you cause strain on the transaction, which eventually results in total elimination of the sales channel. And who loses? The store (buy side) who earns 70 cents, or you, who clears off $1000 of gift cards netting anything up to $40?
Domination within Seller Side Transactions
Most humans are more familiar with quid pro quo. And they often expect seller side to be the same. Sales is a scary or dirty word to many people. The reason (I believe) is that when you sell you open yourself up to the possibility of rejection, and of being socially dominated. In other words, if you ask something of someone, you allow them to exert their judgement and will over you, which some people take personally. In the animal world, this is a bit like having your pee peed on, or maybe your leg...
How to deal with domination
It is possible to 'win' seller side transactions through social domination, but doing so brings a broader risk, of resentment, and feelings outlined above, rejection, and inferiority. If you were to do this at a Walmart, you can walk out with the 'Win' but you also might set into motion a burning desire to stop that feeling happening again. For example, you might get a CSR who suddenly wants to find a reason for what you were doing is wrong or illegal, and start cobbling together rules on structuring in order to help them prove their point.
Ever wonder why some Walmarts allow gift cards and some do not? It is because a person was motivated enough to find a reason to stop them, even though the corporate policy does allow them. This is retaliation to domination. It is natural. Some guy, or series of guys acted in an entitled (buy side minded) and dominating manner too many times, and they shut it down.
Catching flies with honey
If you learn to recognize when you are dominating, or approaching a transaction as an entitled buyer, you can recognize when to dial that down. Any transaction that is MS related should be considered sell side. The moment you think you are entitled to 'buy' you start damaging the deal. Some people you encounter simply will not want to trade or barter with you, and you need to recognize that, appease them, and move on.
Countering domination
The natural inclination is to fight back. So the 'annoying Mgr or CSR' that you encounter is often channelling that from their past, perhaps from another annoying customer, or even from some childhood drama. If you encounter someone trying to dominate the transaction, the key is to not counter dominate (a pissing contest) but instead to assuage or pander to them.
Remember - on the buy side, where you have the power.. you can tell them to whistle dixie. But on the sell side, they hold the power. Being unable to navigate this social powerplay will cause broader problems.
Logic doesn't work, you can't out argue them. It isn't about terms and conditions. It isn't about rules.
Its about PEOPLE.
The only way to win is to take the big picture view, and try to empathize with these people, if you can find a way to understand the root of their objection to the trade, you can often work 'with them' to resolve it. This is how you 'activate' a store. In the past I've given a nervous manager more info than required, such as a phone number or other things so they can reach me if their boss has an issue with the transaction etc. On the other hand, if I had just dominated the transaction, I might have got it completed, but she would have spent time later plotting how to 'get even'.
Remember adages like 'its a marathon not a sprint' or 'lose a battle, win the war'. It is ok to lose in the sense that you don't always get things your way. And when you do think like this, remember you aren't letting them dominate you, there is no shame in not 'winning' that transaction, because, when you are on the sell side, you have no entitlement to the trade, you are on the wrong side of the table.
