0019-8501/01/$–see front matterPII S0019-8501(00)00103-6

Industrial Marketing Management

30

, 637–643 (2001)© 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

Recontextualising Sales Resistance

A Response to Hunt and Bashaw

Colin ClarkTrevor Pinch

This paper evaluates Hunt and Bashaw’s two-dimensional clas-sification of sales resistance into “objections” and “counterargu-ments.” We use data of real-life selling encounters to show thatthere often is an “implicit” phase of sales resistance that problem-atizes both the distinction and the effectiveness of Hunt andBashaw’s analysis of objections and counterarguments. We alsoshow why the method of offering distractions is likely to be of onlylimited value in dealing with counterarguments and suggest thathumor as a distraction tool works rather differently to the way thatHunt and Bashaw propose. Finally, we offer some brief recom-mendations for how recordings of real-life sales encounters couldbe analyzed to further contribute to our understanding of the sell-ing process. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

In their recently published paper [1], Hunt and Bashawseek to extend the scope of sales resistance (defined as“anything that prevents the salesperson from moving the

customer or prospect further along in the buying/sellingprocess”) (p. 111) by differentiating counterargumentsfrom other forms of objections. While objections “occurbased upon what was stated by the salesperson in the dia-logue between the salesperson and the buyer” (p. 111),counterarguments are “articulated . . . when buyers pro-cess information presented by salespeople, which iscounterattitudinal, and attack the basis of buyer’s preex-isting schema” [about the salesperson, the salesperson’sproducts, the selling company, etc.] (p. 111).

Hunt and Bashaw propose that salespeople, in order toimprove their selling effectiveness, should deal with thesedifferent dimensions of sales resistance in different ways.To overcome objections, they cite the three-step recom-mendations contained in much of the prescriptive sales lit-erature: “(1) learn to recognize an objection; (2) understandthe situation surrounding an objection; and then (3) matchthe proper communication technique with the situation tomove the buying/selling process forward” ([1], p. 112). Toreduce counterarguments, Hunt and Bashaw propose thepossible strategy of distraction that, they claim, should en-able a salesperson to “shift the buyer’s focus [of attention]

Address correspondence to Dr. Colin Clark, School of Management and Business,University College Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3DD, UK.

638

from the negative preconceived schema held [by the buyerabout the salesperson, etc.] to the rationale that would sup-port the attempt by the salesperson to persuade the buyer”(p. 116). A variety of possible distractions are proposed,such as humor, coughing, shifting in one’s seat, raisingone’s voice, and reaching for sales presentation materials.

We have conducted research into one of the most com-mon and economically consequential junctures where salesresistance emerges during real-life selling encounters, i.e.,when a prospect does not accept a sale proposed by a sales-person [2]. In this study, the ways in which i) sales resis-tance emerged, ii) was then dealt with by a salesperson, andiii) subsequently was resolved all suggest that the objection–counterargument distinction outlined by Hunt and Bashawmay not always have analytical salience or be prescriptivelyuseful. Our study found that there often was another, moreimplicit, “pre-explicit objection” dimension of sales resis-tance that Hunt and Bashaw do not address. Typically, thisform of sales resistance preceded the more overt types ofnon-acceptances often taken to be objections in the aca-demic and prescriptive selling literature. In addition, thisform of sales resistance also appeared to have a far greaterinfluence on the subsequent course of a selling encounterthan did counterarguments or more explicit objections. In or-der to clarify these points, we will briefly present our study.

SALES RESISTANCE IN A REAL-LIFESELLING CONTEXT

The research examined recordings of 48 telephonesales calls (involving 48 prospects and a sales staff of30). These prospects, who were predominantly membersof the public, had telephoned a British newspaper to ad-vertise their goods in “classified for sale” columns. Dur-

ing these calls, the sales staff would record details ofwhat each prospect wanted written in their advertise-ment, and would then propose a sale by announcing thecharge for that advertisement. Invariably, the charge an-nounced was based on one of the more expensive adver-tisement formats, e.g., those in a “box” or with a “pic-ture-frame” type border and/or for a series of consecutivedays rather than for a single day. In fact, the level ofcommission these salespeople received depended largelyon how successful they were in deterring prospects frompurchasing one of the cheaper (e.g., “ordinary lineage”)advertising formats.

