The sociolinguistic basis of managing rapport when overcoming buying objections.

Rapport has two important facets: enjoyable interactions and personal connection. Increasing levels of rapport builds a deeper sense of loyalty in customers and inspires a greater amount of information disclosure. Although the influence of nonverbal behaviors (e.g., how body orientation matches

while interacting) on rapport has been recognized and subject to some empirical validation, the influence of verbal behavior (e.g., what is said rather than how) has not been explored within the sales literature. Nevertheless, verbal choices in communication can play a critical role in a sales representative's ability to establish rapport. The authors identify verbal strategies for managing rapport in such situations by discussing two aspects of sociolinguistic theory, speech acts and rapport management, to explain how sales representatives 'verbal communication influences rapport with customers. After applying this theory in an indepth analysis of an actual sales interaction, the authors conclude by offering normative guidelines for sales representatives and suggesting ways in which future research might build on our theoretical framework.

Keywords: personal selling; linguistic politeness; sales communication; sales relationships

**********

Based on a review of research on rapport across multiple disciplines, Gremler and Gwinner (2000) established that rapport has two important facets: enjoyable interactions and personal connection. For a sales representative, creating enjoyable interactions and personal connections with customers is vitally important to his or her success. Rapport indicates customers' feelings about the relationship they have with sales representatives, particularly their level of trust and their commitment to continuing the relationship (DeWitt & Brady, 2003; LaBahn, 1996; Nickels, Everett, & Klein, 1983). In addition, increasing levels of rapport builds a deeper sense of loyalty in customers and inspires a greater amount of information disclosure from customers (Dell, 1991). Furthermore, the difficulty of creating rapport increases as Western corporations grow globally and sell across cultures; customers from a collective culture may refuse to discuss or entertain the idea of purchasing until rapport has been firmly established (Luk, Fullgrabe, & Li, 1999; Merrilees & Miller, 1999).

Although the influence of nonverbal behaviors (e.g., how body orientation matches while interacting) on rapport has been recognized and subject to some empirical validation (e.g., Moine, 1982), the influence of verbal behavior (e.g., what is said rather than how) has been explored very little within the sales literature (Mohr, Fisher, & Nevin, 1996; Schultz & Evans, 2002). Nevertheless, verbal choices in communication can play a critical role in establishing rapport (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000) and certainly play a crucial role in a sales representative's ability to overcome a customer's objection to buying. Despite the lack of relevant research, personal-selling textbooks recognize the importance of verbal communication by regularly proffering recommendations for what a sales representative should say when attempting to overcome an objection. This article demonstrates the use of rapport management from sociolinguistics (Campbell, White, & Johnson, 2003) for identifying verbal strategies that can be used to establish and maintain rapport within the sales context. We concentrate primarily on how those strategies apply in the rapport-threatening context of overcoming customer buying objections. Thus, we examine the importance of verbal choice when message content is potentially under the most scrutiny, while overcoming customer objections.

Gremler and Gwinner (2000, p. 99) succinctly captured the question we face: "What specific actions can employees take to encourage rapport development in their customer interaction?" We provide an answer to this question by defining those contextual factors and actions using sociolinguistic theory. First, we discuss prior research on rapport in personal selling. Second, we discuss prior research on communication in sales. Third, we introduce two aspects of sociolinguistic theory, speech acts and rapport management, to explain how sales representatives' verbal communication influences customer rapport; then, we apply this theory in an indepth analysis of an actual sales interaction. Finally, we propose how sociolinguistic theory can provide a framework for future research in sales contexts.

PERSPECTIVES ON RAPPORT IN PERSONAL SELLING

Sales research has focused almost exclusively on modeling the effect that rapport has on sales outcomes rather than on understanding the mechanisms by which rapport is developed and maintained. Once rapport with a customer has been established, it can have a positive effect on multiple aspects of the sales process. For example, rapport provides a "state of grace" for service problems after the sale. When sales representatives attempt to sell without first establishing rapport, customers will avoid purchasing the product or service (Brooks, 1989). Previous research established that rapport increases the customers' postfailure satisfaction and repurchase intentions and reduces negative word of mouth (DeWitt & Brady, 2003).

The social interaction that sales representatives have with their customers has been shown to have a direct effect on customer satisfaction and on customers' loyalty, specifically their commitment to continue the relationship (Berry, 1995; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). When a quality relationship develops between a customer and a sales representative, there are multiple benefits for both parties. The sales representative and his or her company benefit from continued customer loyalty and positive word of mouth (Zeithmal, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). The customer benefits from the relationship by increased purchase confidence, social benefits, and special-treatment benefits (Bitner, 1990). Bargaining and offering objections can have a dramatic effect on the sales-representative-customer relationship; if exchange partners expend the energy to negotiate or offer objections, they must see some potential in the association (Scanzoni, 1979). However, if sales representatives cannot meet the demands or overcome the offered objections, the fragile bonds of the budding relationship could fracture (Dwyer & Tanner, 1999).

Although neurolinguistic programming (NLP) has been touted by some as the answer to building rapport during interactions, its effectiveness is controversial even within psychotherapy, where it originated (Sharpley, 1987). The application of NLP in the sales context recommends using communication that matches the primary thinking mode of the recipient to build rapport (Nickels et al., 1983). However, empirical support has been contradictory. Aside from NLP, rapport research has not established specific methods for establishing rapport. Most studies cited similarity as a basis for rapport: for example, similar worldviews, personal values, and empathy are antecedents to rapport (Brooks, 1989). Supporting the customer's self-confidence or effective use of flattery has also been shown to be effective in establishing rapport. However, what are the best ways to flatter or share similar interest with a customer? These tactics, if used improperly, can cause customers to become suspicious of the sales representative's motives, which in turn makes them doubt the sincerity of the sales representative (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Suspicion can often thwart the sales representative's attempts to establish rapport.

Although being persuasive is necessary to be an effective sales representative, having such a singular focus can have a detrimental effect on customer rapport and relationships. Salespeople must be sensitive to the fact that by virtue of their job, they are strongly associated with a persuasion motive (Rule, Gay, & Kohn, 1985; Thompson, 1972). Therefore, in interpreting a salesperson's behavior, persuasion motive will be more accessible than other motives such as, for example, building relationships or making customers feel good. Repeated use of persuasive messages or tactics can signal to a customer that a sales representative is driven by an ulterior motive rather than a sincere desire to build a long-term relationship. The psychological state in which an individual attributes a hidden motive for behavior has been defined as "suspicion" (Fein, 1996). Suspicion of the underlying motives of an actor can result in less favorable perceptions of that actor (Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1990; Vonk, 1998, 1999). For example, in a study on ingratiation in an organizational setting, Vonk (1998) found that an unequal power relationship between an ingratiator and the target of the ingratiation cued suspicion. As a result, when making inferences about the ingratiator, observers took into account the target's power to influence the ingratiator's outcomes. When the target had power to affect the ingratiator's outcomes, observers were suspicious of ingratiating behavior and made attributions about the motives of the ingratiator for engaging in the behavior. When observers inferred that the ingratiator had ulterior motives for the behavior, the ingratiator was perceived as "slimy," that is, manipulative and insincere. The accessibility of the persuasion motive and the close association with such an ulterior motive may cause customers to be guarded with the sales representative (Freistad & Wright, 1996). Therefore, it is important that sales representatives employ a number of communication strategies without persuasive motivation when dealing with customers.

PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNICATION IN PERSONAL SELLING

Customer perceptions of communication quality have been clearly connected to success with key sales accounts (Sengupta, Krapfel, & Pusateri, 2000). Unfortunately, Sengupta et al. (2000) defined communication simply as information transfer. This approach to communication is extremely narrow and does not adequately represent the complex social nature of interpersonal communication. Other sales research has shown that the quality of communication is judged on its level of collaboration rather than its effectiveness or efficiency in transferring information (Mohr et al., 1996). Key account sales representatives have been found to be effective in establishing long-term customer satisfaction and value-added selling through collaborative communication (Schultz & Evans, 2002). Mohr and Nevin (1990) identified four dimensions of collaborative communication: frequency, direction, modality, and content of influence attempts. The combination of these dimensions suggests how collaborative communication results in relationship building (Mohr et al., 1996). Collaborative communication categorizes message content as persuasive or not persuasive (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000; Mohr et al., 1996). Unfortunately, such a dichotomous approach does little to provide normative guidelines for creating enjoyable interactions and a sense of personal connection between the sales representative and his or her customer. It also fails to provide an effective means of overcoming objections raised by a customer during persuasion attempts.

Objections are often characterized as welcome intrusions in the persuasion process. Objections signal to the sales representative that the customer is interested and considering the sales representative's proposal. The methods sales representatives use to address objections have an effect on their ability to close a sale. Unfortunately, although sales representatives are presented with various strategies for overcoming customer objections, none of the recommended strategies has been grounded in research. We located a single study that addressed overcoming objections (Gross & Peterson, 1980). Using the responses of 214 sales representatives in the Midwest, the study found that some techniques are more commonly used than others but that the conditions under which the techniques are used do not overlap (i.e., in any given situation, only one or two techniques are appropriate).

Because that study was published in 1980, we reviewed eleven commonly used personal selling textbooks to identify a current list of communication techniques for dealing with buying objections. There is considerable overlap in the techniques recommended among these textbooks. We provide examples for the most commonly recommended techniques in Table 1.

Interestingly, recommended techniques have changed little in the past quarter century; the only difference between our list and the one reported by Gross and Peterson (1980) is the addition of the "third-party" technique and the categorization of the "question" technique as not among the most commonly recommended. Gross and Peterson wrote,

   The statements regarding the appropriateness of particular methods
   [for dealing with objections] appear to be based primarily upon
   experiences of the authors and judgement, and not upon carefully
   formulated research. (p. 92)

That situation has changed little since 1980. This article attempts to shed some light on this issue by laying a theoretical foundation for understanding the verbal strategies that influence rapport within the context of personal selling; more specifically, we apply sociolinguistic research in speech-act theory (SAT) and rapport management to situations in which sales representatives must deal with customer buying objections.

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON PERSONAL SELLING

To understand the sociolinguistic context of objections in personal selling, it will be useful to briefly discuss SAT and rapport-management theory.

SAT

SAT was introduced by Austin (1962), who broke with a long tradition of language philosophers by arguing that language is used to do things in the world, as well as to say things about the world. When a sales representative utters the words I promise to deliver your material tomorrow, he or she actually performs the act of promising. These are not "just words." There will be worldly consequences if the material is not actually delivered tomorrow. Over the years, SAT has developed into an elaborate and powerful explanation of communication behavior. We will mention two points that are salient for understanding verbal communication in personal selling.

First, SAT categorizes the types of acts that can be performed verbally. For example, Searle (1976) establishes five: representatives (e.g., asserting, denying, etc.), directives (e.g., suggesting, warning, etc.), commissives (e.g., promising, offering, etc.), expressives (e.g., thanking, apologizing, etc.), and declarations (e.g., christening, sentencing, etc.). To understand the speech acts involved within the context of personal selling, we have constructed a hypothetical interaction below. (The fact that this dialogue appears "simplistic" will be explained after we establish that the same underlying speech acts are performed in all personal-selling interactions involving objections.)

(1) Sales Rep: Let me suggest that you place an order for two machines today. [suggesting]

(2) Customer: No. [refusing suggestion in (1)]

(3) Sales Rep: Why not? [requesting info about refusal in (2)]

(4) Customer: Your machines are too expensive. [asserting and complying with request for info in (3)]

(5) Sales Rep: That's not correct. [asserting and denying assertion in (4)]

(6) Customer: I don't believe you. [asserting and denying denial of assertion in (5)]

(7) Sales Rep: Our machines would save you money over time by using less energy. [asserting and denying assertion in (4)]

(8) Customer: OK. I'll order one today. [promising and complying with suggestion in (1)]

Note that (1) constitutes the sales representative's trial close, a directive speech act--suggesting that the customer buy the product or service; (4) the customer's objection; (5) and (7) the sales representative's attempts to counter that objection; and (8) the customer's underlying commissive--promising to buy from the sales representative--the ultimate goal for a salesperson in all personal selling. SAT captures the fact that the sales representative's and customer's words equal actions (e.g., suggesting, refusing, denying, promising, etc.). One interesting fact is that if the customer complies with the purchase suggestion right away in (2), the need to manage rapport to create a personal connection and enjoyable interaction is negated. Rather, it is when the customer fails to comply immediately that rapport must be managed by the sales representative.

The second point we want to make is that SAT predicts what speakers can contribute and how their contributions will be interpreted in interaction. Davidson (1984) established that any utterance following a directive will be interpreted as a response to that directive. For example, any of the following utterances will be interpreted as a response to the sales representative's request in (1):

(2a) Customer: OK.

(2b) Customer: I'll take two.

(2c) Customer: Did you want my check today?

(2d) Customer: No.

(2e) Customer: Your machines are too expensive.

(2f) Customer: (silence)

Despite their varied forms, the first three responses, (2a) through (2c), signal a promise to comply with the purchase suggestion. In contrast, the final three responses, (2d) through (2f), signal a refusal to buy. Therefore, no matter what a customer says after a trial close by the sales representative, it will be interpreted as either compliance or refusal. Similarly, no matter what a sales representative says after a customer refuses to buy by offering a buying objection, it will be interpreted as either agreement or disagreement with the objection.

