The Most Dangerous Emotion

This weekend I got one of John Manley's emails. As usual, it's brilliant. And he inspired me to write this brief post.

In the email, John writes: "Neutrality is worse than negativity!"

He uses a story to illustrate why it is better for prospects to be negative than neutral.

Said another way, it's better for a prospect to be angry at you than ambivalent.

Example: When he was on public radio, Howard Stearn offended thousands of people weekly. They listened anyway.

This reminds me of the danger signs of divorce.

What's the number one predictor of impending divorce?

Is it dislike?

Hate?

No. It's neither of these things.

Rather, it's indifference. This is the most dangerous emotion.

There's almost nothing you can do to save a marriage once a spouse has become indifferent.

The same is true with prospects and customers. If a prospect or customer is angry, you still have a chance of salvaging the relationship. But if they're indifferent, forget it.

You can't do anything to save a prospect or customer who no longer cares.

So, what's better? To be vanilla and never offend anyone? Or to have some personality and risk making a few people angry? You decide.

Comments

[Ken Dix]

I see what you're getting at here, but I'm on the fence on this idea. Because there are times when negativity can turn people off much quicker than being neutral. It really depends on the context and situation.

Howard Stern's verbal attacks could be entertaining (as long as you're not the target), but there were times I stopped listening to him. Sometimes it's just too much.

In regard to prospects/customers, I think it's when they perceive that you are indifferent that you're in trouble.

And by the way, I like vanilla ice cream :-)

[Ryan Healy]

Ken - Thanks for offering some balance. I especially like your statement:

"In regard to prospects/customers, I think it's when they perceive that you are indifferent that you're in trouble."