The Interests of Buyer and Seller are Never Aligned? Never Is a Long Time.
I have a lot of regard for Jane Bryant Quinn, and I’m hardly alone. She strikes me as sober, educated, and generally wise. Of course, no one’s exactly perfect.
And in those rare cases where sober, educated, wise people don’t get it right, it’s worth asking oneself: how can that be? There are usually instructive answers.
Case in point: her recent column titled, “Should You Trust Your Broker? No, and Here’s Why.” The title says it all. And since she’s talking about brokers—a business few people would argue is a hotbed of trust—she’s not going to get much argument from me or anyone else.
Except when she went uncharacteristically for an absolute statement. In response to a comment, she included this line:
The interests of buyer and seller are never aligned.
Now, I’m not trying to pick on Ms. Quinn. Maybe she meant it to apply only to brokers (though even then, an absolute statement is an absolute statement).
What’s interesting is, she’s not alone. She speaks for a lot of people in that belief: that the interests of buyer and seller are inalterably, fundamentally, and essentially opposed to each other. So let’s just dissect the belief, and leave Ms. Quinn out of it.
Zero-Sum Sales Thinking
To believe that the interests of buyer and seller are never aligned is equivalent, I think, to believing that they’re always opposed. That is, all sales amount to zero-sum games; one party wins, the other loses (except at some theoretical point in the middle discernable only by medieval philosophers and classical economists.)
When you put it this way, it’s an appalling belief. It suggests that:
There’s no basis for negotiation. It suggests all sales are isolated transactional events, with no connection to past or future transactions. And forget about relationships.
Buying and selling must constantly be regulated; that the proper model for commerce is the example of Las Vegas casinos and the Nevada Gaming Commission. It suggests that commerce is the root of most immoral and antisocial behavior.
The only sensible model for corporate buying is through arms-length RFPs, unless you’re lucky enough to be able to use online reverse Dutch auctions. 1+1 must always add up to only 2, and not in a balanced way.
Sales is a venal profession, one in which success is driven by Madoff-like sociopaths and their ability to coldly con decent, aka stupid, people. That to be employed as a salesperson requires the advance sale of your soul.
That’s what I think it means to seriously believe that “the interests of buyer and seller are never aligned.” And a lot of people out there do indeed believe those statements. Some of you reading this may not even note the intended irony in the paragraphs above.
Which I find scary.
Sales and Commerce Are Not the Root of All Evil
Obviously (I hope, anyway) I don’t believe that. Let me get equally hyperbolic about what I do believe. I believe that the relationship between buyer and seller lies at the heart of human development.
When you think the relationship between buyer and seller is positive, it suggests a number of corollaries. It suggests that:
The relationship between buyer and seller is the foundation of all human economic development. It allows division of labor, lower costs, and human interaction.
The economic relationship between peoples is the single biggest driver for human interaction, collaboration, and social development. The alternative is a world of solitary, frightened and impoverished loners, reduced to the kind of clannish societies that only an anthropologist could find fascinating.
Buyers and sellers are the architects of creative relationships, and creative economic solutions at the same time. 1+1 is always greater than two if the commercial parties are doing their job.
Only in an isolated, abstract moment in time are the interests of buyer and seller inalterably opposed. Add one more day, one more transaction, one more referral, one more cross-sale, one more conversation—and you have the possibility of a relationship. Time is the single biggest counter-argument to the ‘can never be aligned’ naysayers.
Back to Ms. Quinn for a moment. How can a sober, educated, wise person make such a sweeping, and bogus, claim? A brief slip in focus?
Unfortunately, I think she’s saying that the brokerage business is so close to untrustworthy that she honestly doesn’t see much difference between reality and the absolute statement she made. And you know what? I wouldn’t argue the point with her. I’ve heard tons of horror stories too.
But don’t let that drag you down. Don’t let the predominantly flawed belief system of one industry drag you down into believing that buyer-seller opposition is a law of nature.
It’s not. But belief in the impossibility of alignment can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don’t believe your way into impoverishment.
Charlie, I’m thinking we could expand your premise "the interests of buyer and seller are often aligned" to include other potentially collaborative combinations as well:
–the interests of directly competing companies (not in an antitrust way of course)
–the interests of complimentary companies
–the interests of parents and their teenagers
–the interests of opposing political parties and candidates
Etc, etc, etc.
Sorry, before you English majors come down on my wee pointy head: I should have written "complementary" instead of "complimentary."
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the very right extension of the idea.
(And nice pre-emptive strike on the comple- , I had noted that too).
Hello Charlie, thanks for sending me the post. To attribute such view to me,
even indirectly, is a bit much, but I know you knew that. No problem. I’ll remain a skeptic.
Thanks for calling Ms Bryant on her statement. I’m am sure she did not mean it as an absolute.
But your point is well taken, there are many that think the buyer and seller are not aligned, ever. I find that sad.
Selling has brought so much good change to the world. Think indoor plumbing, someone had to demonstrate the benefits of a warm place in the morning versus the long trudge to the backyard in the rain. Think Fiber optics which has lead to the ability to consume electronic media like we are today. I could go on.
Some sellers have also been their own worst enemies, stetching the truth, pushing one higher fee product over another. That has nothing to do with selling; rather with the character of the individuals to the transaction. (Just like some buyers abuse sellers through a variety of means like on line bidding for the lowest price, misrepresenting anothers bid and so on).
We have to continue to point out the good that business and sellers contribute. We deliver a lot. The media is all too happy to point out the few bad apples. Thanks for doing your part.
Take Good Care,