3. I told him I was interested only in his car， and that he knewmore about his car than anyone else in the world; that he was theauthority on the subject.
4. I let him talk， and I listened to him with all the interest andsympathy that he wanted—and had expected.
5. Finally， when the customer was in a reasonable mood， I putthe whole thing up to his sense of fair play.
I appealed to the nobler motives. “First，” I said， “I wantyou to know I also feel this matter has been badly mishandled.
You’ve been inconvenienced and annoyed and irritated by oneof our representatives. That should never have happened. I’msorry and， as a representative of the company， I apologize. As Isat here and listened to your side of the story， I could not help being impressed by your fairness and patience. And now， becauseyou are fair—minded and patient， I am going to ask you to dosomething for me. It’s something that you can do better thananyone else， something you know more about than anyone else.
Here is your bill; I know it is safe for me to ask you to adjust it，just as you would do if you were the president of my company. Iam going to leave it all up to you. Whatever you say goes.”
Did he adjust the bill? He certainly did， and got quite a kickout of it， The bills ranged from? ＄150 to? ＄400—but did thecustomer give himself the best of it? Yes， one of them did！ Oneof them refused to pay a penny of the disputed charge; but theother five all gave the company the best of it！ And here’s thecream of the whole thing： we delivered new cars to all six of thesecustomers within the next two years！
“Experience has taught me，” says Mr. Thomas， “that when noinformation can be secured about the customer， the only soundbasis on which to proceed is to assume that he or she is sincere，honest， truthful and willing and anxious to pay the charges， onceconvinced they are correct. To put it differently and perhapsmare clearly， people are honest and want to discharge theirobligations. The exceptions to that rule are comparatively few，and I am convinced that the individuals who are inclined to chiselwill in most cases react favorably if you make them feel that youconsider them honest， upright and fair.”
PRINCIPLE 10：
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Chapter 20
The Movies Do It. TV Does It.
Why Don’t You Do It
Many years ago， the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin was beingmaligned by a dangerous whispering campaign. A maliciousrumor was being circulated. Advertisers were being told that thenewspaper was no longer attractive to readers because it carriedtoo much advertising and too little news. Immediate action wasnecessary. The gossip had to be squelched.
But how?
This is the way it was done. The Bulletin clipped from itsregular edition all reading matter of all kinds on one average day，classified it， and published it as a book. The book was called OneDay. It contained 307 pages—as many as a hard-covered book;yet the Bulletin had printed all this news and feature material onone day and sold it， not for several dollars， but for a few cents.
The printing of that book dramatized the fact that the Bulletincarried an enormous amount of interesting reading matter.
It conveyed the facts more vividly， more interestingly， moreimpressively， than pages of figures and mere talk could have done.
This is the day of dramatization. Merely stating a truth isn’tenough. The truth has to be made vivid， interesting， dramatic.
You have to use showmanship. The movies do it. Television doesit. And you will have to do it if you want attention.
Experts in window display know the power of dramazation.
For example， the manufacturers of a new rat poison gave dealersa window display that included two live rats. The week the ratswere shown， sales zoomed to five times their normal rate.
James B. Boynton had to present a lengthy market report. Hisfirm had just finished an exhaustive study for a leading brand ofcold cream. Data were needed immediately about the competitionin this market; the prospective customer was one of the biggest—
and most formidable—men in the advertising business. And hisfirst approach failed almost before he began.
“The first time I went in，” Mr. Boynton explains， “I foundmyself sidetracked into a futile discussion of the methods usedin the investigation. He argued and I argued. He told me I waswrong， and I tried to prove that I was right.
“I finally won my point， to my own satisfaction—but my timewas up， the interview was over， and I still hadn’t produced results.
“The second time， I didn’t bother with tabulations of figuresand data， I went to see this man， I dramatized my facts.
“As I entered his office， he was busy on the phone. While hefinished his conversation， I opened a suitcase and dumped thirtytwo jars of cold cream on top of his desk—all products he knew—
all competitors of his cream.