“
…the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…”

Accentuating the positive has become a fundamental faith in communications. When it comes time to pitch an idea, a business or a product, few would be brash enough to break with this convention and declare their own limitations. And yet, some successful public arguments fully disclose the negative – even to the point of flaunting it – or using it as a strategic advantage.

How is it possible for a political candidate to volunteer former indiscretions and win an election? Why would a thriving men’s clothing store proudly describe itself as “inconveniently located”? How can Southwest Airlines boast that they only give their passengers peanuts for meals – and be the most profitable airline of all time? And how can companies like GE Capital improve sales by changing the context and meaning of negative attributes?

Most companies and individuals are essentially honest, and most try to avoid outright lying, and yet, by communicating only positive and avoiding all negatives aspects, honesty can be unintentionally compromised. No product or service is perfect for everyone, no vision or course of action is universally correct. If something is described only in positive terms, without an explanation of costs, downsides, risks, or other negatives, most listeners will assume that part of the truth has been omitted. If a negative question remains unanswered, it is assumed that something is intentionally being kept from view or “covered up”.

Exclusively positive messages are difficult to believe because reality is not exclusively positive.
In the 2000 presidential election, one candidate, Albert Gore, avoided answering questions about his use of marijuana as a young man while George W. Bush freely admitted his excessive early abuse of drugs and alcohol. The second candidate, added to his credibility and ended the controversy by discussing his decision to stop using drugs and alcohol. Both candidates did not currently use drugs, and yet the second candidate’s position looked far more credible, honest and compelling.

Addressing negative truths is one of the most overlooked yet most powerful marketing techniques available. Honesty differentiates, it creates instant credibility, and in an environment where most exaggerate, obfuscate or spin – it immediately attracts attention.

Two assumptions are at play in any selling opportunity. The seller assumes that the most attractive pitch will win the day, while the buyer assumes that everyone will exaggerate their claims to win them over. Strangely, instead of addressing a buyer’s inherent skepticism by providing credibility, most sellers will continue to reinforce that skepticism with positive claims. Even if those claims are accurate, with every word they risk losing credibility.

And credibility is everything to the buyer. Are the claims made likely to be accurate? Can one trust a product, service or idea to deliver?

Most advertisements, political speeches, sales pitches and press releases use only positive superlatives. A product, a service, a company, a candidate or a point of view is only shown as “the best”, “the leading”, “the preeminent”, “the finest”, “the most valuable”, “the most intelligent”, or “the most effective”. Every year, fewer Americans bother to vote for political candidates. Every new advertisement, no matter how well produced, seems to produce less market share for companies. Every new sales opportunity seems to require more and more effort to close the sale.

With full disclosure, one answers the key question for a buyer that is usually ignored by competitors. The truth builds a solid and persuasive reason for a buyer to pay attention, to understand and trust a value proposition, and finally, to buy a product, service or vision.

For example, a men’s clothing retailer in Chicago, has successfully built its business over thirty years while communicating a negative truth. Advertisements for Irv’s Mens Stores proudly proclaim that their stores are “Inconveniently Located”. This claim is not only far more believable than a potential competitor’s claims of “convenient locations” but it immediately demonstrates how Irv’s is able to deliver lower prices on high quality clothes: by spending less on real estate.

But facts can not influence by themselves– they must be given the appropriate context. The same set of facts can influence widely divergent behaviors, depending on the structure of the argument and the definition of value.

When deciding how to present a case for a product, service, or idea, it is essential to define the argument, as facts are only translated into perceptions when they are seen in context. If the context is structured based on what a listener needs and values, the facts will be far more persuasive. If the facts are seen through a different context, they will not.

Interestingly, most people, organizations and companies will continue to make old arguments long after the context has changed. The following example illustrates how one airline shaped its communications around a new context while the industry continued to communicate as if nothing had changed.

Prior to deregulation, commercial airlines competed for customers based on the level of their service. Every airline would claim a higher level of luxury, more attentive flight attendants and better meals.

With deregulation, however, the context changed. The cost of an airplane ticket became the most important differentiator for a potential customer. To offer a lower priced fare, airlines had to reduce the level of service. Most airlines chose not to fully disclose the actual quality of their coach in-flight food service. Advertisements continued to show pictures of beautiful meals served in first-class while airlines claimed superior service as a competitive advantage. In effect and probably without intending to, airlines began to lie to customers.

