Gold Medals and German Shepherds
Posted by admin in Uncategorized on March 23rd, 2011 | 142 Comments »

“Personally, I am very fond of strawberries and cream, but I find that for some strange reason, fish prefer worms. So when I go fishing, I don’t think about what I want. I think about what they want. I don’t bait the hook with strawberries and cream. Rather, I dangle a worm, or a grasshopper, in front of the fish saying, ‘Wouldn’t you like to have that?’”
Thomas Freese, the author of Question Based Selling talks about the concept of motivating potential buyers either with “Gold Medals” – potential advantages of using a given product or service (You’ll look sexier, increase server speed, last longer!) vs. disadvantages of not using the product (Your skin will wrinkle, be susceptible to potential lawsuits, etc..).
Freese talks about how certain people are more motivated to take action when presented with Gold Medals, while others react more to German Shepherds. To be safe, Freese argues: present both.
One of the few studies that have stayed with me since my undergrad in psychology had to do with human motivation. It stuck with me because logistically it makes no sense.
The study goes something like this:
Take a sample size from any population and make this proposition: flip a coin. If heads, you win $200. If tails, you don’t get anything. Opt not to flip the coin, and you walk away with $100.
Almost every participant takes the $100 and walks. In other words, they are not motivated to take the risk.
Take another sampling, and offer them this proposition: Flip a coin, if heads you lose nothing. If tails, you lose $200. Opt not to flip the coin, and you lose $100. Almost everyone chooses to flip the coin.
Even when presented with a seemingly cut and dry monetary transaction, people make inconsistent choices: in both scenarios the delta (in this example, $100) for potential gain if the risk is taken is equivalent. One would expect, logically, the same amount of risk acceptance in either scenario.
(Granted I think this study loses some validity as it is based on implied behavior not actual: I really doubt you’d find sampling willing to participate in that 2nd group, it was probably just a survey– but I digress)
The same amount of money is on the line if the coin is flipped in either example. So why the huge behavioral disparity?
Based on my limited experience and underscored so elegantly in this study, human nature seems to be more motivated by German Shepherds than Gold Medals.
As morbid as it sounds, people are conditioned to react more emotionally to negatives than positives (why do you think the news is so popular?). And people act based on emotion, using logic as a follow up justification.
The one caveat I’ve found to this is that more sophisticated and otherwise evolved humans I’ve had the benefit of interacting with are able to have some neutral 3rd party perspective– they are able to remove their ego from the situation, step back, and take make a calculated, cerebral decision based on the facts. They can do this even if emotional elements are involved.
Some spiritual folks call this “being the eye” or “observing ego”. It’s really difficult to do because our emotions are so insidious: we always think we are making decisions based on logic, no one likes to admit they are controlled by their emotions. Paradoxically, being able to see this is the first step overcoming it.
Ok, but aren’t emotions what make us human– isn’t that what gives life it’s zest?
I think emotions are great to have and experience, but not to make decisions on. I’d argue that emotions are what make us animals- not human. They are hardwired, evolutionary designed, responses– hardly more evolved than an irrational fear of the dark that comes a more primal brain.