In 34 (71%) of these calls, what a salesperson proposedwas not initially accepted by a prospect. Furthermore, 25(74%) of these prospects did not immediately produce thekind of explicit objections or non-acceptances that are acommon feature of the academic and prescriptive literatureon selling (e.g., “No, I don’t want that, it’s far too expen-sive”); instead, they expressed their non-acceptances im-plicitly. This is evident in Extract 1, taken from our corpusof telephone sales data (S

�

salesperson; P

�

prospect):

Extract 1

1. S: Right, for 3 days advertising your ad will cost you,in total, 70 pounds and 50 pence.

2. (0.9 sec silence)3. P: Mm.4. (1.0 sec silence)5. P: Seventy pounds and 50 pence?6. S: That’s right.7. (0.4 sec silence)8. P: Goodness me!9. (1.0 sec silence)

10. S: That’s a lineage advertisement where your firstword is in bold lettering, and there’s

11. also a line of white space around the ad so it standsout more.

12. P: No. I just want an ordinary advertisement. I don’twant anything special.

13. S: But if you sell on your first day you can ring upand cancel the rest of your ads.

14. That way it’ll cost you much less.15. P: No. I just want an ordinary advertisement, okay?

I’ve always advertised things that way and

Silence is not often golden for salespeople.

COLIN CLARK lectures in marketing communication at the School of Management and Business, University College Wales, Aberystwyth, UK.

TREVOR PINCH is Professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, and Professor of Sociology, at Cornell

University.

639

16. it’s always, always worked for me that way before.17. S: Okay, Mrs. X, I hope it works for you this time

too.[S proposes and P accepts a cheaper form of advertising.]

This sequence contains examples of the three most com-mon forms of implicit non-acceptance: i) silence (lines 2 and4); ii) minimal utterances, such as hesitation (e.g., “erm”),disappointment markers (e.g., “well” and “oh”), minimal ac-knowledgements of or “agreements” to the sale proposed,such as “Mm” (line 3), “right” and “yeah”; and iii) proposal-related questions (line 5). Of the 34 prospects who did not(at least initially) accept the sale proposed, 27 (79%) her-alded their non-acceptance, first of all, with a silence. Of the25 initial verbal non-acceptances that were not explicit ob-jections or rejections, 23 (92%) took the form of one or acombination of the implicit verbal responses outlined above.

Implicit non-acceptances like these tend not to beviewed as being a significant form of sales resistance or,therefore, a serious obstacle to a salesperson. Many au-thors of prescriptive selling literature claim that they are,instead, evidence of a prospect thinking over a sales of-fer, a smokescreen for a “hidden objection”, proof of aprospect’s indecisiveness or timidity, a bluff to extract aconcession from the salesperson, or indications that theprospect is likely to make a purchase but needs convinc-ing about the merits of the offered deal (see, e.g., [3–6]).

However, what the prospects who we studied weremost often doing with such non-acceptances was provid-ing “hints” to the salesperson that they did not want and/or were not going to accept the proposed sale. The basisfor them doing so, we argued, was that these prospectswere adhering to the normative social and interactionalprinciples of propriety and face-saving, etc. [7], that un-derpin the typically delicate and indirect ways in whichnon-accepting recipients routinely decline proposals.

In many interactional situations, implicit hints likethese are recurrently treated by other interactants as beingsufficient enough evidence of a person’s post-proposalresponse being both negative and final (see, e.g., [8–12]).Moreover, these types of non-acceptances are commonly

resolved at an implicit, mutual face-saving level. Indeed,much of the skill (and social obligation) associated withbeing a competent interactant involves being able to rec-ognize and resolve such problems without them ever hav-ing to be expressed in explicit terms. Such a competencycomprises a fundamental way in which interactants can(and routinely do) avoid open disagreement and poten-tial, face-threatening confrontation with one another.