In the terminology of SAT, utterances (2a) and (2d) represent "direct" responses to the purchase request in (1), whereas the rest are termed "indirect" responses (Searle, 1976). Speech act indirectness is positively related to ambiguity and politeness, whereas speech act directness is positively related to clarity and rudeness (Campbell, 1990; Riley, 1989). The ability to vary the directness of a speech act has crucial importance for explaining how social relations (e.g., rapport) are managed in verbal interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson's (1987) seminal work on "linguistic politeness," which was founded on Goffman's (1967) work involving "face," explicated the linguistic strategies people choose to perform speech acts and their social consequences. The theoretical concept of face is intuitively displayed in the use of the English folk idiom saving face. Goffman argued that when individuals interact, they seek to present and maintain a public image. To illustrate, a customer's refusing to comply with a sales representative's suggestion threatens the salesperson's face wants (the desire to "have his or her way"). The customer can refuse by uttering either (2d) or (2e), but the direct refusal in (2d) is perceived as less polite than the indirect refusal in (2e)--an indirect refusal mitigates the threat by showing the sales representative that the customer recognizes the representative's face wants. Thus the customer allows the sales representative to save face when using (2e). In the same way, sales representatives can perform the same directive speech act by uttering either (a) "Order two machines today" or (b) "Let me suggest that you order two machines today." Because the directive threatens the customer's face (the desire for freedom of action), the savvy sales representative will choose (b), which mitigates the face threat by adding the words let me suggest, making the directive more polite. Linguistic politeness is used to manage rapport during interaction when face-threatening acts are performed. We take up the topic of rapport management in detail in the following section.

Rapport Management

Spencer-Oatey (2000) introduced the term rapport management within sociolinguistics when extending the work of Brown and Levinson (1987). Rapport management encompasses both face wants and sociality rights:

   Face is associated with personal/social value, and is concerned
   with people's sense of worth, credibility, dignity, honour,
   reputation, competence and so on. Sociality rights, on the other
   hand, are concerned with personal/social entitlements, and reflect
   people's concerns over fairness, consideration, social
   inclusion/exclusion and so on. (Spencer-Oatey, 2002, p. 540)

Whereas prior work in linguistic politeness used only two forms of face (positive and negative), Spencer-Oatey (2000) established two different categories of face wants: Quality face is equivalent to positive face in prior work, and social-identity face is a new category. In addition, she established two forms of sociality rights: Autonomy is roughly equivalent to negative face in prior work, whereas association is another new category. To illustrate these four concepts, we provide examples adapted from Inc. Magazine videotapes used to train sales representations (Table 2). The examples are versions of dialogue from the actual sales calls shown on the videotape.

The first column in Table 2 shows possible responses of a representative selling cash machines to a convenience-store customer. After listening to the sales representative's presentation, the customer voices the buying objection, "That's a heck of a concept. That's very, expensive, though." In all examples, the salesperson performs the act of denying (i.e., he is denying the customer's claim to counter the buying objection). Example [-QF] is likely to threaten the customer's quality face wants (his desire to be seen as a competent or credible individual) by questioning his opinion. In contrast, example [+QF] (i.e., "I understand why you say that but ...") explicitly tends to the customer's quality face wants, while the sales representative denies the customer's claim. Thus, example [+QF] mitigates the face threat inherent in the sales representative's speech act of denying. In example [-SIF], making a negative comment about convenience stores (by implying that they are less progressive than grocery stores) is likely to threaten the customer's social-identity face wants (i.e., his desire to have his role as part of that industry respected), whereas example [+SIF] (i.e., "7-11 felt that way too ...") explicitly tends to the customer's social-identity face by acknowledging that a respected competitor used to have the same objection. Again, example [+SIF] mitigates the face threat inherent in the sales representative's act of denying the customer's claim, thus constituting a positive example of rapport management.

The second column in Table 2 shows possible responses of a representative selling food products to a customer who owns convenience stores. After listening to the sales representative's presentation, the customer voices the buying objection, "I really don't have room for it in my stores." Again, the salesperson is disagreeing with the customer's claim to counter the buying objection. Example [-AUT] threatens the customer's autonomy rights (his right not to be imposed on unfairly) by dismissing his right to determine what goes into his stores, whereas example [+AUT] (i.e., "You're right, but that isn't a permanent situation") tends to the customer's right to autonomy by acknowledging the salesperson's imposition in dismissing the customer's right to choose what goes into his stores but also suggesting that the customer might change his mind in the future. Thus, example [+AUT] mitigates the threat to sociality rights inherent in the sales representative's act of disagreeing with the customer. Finally, when the sales representative ignores the customer's objection related to placement in example [-AS], he clearly threatens the customer's right to association (his right to be heard or attended to), whereas the sales representative tends to the customer's association rights by acknowledging his objection (i.e., "I understand ...") before changing the topic in example [+AS]. The use of I understand as a preface to denial of the customer's objection is theoretically motivated because it tends to both the customer's quality face wants (the desire to have our opinions valued) and the customer's association rights (the right to receive attention). Once again, example [+AS] mitigates the sociality-rights threat inherent in the sales representative's act of disagreeing with the customer, thereby constituting a positive example of rapport management by the salesperson.

SAT and Rapport Management in Overcoming Buying Objections

The sales representatives' underlying speech act in the examples in Table 2 is to deny the claim on which customers base their buying objections. SAT and rapport-management theory have established that denial is rapport threatening (i.e., because of threats to face wants or sociality rights). When sales representatives voice their disagreement, they threaten rapport with their customers. Sales-training materials sometimes advise that sales representatives should never argue with their customers. However, any attempt to overcome a buying objection will necessarily involve an "argument," which will intrinsically threaten rapport. The salient point, we believe, is that the sales representative must mitigate that threat by explicitly managing rapport through his or her verbal choices during interaction: tending to the customer's face wants and sociality rights while denying the customer's claims.

Because rapport management is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between organizational leaders and members (Campbell et al., 2003), we believe it may also moderate relationship quality between sales representatives and customers. Thus, we can predict that an interaction in which the sales representative says (5) (i.e., "That's not correct") will be less enjoyable and result in a lower personal connection than one in which he or she says (7) (i.e., "Our machines would save you money ..."). This sociolinguistic approach to dealing with buying objections differs from current guidance not only in that it is theoretically founded but also in that most of the latter claim to maintain rapport by avoiding or prohibiting open disagreement with the customer and moving the discussion with the customer to areas of agreement. For example, the dodge technique instructs the salesperson not to deny, answer, or ignore an objection but simply to dodge it and proceed with the presentation (Futrell, 2004). We noted above that SAT predicts that no matter what a sales representative says after a customer voices an objection, it will be interpreted as either agreement or disagreement with that objection. Thus, although it is certainly possible that the dodge might influence customers to make buying decisions, we suspect that it undermines rapport between the customer and the sales representative. This is apparently supported by Gross and Peterson's (1980) finding that sales representatives believed all objections must be addressed. The level of threat to rapport for objection-handling techniques is unknown but would appear to be variable.

Although the technique dubbed "direct denial" is discussed in personal-selling textbooks, sales representatives are cautioned about its use. Here are two representative warnings:

   No one likes to be told that he or she is wrong, so the direct
   denial must be used with caution. It is appropriate only when
   the objection is blatantly inaccurate and potentially
   devastating to the presentation. (Futrell, 2004, p. 331)

      The important part of using the direct denial is to not
   humiliate or anger the prospect. The direct denial should be
   used sparingly, but it may be easier to use when the salesperson
   has a good feel for the relationship they have with the buyer.
   (Ingram, LaForge, Avila, Schwepker, & Williams, 2004, p. 223)

We believe the recommended caution in use of direct denials is explained by their high threat to face wants (i.e., customers' desire to have their opinions valued) and medium threat to sociality rights (i.e., customers' right to their own opinions). Because of their negative impact on the face wants and sociality rights of customers, direct denials result in interactions that are not enjoyable and undermine any personal connection between the interactants.

