Message in a Minute: How to overcome objections to your message

Because objections have been on my clients’ minds a lot lately, I decided to make this wee?video:

How to overcome objections

Here’s the video’s Red Thread:

• GOAL: Most of us want to know?how to overcome objections to our idea, product, or service?so that we can drive the action we’re looking for.
• PROBLEM: We focus on objections because?we tend to think that objections?precede?decisions.?In reality, though, it’s the other way around:?objections are deflections?(from harder questions or uncomfortable answers).
• TRUTH: Regardless of whether someone’s decision is a “yes” or a “no,”?if the story they’re telling themselves makes sense, the decision will make sense,?at least to them. The problem is that all too often the story we’re telling them is the one that makes sense to us—but we’re already convinced our idea is the right one!
• CHANGE: That’s why you need to?build the skeptic’s story—the story that would make sense to someone whose worldview doesn’t yet include your idea, but could.
• ACTION: To do that, don’t just explain the why behind your what (why you make or do the thing you do),?explain the why behind your?how?(why do you do what you do?the way that you do it).?That lets someone connect what you do with how you see the world—and allows them to see the world that way, too.
• GOAL REVISITED: Not only will you be more likely to get the decision you’re looking for,?you just might keep objections from arising in the first place.

If you want to go deeper…

Let’s unpack that Red Thread into a not-so-wee post, as it contains a lot of juicy bits and some of my favorite concepts.

First up, that?goal:?How to overcome objections to our idea, product, or service.?From a message-building perspective, it’s a good example of a “wrong” audience question. Not because the audience is wrong to ask it, but because by the end of the message I want my audience (you!) to be asking a different one:?How can I keep objections from arising in the first place?

So, that’s my job with this message and Red Thread: To take the interest and relevance captured in the first question and not only answer it, but?introduce a new possibility.

The relationship between objections and decisions

With that goal established, it’s time to introduce the “real”?problem—the reason people are struggling to answer that goal question for themselves. Those “real” problems are almost always problems of?perspective: the lens people are currently using to answer the question is somehow keeping them from finding a satisfactory answer.

With this step of the Red Thread, you want to both capture that current perspective and introduce a new perspective (yours!) that opens the door to a new and different answer (again, yours!). That’s why?the “problem” always has two parts: the “old” perspective and the “new” one.

In this case, both parts of that “problem pair” are present in the goal itself:?objections?and?decisions. The “problem” is the perspective on the relationship between those two—a classic “cart before the horse” kind of problem. We think that objections precede decisions, when in fact decisions precede objections.

In a longer piece of content using this same Red Thread, I’d obviously spend more time unpacking that (and do!). But it doesn’t take much more than a quick example for people to acknowledge the truth of that statement: think about the last time someone tried to convince you to buy something you didn’t want (or tried to keep you from canceling your cable!).

All the objections you came up with were actually attempts to get the other person to stop convincing you to make a decision different than the one you already made.

Generally we humans don’t like admitting to people that we’ve made a snap decision (even though that’s pretty much the only kind of decision we ever actually make!). So, as I say in the video,?those objections we come up with are, in reality, deflections?from a harder question (“Why?don’t?I want this thing?”) or an uncomfortable answer (“I know why I don’t want it, I just don’t want to tell you…likely because that answer may not make me look?smart, capable, or good”).

[If you want to know why we deflect that way, read up on the concept of the “cognitive miser,” which is why a?lot?of messaging goes awry.]

But let’s get back to that snap decision, because there?was?some logic going on behind it—logic your audience wasn’t even aware they were using, because it happened?pre-consciously.

If the story makes sense, the decision makes sense

I’ve talked here before about how?story is the logic of the mind. Those “snap” decisions we make are the product of a pre-conscious story our brains build to deliver an answer to us.?That story we tell ourselves has the same elements as the stories we tell other people.?It contains:

• Something we want but don’t yet have (the Goal)
• A previously unknown/unacknowledged—but valid—reason why we don’t have it yet (the Problem)
• A belief or assumption that makes our current—or, in the case of a decision to change, new—behavior make sense (the Truth)
• The course of action that’s the result of the other three (the Change, if that course of action is a new behavior)
• The specific steps needed to put that decision into action (the Actions)

When you’re presented with a new idea (a Change), your brain looks for and fills in those elements of that story.?If you understand?and want?what the idea, product, or service will give you (the Goal)?AND?the reasoning for that change makes sense (the Problem & Truth), your brain says, “Yep, let’s do it.”