The salespeople we studied, however, unlike in or-dinary interaction, invariably continued to pursue an ac-ceptance to the sale they had proposed. They did so bywithholding from displaying a recognition that any non-acceptance had emerged and by not dealing with what anon-accepting prospect’s hints implied. For instance, inExtract 1, S’s “That’s right” (line 6) in simply confirmingthat P had heard the price correctly, deals only with theliteral content of P’s prior question (line 5), not with whatthat question also suggests—that the price announced forher advertising is too expensive and, thus, is not accept-able.

As a result, prospects would make their non-acceptanceeven more explicit and obvious until the salesperson hadlittle option other than to address the misgivings officially.The first point where a salesperson most often did so wasimmediately after a prospect had produced an explicit non-acceptance (see, e.g., lines 12–14 in Extract 1). The vastmajority of these explicit non-acceptances took the form ofbeing even more perspicuous versions of what a prospecthad previously hinted at. In this sense, the objections (andother forms of explicit non-acceptances) that prospectsproduced at this point appeared to be a by-product of asalesperson’s previous reluctance (or failure) to addressand successfully deal with a prospect’s evident (albeit im-plicit) non-acceptance(s). The very emergence of these ex-plicit non-acceptances also appeared to signal an evenmore dramatic reduction in a salesperson’s chances of ob-taining an acceptance to the sale initially proposed. Nosalesperson in our study successfully overturned any formof explicit non-acceptance although almost every salesper-son who encountered such an utterance attempted to do so.

Implicit nonacceptance is often a highly

influential form of sales resistance.

640

Indeed, only 3 (9%) of the 34 occasions where a prospecthad not initially accepted a sale were resolved in the sales-person’s favor at the level of service she or he had initiallyproposed, and all of these were resolved (usually withsome degree of reluctance on the part of the prospect) dur-ing the earlier, implicit “phase.”

What sequences like these suggest is that, as soon aseven an implicit non-acceptance is expressed by a pros-pect, the sales interaction takes a decisively negative turnfor the salesperson. Because much of the academic andprescriptive selling literature equates sales resistance withovert non-acceptances and explicit objections, etc., thosesalespeople who follow the advice contained within thisliterature and concentrate on attempting to overturn ex-plicit forms of objections and sales resistance may not al-ways be as successful as is commonly assumed. By relyingheavily on this literature as the foundation on which coun-terarguments are distinguished from other forms of objec-tions, and by not addressing the importance of the sequen-tial context within which particular types of salesresistance tend to occur (especially in terms of the influ-ence one form of sales resistance can have on another), theaccuracy and potential effectiveness of Hunt and Bashaw’stwo-dimensional concept of sales resistance may be re-duced, at least at certain junctures where sales resistanceemerges and in certain types of selling situations.

Further research is needed to ascertain whether suchimplicit non-acceptances are as common or consequen-tial outside this tele-sales context and for other junctureswhere sales resistance emerges during a selling encoun-ter. However, an initial examination of data we have col-lected from other types of selling situations (and featur-ing other types of prospects, e.g., professional “buyers”)indicates that implicit non-acceptances, as well as the so-cial and interactional principles which underpin them, arevery common and equally influential.

This can be seen in the following sequence, taken froma recording of a real-life business-to-business field-salesmeeting between the manager of an independent Britishhigh-street retail store (P) and a photographic equipment

salesman (S). S has been describing a promotional offeron a set of camera lenses (“buy six and receive onefree”), which, it transpires, P does not want and does notbuy. S proposes the sale in lines 1–2:

Extract 2

1. S: (. . .) and I wondered whether or not you couldfind, er, six gaps [i.e., on the

2. display shelves in P’s store] for me to give you onefree?

