Speaker 1: M. This is Mesters in Business with very Renaults on
Speaker 1: Bluebird Radio this week on the podcast. I know I
Speaker 1: say this all the time, I have an extra special guest,
Speaker 1: but man, I have an extra special guest. Professor Robert Sheldini,
Speaker 1: author of Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion, is back. Professor
Speaker 1: Sheldon's books have sold more than seven million copies. Influence
Speaker 1: is on a ton of people's top book list, including
Speaker 1: none other than Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway. I wish
Speaker 1: we had another three hours. I had so many questions.
Speaker 1: I was taking notes furiously. You can hear me writing
Speaker 1: and typing in the background. We I wanted to circle
Speaker 1: back to so many things he brought up. There's so
Speaker 1: much to talk about. Really, it needs about eight hours.
Speaker 1: We were lucky we had him for well over an
Speaker 1: hour talking about you know, most people when they expand
Speaker 1: a successful book, they do a light touch up. This
Speaker 1: new book it's double the size of the original. It
Speaker 1: absolutely is practically a brand new book. Look for the
Speaker 1: blue and gold cover if you want to make sure
Speaker 1: you're getting the edition. I found the conversation to be
Speaker 1: nothing short of of fascinating and spectacular and I think
Speaker 1: you will. Also, you will hear my thought process of
Speaker 1: do I just stay with this topic, do I get
Speaker 1: to the next question? Let me circle back? And of
Speaker 1: course you run out of time. There's there's I literally
Speaker 1: had forty more questions to ask him, plus all of
Speaker 1: my notes and and unfortunately, you know, these podcasts aren't
Speaker 1: nine hours long. But you will find this to be
Speaker 1: absolutely fascinating. He is an intriguing person and just so
Speaker 1: knowledgeable about why people do what they do and how
Speaker 1: we influence each other in including some of the ethical
Speaker 1: considerations of that. Let me stop babbling with no further ado.
Speaker 1: My conversation with Professor Robert Chaldeini, author of Influence, the
Speaker 1: Psychology of Persuasion. This is Master's in Business with very
Speaker 1: renaults on Bluebird Radio. My extra special guest today is
Speaker 1: Dr Robert Chaldeini. He is the region's Professor Emeritus of
Speaker 1: Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. He is the
Speaker 1: author of books that have sold more than seven million copies,
Speaker 1: including Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion and Persuasion, A Revolutionary
Speaker 1: Way to Influence and Persuade. His new and expanded version
Speaker 1: of Influence is just out Robert Chaldini, Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Master's in Business. Thank you, very good to be with
Speaker 1: you again. Same. I've been looking forward to this for
Speaker 1: a while, and I have to start with, you know,
Speaker 1: my my something version of Influences, the skinny, little dog
Speaker 1: eared paperback. The new book is I don't know, it's
Speaker 1: probably double in size, it's bigger, it's it's expanded, it's
Speaker 1: more in depth. How much of this book is new
Speaker 1: and different compared to either the original or any of
Speaker 1: the prior revisions. We added two hundred and twenty new pages,
Speaker 1: so it's almost like a new book. It's we didn't
Speaker 1: just append two d and twenty pages. We uh integrated
Speaker 1: the new material into the existing material, because the existing
Speaker 1: material still UH fortunately stands, and we wanted to emphasize
Speaker 1: new directions, new UH information, new examples, and specific new
Speaker 1: ways to harness those principles. One of the things we
Speaker 1: got as feedback on previous editions is, you know, Professor Sheldy,
Speaker 1: we we understand those principles of influence, We see their
Speaker 1: utility and business, but can you give us the exact
Speaker 1: words that we can use to ignite them, to activate
Speaker 1: them in a particular situation. So there's a lot more
Speaker 1: of uh, specific things to say, specific scripts to use,
Speaker 1: specific sequences of information to provide that allow you to
Speaker 1: uh uh to be the benefit of those powerful sources
Speaker 1: of change. But quite interesting, I have to go back
Speaker 1: to the original book and ask you a question that
Speaker 1: you know, just grabbed me when I first read this
Speaker 1: and in in the beginning of your research for ins LUNs,
Speaker 1: which really dates back to you as a grad student,
Speaker 1: you spent a few years working undercover at places like
Speaker 1: used car dealerships or telemarketing firms. Tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about the genesis of influence, you know. I started
Speaker 1: working as a academic research psychologists social psychologist, studying my passion,
Speaker 1: which is persuasion and social influence in a laboratory, using
Speaker 1: college students as my subjects for the most part, and
Speaker 1: learning some important things I think by being able to
Speaker 1: structure an environment in which we were able to test
Speaker 1: exactly the question that we were interested in um in
Speaker 1: a rigorous way. But I quickly began to see that
Speaker 1: I was limiting myself in recognizing how we could generalize
Speaker 1: the results that we got from college students in a lab.
Speaker 1: A tory to the influence wars that are being fought
Speaker 1: all around us every day, in which people are trying
Speaker 1: to move us in a particular direction, and we're trying
Speaker 1: to move others in a particular direction. What's the evidence
Speaker 1: of what works in naturally occurring interactions between people that
Speaker 1: cause one person to say yes to another? And it
Speaker 1: seemed to me that there were professions whose business it
Speaker 1: is to get others to say yes to them, right,
Speaker 1: they must know what works, otherwise they would go out
Speaker 1: of business. So I began to take training undercover in
Speaker 1: as many of the influence professions as I could get
Speaker 1: access to by UH signing up to be a trainee.
Speaker 1: So I would learn what they had learned that got
Speaker 1: people to say yes in a variety of these professions.
Speaker 1: So I learned how to sell automobile from a lot.
Speaker 1: I learned how to sell insurance from a desk. I
Speaker 1: learned how to sell portrait photography over the phone. But
Speaker 1: I didn't stop with sales. I learned how advertisers, as
Speaker 1: and and copywriters get people to say yes from an
Speaker 1: ad they write. How how charity solicitors get people to
Speaker 1: give funds and donations to particular causes, How recruiters get people,
Speaker 1: not just arm service recruiters or business uh you know,
Speaker 1: corporate recruiters get people to move in their direction. What
Speaker 1: do cult recruiters do? Right and down the line? I
Speaker 1: looked for what were the commonalities that worked in each
Speaker 1: of these various professions that everybody said, do this, do
Speaker 1: this thing because it enriches us if you do so.