Gross and Peterson (1980) also found that direct denial was the least appropriate means of dealing with buying objections; exceptions were "when especially important objections are presented which cannot be overcome in another way, when all else has failed, and when the prospect's ego is not sensitive" (p. 95). Rapport-management theory recognizes the apparent wisdom of using direct denials when sales representatives know they have a strong relationship with the customer. In sociolinguistic terms, rapport appears to be affected throughout every interaction; thus, we expect the overall level of rapport between two people to be constantly in flux. If a high level of rapport has been established up to the present time, then threatening rapport will lower the overall rapport level but perhaps not to a "dangerous" level. We will discuss the fluctuating level of rapport within a sales interaction that includes buying objections in the following section of our article. Our estimations of level of threat to face wants and sociality rights are guesses at this point, based on our interpretation of sample dialogue in personal-selling textbooks and our own experiences. Although this method is certainly flawed, we want to point out that our application of sociolinguistic theory to the context of buying objections does provide us with a foundation for creating testable hypotheses about the relative effectiveness of different objection-handling techniques.

Sociolinguistic Analysis of Sales-Representative-Customer Interaction

In this section of the article, we provide a detailed analysis of an actual interaction in an attempt to understand why SAT and rapport management provide a useful foundation for understanding the effectiveness of a sales representative's attempts to overcome buying objections. Figure 1 shows the transcript of an interaction between a door-to-door, Catholic Bible salesman and a prospective female customer; this interaction occurs in the 1968 documentary film Salesman (directed by David Maysles & Charlotte Zwerin). Although the filmmakers clearly edited the interactions included in the documentary, the interaction we have chosen to analyze appears to be shown in its entirety. It is worth noting that this film is a traditional documentary--not a docudrama. Most important, although the film is dated, the objections raised and the strategies used to overcome objections are consistent with those presented in the most recent personal-selling popular press and textbooks. Note that our transcript focuses on verbal behavior within the interaction and includes very little nonverbal behavior--only long periods of silence or lack of interaction are shown.

Figure 1. Analysis of Personal-Selling Techniques for Overcoming Buying Objections of Customers

1. Sales Rep: [after presenting products] Could I ask you this question, and I know what you're going to say. What part of this set do you like best?

2. Customer: Which do I like the best? [pause] umm,

3. Sales Rep: Which would you consider.... which would you say is the basic part of the library or what's something you think you'd derive the most from?

4. Customer: I personally think the Bible.

5. Sales Rep: That's what most people say.

6. Customer: I have one I wouldn't part with for years--for nothin'. I've had it for years and years. It belonged to my mother-in-law. I don't know where she got it from. [continues talking about this Bible for a minute or so]

7. Sales Rep: By no means ever part with a Bible. I can see where you would choose the Bible. And I'll tell you the reason why. The Bible, the Bible is the best seller in the world.

8. Customer: Well, actually, I can't see buying another Bible when I already have one. [NEED OBJECTION]

9. Sales Rep: Even though it's 200 years old? [pause] [BOOMERANG] Well, you're probably tight right now. [PASS UP NEED OBJECTION] Is that correct?

10. Customer: Oh, that's for sure.

11. Sales Rep: As they say, it's the only thing that I know that you secure in a lifetime that doesn't depreciate. [COMPENSATION] A car after 3 years is worth nothing. A Bible like that would be something that would really build up a heritage in the home.

12. Customer: It's a beautitul book. [BUYING SIGNAL]

13. Sales Rep: Isn't it beautiful? I know you love it. [pause] Honest to goodness, Mrs. O'Conner. I been in the Bible business now. The reason I'm in it, I know I'm placing something in the home that people will never be dissatisfied. The longer they have it, the more they will enjoy it. It's like a good wine. with age it improves. [COMPENSATION]

14. Customer: [long pause]

15. Sales Rep: And don't worry. They don't repossess the Bible if in 4 months you don't mail in the payment. Add the payment to another month. That's all. [PASS UP NEED OBJECTION]

16. Customer: [long pause and then tells daughter in the next room to get off the phone]

17. Sales Rep: And if you didn't like it, Mrs. O'Conner, I wouldn't spend the time. But most of the people that I do place them with are Irish people because they are devout Catholics. [THIRD PARTY]

18. Customer: I'm not Irish.

19. Sales Rep: Well it doesn't make any difference. Are you not of Irish descent? What descent are you?

20. Customer: Polish.

21. Sales Rep: Polish. Well, the Polish are good people. I know a lot of good Polish people. They are very devout Catholics. too. [THIRD PARTY] It doesn't matter. [continues for a minute or so about Polish people] Everything in this life is a sacrifice. Is that right?

22. Customer: That's true.

23. Sales Rep: How about six months from now?

24. Customer: I don't know what six months is gonna bring. [STALL OBJECTION]

25. Sales Rep: Well, nobody knows that the next day ix gonna come. [BOOMERANG]

26. Customer: That's why I don't want to take the chance. [STALL OBJECTION]

27. Sales Rep: [interrupting] Well, it wouldn't be too much of a chance. It involves forty-nine ninety-five for the Bible, Mrs. O'Connor. That's not much. [DIRECT DENIAL] You know what I mean. A carton of cigarettes cost you three dollars. [pause] Does Dad have a birthday coming up?

28. Customer: [long pause] No. I'm sorry. Not at this particular time. [STALL OBJECTION]

29. Sales Rep: Do you want to reserve it for any later date? [TRIAL CLOSE]

30. Customer: No. "Cause I don't know what's gonna.... [STALL OBJECTION]

31. Sales Rep: [interrupting] Well nobody knows. The only thing we're sure of is death and taxes. [BOOMERANG]

32. Customer: Right. [long pause] Nope. I don't think I better I can't see my way clear [STALL OBJECTION]

33. Sales Rep: How about in six, twelve, or nine months? You still couldn't see your way clean huh. [BOOMERANG]

34. Customer: I don't think I'd better take it at this time. [OBJECTION]

35. Sales Rep: Well, [starts packing] I don't think there's any more I can add to it, Mrs. Conner. [pause] I imagine you make a lot of decisions in this life.

36. Customer: Oh yeah. You have to. That's for sure.

37. Sales Rep: That's for sure. I think this would be a wise decision but....

38. Customer: I interrupting] If circumstances were different I'd say yes. [BUYING SIGNAL] I wouldn't hesitate. Because it is a beautiful piece of art.

39. Sales Rep: I mean. actually, is it the dollar a week? I mean. I don't understand [DIRECT DENIAL] I been selling Bibles for ten years. I don't understand a dollar a week.

