The questions in which the farmer is interested— in order of importance—would probably be these : "Do I need a silo?" Then, "What type of silo is best for my purpose?" "What will it cost me?" "Could I get another kind of silo that would give me almost as good service but would cost me much less —enough less so that the saving would more than make up for the difference in quality?" "If not, where and how can I get, at the least cost, the silo which is best for me?" As a rule, it is best to talk price after a strong feel ing of need for the product has been aroused. Then it is usually best to make the talk about the price short and forceful. In the letter quoted in Section 5 the discussion of cost in the middle of the letter makes comparatively more difficult the task of arousing the feeling of need for any silo. In the fourth para graph, the statement, "Then arose the question of what kind to buy," is an unfortunate expression of the problem. It would have been much better to say, "Then arose the question of what silo would be best to have"; for then the reader's attention would have been 'directed to the usefulness of the article instead of to the cost. The writer's attitude is wrong. Again he apparently feels that the cost is all-important to the addressee and therefore talks low cost in the heart of the letter. A vision of the cost often tends to kill interest. Anticipation of the pleasure and the profit to be gained from the use of the product or the service, createstnterest. A correspondent's lack of consid: eration of this selling principle is a frequent cause of failure.
8. Holding the reader's viewpoint in a slight appreciation of the reader's point of view would prevent any one from writing a letter like the following: Dear Sir: If a man should come along the road some day while you were plowing corn and say to you: "If you will pay me $400, I will take 10 acres of your corn before it matures and make 20 out of it for you and do that every year for the rest of your lifetime." Would YOU consider that a good business proposi tion? The farmers up in my part of the state think so, for there you can see a silo on every farm, and that's a good grain country, too. They don't need to raise stock to make their farms pay a profit.
Why do they do it? Because they see the scarcity of meat; they know that with the old methods of feeding they could not raise cattle at a profit; they could not keep one head of stock to every acre of ground without the silo: they could not build up their land without keeping more stock.
If you contemplate building a silo, it will be money in your pocket to read the catalog sent you, and to study carefully the advantages of our method of construction. Good con struction is essential to a production of the greatest percent age of good silage and at the least cost per ton.
Would you be interested if you knew that we could show you how to make this silo earn its cost before you pay us for it? Shall we come and talk this over with you? Name the time and we will be there or send our local agent.
Yours very truly, Paragraph 4 in this letter clearly implies that the farmers in the correspondent's part of the state are more wide-awake than those in the addressee's terri tory, and the next two paragraphs serve only further to impress the idea that the writer considers the farm ers in his part of the state "wise-acres." From the reader's point of view, this letter is weak from beginning to end, and its faults are easily dis cernible. For instance, the first three paragraphs would arouse the suspicion of the average farmer and make him bristle with caution.
This "point of contact" method would have been effective if it had been properly used, for by means of it a writer can present his subject concretely and can make a definite appeal to the reader's self-interest. But this letter suggests that the writer is interested primarily in getting the best possible price from the farmer. The statement of the benefit is too strong. We have here another illustration of the wrong appli cation of a good principle.
9. Examples of other selling selling rules which are usually lacking in letters that fail are the following: "Lead the reader to do voluntarily what you want 4 him to do." According to this rule, the writer must make his appeal in the body of the letter, and this is where it really should be made. If the correspond ent does this, he will not find it necessary to make strained attempts at the end of the letter to get action. Any straining for effect is always apparent to the reader and causes antagonism. "Do it today. Don't delay another minute." Such exhortations and all their variations are seldom so effective as something like this: "These are the facts in the case. Now it is up to you. Your machine will be shipped the day your order reaches us." That was the ending of a successful letter to the prospective purchaser of a typewriter. The letter consisted almost solely of a clear statement of facts, and each fact explained a distinctive feature of the ma chine. The addressee in this case wanted a machine, but was undecided as to which make he would buy.
He was interested in facts only. These facts led him to want this machine, and without being urged he sent in his order voluntarily.
"Be a good listener" is another important selling principle that is just as applicable in sales corre spondence as it is in personal salesmanship. It in volves anticipation of exactly what the reader would say if the writer were talking to him instead of writ ing a letter. The great advantage of oral salesman ship as compared with sales correspondence is that the salesman can answer directly every question as soon as the prospect asks it. But the sales correspondent can and must be a good "listener" in imagination. Many letters fail because the writer has not realized the importance of this requirement.