Speaker 1: Tell us some of the common analities, what phrases and
Speaker 1: thoughts and influence programs for lack of a better word,
Speaker 1: because I think sales training is the wrong description. What
Speaker 1: was the common thread in all of these different entities.
Speaker 1: I was shocked at how small the footprint was. I
Speaker 1: only counted six universal principles of influence that were recommending
Speaker 1: in each of these um influence professions. The first is reciprocity.
Speaker 1: People say yes to those they owe. So one thing
Speaker 1: you can do is give first, give something of value
Speaker 1: to people, and they will stand ready to give back
Speaker 1: to you when you ask for something, not necessarily directly
Speaker 1: in return, but down the road. If you give them
Speaker 1: um information that's a value for them, You give them
Speaker 1: something a favor or a service for free, and then uh,
Speaker 1: the it's their turn, They're much more likely to say
Speaker 1: yes to you in return. There's a lovely little study
Speaker 1: it done in a candy shop. Right if the manager
Speaker 1: gives a little piece of chocolate two people as they
Speaker 1: come in as a sample, they're forty two more likely
Speaker 1: to buy candy. Right now. The key is you might say, well,
Speaker 1: maybe they just like the chocolate, so they bought some more.
Speaker 1: If you look into the data, the great majority didn't
Speaker 1: buy any more chocolate. They bought something else because it
Speaker 1: wasn't what they had received. It was that they had received.
Speaker 1: So I always advise if you go into a situation
Speaker 1: where you want to be more influential, Let's say you're
Speaker 1: in a new situation, maybe a new organization or setting,
Speaker 1: and there's a group of people you want to be
Speaker 1: influential there. The first question to ask is not to
Speaker 1: look around that room and say, who can most help
Speaker 1: me here? The first question is home can I most
Speaker 1: help here? So show up with donuts and coffee the
Speaker 1: first day, and and it will pay dividends. Those people
Speaker 1: will stand on the balls of their feet ready to
Speaker 1: give back to you. I remember a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago we started getting solicitations through the mail for some
Speaker 1: charity where they included a dollar bill in the mailer,
Speaker 1: and you say, wow, that looks so expensive, And I
Speaker 1: remember they used to do it. I might have been
Speaker 1: the Heart Association used to send return receipt stickers for
Speaker 1: you to put on a piece of mail you were
Speaker 1: sending out, so you had your name and address. But
Speaker 1: this was the next level. And then you stop and
Speaker 1: think about it. Well, between the stamp and the envelope
Speaker 1: and the printing and putting it together, the dollar may
Speaker 1: be the cheapest part of it, but still that has
Speaker 1: to have an impact on people who open up an
Speaker 1: unsolicited letter and there's a dollar in it. Right. Here's
Speaker 1: the thing. You can't send the dollar back, right right,
Speaker 1: So you keep it. And as soon as you've kept it,
Speaker 1: the rule of reciprocity that's been installed in you from
Speaker 1: childhood that says you must not take without giving a
Speaker 1: return kicks in. And the American Veterans Association gives that
Speaker 1: little pack of uh gummed address labels in there. Right,
Speaker 1: it increases donations. That doesn't surprise me at all, because
Speaker 1: not only does my wife use them, but I imagine
Speaker 1: every time she pulls out that role of shiny gold
Speaker 1: return addresses and pulls it off she remembers, Oh, this
Speaker 1: came to me from this group, and it it has
Speaker 1: to be, it has to be a nagging motivation that
Speaker 1: I should really reciprocate their generosity. You know, I get
Speaker 1: these pins at various conferences and so on that have
Speaker 1: some sponsors name on them and so on, and and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Uh, they're so trivial. I hardly pay attention
Speaker 1: to them, and they usually go in a drawer with
Speaker 1: fifty other pins. Right, But I went to one conference,
Speaker 1: all right, I was a speaker, so they knew who
Speaker 1: I was and they put my name on the pin. Jeez,
Speaker 1: what was the impact of that on you? So that's
Speaker 1: one of the accelerators of the proof. Not only should
Speaker 1: you give first, which is kind of different from the
Speaker 1: new usual business exchange where we say to people, you
Speaker 1: buy our product, you sign our contract, and we will
Speaker 1: give back to you exactly what you hope for. That
Speaker 1: means they have to go first. Rule for reciprocity says
Speaker 1: you go first anyway, and if you give something personalized
Speaker 1: to the individual, right, the rule for reciprocity immediately becomes
Speaker 1: more muscular. That pen. I carry it around with me
Speaker 1: because it's got my name on it, and every time
Speaker 1: I look at it, I see my name on one
Speaker 1: side of the pen and the sponsor's name on the
Speaker 1: other side of the pen. Just like your wife remembers,
Speaker 1: I remember that they gave me this pen personal gift,
Speaker 1: not just a a universal gift, the gift to everybody.
Speaker 1: That's one of the keys to accelerating the power of
Speaker 1: this principle. You know, after our first conversation, I think
Speaker 1: that was two years ago, I got a lot of
Speaker 1: email from from different people, but the one that really
Speaker 1: stood out to me was from a fan of yours, Bob,
Speaker 1: and he said, you were burying the lead in your
Speaker 1: insight about reciprocity, and he believes that reciprocity is even
Speaker 1: more powerful than you suggest. So I have to ask
Speaker 1: you two questions about this. First, have you ever heard
Speaker 1: this concept? Has anyone ever told you, hey, you're not
Speaker 1: emphasizing reciprocity enough, and and what are your thoughts on
Speaker 1: on this idea of his? Yes, I think he's right. Uh,
Speaker 1: it is so fundamental that it appears in every human culture.
Speaker 1: There's not a single human society on earth that fails
Speaker 1: to train its members in reciprocity from childhood. You must
Speaker 1: not take without giving him turn. You must not take
Speaker 1: without giving and return. In every language, we have very
Speaker 1: nasty names for people who don't abide by that rule.
Speaker 1: We call them moochers right who take without giving a
Speaker 1: return or or or or uh um. We can call
Speaker 1: them various things like like that, spongers, or takers, or
Speaker 1: ingrates or teenagers. To be honest, nobody wants to be
Speaker 1: labeled like that. So people always give back to us.