40. Customer: No, it doesn't sound like much. But there are other things I gotta take care of before I can start putting out four or five dollars. [STALL OBJECTION]

41. Sales Rep: OK then.

In this figure, we omit the approach or presentation portion of the sales call and highlight instead the customer's objections and the salesman's use of recommended verbal strategies for overcoming those objections (Table 1). Note that the customer voiced buying objections several times during this interaction: contributions 8, 24, 28, 30, 34, and 40. The sales representative did not accept the customer's objections until contribution 41. Rather, he used a variety of recommended objection-handling strategies: for example, boomerang in contribution 9, pass up in contribution 9, compensation in contribution 11, and so on. Nevertheless, the sales representative was unsuccessful--both in terms of leading the customer to commit to a purchase and in terms of building rapport as defined in the sales literature (i.e., making this interaction enjoyable and developing a sense of connection). Our main point here is that no overarching theory identifies where and how the sales representative might improve. Any advice would be limited in that it would be situation specific. This lack of generalizability is a severe limitation given that selling circumstances are dynamic, thus making advice for this specific sales call difficult to adapt for a future one.

In contrast, consider our sociolinguistic analysis of rapport management within the same interaction (Figure 2). We argue here that this analysis is better because it is supported by theory developed independently and is more parsimonious in that four concepts (quality face wants, social-identity face wants, autonomy rights, and association rights) apply in any situation.

Figure 2. Sociolinguistic Analysis of Rapport Management Involving Customer Buying Objections

1. Sales Rep: [after presenting products] Could I ask you this question, and I know what you're going to say. What part of this set do you like best?

2. Customer: Which do I like the best? [pause] umm.

3. Sales Rep: Which would you consider.... which would you say is the basic part of the library or what's something you think you'd derive the most from?

4. Customer: I personally think the Bible.

5. Sales Rep: That's what most people say.

6. Customer: I have one I wouldn't part with for years--for nothin'. I've had it for years and years. It belonged to my mother-in-law. I don't know where she got it from. [continues talking about this Bible for a minute or so]

7. Sales Rep: By no means ever part with a Bible. I can see where you would choose the Bible. And I'll tell you the reason why. The Bible, the Bible is the best seller in the world.

8. Customer: Well, actually, I can't see buying another Bible when I already have one. [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

9. Sales Rep: Even though it's 200 years old? [pause] [---QF] Well, you're probably tight right now. [---QF] Is that correct?

10. Customer: Oh, that's for sure.

11. Sales Rep: As they say, it's the only thing that I know that you secure in a lifetime that doesn't depreciate. [-AUT] A car after 3 years is worth nothing. A Bible like that would be something that would really build up a heritage in the home.

12. Customer: It's a beautiful book. [BUYING SIGNAL]

13. Sales Rep: Isn't it beautiful? [+++AS]/I know you love it. [pause] Honest to goodness, Mrs. O'Conner. [+QF] I been in the Bible business now. The reason I'm in it, I know I'm placing something in the home that people will never be dissatisfied. [++AS] The longer they have it, the more they will enjoy it. It's like a good wine, with age it improves.

14. Customer: [long pause]

15. Sales Rep: And don't worry. They don't repossess the Bible if in 4 months you don't mail in the payment. [---QF] Add the payment to another month. [++AUT] That's all.

16. Customer: [long pause and then tells daughter in the next room to get off the phone]

17. Sales Rep: And if you didn't like it. Mrs. O'Conner, [+QF] I wouldn't spend the time. But most of the people that I do place them with are Irish people because they are devout Catholics. [--SF]

18. Customer: I'm not Irish.

19. Sales Rep: Well it doesn't make any difference. Are you not of Irish descent? [---QF] What descent are you [---AUT]

20. Customer: Polish.

21. Sales Rep: Polish. Well, the Polish are good people. I know a lot of good Polish people. They are very devout Catholics. too. [++SIF] It doesn't matter. [continues for a minute or so about Polish people] Everything in this life is a sacrifice. Is that right?

22. Customer: That's true.

23. Sales Rep: How about six months from now?[-AUT]

24. Customer: I don't know what six months is gonna bring. [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

25. Sales Rep: Well, nobody knows that the next day is gonna come. [---QF]

26. Customer: That's why I don't want to take the chance.... [Asserts Quality Face Wants]

27. Sales Rep: [interrupting| [---AS] Well, it wouldn't be too much of a chance. [---QF] It involves forty-nine ninety-five for the Bible, Mrs. O'Connor. [+QF] That's not much. You know what I mean. A carton of cigarettes cost you three dollars, [---QF] [pause] Does Dad have a birthday coming up? [--AS]

28. Customer: [long pause] No, I'm sorry. Not at this particular time. [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

29. Sales Rep: Do you want to reserve it for any later date? [-AUT]

30. Customer: No. 'Cause I don't know what's gonna.... [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

31. Sales Rep: [interrupting] [---AS] Well nobody knows. [--QF] The only thing we're sure of is death and taxes.

32. Customer: Right. [long pause] Nope. I don't think I better I can't see my way clear [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

33. Sales Rep: How about in six, twelve, or nine months? [-AUT] You still couldn't see your way clear, huh. [--QF]

34. Customer: I don't think I'd better take it at this time. [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

35. Sales Rep: Well. [starts packing] [---AS] I don't think there's any more I can add to it, Mrs. Conner [+QF] [pause] / imagine you make a lot of decisions in this life. [+QF]

36. Customer: Oh yeah. You have to. That's for sure.

37. Sales Rep: That's for sure. [+AS] I think this would be a wise decision [+QF] but....

38 Customer: [interrupting] IF circumstances were different I'd say yes. [BUYING SIGNAL] I wouldn't hesitate. Because it is a beautiful piece of art.

39. Sales Rep: I mean, actually, is it the dollar a week? I mean, I don't understand [---QF] I been selling Bibles for ten years. [++AS] I don't understand a dollar a week. [---QF]

40. Customer: No. it doesn't sound like much. But there are other things I gotta take care of before I can start putting out four or five dollars. [OBJECTION: Asserts Sociality Right to Autonomy]

41. Sales Rep: OK then.

Key: Times Roman = transcribed interaction; Italic Times Roman = specific transcribed interaction influencing rapport; [+] or [-] = low, [++] or [--] = medium, [+++] or [---] = high [-] plus SHADING = salesman threatening rapport with customer; [+] plus SHADING = salesman tending rapport with customer

In this figure, we label each of the sales representative's turns within the interaction for the likely effects of his verbal behavior on rapport with the customer using the four forms of rapport management: quality face wants (i.e., tending [+QF] or threatening [-QF]); social-identity face wants (i.e., tending [+SIF] or threatening [-SIF]); autonomy rights (i.e., tending [+AUT] or threatening [-AUT]); and association rights (i.e., tending [+AS] or threatening [-AS]). (See the note below the figure for additional details highlighted in the analysis, including the estimated level of rapport effect.) Our analysis follows common practice in politeness theory as developed by Brown and Levinson (1987) by linking interactant intentions and interpretation to a sociological concern with how interaction relates to social structures (Stubbe et al., 2003). In other words, the analysis focuses on linking linguistic behavior with sociological strategies. This approach has been preeminent in linguistic pragmatics for more than 25 years (Thomas, 1995).