3. (0.5 sec silence)4. S: And –,5. P: Mm.6. S: . . . it’s supposed to be each type of lens . . .7. P: Yeah.8. S: . . . but in view of your stock commitment I will

mix it.9. P: Yeah, no we’re okay at the moment, we’re, we . . .

have got plenty, on those.10. S: You have some more downstairs as well [i.e., in

P’s stock room], have you?11. Yeah?12. P: Oh, that’s right. Yeah. Oh yes. Yes, the shelves are

a problem down there.13. S: Right.14. P: Particularly the lowest one (1.0 sec pause), be-

cause I keep falling over the15. stuff on the floor.16. S and P: [Both laugh] (for approximately 4 secs)17. S: Right. Right, right, right. Erm, other things to men-

tion to you, then, if I may. . . .[S and P move on to another sale.]

Here, P responds negatively to S’s proposed sale byemploying (at least initially) the same implicit methodsoutlined above—that is, silence (line 3), minimal ac-knowledgement (line 5), and minimal agreement (line 7).This sequence also then progresses in almost exactly thesame fashion as in our tele-sales data: In the light of S notdisplaying any overt recognition of P’s implicit non-acceptance(s) and by continuing to pursue the sale (with his“concession” in lines 4, 6, and 8), P produces an explicit

Prospects’ explicit objections may not be as

important as is currently assumed.

641

non-acceptance (line 9). After some additional negotia-tion (which is addressed below), S abandons this sale andmoves on to other things (line 17).

COUNTERARGUMENTS, DISTRACTIONS, AND HUMOR

In re-examining the recordings used in our tele-salesstudy, we found that prospects’ counterarguments almostalways occurred both i) after non-accepting prospects hadproduced an explicit non-acceptance and ii) after a sales-person had then continued to pursue an acceptance fromthe prospect to the sale initially proposed. One such coun-terargument may be seen in lines 15–16 in Extract 1. InExtract 2, P’s counterargument (lines 12, 14, and 15) isalso produced at the same sequential position, i.e., after Scontinues to pursue the sale by questioning whether P in-deed has plenty of lenses (lines 10–11). Regardless ofwhether these counterarguments are attitudinally based,they evidently were produced by prospects as yet another(typically even more explicit and forceful) attempt to per-suade the salesperson to yield to the prospect’s wishes andto desist from continuing to pursue the sale proposed. It isthus difficult to envisage any form of distraction employedby a salesperson at this point in a selling encounter consis-tently meeting with a high degree of success. By defini-tion, a distraction would delay even further what non-accepting prospects, with their implicit non-acceptances,their explicit objections, and their ensuing counterargu-ments, usually have already been striving resolutely to per-suade their salesperson to do. In our tele-sales data, suchdistractions would probably have only compounded thehigh level of exasperation and antagonism many suchprospects evidently felt at this point in the sale.

Hunt and Bashaw also propose that humor may be, rela-tively speaking, a potentially more successful distractionthan the other distractive tools they suggest a salespersoncould employ (“because the distraction is longer and mayalso positively influence the buyer’s negative schema byshifting the previously held negative attitude contained in

the schema to a more positive one”) ([1], p. 116). Althoughhumorous utterances are by no means uncommon at thesepost-sales proposal junctures, the basis by which salespeo-ple and prospects employ this humor does not often seem tobe the result of any distractive quality that humor mayhave. For example, in Extract 2, P’s counterargument (lines12, 14, and 15) is evidently humorous for the participantsthemselves (see line 16). As a means of countering S’s sug-gestion that P may not have sufficient lenses and, more spe-cifically, that there may be some space in the downstairsstock room for the lenses S is attempting to sell, P depicts ascenario in which he has so many lenses in his stock roomthat they are squeezing themselves off the shelves and ontothe floor.