Speaker 1: And in keeping with what your listeners said, UH, I
Speaker 1: have in the new book got language to help uh
Speaker 1: help us employ the situation in places where we used
Speaker 1: to drop the ball. How many times have you heard
Speaker 1: somebody say, Barry, thank you so much for this. That
Speaker 1: was really great. You really helped me out. And what
Speaker 1: do you put in the moment after genuine thank you
Speaker 1: right where the rule for reciprocity dominates that situation, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what I used to say, don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: There was not a big deal. Big deal would have
Speaker 1: done it for anybody. My pleasure, my pleasure. It's not
Speaker 1: your pleasure. You went beyond I know that I went
Speaker 1: above and beyond it. I went to some effort to
Speaker 1: do it, and then I just slap it out the
Speaker 1: window with the back of my hand. So here's what
Speaker 1: I say. Now, one of two things. If that individual
Speaker 1: is somebody who I have a long term relationship with,
Speaker 1: I say, of course, I was glad to do it.
Speaker 1: It's what long term partners do for one another. I
Speaker 1: put it on the map. I don't deny it, I
Speaker 1: don't dismiss it, I don't diminish it. I say, it's
Speaker 1: what long term partners do for one another. And now
Speaker 1: when I need something from that individual, you know, to
Speaker 1: turn something around more quickly, and so I could whatever
Speaker 1: the issue is, right, they'll move heaven and earth for you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they'll Now let's say you don't know that person, it's
Speaker 1: the first time, and you've done something above and beyond
Speaker 1: the call for this person. They say, thank you, that
Speaker 1: was great. Very Here's what I think I would say
Speaker 1: in that moment. Look, I was glad to do it.
Speaker 1: I know that if the situation had ever been if
Speaker 1: the situation were ever reversed, you do the same for me.
Speaker 1: Once again, we don't diminish it. We just say you
Speaker 1: play by the rules. I know you. Look, I know
Speaker 1: you'd played by the rules. And let's be careful not
Speaker 1: to say if the situation had been reversed, you would
Speaker 1: have done the same for me. That's in the past.
Speaker 1: If ever happened in the in the past, what you do,
Speaker 1: what I say now is if the situation were to
Speaker 1: be reversed, I know you would do the same for me.
Speaker 1: So you're planting the seed perspectively as opposed to referencing
Speaker 1: what already took place in the past. I'm planting the seed,
Speaker 1: and I've cultivated the earth before I planted. It's almost
Speaker 1: like it's pre suasion, exactly right. So we're talking about
Speaker 1: reciprocity on a micro level. And some of the examples
Speaker 1: that you reference in the book social Etiquette, gift giving, handshakes,
Speaker 1: the Golden rule, um, things like collaboration or even collusion.
Speaker 1: But what about reciprocity on a macro level, and some
Speaker 1: examples include the Martial plan or open immigration policies. How
Speaker 1: does macro reciprocity work. It works remarkably. It goes back
Speaker 1: to the Magna Carta in fact, where you know the
Speaker 1: British statement of how we govern now. One of the
Speaker 1: one of the features of it from I think the
Speaker 1: twelfth century said, if we're in a war with another country.
Speaker 1: If our people are representatives who are selling our commercial
Speaker 1: representatives are people who are selling in their country, or
Speaker 1: you know, if they are protected, then we have to
Speaker 1: protect their foreign citizens who are in our country. It
Speaker 1: explains something that I'm old enough to remember that the
Speaker 1: Cuban missile crisis back in the early sixties when the
Speaker 1: world was on pins and needles, because the US had
Speaker 1: found that Russia Soviet Union at that time had sent
Speaker 1: guided missiles and put them in Cuba and pointed them
Speaker 1: to the United States nuclear missiles. Well, John F. Kennedy
Speaker 1: was president at the time, confronted Cruscheff, head of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union at the time, and demanded that they be
Speaker 1: removed otherwise there would be war. And said, We've set
Speaker 1: up a blockade, so any Solviat ships that are currently
Speaker 1: coursing to Cuba to continue to add to the nuclear
Speaker 1: stockpile there, they would be stopped, right And Cruisia said,
Speaker 1: if you do that, that's an active war. If not
Speaker 1: any war, it was a nuclear war that was estimated
Speaker 1: to eliminate one third of the population on Earth. How
Speaker 1: did they get out of it? Well, the the story
Speaker 1: was that Kennedy was so steadfast, so steely, i'd so
Speaker 1: resolute that he refused to back down. And eventually Kruscheff
Speaker 1: blinked and removed his missiles from Cuba and the US one,
Speaker 1: and Kennedy built his reputation as an anti Soviet leader.
Speaker 1: That increased his popularity. Would there have been some new
Speaker 1: documents released recently from the Kennedy library that showed that
Speaker 1: it was not that at all. It was reciprocation. Kennedy
Speaker 1: promised to remove missiles from Turkey that we're pointed to
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union if Kruscheff would remove miss from Cuba
Speaker 1: and required that Kruscheff not tell anyone about the reciprocal
Speaker 1: exchange because that would weaken his political Kennedy's political position
Speaker 1: at home as somebody who compromised with the Soviets. And
Speaker 1: so what happened was the rule for reciprocity was suppressed
Speaker 1: as the true reason. Instead, stubbornness was elevated. The thing
Speaker 1: that actually would have created a war was elevated to
Speaker 1: permanence as the reason we got out of it. It
Speaker 1: was the opposite. It was reciprocity that exists in all
Speaker 1: human cultures. That's what got us out of the Cuban missile.
Speaker 1: So there's a whole another conversation to be had about
Speaker 1: why politicians have to hide what really happened and present
Speaker 1: such a strong face. I'll hold off on that, but
Speaker 1: I have to ask you a question about evolutionary biology
Speaker 1: because you said reciprocity and a lot of the rules
Speaker 1: of influence show up in every single culture on earth.
Speaker 1: So is this a learned behavior or is this really
Speaker 1: written in our genetics as social primates. This is something
Speaker 1: that only humans have. In terms of future reciprocity. There
Speaker 1: will be some exchanges, cooperative interactions between uh infra humans
Speaker 1: and within their species right there, they can cooperate, but
Speaker 1: the idea of getting something and having an obligation to
Speaker 1: give into the future, only we have that, and it's mostly,
Speaker 1: in my view, socialized into us rather than evolved into us. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to take a clear stand on that,
Speaker 1: but for the most part, in my view, the reason
Speaker 1: it exists, and we have those nasty names in every
Speaker 1: human culture for people who violate the rule, is that
Speaker 1: if we have a society where people give and take
Speaker 1: and cooperate and exchange, the society thrives, it flourishes. So
Speaker 1: that's why it's socialized into us. I think primarily quite fascinating.