But if not…nope.

And that all happens without you knowing it! All your brain delivers to you is the gut response of “yes” or “no.” And since your brain has neither the time nor the inclination to try to rebuild the snap story in a way you could explain it to someone else (see the “cognitive miser”!), it just provides you with a whole bunch of objections to offer instead.

Now here’s the tricky part:

The story that makes sense to you, isn’t (yet!) the story that makes sense to them

Remember that whole “without you knowing it” bit? That’s true for?you?and the story you told?yourself?about your idea. As a result,?most of us build messages with what?seem?like the most important parts of the story:?“This idea [CHANGE] delivers what you want [GOAL], so you should buy/do/use it.”

That may tell someone your “why”—why you do what you do—but it’s an?incomplete?story!?It works for?you?because the Problem and Truth that connect the Goal to the Change are?silent assumptions—parts of the snap story that your?brain?knows are there, but?you?don’t.

Now to see how the cognitive miser steps in, let’s look at that shortened story again:

“This idea [CHANGE] delivers what you want [GOAL], so you should buy/do/use it.”

If you weren’t already predisposed to try that idea, would that be enough of an explanation—a story—for you??I bet it wouldn’t, especially if there were a mental, physical, or monetary price tag attached?or?if something about it violated what you believe to be true about the world.

Try it with a real-life example:

“Bloodletting with leeches will restore your health, so you should do it.”

[Note: DO?NOT?DO THIS.]

Okay, so yes, I used an extreme example, but if you look at a lot of the messages out there—maybe even yours—you’ll see that they are fundamentally the same shortened story.

Do you start to see the problem here? If I believe in the?four humours?(which I don’t), then this seems like a perfectly good story. I’d?already believe?the connection between bloodletting and restoring health, so the conclusion makes sense.

But for someone who’s never heard of bloodletting with leeches? They need a bit more information. The preconscious, snap story isn’t complete—it’s missing a Problem and Truth—and so the decision is a “no,” or in the best case scenario, “tell me more.”

The challenge is we don’t often realize that people?don’t?always, or even often, believe the same things we do. Because of something called the?false consensus effect, we tend to think that because we see the world a certain way, others must see it that way, too.

That’s?why we?skip to the end?of our messages—we don’t think other people?need?to hear the whole “story,” because?we?don’t. But they haven’t heard the whole story yet, and your shortened version doesn’t give them all the pieces they need to understand or agree.

That’s?why you need to…

Build the skeptic’s story

Whenever you’re building a message around an idea you’re sure is good or right, you need to pretend like you?don’t?believe it’s good or right…. You do that by?adopting the eyes and ears of a skeptic—someone who’s willing to listen, but not yet convinced.?That’s really the only way you’ll understand if and how your idea would ever really fit with their worldview.

The whole Red Thread method does this for you?(which is why I wrote?my book?on it). It helps you identify and articulate:

• Something your audience wants but doesn’t yet have (the Goal)
• The previously unknown/unacknowledged—but valid—reason why they don’t have it yet (the Problem)
• A?currently held?audience belief or assumption that makes a new behavior make sense (the Truth)
• The course of action that’s the result of the other three (the Change)
• The specific steps needed to put that decision into action (the Actions)

Look familiar? I hope so!

But let me?focus on the two parts we tend to skip over—the Problem and the Truth—because it’s those two that make a new story make sense (or not!) to even the most skeptical.

Find the why behind your?how

Let’s go back to leeches.

If I’m trying to sell you on leeches, and you want to improve your health, you?look?like an ideal audience for me. After all, I?believe?that my leeches will improve your health. But why?

I can tell you my?Simon Sinek-ian “why”: “I believe in improving people’s health, which is why I recommend leeches.” How does that work for you? Are you ready to go with the leeches? Probably not.

“Improving people’s health”?is?a “why,” sure. But do you see how?it’s a “why” behind a “what”? It’s why I’m doing?something—I want to improve people’s health—and the something just happens to be leeches.

But?you likely have one more question you need answered before you give me a yes or a no:?“Why do you recommend?leeches?to improve health?”?You need to know the “why” behind my “how.”?You need to know not just why I’m recommending?A?thing, but why I’m recommending?THIS?thing.

That’s a subtle difference, but a critical one.

