Quote from Anon on May 5, 2022, 9:04 am

That's an interesting message :D

- He apparently wants to have access to the paid content, without having to pay the regular fee anymore.
- He also provides a reason why he is not really able to pay you any further.

So far so good, in itself it's perfectly okay to ask for something like this, and the choice is on the other side.

 

What I find manipulative about it

- He doesn't really ask you.
There is no question mark and explicit - "would you give me access even though I'm not paying anymore because I go through a really harsh time?". Which is a way of debt (and credit) erasing. Instead he acts as if his proposal of a "gentlemens agreement" (that only benefits him) were already a given reality that you agreed to.

- Even more so, when he calls -you giving him what he wants- "our gentlemen agreement fulfilled to your satisfaction", as if -he- would do -you- a favor. That's really bad.

- The subject line even states "after I payed the full amount", while he knows there is no full amount, as there is no lifetime access offered* (credit/debt erasing again, as he pretends he is doing his part, and now you should do yours).

*(as far as I know)

- "I want to continue payments until you feel you have been adequately renumerated"
Since the "adequate remuneration" is the regular fee, this is again debt erasing. It also can be interpreted as the regular fee not being "adequate remuneration".

- Also quite irritating is that he apparently tries to reverse the dynamic of giver-taker again when he tells you "please let me know if you need any additional information".
That's something customer service would tell a customer, and in my opinion there's something slightly dismissive/condescending about it. But -he- is the one wanting something from -you-.

Since he's quite consistent in his attempt to completely reverse the giver-taker dynamic, it makes it look intentional in my opinion, as I don't think he honestly believes he's giving you something by stopping to pay you.

What would have increased his chances

I found the general approach of letting you choose when to end a regular payment an interesting application of the -on your honor gambit- that could be used in a good way.

It would have been better for him if he:

- dropped the manipulative frames and were completely honest about it
- gave you an actual choice (and credit),
- offered something in return (or tried to), and
- makes clear that there is no grudge on his side if you refuse his proposal.

Quote from B on May 5, 2022, 12:30 pm

I agree 110% with Anon. It seems like the kind of email I would receive constantly from the manipulative people I used to work for.

“We can talk when you want if you need additional information” was a constant from these people in their very first email, without even asking me if I could help them. In the end I simply started not responding and blocking them.

So I think the first manipulative negotiation frame is assuming you would say yes.

Also this “reversing the dynamic” manipulation where they fake they are doing you a favor is particularly nasty. I interpret it as a full blown attack, and remember several instances.

Maybe this is the second manipulative frame, i.e. that they are doing you a favor instead of the other way around.

And of course the guilt-tripping: what does the “very expensive divorce” have to do with anything.

And the fact that this guy would probably use (or maybe is already using!) TPM to better manipulate.

I am interested in how to respond. My take:

Hi,

Thank you for your message.

Unfortunately we cannot cancel monthly payments while continuing to provide access to our material; among other reasons, it would not be fair to others who abide by our clear policy and pay in full.

You are free to decide on your end if and when to cancel in line with our cancellation policy, with the understanding that this will end access immediately.

Regards

Edit: to paraphrase Indiana Jones:

Manipulatives. I hate these guys.

I need to become able to shame them as much as possible. If appropriate of course :)

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 5, 2022, 3:23 pm

Hey, big thank you to both Anon and Bel for your thoughts and feedback. Truly couldn't have put it better than you did above.

Initially, I wasn't sure if this was for PU or TPM's paid blog access because of the sender's framing. But, if it's for the blog then, yes, I totally agree with your comments.

Here's my interpretation of what was sub-communicated by this person's email:

Sender:

[Subject Line:] Please cancel monthly installment after I have paid the full amount (gives an order)

Hello--great site & I've learned a lot (emotional value-giving: gives compliments). I appreciate you providing the monthly installment option & I want to continue payments until you feel you've been adequately remunerated (covert frame: fulfillment of the subscription's payment requirements isn't based on the agreement made at checkout, but based on Lucio's feelings now).

However, I am going through a very expensive divorce (provide justification technique), so I need to end payment after I have fulfilled our gentlemen's agreement (manipulative covert reframing: reframes a legal business agreement where Lucio has the power to enforce boundaries in case of a dispute as a "trust-based" agreement where the buyer has more leeway) to your satisfaction (continues covert frame of the payment's fulfillment being based on Lucio's feelings).

Please let me know if you need any additional information (covert requesting + assume the close technique).