Speaker 1: I have to start with a quote from the new
Speaker 1: version of the book that that I found quite fascinating. Quote.
Speaker 1: Essential assertion of this book is that our choice of
Speaker 1: what to say or do immediately before making an appeal
Speaker 1: significantly affects its persuasive success. But there's a related choice
Speaker 1: that occurs even before that one. It's whether on ethical
Speaker 1: grounds to try to attain success in such a way.
Speaker 1: That's the beginning of chapter thirteen. Discuss why you thought
Speaker 1: it was important to dedicate a big chunk of the
Speaker 1: book to this. Because the principles we talk about in
Speaker 1: the book our dynamite, and we've got possession of dynamite,
Speaker 1: so we have to use it ethically. We can use
Speaker 1: these principles for ill, or we can use it for
Speaker 1: them for good. And the clear recommendation is if we
Speaker 1: use them in an ethical, responsible way, we build relationships,
Speaker 1: We build long term, sustainable exchange histories with people, and
Speaker 1: that can hinues into the future. If we use it
Speaker 1: to to exploit or deceive or course people into change,
Speaker 1: we may get that change in the immediate situation, but
Speaker 1: we've we've essentially um created an adversary, Uh, somebody who
Speaker 1: resents being pushed or tricked into assent. So uh. In fact,
Speaker 1: Richard Taylor, Nobel Laureate, in in one of the endorsements
Speaker 1: for the book, here's what he says about the book.
Speaker 1: There's dynamite here. Please what use what you learn with care?
Speaker 1: That's a very wise thing for him to say, not
Speaker 1: surprisingly it's Nobel Prize winner. It's the ethics of the
Speaker 1: process that are so important to producing long term relationships
Speaker 1: that continue to pay off for us. You know, I
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier that you had gone undercover at car dealerships
Speaker 1: and charities and insurance sales place. There's a line that
Speaker 1: has always stayed with me from the book, which is, quote,
Speaker 1: the number one rule for salespeople is to show customers
Speaker 1: you genuinely like them. Why is this so important for
Speaker 1: a salesperson to demonstrate affection to a customer or a
Speaker 1: client Because people like those who like them. And now
Speaker 1: we're into the second principle of influence liking that. Uh,
Speaker 1: it allows us to be more influential if we can
Speaker 1: arrange for people to feel a sense of rapport, sense
Speaker 1: of liking for us before we begin the process. We're
Speaker 1: halfway there, already to assent before we even deliver the
Speaker 1: re asked or the recommendation or the proposal. And uh so,
Speaker 1: one way to do that is to turn the rule
Speaker 1: that I always heard in every one of these training
Speaker 1: programs on its ear. They we were always told, if
Speaker 1: you want to get somebody to um say yes to
Speaker 1: you for your request or proposal, get them to like you, right,
Speaker 1: and then there are various ways to get them to
Speaker 1: like you. But one thing I recognized is that the
Speaker 1: way you the best way to do it is to
Speaker 1: come to like them and show them that you like
Speaker 1: them and down come the barriers to change because they
Speaker 1: know that if you like them, you're going to steer
Speaker 1: them correctly. That's what we do with the people we like.
Speaker 1: That's what we do with our friends, right, and the
Speaker 1: and the fact is they will be right. If you
Speaker 1: truly come to like somebody, you will try to give
Speaker 1: that person the best possible arrangement because of that sense
Speaker 1: of rapport and affection you have for that person. So
Speaker 1: that's what we can do. Because we can control how
Speaker 1: much we like other people more than we can control
Speaker 1: whether they like us or how much they like us
Speaker 1: so let's work on ourselves. Find things that are genuinely
Speaker 1: praiseworthy about that person. Right. It may take a little
Speaker 1: longer for certain people and other people, but you can
Speaker 1: do it. Focus on that and let that person know,
Speaker 1: give them a compliment, a genuine compliment, or find things
Speaker 1: that are genuinely similar between you and that person. Not
Speaker 1: only do we like people who who like us, we
Speaker 1: like people who are like us, members of the same tribe.
Speaker 1: That's right, you referred recently to. I forgot who you
Speaker 1: were talking about. But they were a fan of the
Speaker 1: same team that you're a fan of. And suddenly everything
Speaker 1: about that person is Hey, they were smarter, their books were,
Speaker 1: but everything about them took a step up. And that's
Speaker 1: just because they're members of the same you know, they
Speaker 1: like the same things, the members of the same trime.
Speaker 1: They have similar affiliations. It's that powerful social proof. It's
Speaker 1: that powerful. It's that powerful. And I mean, and I'll
Speaker 1: give you the exact situation. I grew up in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: The NFL team that's the home team in Wisconsin has
Speaker 1: always been the Green Bay Packers. I read an article
Speaker 1: a few months ago that said that um justin Timberlake,
Speaker 1: that's and Little Wayne. Any all, these two musical celebrities, right,
Speaker 1: they are both avid Packer fans. Very I immediately thought
Speaker 1: better of their music, and I wanted them to succeed
Speaker 1: into the future because we are members of the same tribe,
Speaker 1: and you are not what I think of as a
Speaker 1: Little Wayne fan from the outset. But man, now, so
Speaker 1: since we're talking about ethical considerations and questions, it raises
Speaker 1: a really important issue. How do we protect ourselves from
Speaker 1: people who may not have your level or Dick Taylor's
Speaker 1: level of ethical recognition, and how do we protect ourselves
Speaker 1: from unscrupulous users of of these psychological techniques. Right, So,
Speaker 1: at the end of every chapter in the book, I
Speaker 1: have a section called defense how to say no to
Speaker 1: somebody who's used these principles. Right, So, let's let's take
Speaker 1: the liking principle for example, And let's say you're shopping
Speaker 1: for a car, or you've got somebody who wants to
Speaker 1: partner with you on some business deal, and you find
Speaker 1: yourself liking that person more than you would have expected
Speaker 1: for the amount of time that you've spent together. Let's
Speaker 1: let's go to the car sales room and and if
Speaker 1: you recognize that liking is there in the situation, added
Speaker 1: to an extent that's inordinate more than you would expect.
