ÔWeÕ? Non. ÔIÕ? Oui!

Building rapport in CRM communications begins with the individual, not the plural

IN EVERY CIVILIZED LANGUAGE, obviously the words for first person singular and first person plural aren’t the same: French — Je and Nous; German — Ich and Wir; Spanish — Yo and Nos; Italian — I and Noi; Swahili — Mimi and Sisi.

In English, as we all have known since we were six months old, singular is “I.” Plural is “We.”

Then why was it that emperors such as Julius Caesar referred to the mselves as “We” (a practice adopted by arrogant officials and business executives even to the present time)? Might pluralizing the personality be a one-on-one avoidance technique?

Sure.

Let’s suppose you’re a customer arguing price. The salesperson might tell you, “I can’t go any lower.” That places responsibility — and your negative reaction — squarely on him. Or he might say, “We can’t go any lower.” That generates a different reaction because he has shielded himself with a corporate mantel. Oh, you probably still won’t buy, but your annoyance has a murky target.

The salesperson also might say, “I wish I could, but we’re already far below the list price and I’m going to have to sell the quote I just gave you to the manager.” That sentence has four “I” references and a “We” reference, melding the two of you together as confrères against an external force.

Sixty-five years ago, Dale Carnegie established some valid rules for contemporary CRM salesmanship in a watershed book: “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Even in the Internet era, human psychology hasn’t changed. Rapport stems from “I,” not “We.” An individual can place an arm around another individual; it isn’t convincing if the arm tries to extend itself around a group or if one’s shoulder is seized by a bunch of miscellaneous arms.

Once the arm is around the shoulder, an “I” to “You” emphasis-shift becomes less noticeable…and therefore less likely to be rejected. So translated to battle conditions, the degree of imperative in communications to those who aren’t your immediate captives can gradually increase as your sales “pitch” progresses.

Structuring a sales talk or even a sales letter, for example, “I think you’ll be interested in this news” is a less abrasive opener than “You’ll be interested in this news” or “You should be interested in this news.”

(When sending a communication or speaking to captive readers or listeners — such as fellow members of an organization, co-religionists or those who acknowledge a common cause — you don’t need to establish rapport because you can, rightly, assume it already exists. “You should be interested in this news” is a more effective opener because you, as communicator, have pre-established your own position.)

As the closing statement or postscript, after presenting a seemingly logical proposition, a return to rapport is in order: “I [think] [hope] I’ve proved to you: You should be interested in this news.”

‘We’ Wanes

“We” doesn’t compete well as a communicator’s weapon. It’s a weak part of the arsenal, as likely to be a turn-off as it is to be a turn-on.

Often the salesperson’s situation is both a problem and a benefit: He or she can speak only for himself/herself, and “I” references carry little corporate strength behind them. That’s one of two problems. The other is apparent lack of positional power within the organization.

The benefit is the implicit rapport-establishing effect “I” has and “We” doesn’t have. A half-benefit can be conferred by adding what appears to be an executive title to the salesperson’s business card, which enhances apparent positional power within the organization.

I hope you don’t regard these bits of rhetorical trivia as pedantic.

Now, stop! Analyze the previous one-sentence paragraph: What if the wording had been, “Don’t regard these bits of rhetorical trivia as pedantic”? Rapport would have been demolished by the imperative wrecking ball, because instead of wrapping a friendly arm around the shoulder, I’d have delivered an uppercut to the solar plexus by starting an argument.

How about “Now, stop!”? That’s as imperative as a statement can be, and it would be risky if those two words hadn’t been followed by a logical tie to what had been said before.

It’s ‘You and I’

One way to assure your target’s interest in your communication is what we might call the Automatic Rapport Pilot: “You’re one…and I’m one too.” Saying “You’re one” without adding “I’m one too” is a dangerous game, because the writer then is hurling thunder-bolts from Mount Olympus.

“You’re one of us” is even more dangerous than “You’re one.” It’s super-assumptive. Every one of us has tried that ploy and seen it backfire when an unconvinced target responds — either with words or with a facial expression — “Says who?” “Us/We” isn’t remotely in the same league as “I” as a rapport-generator.

So why consider “We” at all? For safety. The shotgun can bag more game than the high-powered rifle, if you aren’t at point-blank range.

But a caution: For clarity, separate the “we” linking the reader with you, the speaker or writer, from the “We” who is making the offer.

Analyze this next paragraph, which may seem to be a perfectly logical way to sell computer servicing:

We’re both professionals. We both know that walking across town may save us six dollars in cab fare and cost us six hundred dollars in billable time.

The next paragraph reveals the communications problem:

We preserve and protect your billable time by taking the burden of computer maintenance off your shoulders. Your computers get professional attention, so your clients can get professional attention.

All right, who are “We”? In the first paragraph, “We” are message sender and message recipient, coupled by a common situation. In the very next paragraph, “We” are uncoupled. Oh, yes — some may follow the transition; but others may not follow the transition. Why chance confusion?

Avoiding confusion is as easy as clarifying just who is included in each “We” frame:

You and I both are professionals. We both know that walking across town may save us six dollars in cab fare and cost us six hundred dollars in billable time.

I propose to preserve and protect your billable time by taking the burden of computer maintenance off your shoulders. Your computers get professional attention, so your clients can get professional attention.

Are we — you and I — in sync on this point? I’m willing if you are. D

Herschell Gordon Lewis (www.herschell gordonlewis.com) is the principal of Lewis Enterprises, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Author of 24 books, including “On the Art of Writing Copy” and “The Complete Advertising and Marketing Handbook,” he writes for and consults with clients worldwide.