As more and more customers complained about the food, airlines responded by talking up their “friendly skies”, luxurious comfort and first-class meals. Airlines continued to call the food an “in-flight meal” even when a roll and a few pieces of salad barely qualified as a snack. A plastic bag containing a soggy sandwich, a candy bar and a container of juice is euphemistically referred to by one airline as “Bistro Service”.

Of course, most people know that air travel is unpleasant. When customers continue to see language and imagery that emphasize something other than what they know to be true, they no longer respect the overall integrity and credibility of that company. Interestingly, most airlines’ tendency to stretch the truth pervades their entire cultures. Despite more and more unpleasant travel conditions, delays, confusion, crowds, and discomfort, most airlines continue to describe their service in impossible superlatives. Every speech given by a flight attendant finishes with an exhortation to “enjoy” the flight. Pilots will routinely dismiss frightening losses of altitude or buffeting winds as “minor turbulence”. Statements from spokespeople and senior leadership talk about putting customers first.

From its beginning in 1971, Southwest Airlines was an exception in the industry. The company’s stated goal was to provide customers with fundamentally affordable and convenient air service within the US. They were brutal in their pursuit of cost savings, but also brutal in their honesty. One of the numerous operational decisions made to drive costs down was to not serve meals in airplanes. Instead, Southwest gave everyone a cheap packet of peanuts. Their advertising then flaunted the fact that they did not serve anything more than peanuts. Not only was it a funny campaign, it clearly and credibly demonstrated how Southwest could deliver the best price for air travel.

Of course, they didn’t stop by telling the truth about their non-existent food service. They tell the truth about the nature of their work when their attendants wear comfortable shorts and t-shirts instead of suits and skirts. They tell the truth when their pilots acknowledge that a bump was a little scary but that there is nothing to worry about. They tell the truth when boarding passengers, no matter how often they fly or how important they may be all have to wait in line for their number to be called.

All this truth-telling, along with brilliant operations and an outstanding business model, have allowed Southwest Airlines to become the fourth largest domestic airline with over sixty million passengers a year, and over thirty years of consistent profits.

A final example illustrates how to change perceptions in a professional services business, not by changing how the service is delivered, but by focusing on the customers that benefit most from the existing service.

GE Capital Real Estate has a reputation in their industry as tough deal makers with one of the most demanding credit departments in the business. Before lending money, they will subject clients to the most intense scrutiny possible. This process takes a considerable amount of time, is expensive and is often difficult to predict. Competitors have successfully won business from GE by pointing out just how brutal that process is. However, GE is able to lend more money to higher risk projects at a higher leverage than many of those competitors.

GE’s corporate culture demands that processes are constantly improved – and many teams have focused on how to make the underwriting and due diligence process less onerous for customers. As GE worked to improve the process, many loan officers worked to either mitigate or hide the difficulty– promising that they could ensure a better process for their clients. The advertising and collateral materials took a position that the process was getting better – in effect, apologizing for their current service.

After some research with clients, it was discovered that their most loyal clients didn’t actually want the credit process to change. If their deal got through GE’s difficult and painful underwriting, they had a higher degree of confidence that the project was a good risk.

In other words, clients outsourced a portion of their credit process to GE. They valued GE, because they were difficult.

Although GE never stops improving and streamlining process, it was decided that this was an excellent opportunity to change the context. Instead of hiding the truth of their due diligence process, the loan officers discussed it openly. Public communications focused on GE’s passion for making deals work and making well informed investment decisions.

This form of communications was embraced by the market. Total loan originations that year increased significantly. Interviews with clients a year later revealed that not only did they appreciate the candor – they understood better what kinds of deals they should or should not bring to GE for consideration.

Unfortunately, very few understand or trust the inherent power of strategic truth-telling. A great number of products and services could easily cut through the barrage of flashy, loud media by honestly presenting their shortcomings and benefits. Imagine how much less communicators would have to spend to get their message out, if the messages themselves were more believable. Consider how much more powerful arguments could become.

It does require some initial courage to buck convention and disclose limitations.

But courage is not required because disclosure carries any additional risk. Quite the opposite: a negative fact is far more damaging when it is discovered rather than disclosed. By addressing negative truths head-on, there are no secrets to discover, fewer surprises to disappoint, and more opportunities to shape the context. It may seem unconventional to disclose the negative, but it is inherently safer and more effective than the alternative.

Truth telling is not just a virtue; it’s a powerful strategic marketing tool.