Speaker 1: Step back from the situation and recognize why did Why
Speaker 1: am I liking this salesperson? Oh yeah, he gave me
Speaker 1: donuts and coffee. Oh yeah. Uh. He says that his
Speaker 1: wife grew up in the same place that I grew up.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, he complimented me on my uh, interior choices
Speaker 1: for the car. I'm looking all right? And then and
Speaker 1: then separate that sales person from the car, because you'll
Speaker 1: be driving the car off the lot, not him. Quite interesting,
Speaker 1: you know. Before we get into some specifics. My favorite
Speaker 1: story in the original book is how you met Charlie Manger.
Speaker 1: Tell us about how your relationship with Charlie Manger came about.
Speaker 1: One day I went to my mailbox to find an envelope,
Speaker 1: big envelope, and I opened it to find a note
Speaker 1: from Charlie Manger appended to a single goal share of
Speaker 1: Berkshire Hathaway stock. The note said, you don't know me,
Speaker 1: but we have used the material in your book Influence
Speaker 1: to make us so much money here at Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 1: I'm sending you a share of a a stock out
Speaker 1: of reciprocation. Your first principle, right, you deserve something in return.
Speaker 1: At the time that share was worth seventy dollars. This
Speaker 1: was like, is that what we're talking about? Yes, and
Speaker 1: today that's worth about four hundred and thirty dollars exactly.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you the reason I held onto
Speaker 1: that share all these years with great benefit was because
Speaker 1: of what Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do in there
Speaker 1: in Warren's letter to his shareholders every year for Brickshire Hathaway,
Speaker 1: where Warren establishes his credibility on the front page, on
Speaker 1: the first or second page of text of every of
Speaker 1: those uh of those letters, he does something to give
Speaker 1: me a sense of his credibility, his knowledge and trustworthiness.
Speaker 1: He mentioned something that went wrong that year, something that
Speaker 1: didn't go as expected, and then he says, of course
Speaker 1: we've learned from that, we will never do that again.
Speaker 1: And then he moves on to the strengths of the year,
Speaker 1: all the things that went right. Very every year, I
Speaker 1: would say to myself, Wow, I'm dealing with a straight
Speaker 1: shooter here. Not only is this guy knowledgeable, he knows,
Speaker 1: you know, what's what went right and what went wrong.
Speaker 1: He's not trying to fool himself with this. He's trustworthy.
Speaker 1: He's willing to tell us what went wrong before he
Speaker 1: tells us what went right. Right, he establishes his truthfulness,
Speaker 1: which makes me believe in what went right, to truly
Speaker 1: process it deeply and believe it fully. Because he first
Speaker 1: was willing to tell me what went wrong, I now
Speaker 1: believe the next thing he said. I recall reading something
Speaker 1: about that in influence someone who is honest and humble exactly,
Speaker 1: so I have never thought about selling that unit of
Speaker 1: a share of stock because every year I see how
Speaker 1: honest and knowledgeable the man is. On the front page
Speaker 1: of the text that he said, there was a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago Berkshire did so well that year. There
Speaker 1: wasn't anything they did wrong. So you know what, what
Speaker 1: what Warren did? He told us about a mistake he
Speaker 1: made with Dexter shoes, about an error, just so he's
Speaker 1: making clear to us. Look, I'm not trying to claim
Speaker 1: that I know everything. Look, I make mistakes right, And
Speaker 1: once again I'm astounded by the um, the honest, the
Speaker 1: transparency of the guy, and am willing to follow him
Speaker 1: from there on. So uh, it's it's a brilliant Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a brilliant tactic that it's not a tactic in
Speaker 1: the sense that he's doing something phony. He is an
Speaker 1: honest guy. He's showing us his honesty by doing something
Speaker 1: I recommend too. I would recommend to all your listeners.
Speaker 1: If you've got a case to make, and all cases,
Speaker 1: of course have strengths and weaknesses, mention a weakness relatively
Speaker 1: early in your case, because that establishes your credibility for
Speaker 1: what you say next, and that's the moment for your
Speaker 1: strongest argument, immediately after you've mentioned a weakness, if you're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we ought to move in this
Speaker 1: in this direction for your investments, let's say your h
Speaker 1: an advisor. H but there, let's talk about there's some
Speaker 1: tax consequences of this. And this may take a little
Speaker 1: bit longer, right, but I think it will be well
Speaker 1: worth it for these reasons. People will now listen to
Speaker 1: those reasons differently in the moment after you've managed mentioned
Speaker 1: a weakness, and you will allow those strengths to just
Speaker 1: wipe out the weakness. Quite interesting. The other story in
Speaker 1: the book that really cracked me up. I guess we
Speaker 1: should have talked about it when we were discussing the
Speaker 1: ethical considerations. Is the story of the two tailors Sit
Speaker 1: and Harry, where one of them pretends to be hard
Speaker 1: of hearing. To tell us a little bit about that story,
Speaker 1: because it's just unbelievable that these guys figured this out
Speaker 1: and used it so effectively. The breck Yes, the story
Speaker 1: of the who were ran a man's clothing shop back
Speaker 1: in the nineties in the depression right there and uh
Speaker 1: when a a person would come in, a man would
Speaker 1: come in to buy a suit. Um, he would be
Speaker 1: in front of that three pained mirror you know you
Speaker 1: stand and be getting trying on a suit, and one
Speaker 1: of the brothers would call to across the room to
Speaker 1: the tailor, his other brother, Harry, how much for this? Uh?
Speaker 1: This beautiful? Oh will suit right? And Harry would call
Speaker 1: back and the other brother would say, uh. He would
Speaker 1: cut his ear to hear, and then he'd say he
Speaker 1: says twenty nine dollars as if he didn't hear it correctly,
Speaker 1: and the guy would jump at it, sits and hustle
Speaker 1: out of the store, thinking he had pulled something over
Speaker 1: on the do bag brothers. In fact, the dog brothers
Speaker 1: and pulled something over on him, which was to say,
Speaker 1: you're getting this deal. They're getting this at a at
Speaker 1: a big discount. In fact, was the true price of
Speaker 1: the suit. So here's the question that story raises, and
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by it. So in the traditional world of
Speaker 1: behavioral finance, folks like Failure or Kneman would say the
Speaker 1: buyer there the suit, buyer was anchored on thirty nine
Speaker 1: dollars and suddenly twenty nine looks relatively inexpensive. So so
Speaker 1: it kind of raises a couple of questions. Is this
Speaker 1: just anchoring? Is this is there some social authority about oh,
Speaker 1: I'm getting a thirty nine a more valuable suit. What's
Speaker 1: going on with this? And then I want to ask
Speaker 1: you some questions about behavioral economics. Why does the buyer
Speaker 1: think they're getting a bargain? And by the suit and
Speaker 1: run out right, you're correct about the anchoring process. If
Speaker 1: I give you a high number initially, if I ask
Speaker 1: you the distance to the sun, very and then I
Speaker 1: want to sell you a bottle of mineral water, right,
Speaker 1: the price of that bottle of water seems smaller to
Speaker 1: you by the process of anchoring, right, And so you're
Speaker 1: more likely to buy it. It's crazy, but that's the truth.