The customer voiced her first buying objection in turn 8, asserting that she did not need another Bible ("I can't see buying another Bible when..."). The customer might have simply said no as we mentioned in (2d) above, but she refused less directly by asserting an explanation for not buying the product. In turn 9, not only did the sales representative threaten rapport by denying the customer's opinion, but he also responded with two contributions that further threatened the customer's quality face wants. First, he denigrated the value of the customer's family Bible ("even though it's 200 years old?"). His contribution was clearly threatening to her quality face wants despite the fact that his contribution was an indirect denial (e.g., he did not say, "You are wrong to claim you don't need this Bible when the one you have is 200 years old"). He further threatened her face by asserting that the customer had little money ("You're probably tight"). Second, he threatened the customer's sociality rights by ignoring her objection based on need and assuming an objection based on price in his use of the pass-up technique (see Figure 1). Ignoring the basis of the customer's objection clearly threatened her association rights (i.e., her right to be attended to). In sum, the sales representative's sociolinguistic behavior aggravated rather than mitigated the threat to rapport caused by denying the customer's objection. In Figure 3, we illustrate his failure by estimating the fluctuation in level of rapport based on the effects of each of his contributions. Note that we have omitted the rapport effects of the customer's contributions because of our focus on the sales representative's behavior. We have assumed that the customer's perception of the degree of rapport was above neutral at the end of the sales representative's presentation--when the customer voiced her first buying objection in turn 8. Unfortunately, the sales representative's verbal behavior in turn 9 lowered their level of rapport.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Because the customer's buying objection in turn 8 asserted her sociality right of autonomy (i.e., to decide for herself when or if she should buy another Bible), we believe the sales representative would have been far more successful in managing rapport by tending to her sociality rights in his next contribution. For instance, he might have said, "Can you tell me why you don't need another Bible?" and then listened to her answer. Based on other contributions in their interaction, we suspect the customer might have said that her husband would object to spending money on another Bible. Asking about her reasons and listening to her answer would have tended to both of her sociality rights: her autonomy rights by allowing her to voice her opinion and her association rights by taking time to hear her out. In this way, the sales representative would have actually built rapport (made this interaction more enjoyable and created a closer personal connection) with the customer. We suggest that this positive use of rapport management would have resulted at best in a slight increase or at worst in maintenance of the current level of rapport. Interestingly, when the customer voiced a buying signal in turn 12 by noting positive qualities of the product, the sales representative followed in turn 13 by tending to the customer's association rights by showing he listened (he repeats her words, "Isn't it beautiful"). In addition, he called the customer by name (tending to her quality face wants) and disclosed personal information about the rewards in his job (further tending to her association rights). In Figure 3, we capture this positive use of rapport-management behavior by showing the level of rapport increase at turn 13 to back above neutral.

Unfortunately, the sales representative followed in turn 15 by implying that the customer would default on a credit arrangement ("if ... you don't make the payment"), clearly threatening the customer's quality face wants and lowering the level of rapport (see Figure 3). We believe that the sales representative would have been far more successful in managing rapport at this point in the interaction by returning to the reasons stated earlier when he asked why she felt that she did not need another Bible (our positive rapport-management contribution for turn 9). If she had disclosed that her husband was actually the decision maker, the sales representative might have said in turn 15, "I'd like to come back to talk with you when your husband is home."

The sales representative followed the customer's silence in turn 16 by tending to her quality face wants (using her name again) and then attempting to tend to her social-identity face wants by making positive comments about Irish Catholics in turn 17. However, the customer signaled a serious threat to her social-identity face wants in turn 18 when she said, "I'm not Irish." We estimate that the level of rapport from the customer's perspective dropped to distant at this point in the interaction (Figure 3).

In turn 23, the sales representative attempted to recover from his faux pas by suggesting that the customer commit to buying the Bible later ("How about six months from now?"). However, the customer voiced her second buying objection in turn 24 by asserting that she was uncertain about the future ("I don't know what six months is gonna bring"). In turn 25, the sales representative discounted her assertion and threatens her quality face wants by directly denying her claim about the future ("Nobody knows the next day is gonna come"). Thus, Figure 3 shows yet another drop in the rapport level at turn 25. Because the customer's objection asserted her autonomy rights, we believe the salesperson would have been more successful by tending to her autonomy rights with his next contribution in turn 25. For example, he might have said, "What would need to happen in six months for you to feel comfortable purchasing the Bible?" and then listened to her response. Again, asking about her criteria for purchasing and listening to her answer would have tended to both of her sociality rights: her autonomy rights by allowing her to voice her opinion and her association rights by listening to her. In this alternate scenario, the sales representative would have actually built rapport (made this interaction more enjoyable and created a closer personal connection) with the customer. Even given the near-distant level of rapport at the beginning of turn 24, this positive use of rapport management would have resulted at worst in maintenance of the current level of rapport rather than a further reduction in the actual interaction.

With turn 27, the sales representative appeared to give in to his frustration, interrupting the customer (which threatened her association rights) and directly denying her claim from turn 26 by saying, "It wouldn't be too much of a chance," and then, "It involves forty-nine ninety-five for the Bible" (threatening her quality face and autonomy rights). He continued by further threatening her quality face wants, implying that if she could afford cigarettes, she could afford the Bible. We suspect the sales representative's verbal behavior now made the interaction more painful than enjoyable for the customer; their level of rapport was now clearly distant. At this point, the customer paused before voicing her most directly stated buying objection ("No. I'm sorry. Not at this particular time"). Although their interaction as not yet over (in fact, the customer actually voiced one more buying signal in turn 38), we believe that there was little the sales representative could do within this sales call to improve rapport at this point.

Our analysis of rapport management explains the failure of the salesman to make this interaction enjoyable and to develop a sense of connection with the customer. If we were using our analysis (see Figures 2 and 3) to diagnose problem areas, our main point would be that the rapport level steadily declined after the customer voiced an objection in turn 8. More specifically, the salesman's verbal contributions after each objection sometimes maintained but often lowered the level of rapport with the customer. The critical point here is that none of his verbal strategies after an objection raised the level of rapport.

We have highlighted when the customer voiced a buying objection or a buying signal in Figure 3 because we believe it is interesting to note the slope of the line representing rapport level before and after these key customer contributions. We would make two additional points about diagnosing the effectiveness of the salesman in this interaction. First, his verbal strategies allowed him to raise the level of rapport with the customer three times after her initial objection: In turn 13, he tended to both her face wants and her sociality rights by repeating her words, using her name, and disclosing personal information about himself; in turn 21, he tended to her social-identity face wants by praising her ethnic group; and in turn 37, he tended to her association rights by agreeing with her and to her quality face wants by praising her. More important, the customer sent a buying signal after one of these contributions (turn 37) despite the fact that there was distant rapport between the salesman and the customer at that point in the interaction. This would have provided something positive for him to build from in future sales-communication training. Second, his verbal strategy in turn 39, after receiving the only other buying signal, actually lowered rapport. We would argue that this was a crucial failure.