This humorous remark appears to have a decisive in-fluence on S then abandoning his pursuit of the sale: Im-mediately after S and P have laughed together (line 16), Sgives up trying to persuade P to buy his lenses (line 17).P’s humorous utterance may be distractive, and thelaughter which follows it appears, for a few short mo-ments, to temporarily divert these interactants from theissue at hand; however, S’s post-laughter climb-downdoes not seem to be the result of any inherently distrac-tive quality that humor may have. Rather, by laughing atP’s humorous remark, S also affiliates with P’s position.This is precisely what P has been attempting to persuadeS to do and what S, until this point, has been striving toavoid doing. It seems more accurate to suggest that S hasthus been humorously maneuvered into accepting P’slack of interest in the sale. At the very least, S’s laughter,and the implied affiliation embedded within it, appears tobe treated by S as rendering it difficult for him to sustainhis pursuit of the sale.

Further research is needed to ascertain whether the af-filiation inducing quality of humor is a common featureof real-life selling and is as consequential as it seems tobe in this sequence. However, our study of the completefield-sales encounter of which Extract 2 forms a partfound that this prospect (and to a lesser extent, this sales-man) routinely employed humor to manage and resolve a

Objections and counterarguments need to

be viewed in context.

642

variety of interactional problems that emerged duringtheir selling encounter [13]. Whereas these participantsemployed humor to achieve relatively intangible out-comes such as saving face or reducing the other party’sdominance, it was also employed to accomplish specific,economically relevant ends such as refusing to buy (andchiding the prospect for refusing to buy), requesting con-cessions, suggesting that prices were too high, and deal-ing with the after-effects of a deceptive sale. In a largeproportion of these cases, it was the power of humor toelicit interactionally obligating and economically conse-quential expressions of affiliation from the other partythat seemed to be most important, not, in and of itself,humor’s distractive quality.

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES AND ADAPTIVE SELLING

Hunt and Bashaw work within the adaptive selling tra-dition which proposes that successful salespeople arethose who have more detailed knowledge structures ofthe various contingencies that can emerge in a selling en-counter, as well as an ability to adjust to and appropri-ately deal with these contingencies (see, e.g., [1, 14–18]).This is what led the authors to propose the distinction be-tween counterarguments and objections. It also forms thebasis for their framework of nine selling situations de-signed to assist salespeople to anticipate the level of salesresistance they are likely to encounter, and to determinewhat form that resistance might take. Other studies wehave conducted into selling, in providing real-life exam-ples of either the advantages of salespeople engaging inadaptive behavior, or the negative consequences of sales-people not doing so, add indirect empirical support to thisresearch literature (see, e.g., [19–21]).

Although adaptive selling authors recognize that “se-lecting the appropriate sales strategy for a sales situationand making adjustments during the interaction is crucialto successful selling” ([17], p. 105), there has, as yet,been little empirical research within this tradition that has

attempted to ascertain i) the effectiveness of differenttypes of salesperson adaptability during a selling encoun-ter, ii) precisely when a salesperson should make suchadjustments (a point made by Hunt and Bashaw), iii) ex-actly what form such adjustments should take, and iv) onwhat social, interactional, economic grounds, etc., suchadjustments should be made.

One way we suggest researchers may attempt to an-swer such questions and, indeed, enhance our under-standing of how people sell more generally is by analyz-ing recordings of real-life selling and by focusing on thefollowing four factors within these recordings: i) the in-ferences these parties evidently draw from each other’sutterances and nonverbal actions; ii) the underlying so-cial and interactional principles (or “theories-in-use”)they routinely attend to, appeal to, and capitalize on dur-ing their selling encounters; iii) the nature and influenceof the sequential context within which the particular as-pect(s) of selling under scrutiny occur during the encoun-ter; and iv) the impact that the various skills these partiesemploy has on both the subsequent course of a sales in-teraction as well as its outcome. Such a data-driven, “bot-tom-up”, seller–prospect-centred approach, we believe,would help produce significantly more detailed and accu-rate accounts, models, frameworks, and schema of theselling process than is often evident, at present, withinmuch of the academic and prescriptive selling literature.This approach may also help researchers and practitio-ners alike to produce more effective prescriptive adviceabout the particular skills and knowledge structures thatsalespeople need to employ in order to sell more adap-tively and more successfully.