Speaker 1: That's the way we work. It has to do with
Speaker 1: something called perceptual contrast. Anyway, in that contrast that the
Speaker 1: nine dollars suit now seemed less expensive than it would
Speaker 1: have if he hadn't heard thirty nine dollars first. So
Speaker 1: that's one component. The other is he thinks he's getting
Speaker 1: a great deal on this. Besides the fact that it
Speaker 1: seems less expensive. It seems like it's a thirty nine
Speaker 1: dollars suit that he's getting for nine dollars. So both
Speaker 1: of those things are are working. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: behavioral finance and and throughout the book, you know, I
Speaker 1: kept having in the back of my head parallels to
Speaker 1: behavioral economics. Your first version of this was, did you
Speaker 1: have any idea that you were operating in parallel with
Speaker 1: people like Conomen and Teversky or Richard Thaylor or Robert
Speaker 1: Schiller or Thomas Killovich. How aware were you of that
Speaker 1: fields which really wasn't recognized for at least a decade
Speaker 1: or two later. I had no idea, but I think
Speaker 1: I understand why it turned out that way. So, for example,
Speaker 1: influenced the book has been called the Bible of um,
Speaker 1: of e commerce, of digital marketing. Well, when it was written,
Speaker 1: there was no e commerce, there was no digital market
Speaker 1: there was no internet. And people have said how could
Speaker 1: you see a hit so far in the same way
Speaker 1: that you would say how could you see so far
Speaker 1: ahead into behavior of finance or behavior economics? It was
Speaker 1: not by looking forward as some sort of oracle. It
Speaker 1: was by looking inward. What are the things that have
Speaker 1: always moved us as a species towards change? What are
Speaker 1: the things that have always counseled us correctly as to
Speaker 1: its time to to act in this way versus some
Speaker 1: other way? It were it was the six universal principles
Speaker 1: of influence that had always driven us into change. And
Speaker 1: so that's what I did. I didn't look forward thirty years.
Speaker 1: I looked inward to the factors that have always moved
Speaker 1: us as a species. Huh. So let's talk about some
Speaker 1: of those six We talked about reciprocity, we talked about
Speaker 1: social proof. What other key drivers do you think are
Speaker 1: worth mentioning. We've also talked about authority to a degree,
Speaker 1: the extent to which you you you you want to
Speaker 1: say yes to those individuals who have showed you that
Speaker 1: they are credible sources of information. They are both knowledgeable
Speaker 1: and trustworthy. We've talked about that. Another is, of course, scarcity,
Speaker 1: the idea of that. Let's talk about that because that
Speaker 1: is such a key issue in economics and finance, in psychology,
Speaker 1: Why is scarcity such a giant driver? It turns out
Speaker 1: that the key to scarcity, that is uh, the idea
Speaker 1: that people want more of those things they can have
Speaker 1: less of, right, is that they're afraid of losing. They're
Speaker 1: afraid of losing that desirable opportunity. They're afraid of missing
Speaker 1: out on this uh, this chance to move in a
Speaker 1: productive direction, and so on. And as Daniel Kaneman has
Speaker 1: shown us, loss a version, the idea of losing something
Speaker 1: is more powerful, more motivating than the idea of gaining
Speaker 1: that very same thing, right, and scarcity, So loss is
Speaker 1: the ultimate form of scarcity. It means you can't get
Speaker 1: it anymore. Right. So, the thing that makes scarcity so
Speaker 1: powerful across the widest range of situations is the idea
Speaker 1: that we will lose something, and that loss drives us
Speaker 1: crazy to an extent that a gain doesn't benefit doesn't
Speaker 1: make us as as satisfied as a loss makes us
Speaker 1: dissatisfied with the very same thing, right, So it's almost
Speaker 1: a two to one ratio. We feel losses twice as
Speaker 1: intensely as we feel the pleasure of gains. And my
Speaker 1: pet theory on that I want to want to ask
Speaker 1: you about it feels that gains are temporary. You get
Speaker 1: a windfall, you can go out and you know, spend
Speaker 1: it freely and it's gone. But losses feel like they're
Speaker 1: permanent and never to be recaptured again. Why do you
Speaker 1: think the loss factor the scarcity factor is so much
Speaker 1: more intense. I have my own opinion, but I really
Speaker 1: like yours as well. So my guess is that if
Speaker 1: you ever see something with a big effect, it's never
Speaker 1: caused by one thing, always multiplely multiply caused. So here's
Speaker 1: what I have thought. Uh, And it's an evolutionary explanation.
Speaker 1: If you are if you are um operating at a
Speaker 1: level of survival, right, and you have a chance to
Speaker 1: gain something, Okay, you'll get an increment upward. Right, if
Speaker 1: you get an increment downward, you may be gone. Game
Speaker 1: over right, You're gone. So you have to pay much
Speaker 1: more attention to the idea of losing something because you
Speaker 1: it may eliminate you. Right, existential threats are are more
Speaker 1: significant than you know a few I I always think
Speaker 1: about this question in terms of Las Vegas. Not that
Speaker 1: I've been to Vegas and it seems like years, but
Speaker 1: right outside of the casinos is very often jewelry shops,
Speaker 1: and you watch people come out with winnings and buy
Speaker 1: you know, crazy expensive jewelry and stupid expensive watches. But
Speaker 1: the people who lose the rent money, they're really in
Speaker 1: dire straits. And that's not for people on the edge
Speaker 1: of survival. If you're if you're just above that subsistence level,
Speaker 1: in it's an existential threat to suffer a loss. Existential
Speaker 1: is precisely right, you're gone, so you have to be
Speaker 1: alert to it. You have to be suspicious about any situation.