Power moves I saw:

• Power scalping: setting a frame of "I have the power to order you to do something and you'll do it" which uses Lucio as a social peg to look more powerful, high-status, and dominant.
• Social exchange manipulation: there's no gratitude, silver medal, or any favor or credit-acknowledgment (which makes this a win-lose).
• "Feelings" and "satisfaction" power moves: reframing a business agreement as a personal agreement supports his "on your honor gambit", but ignores Lucio's boundaries (TPM's business policies on such cases).
• "Gentleman's agreement" power move: if this customer files a dispute now and Lucio has to defend himself, it becomes more of a grey area because "it was an agreement based on trust".
• Payment ceiling power move: creates an imaginary ceiling on a subscription service that has none. Now, what determines what the "full amount" is? If Lucio buys into the sender's frames, Lucio's feelings will decide when the monthly payments end.
• On your honor gambit: the customer sets themself up for a potential judge position and guilt-trip power move on someone that they initially held in high regard (someone they "learned a lot" from and feel has a "great website").
• Covert requesting: requests a favor without directly asking for it or acknowledging it as such.
• Assume the close technique: continues his power scalping of "I have the power to order you to do something and you'll do it (without my even having to ask)."

Happy to be wrong on any of the above.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 6, 2022, 4:46 am

BOOM!

Man, some really impressive messages here, all of you went to the core of this, and beyond.

The initial 2 biggest red flags I was referring to (to which you guys added plenty more):

• "After I have paid the full amount":

Trying to shift the meaning of "full amount" to something more amenable and open to interpretation -ie.: when I feel it's enough-.

As Anon stated indeed the "full amount" is the completion of the billing cycle, no more, no less (it was for PU).

Less than the full billing cycle, it's no full payment.
It may be partial payment, a discount I (kindly decided to offer), an exception, a renege of the agreement on his side... Whatever it is, but it would not be full payment.

Under this frame, anything that happens after also deeply shifts the balance of give and take -social exchange manipulation-.

If I end the cycle as per his request, he'd have no debt and I'd have done no favor because, in his frame, it would be "full amount".

Also, under his frame his request for a favor is not even a request for a favor because he's not asking for a discount or exceptions, he still wants to pay (his version) of the "full amount".

• "Our gentleman's agreement"

This was the biggest in my opinion, the most disempowering to me, and what I'd have pointed out first if I was going to reply

As Ali said, he changes what's a (legally binding) agreement to a "gentleman's agreement".
That's highly disempowering to me because it removes my (coercive) power to pursue delinquent payments -something that I most likely wouldn't do, but that it's still my prerogative-.

If it's a gentleman's agreement he may also decide not to be a gentleman.

Not a stretch to take it one or two steps later, and he may bring the games/manipulation at the gentleman's level as well so that he can also be a gentleman by making me a not gentleman.
For example, he may go for a "poor me, nasty him" with "I told him I'm going through dire straights, but he doesn't give a fuck, he's all about grabbing as much money as possible".

It might be true he's in dire straight

For the record, it might be 100% true that he's going through difficult (financial) times.

In which case, I feel for him and I'd even let him keep the course (but of course there's no way for me to truly know).

And I may be totally open to fulfilling his request (something I've done without replying to his email and removing the course from his account, BTW).

But then, it would have been a lot more honest, eagle-like, and more effective for him to avoid the manipulation (Note: if we're talking about effectiveness only, the manipulation would be more effective with less power-aware folks, but backfire with more power-aware folks).

Quote from B on May 6, 2022, 11:29 am

Thanks Lucio.

So in the end you chose to fulfill his request without replying? If my reading is correct, I am curious as to why you decided to go in this direction without at least pointing out the power moves he used.

I’m asking to better learn myself the way to respond to these kinds of things.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 6, 2022, 4:28 pm

As a caveat:

While the techniques and strategies are generalizable, the reasons why one chooses whether to ignore or confront, (pretend to) agree and go along or fight, are often personality and values-based, so they're not always generalizable.

That being said, my personal decision here was easy:

• If he was telling the truth, I don't need to take his money, so no point in aggravating someone's life when TPM is doing OK
• If he was lying, I don't want him in PU, and fighting to keep someone you don't even want might as well be the peak of idiocy

Big bonus, that approach was also the most time-saving.

Of course there is the downside of "if he was telling the truth, now he has no PU access".
That's true, but it seems like a small downside and still quite fair.
Plus, he still has the chance to get back in touch and ask for it. Given that his initial message, even if truthful, was still disempowering to me, it seems the least he can do :).

Quote from B on May 6, 2022, 4:33 pm

Thank you for clarifying, I agree 100% with your move as the best choice in situations like these.

And this solution has two added bonuses:

- one, it’s going to surface his real request (I suspect he wanted to keep access), but HE will be the one to have to ask now;

- two, you answered with a behavior and not with words: which communicates more power than him, and thus negates his manipulative mirroring more strongly than any word could have.

A very good lesson and example.

With some differences, it seems akin to not recovering fees but stopping work and future interaction with a non-paying guilt-tripping client of mine.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 6, 2022, 4:53 pm

Yes indeed, both great points, Bel.