feddit.org

-3 points

5 months ago

I’m saying they should not get to the point that they walk in the door. If they call, correct immediately.

It should be corrected, by Dad, prior to a call, rather than used as a sales funnel, which is the suggestion.

Honest mistakes happen, but using an honest mistake to purposefully continue to mislead to get them in the door and then correct them is a bait and switch.

report

SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

3 points

5 months ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

-2 points

5 months ago

How do you get them in the door to tell them without the call? Youre advising using an error to your advantage to massage someone to be a client using a bait and switch tactic.

It may not have been thenolan, being a genuine error, but that’s your plan to take advantage of it. If they purposely gave the wrong amount, would it be bait and switch in your view?

Way to go on the straw man, though.

report

SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

7 points

5 months ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

-4 points

5 months ago

I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.

Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.

Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.

Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.

report

SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

4 points

5 months ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

-3 points

5 months ago

Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.

Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.

Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.

You say listen to what youre saying. I did.

If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.

If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things: A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify. A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.

Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.

report