Speaker 1: You have to be willing to move against encounter. The
Speaker 1: possibility of loss to a much greater extent than the
Speaker 1: probability of gain makes a lot of sense. Any other
Speaker 1: of the main principles that we didn't get to that
Speaker 1: you think is worth mentioning before I have one more
Speaker 1: question I have to ask you, but I want to
Speaker 1: stay with the principles. Yes, and there's the new one,
Speaker 1: the one that I call unity. I've actually added a
Speaker 1: seventh for this addition, um and we've kind of talked
Speaker 1: about it already. It's that the willingness of people. If
Speaker 1: if it as a communicator, you can arrange for people
Speaker 1: to see you as one of them, right, as of them,
Speaker 1: not just like them in tastes or preferences or styles
Speaker 1: or so on, that that's what that increases liking. But
Speaker 1: if you can get them to see you as one
Speaker 1: of the category of individuals that you consider a WE
Speaker 1: group and US group, everything inside that category becomes easier
Speaker 1: to influence. Your more cooperative. You believe those people more,
Speaker 1: you trust those people more, you say yes to those
Speaker 1: people more. And what's what's key is you have to
Speaker 1: bring to consciousness that unity that exists. Right. And I'll
Speaker 1: give you a short example of something that worked for me.
Speaker 1: A while ago. I was writing a report. It was
Speaker 1: due the next day, and as I was skimming it
Speaker 1: before putting in an envelope and sending it off, I uh,
Speaker 1: I saw that there was a section of it that
Speaker 1: was not really compel. I didn't really have the evidence
Speaker 1: to make that case in that one section that I
Speaker 1: that I I wanted to be persuasive about but I
Speaker 1: knew that a colleague of mine, let's call him Tim
Speaker 1: uh did some research the previous year and he had
Speaker 1: the data that I needed, but I didn't have them.
Speaker 1: He had the data, so I sent him Uh an email.
Speaker 1: I said, Tim, I explained, you know, I have this thing.
Speaker 1: It has to go in the mail tomorrow to this
Speaker 1: granting agency, and UM, I don't have the data. Could
Speaker 1: you go into your archives get that data out for
Speaker 1: me and send it over to me so I could
Speaker 1: get it into my report and and get it off
Speaker 1: by the end of the day. I said, I'm going
Speaker 1: to call you to tell you about the specifics of
Speaker 1: what I need. Well, I called him, and Tim was
Speaker 1: known to be an irascible kind of sour guy. He
Speaker 1: just was a negative guy. So he picked up the phone.
Speaker 1: He said, Bob, I know why you're calling and the
Speaker 1: answer is no. Look I can't I can't be responsible
Speaker 1: for your poor time management skills. Man, I'm busy too.
Speaker 1: Very before I knew the research about unity and being
Speaker 1: raising to consciousness the category similarity between people right that
Speaker 1: defines them right, I would I would have said, come on, Tim,
Speaker 1: I need this this thing is due tomorrow. He already
Speaker 1: said no to that. Here's what I said instead, Tim,
Speaker 1: We've been members of the same psychology department now for
Speaker 1: twelve years. I really need this. I had the data
Speaker 1: that afternoon. I imagine not a lot of people say
Speaker 1: no to you and get away with it. Well my kids,
Speaker 1: Well reciprocity doesn't always work with kids, for for obvious
Speaker 1: reasons they expected. So so let me ask you this question.
Speaker 1: The last time we I had you on the show,
Speaker 1: I asked you a question what made Donald Trump such
Speaker 1: an effective communicator? Given the fact that we now have
Speaker 1: a new president and there's all sorts of of things
Speaker 1: going on around that, I want to ask you this
Speaker 1: question about President Biden. A large percentage of Republicans don't
Speaker 1: believe he was legitimately elected. They believe President Trump that
Speaker 1: the election was stolen. Given everything you know about tribes
Speaker 1: and influence, what do you think President Biden can do
Speaker 1: to influence this group of Republicans that he was legitimately elected.
Speaker 1: I'm going to suggest something. It's a little used, very
Speaker 1: under used strata g from persuasion science. The convert communicator.
Speaker 1: This is somebody who used to believe what you believed,
Speaker 1: but you currently believe he's one of you or she's
Speaker 1: of you, and then has a new piece of information
Speaker 1: that you don't have that changed his or her mind
Speaker 1: and tells you why you can't dismiss that person. This
Speaker 1: is of your tribe, this is of you, this is
Speaker 1: one of you. Now you've got a communicator not speaking
Speaker 1: from outside of your WE group, but speaking to you
Speaker 1: from inside of your WE group and providing a piece
Speaker 1: of information you don't have. So let's say it's about
Speaker 1: getting vaccinated and you're just not convinced that you should
Speaker 1: and it's not necessary. And then you have somebody who says,
Speaker 1: I used to believe that, and then my mother got
Speaker 1: she wouldn't wear a mask, she wouldn't socially distance, she
Speaker 1: wouldn't get vaccinated just like me, and we buried her
Speaker 1: last week. Or if it was it's about measles vaccinations,
Speaker 1: and you say, and then my daughter got measles and
Speaker 1: she's deaf, right, all right, Now that's a piece of
Speaker 1: information you don't have, but it's coming from one of you.
Speaker 1: That's what I would recommend, So I know I only
Speaker 1: have you for a limited amount of time. Let's this
Speaker 1: has really been absolutely intriguing. But let's jump to our
Speaker 1: favorite questions that we ask all of our guests, starting
Speaker 1: with tell us what you've been streaming this past year
Speaker 1: under Lockdown? What are your favorite Netflix or Amazon Prime shows?
Speaker 1: Or what podcasts are keeping you entertained. I've been re
Speaker 1: streaming Breaking Bad. I love this show and These Days
Speaker 1: The Crown I've been I'm still in the middle of
Speaker 1: The Crown, right, So those are the two I've been
Speaker 1: entertaining myself with when I'm haven't been writing this uh
Speaker 1: expansion to the book quite quite interesting. Tell us about
Speaker 1: your mentors who helped influence your career, either as a
Speaker 1: professor or or an author. Yes, so there are three
Speaker 1: individuals in in graduate school and in my post doctoral fellowship.