CONCLUSIONS FOR RAPPORT WHEN OVERCOMING BUYING OBJECTIONS

Gremler and Gwinner (2000, p. 99) wrote, "What specific actions can employees take to encourage rapport development in their customer interaction?" We have provided an answer to this question by using sociolinguistic theory to describe the verbal behaviors that influence rapport. In this article, we set out to expand on prior research involving rapport in personal selling by describing precisely how sales representatives influence the quality of their relationships with customers (i.e., manage rapport). That is, given what we know about the benefits of positive sales representative--customer rapport, we suggest that it is useful to pay close attention to the interactional and verbal communication behaviors of sales representatives--especially in rapport-threatening situations like those involving buying objections. To summarize, it is clear to us that an individual demonstrates his or her effectiveness as a sales representative by choosing appropriate verbal strategies when interacting with customers.

We suggest that sales representatives might improve their effectiveness in interactions with customers by choosing a communication strategy based on the following heuristic:

1. What is the quality of my current relationship (i.e., rapport level) with the customer?

2. Are the customer's (quality or social-identity) face wants threatened in this interaction? If so, how can I mitigate that threat?

3. Are the customer's sociality rights related to autonomy or association threatened in this interaction? If so, how can I mitigate that threat?

Thinking through these questions may help less effective sales representatives attend to aspects of their interactions with customers that more effective sales representatives attend to intuitively or by habit. This heuristic helps sales representatives frame the questions they use to uncover the reasons for objections and develop the appropriate responses to those objections.

In this final section of our article, we highlight two directions for future research. First, subsequent studies in this area could test the veracity of our theoretical framework. As we mentioned earlier, not all objection-handling techniques appear to have the same level of effect on rapport. We have attempted to capture the level of effect in Figure 2. Although use of the boomerang and pass-up techniques in turn 9 was highly threatening (i.e., both are given [--]), use of the compensation technique in turn 11 seemed to have posed far less threat to either face wants or sociality rights (i.e., rated at [-]). Despite the fact that specific objection-handling techniques appear to have an intrinsic level of effect on rapport, it is important to note that the specific verbal strategy when implementing a technique can further influence rapport effects. For example, what could have been a low-level threat (third-party technique) in turn 17 ended up posing a high face threat because the salesman mistakenly assumed the customer was from his own ethnic group. Working from the interaction in Figure 3 to a sample representing customers, researchers could ascertain whether our method of calculating fluctuations in rapport level is reliable or valid.

Second, future research could explore rapport management between individuals within other workplace contexts. The vast majority of prior research focuses on intercultural communication and is basic rather than applied (i.e., normative guidelines are rarely offered). For example, Gunthner (2000) investigated the negotiation of rapport between two German and two Chinese graduate students when they disagreed. As another example, Spencer-Oatey, Ng, and Dong (2000) reported the results of a survey of around 500 university students in Britain, Hong Kong, and mainland China who were asked to rate the appropriateness of a range of potential conversational responses to compliments. Relatively little research has focused on workplace contexts. Birkner and Kern (2000) are a notable exception; these researchers analyzed job interviews involving West German interviewers and 22 West German plus 19 East German applicants to compare rapport-management behaviors of the applicants. Despite the potential relevance for professional communication researchers, that study concluded by noting sociolinguistic differences between the two cultures rather than offering any normative guidelines. In contrast, like the current article, Campbell et al. (2003) demonstrated how the theoretical framework of rapport management applies between managers and subordinates in an effort to provide a basis for leadership training and education. We hope that others will apply this framework to workplace contexts to build a foundation for best practices in workplace communication.

Interpersonal communication (both verbal and nonverbal) is key to a sales representative's ability to make interactions enjoyable and to develop a sense of connection with the customer. This ability to build rapport is crucial in determining the quality of customer relationships. By explaining the sociolinguistic basis of verbal techniques for managing rapport, we have provided a theoretical framework for understanding a sales representative's success or failure in managing rapport, thus providing a parsimonious basis for sales training and a testable basis for future personal-selling research.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. E., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Personal selling: Achieving customer satisfaction and loyalty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services--Growing interest emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 236-245.

Birkner, K., & Kern, F. (2000). Impression management in East and West German job interviews. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 255-271). London: Continuum.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.

Brooks, M. (1989). Instant rapport. New York: Warner.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, K. S. (1990). Explanations in negative messages: More insights from speech act theory. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 357-375.

Campbell, K. S., White, C. D., & Johnson, D. E. (2003). Leader-member relations as a function of rapport management. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 170-194.

Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejections. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dell, S. A. (1991). Relational communication and organizational customer loyalty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver.

DeWitt, T., & Brady, M. K. (2003). Rethinking service recovery strategies. Journal of Services Research, 6, 193.

Dwyer, R. F., & Tanner, J. F., (1999). Business marketing: Connecting strategy, relationships and learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164-1166.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.

Futrell, C. M. (2004). Fundamentals of selling: Customers for life through service (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Random House.

Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Services Research, 3, 82-104.

Gross, C. W., & Peterson, R. T. (1980). A study of the appropriateness of various means of meeting objections by sales representatives. Academy of Marketing Journal, 8, 92-99.

Gunthner, S. (2000). Argumentation and resulting problems in the negotiation of rapport in a German-Chinese conversation. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 217-239). London: Continuum.

Hilton, J. L., Fein, S., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 753-55.

Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., Avila, R. A., Jr., Schwepker, C. H., & Williams, M. R. (2001). Professional selling: A trust-based approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt College Publishing.

Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., Avila, R. A., Jr., Schwepker, C. H., & Williams, M. R. (2004). Profes-sional selling: A trust-based approach (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). Relationship selling and sales management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jones, E., Stevens, E., & Chonko, L. (2005). Selling ASAP: Art, science, agility, performance. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

LaBahn, D. W. (1996). Advertiser perceptions of fair compensation, confidentiality and rapport. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 28-37.

Lill, D. J. (1989). Selling: The profession. New York: Macmillan.

Lill, D. J. (2002). Selling: The profession (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: DM Bass Publications.

Luk, S. T. K., Fullgrabe, L., & Li, S. C. Y. (1999). Managing direct selling activities in China: A cultural explanation. Journal of Business Research, 45, 257-266.

Manning, G. L., & Reece, B. L. (2004). Selling today: Creating customer value. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marks, R. B. (1997). Personal selling: A relationship approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (1999). Direct selling in the West and East: The relative roles of product and relationship (guznxi) drivers. Journal of Business Research, 45, 257-273.

Mohr, J. J., Fisher, R. J., & Nevin, J. R. (1996). Collaborative communication in inter-firm relationships: Moderating effects of integration and control. Journal of Marketing, 60, 103-115.

Mohr, J. J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 50, 36-51.

Moine, D. J. (1982). To trust, perchance to buy. Psychology Today, 18, 51-54.

Nickels, W. G., Everett, R. E., & Klein, R. (1983). Rapport building for salespeople: A neuro-linguistic approach. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 2, 1-7.

Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). A relationship customer typology. Journal of Retailing, 75, 509-534.

Riley, K. (1989). Speech act theory and degrees of directness in professional writing. Technical Writing Teacher, 15, 1-29.

Rule, B. G., Gay, B. L., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals and strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1127-1140.

Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R. L. Burgess, & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 61-98). New York: Academic Press.