REFERENCES

1. Hunt, K. A., and Bashaw, R. E.: A New Classification of Sales Resistance.

Industrial Marketing Management

28,

109–118 (1999).

2. Clark, C., Drew, P., and Pinch, T.: Managing Customer “Objections” Dur-ing Real-Life Sales Negotiations.

Discourse and Society

5,

437–462 (1994).

3. Beer, M.:

The Joy of Selling.

Mercury Books, London, 1988.

Distractions seem to have limited value as

responses to counterarguments.

643

4. Pesce, V.:

A Complete Manual of Professional Selling.

Prentice HallPress, New York, 1989.

5. Schurr, P. H., Stone, L. H., and Beller, L. A.: Effective Selling Approachesto Buyers’ Objections.

Industrial Marketing Management

14,

195–202(1985).

6. Tietjen, T.:

So You Want to be a Success at Selling?

Video Arts, Watford,UK, 1981.

7. Goffman, E.:

Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behaviour.

Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, 1967.

8. Davidson, J.: Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, andProposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection, in

Structures ofSocial Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis

, J. M. Atkinson and J.Heritage, eds., Cambridge University Press, London, 1984, pp 102–128.

9. Drew, P.: Speakers’ Reportings in Invitation Sequences, in

Structures ofSocial Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis

, J. M. Atkinson and JohnHeritage, eds., Cambridge University Press, London, 1984, pp 129–151.

10. Pomerantz, A.: Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Fea-tures of Preferred/Dispreffered Turn Shapes, in

Structures of SocialAction: Studies in Conversation Analysis

, J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage,eds., Cambridge University Press, London, 1984, pp 57–101.

11. Pomerantz, A.: Pursuing a Response, in

Structures of Social Action: Stud-ies in Conversation Analysis

, J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, eds., Cam-bridge University Press, London, 1984, pp 152–163.

12. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G.: A Simplest Systematics for theOrganisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation.

Language

50,

696–735 (1974).

13. Mulkay, M., Clark, C., and Pinch, T.: Laughter and the Profit Motive: TheUse of Humour in a Photographic Shop.

Humor

6,

163–193 (1993).

14. Weitz, B. A.: The Relationship Between Salesperson Performance andUnderstanding of Consumer Decision Making.

Journal of MarketingResearch

52,

64–77 (1978).

15. Weitz, B. A.: A Critical Review of Personal Selling Research: The Needfor Contingency Approaches, in

Critical Issues in Sales Management:State-of-the-Art and Future Research Needs

, G. Albaum and G. A.Churchill, eds., University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1979, 76–126.

16. Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., and Sujan, M.: Knowledge, Motivation and Adap-tive Behaviour: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness.

Jour-nal of Marketing

50,

174–191 (1986).

17. Weitz, B. A., Castleberry, S. B., and Tanner, J. F. Jr.:

Selling: BuildingPartnerships.

Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Chicago, IL, 1995.

18. Withey, J. J., and Panitz, E.: Fact-to-Face Selling: Making it More Effec-tive.

Industrial Marketing Management

24,

239–246 (1995).

19. Clark, C., and Pinch, T.: The Anatomy of a Deception: Fraud and Finessein the Mock Auction Sales Con.

Qualitative Sociology

15,

151–175 (1992).

20. Clark, C., and Pinch, T.:

The Hard Sell: The Language and Lessons ofStreet-Wise Marketing.

HarperCollins, London, 1995.

21. Clark, C., and Pinch, T.: Establishing and Avoiding Contact in a Show-room Retail Store: A Taxonomy of the Pre-Verbal Body-Language ofBrowsers and Other Shopper Indentities. School of Management andBusiness, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK. (2000).

In prep.

Analysing recordings of real-life selling may enhance our understanding of

sales resistance.