WHEN I was active in events management before it was cut short by the pandemic, I used to offer two pricing schemes to our market — the early bird rate and the regular rate, aka the procrastination fee. The difference between the two is about 25 percent. It was a hefty price difference compared to what my competitors were doing at 10 percent.

I charged a half-day public benchmarking session organized in a five-star hotel at an average of $120 early bird rate per participant.

The rate varies depending on the caliber of our subject matter experts and the organizations they represent. The more experienced they are and the bigger their corporations, the better they command an extraordinary interest from people who want to learn their best practices.

The early bird offer attracted around 80 percent of participants, even if they were required to pay more than one month before the actual event. After one month, the early bird rate became a regular rate or $150 plus per participant, except that there was no more chance for organizations to still register for the higher fee.

So, what makes the early bird public seminar fee a much-desired proposition for me? It allowed us to lock in a deal with those hotels, as they would only accept pencil bookings until you pay a sizable downpayment.

More than that, an early bird rate provided us with a positive spin on our marketing efforts. Pay early and secure a better deal. On the other hand, the regular rate, aka the procrastination seminar fee, is presented as a bad choice for anyone's budget. This scheme is common in many organizations selling public learning events.

There's nothing new to it. But what's the psychology behind this?

Framing effect

In 1981, cognitive scientists and psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman explored how people make their decisions. Their research focused on how the respondents make a choice. Respondents were asked to choose the best treatment out of two options for 600 patients suffering from a deadly disease in a hypothetical life-and-death situation.

Treatment A was chosen by 72 percent of the respondents because it offered to save 200 lives while it downplayed the fact that it could also result in 400 deaths. On the other hand, Treatment B offered a 33 percent chance that no one would die compared to the 66 percent chance of death. The framing of the question for the respondents was:

Treatment A was done in a positive manner and highlighted to save 200 lives, while Treatment B, presented in a negative manner, would result in 400 deaths.

This positive framing has been repeated in many situations and yielded similar results. Similar to the pricing scheme of my public benchmarking seminars, there was another study done in 2009 when researchers got 93 percent of PhD students who registered early when a penalty was to be imposed for late registration, except that I don't use the word "penalty."

In another context, whenever I handle a management seminar, the moment I see people losing their eye contact with me, I would normally use positive framing. Instead of berating the person with a short attention span than a goldfish to listen to every word I say, I would ask him questions like:

"David, would you agree with my statement? I'm sure you've a different opinion."

No, I don't use an accusing, close-ended question like: "David, are you listening?" That's too childish, if not too blunt. I know that I could be wrong at times, as people who appear to be not listening are the same people who ask difficult questions, which I welcome anyway.

They, too, were deep in thinking so much that, at times, they resorted to validating my statements with those they could find on the internet.

Being cordial

We can't go wrong by being positive all the time. From national or global events to our own private stories, it's always easy to get our own way with people if we use the most diplomatic words in our conversation. At times, it can distort reality that it puts us into being misinterpreted.

That's why it's best to put ourselves in the shoes of the other party. It depends much on their personality, but being cordial is at the top of our list of how to convince people. Rather than stroll on a rough road, consider talking to your spouse when you think she's not in the mood to cook for you.

"Good morning, Honey! I'm hungry. This is my three-day straight eating oatmeal and cereals. Would you like to prepare the best breakfast that you've perfected for me?"

Rey Elbo is a business consultant specializing in human resources and total quality management. Contact him on Facebook, LinkedIn, X, or email elbonomics@gmail or via https://reyelbo.com