Schultz, R. J., & Evans, K. R. (2002). Strategic collaborative communication by key account representatives. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 22, 23-31.

Searle, J. R. (1976). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R. E., & Pusateri, M. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of key account salesperson effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20, 253-262.

Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 103.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). London: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529-545.

Spencer-Oatey, H., Ng, P., & Dong, L. (2000). Responding to compliments: British and Chinese evaluative judgements. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 98-120). London: Continuum.

Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, M., et al. (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies, 5, 351-388.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. New York: Longman.

Thompson, D. L. (1972). Stereotype of the salesman. Harvard Business Review, 50, 158-161.

Vonk, R. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likable behavior toward superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 849-864.

Vonk, R. (1999). Impression formation and impression management motives, traits and likeability inferred from self-promotion and self-deprecating behavior. Social Cognition, 17, 390-412.

Weitz, B. A., Castleberry, S. B., & Tanner, J. F. (2001). Selling: Building partnerships (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithmal, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.

Kim Sydow Campbell (Ph.D., Louisiana State University, 1990) is the Derrell Thomas Teaching Excellence Faculty Fellow and an associate professor of management communication at the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration at the University of Alabama. Lenita Davis (Ph.D., University of Cincinnati, 2001) is an assistant professor of marketing at the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration at the University of Alabama. The authors want to thank Lauren Skinner for her help in creating Table 1.

Table 1. Objection-Handling Techniques in Personal-Selling Textbooks

                                              Example Response
Objection-                                   to "Your Equipment
Handling                                         Has a Poor
Technique           Definition               Efficiency Rating"

Direct denial     Make a strong           "I am not sure
                    statement to            where you heard
                    indicate the error      it, but it is simply
                    the prospect has        not accurate."
                    made.

Compensation      Show a prospect         "You are absolutely
                    compensating            right. However,
                    advantages to           the speed of our
                    valid objections.       equipment has
                                            increased your
                                            productivity by
                                            30% and reduced
                                            your manufac-
                                            turing coats
                                            by 40%."

Third party or    Point out that the      "I understand how
  feel-felt-        initial opinions        you feel. Kim
  found             of other customers      Campbell felt the
                    were unfounded          same way. When
                    when they tried         she tried our
                    the product.            improved model.
                                            she found that
                                            her overall
                                            efficiencies
                                            improved."

Indirect denial   Deny the objection      "Yes, but we
                    but soften the          have the highest
                    response.               efficiency rating
                                            in the industry."

Pass up           Let the buyer know      "I totally understand
                    you have heard          your concern.
                    their  concern,         A lot of my
                    pause, and then         customers are
                    move to another         concerned about
                    topic.                  their produc-
                                            tivity [pause].
                                            but before
                                            getting bogged
                                            down in details.
                                            let's first
                                            discuss what our
                                            product can
                                            do for you."

Boomerang or      Turn the objection        "I know you are
  translation       into a reason           worried about
                    for acting now.         productivity.
                                            which is the very
                                            reason I wanted
                                            to talk to you,
                                            because our
                                            industrial model
                                            will improve
                                            your current
                                            efficiency rate."

LAARC or          Listen. Acknowledge,
  LCCCA             Assess, Respond,
                    Confirm or Listen,
                    Clarify, Cushion,
                    Classify, Answer

Question          Rephrase the
                    objection as a
                    question.

Postpone          Ask permission to
                    answer objec-
                    tions at a later
                    time.

Provide proof     Provide case studies
                    or evidence
                    negating the
                    customer's
                    objection.

Compare and       Compare the product
  contrast          with another
                    acceptable or
                    unacceptable
                    alternative to
                    dissolve
                    resistance.

                  Anderson                               Johnston
Objection-          and                Ingram   Ingram     and
Handling          Dubinsky   Futrell   et al.   et al.   Marshall
Technique          (2004)    (2004)    (2004)   (2001)    (2005)

Direct denial        X          X        X                  X

Compensation                    X        X                  X

Third party or       X          X        X                  X
  feel-felt-
  found

Indirect denial      X          X        X                  X

Pass up              X          X        X

Boomerang or                    X        X
  translation

LAARC or                                 X        X
  LCCCA

Question                        X        X                  X

Postpone             X          X

Provide proof        X                                      X

Compare and          X
  contrast

                   Jones,
                  Stevens,                     Manning
Objection-          and                          and
Handling           Chonko     Lill     Lill     Reece    Marks
Technique          (2005)    (1989)   (2002)   (2004)    (1997)

Direct denial                  X        X                  X

Compensation                   X        X                  X

Third party or                 X                           X
  feel-felt-
  found

Indirect denial                                            X

Pass up                                           X        X

Boomerang or                   X        X                  X
  translation

LAARC or             X         X
  LCCCA

Question                                X

Postpone

Provide proof                                     X

Compare and
  contrast

                     Weitz,
                  Castleberry,
Objection-            and
Handling             Tanner
Technique            (2001)

Direct denial          X

Compensation           X

Third party or         X
  feel-felt-
  found

Indirect denial        X

Pass up                X

Boomerang or
  translation

LAARC or
  LCCCA

Question

Postpone               X

Provide proof

Compare and
  contrast

Table 2. Examples of Face-Wants and Sociality-Rights Effects
in Sales-Representative Responses to Buying Objections of Customers

                                                Example Responses
                                                to the Objection
                      Face-Wants                   That's Very
                      Management             Expensive. Though" (a)

Personal or       Threatening quality     [-QF] "You think it's
  independent       face wants              expensive?"
  perspective
                  Tending quality face    [+QF] "I understand why you
                    wants                   say that. but I'm sure
                                            once I make it
                                            clear what this cash
                                            machine can do for you,
                                            you'll see that it's
                                            well worth the price."
Social or inter-  Threatening social-     [-SIF] "Grocery stores have
  dependent         identity face           already purchased and are
  perspective       wants                   using this product."
                  Tending social-iden-    [+SIF] "7-11 felt that way
                    tity face wants         too, but found the value
                                            added more than made up
                                            for the initial expense."

                                               Example Responses
                                               to the Objection,
                   Sociality-Rights        I Really Don't Have Room
                      Management           for It in My Stores" (b)

Personal or       Threatening auton-     [-AUT] "I won't accept that."
  independent       omy rights
  perspective
                  Tending autonomy       [+AUT] "You're right. but
                    rights                 that isn't a permanent
                                           situation."
Social or inter-  Threatening associa-   [-AS] "This will be a
  dependent         tion rights            different flavor
  perspective                              Peace Pop."
                  Tending association    [+AS] "I understand. What I
                    rights                 need to know is how I can
                                           help you justify making
                                           room for it, you know."

(a.) These customer objections and sales-representative responses are
based on an interaction between a cash-machine sales representative
and the president of convenience-store franchise from the 1989 Inc.
Magazine videotape "Dealing With Buying Objections."

(b.) These customer objections and sales-representative responses are
based on transcripts of an interaction between a sales representative
for an ice cream vendor and a purchasing manager for a grocery store
chain from the 1989 Inc. Magazine videotape "Closing the Deal."