So what would a “why behind my how” look or sound like? Well, the historical argument for leeches would go something like this:

• You want to improve your health. (Goal)
• It turns out health isn’t just one thing, it’s the product of four things, the four “humours”: blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. Negative health issues are the result of issues with one of the four elements.?(Two-part problem)
• We can agree it’s true that for the whole of something to be healthy, the parts need to be healthy, too.?(Truth)
• That’s why, to improve your health, you need to keep the four humours in proper balance.
• Because leeches remove blood, they’re the ideal way to get your blood humour back in balance and thus improve your health.

Now that you understand my worldview and my reasoning, you can see if and how it aligns with yours?(I hope it doesn’t!).

Do you see how it makes clear, both to me and to you, who the idea’s audience really is??Only people who share the worldview represented by the Problem and the Truth.

If you’re someone who wants to improve their health, but you?don’t?agree with the four humours approach (or somehow don’t agree with the Truth), you’re not going to bite on my recommendation of leeches <groan>.?You’ll keep looking until you find some approach to improving your health that makes sense to you,?given how you see the world.

For instance, 24 years ago now?I?wanted to improve my health. At just 24, my cholesterol and blood pressure were through the roof. I believed the science (and still do) that indicates that high cholesterol and blood pressure are often tied to being overweight, which I was. I didn’t, however, buy that leeches would be the key to that, even though I had all the “signs” of my “blood humour” being out of balance. And to be fair, no one offered (thank goodness!!).

But other than that, when it came to “improving my health,” I was?very?interested in anything that had the shortened story of “Do this [usually ridiculous thing] to lose weight and improve your health.” That meant I tried all sorts of things based?solely?on the claim that they could get me what I want (does anyone remember the Cabbage Soup Diet? YIKES).

Did any of them work? Sure, for a little while, but nothing ever stuck, nor did any weight loss that may have come along with them. I also felt…not so great doing them (*ahem* CABBAGE *ahem*) or not so great AT doing them (Jazzercise!).

So, over time, I realized that agreeing with the why behind the “what” wasn’t enough. I needed to agree with the why behind the “how.”

I needed something that would satisfy?this?story:

• I want to (lose weight to) improve my health.?(Goal)
• There’s a big difference between losing weight and keeping it off.?(Two-part problem) To be successful long-term, I need a program that I can sustain long-term—that means nothing that has me eliminate foods I love or that affects how I interact with others. I still want to go out to eat!
• I can’t improve my health if the way I lose weight—or my final weight—is unhealthy. In other words,?to get healthy, I need to?be?healthy.?(Truth)
• That’s why, to lose weight and improve my health,?I want a science-backed program that teaches me long-term skills for leading a healthy life.

Having that clarity made it easy for me to start making better choices about what I was, and wasn’t, willing to try. (And yes, I eventually found Weight Watchers, now WW, and have sustained a 50-pound weight loss through 22 years and 2 children).

Is there?ever?a case for leeches?

So you might be saying, “That’s all fine, Tamsen, but there is?still?no way I’d ever agree that leeches could improve my health…” Let’s see how this story might work for you:

• You want to improve your health—after trauma or cancer treatment. To do so you need a complicated surgery like a reattachment or a graft, or some kind of reconstructive plastic surgery. (Goal)
• These surgeries need two elements to be successful: microscopic?blood vessels?that are successfully reattached and successful?blood flow?through them. (Two-part problem) Unfortunately, in rare cases, the blood becomes “thicker” than the tiny blood vessels can carry.
• Leeches’ saliva contains chemicals that not only keep the blood from getting “congested” in the first place but also keep the blood flowing even after the leech is detached. (Truth)
• That’s why, to support your post-surgery recovery, we recommend using leeches as part of your treatment plan. (Change)
• Here’s how that would work… (Action)

Okay, so it’s a pretty specific case, but do you see how you could be open to it, if that’s the situation you found yourself in? Indeed?doctors report?that, when they “openly communicate with them about our goals and the reasons for the therapy, most patients understand and are accepting of the treatment.”

Trade in objections for agreement

That last line is what it really all comes down to. That, when the case is right, when the?reasons behind the “how” are clear, you end up trading objections for agreement. And?that’s?because?you’ve held off the potentially objectionable thing until?after?you’ve gotten agreement to all the reasons for?how?that thing is the right answer.

As mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal once said:

“The art of persuasion is as much that of agreeing as that of convincing.”

When you build a story with elements a skeptical audience would agree with—without convincing—it’s very likely that you won’t encounter objections at all.

Try it and see!