Speaker 1: One was my major advisor at chat Insco. Another uh
Speaker 1: famous psychologist at my graduate institution u n C at
Speaker 1: Chapel Hill, John Tebow. And then my post doctoral fellow advisor,
Speaker 1: Stanley Shackter at Columbia University. But I'll give you a
Speaker 1: mentor who taught me something that I think saved my career. Um,
Speaker 1: before I went into college, I was a very good
Speaker 1: high school baseball player, and I had an offer to
Speaker 1: play minor league baseball, uh, from a scout from the
Speaker 1: White Sox, and I was going to be in so
Speaker 1: I don't know, level D baseball, you know, way down
Speaker 1: below and to start. And he came to my last
Speaker 1: game and he had a contract and he had he
Speaker 1: wanted me to sign it. And I was a center fielder.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays, you know.
Speaker 1: And his pen wouldn't work. And on the way to
Speaker 1: the car to get his other pen, we walked. He
Speaker 1: asked me, hey, kid, are you any good at school?
Speaker 1: I said yes. He said, good enough to get into college. Yeah,
Speaker 1: good enough to finish college. Yeah. Do you like school? Yeah?
Speaker 1: He said, go to school, kid, you're not good enough
Speaker 1: to make the Major's And he was right. I couldn't
Speaker 1: hit a slider. I couldn't hit a good slider and
Speaker 1: I was going to see a lot more good sliders
Speaker 1: as I went up to Bronx and he and I
Speaker 1: went to school instead. That man. I mean, if I
Speaker 1: had wound up in you know, Class A ball, I
Speaker 1: moved up to the middle or maybe Class double A baseball,
Speaker 1: and then I just couldn't get any further. After four
Speaker 1: years let's say of trying by four years. Maybe I'm married,
Speaker 1: maybe I have a child. I don't get to go
Speaker 1: to college. Now you know what I get to do.
Speaker 1: I get to be the assistant manager of the pizza
Speaker 1: hut in the last city I wound up in, and Barry,
Speaker 1: we're not having this conversation. Probably not, that's amazing. Did
Speaker 1: you ever get a hold of who that guy was?
Speaker 1: Do you know who he is? He passed away. His
Speaker 1: name was Bunny Brief. I remember him. Did you have
Speaker 1: an opportunity to Detroit back in the forties and thirties?
Speaker 1: And but he was a scout in Milwaukee where I
Speaker 1: grew up in? Yeah, did you ever have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to thank him for his Never? Did? He passed away
Speaker 1: before I had the chance to recognize how important it
Speaker 1: was for him to tell me, Look, don't just follow
Speaker 1: your passion, which everybody else says, right, follow your passion
Speaker 1: that you're good at that great at right right, that's
Speaker 1: an unbelievable story. So let's go to uh books. Tell
Speaker 1: us some of your all time favorite books and what
Speaker 1: are you reading right now? So, in terms of fiction,
Speaker 1: Remains of the Day by UM and Underground Railroad by
Speaker 1: Colin Whitehead for nonfiction, I'm going to go to the
Speaker 1: things that are influence related Aristotle's rhetoric. My God, at
Speaker 1: the first time anybody tried to systematize the process of
Speaker 1: of persuasion, he did it. And then my Nobel laureate authors,
Speaker 1: uh you know Daniel Koneman for thinking fast and smoke slow,
Speaker 1: Uh nudge for Sailor and Sunsteen uh. Those And what
Speaker 1: I'm reading now is Um Sapiens by Uval Noah Harari. Brilliant,
Speaker 1: brilliant book, really really interesting. Let's talk about you mentioned
Speaker 1: don't always just follow your passion. What sort of advice
Speaker 1: would you give to a recent college graduate who is
Speaker 1: interested in a career in in psychology or academia, or
Speaker 1: in writing, or any combination of those three. If you're
Speaker 1: really interested in a career in psychology, there's a little
Speaker 1: secret that you can employ. It's called independent study credit.
Speaker 1: You get credit for working on a project with one
Speaker 1: of the professors um in in psycho in the psychology department,
Speaker 1: or in the communications department or in the marketing department,
Speaker 1: whichever one you want to go to, and you get
Speaker 1: experience working as a professional on a project that they have.
Speaker 1: That tells you whether you really want to go further
Speaker 1: in this, but it also gives you somebody who can
Speaker 1: write a letter of recommendation for you to the next
Speaker 1: step to the master's program or MBA programmers or PhD
Speaker 1: program to be in a psychology related career. Quite quite interesting.
Speaker 1: And our final question, what do you know about the
Speaker 1: world of psychology today that you wish you knew back
Speaker 1: when you were first writing Influence. Here's what I wish
Speaker 1: I knew about the influence process back then that would
Speaker 1: have uh made for a better environment for me going forward.
Speaker 1: It is when you are going into a situation with
Speaker 1: people you don't know right, you don't know much about
Speaker 1: them at all, think the best of them, think the
Speaker 1: best about them. It allows you to be generous with them.
Speaker 1: And here there are three downstream consequences of that generosity. First,
Speaker 1: by the principle of liking, they will like you more
Speaker 1: for being a generous person. Second, by the principle of reciprocation,
Speaker 1: they will give you that generosity back. Third, by the
Speaker 1: principle of commitment and consistency. When they recognize that they
Speaker 1: are being generous with you, they are giving you things,
Speaker 1: They are working together with you. They will want to
Speaker 1: be consistent into the future with what they have already done.
Speaker 1: And now you have a set of people you like,
Speaker 1: who like you, who are exchanging favors, gifts and services
Speaker 1: and information into the future. If I had known that
Speaker 1: thirty years ago, I would have done it immediately. It
Speaker 1: took me a long time to recognize that. Huh. Quite fascinating, Bob.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being so generous with your time.
Speaker 1: We've been speaking with Robert Sheldini, author of Influence. If
Speaker 1: you enjoy this conversation, well, be sure and check out
Speaker 1: any of our previous four hundred such interviews. You can
Speaker 1: find those at iTunes, Spotify, wherever you feed your podcast fixed.
Speaker 1: We love your comments, feedback ends suggestions right to us
Speaker 1: at m IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net. Sign up
Speaker 1: for my daily reads at Ridholtz dot com. Check out
Speaker 1: my weekly column. It's on Bloomberg dot com slash Opinion.
Speaker 1: Follow me on Twitter at rit Haltz. I would be
Speaker 1: remiss if I did not think the practice staff that
Speaker 1: helps put these conversations together each week. Marufle is my
Speaker 1: audio engineer. Michael Boyle is my producer. Atika val bron
Speaker 1: is our project manager. Michael Batnick is my head of research.
Speaker 1: I'm Barry Ritholtz. You've been listening to Master's Business on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio.