I was asked if I could give an example of a deal which had been “Re-presented”.
Here’s are two simplified (fictional)Â deals:
| DEAL 1 | Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 |
| Product 1 | 15% | 10% | 20% | 15% |
| Product 2 | 25% | 35% | 35% | 25% |
| Product 3 | 40% | 35% | 40% | 40% |
and
| DEAL 2 | Region A | Region B | Region C | Region D |
| Product A | 40% | 40% | 40% | 35% |
| Product B | 35% | 25% | 25% | 35% |
| Product C | 20% | 15% | 15% | 10% |
Which is the better deal for the customer? Deal 1 or Deal 2?
Scroll down for the answer …..
They are the same deal.
Deal 2 looks better because it has been presented with the larger discounts in the top-left hand corner of the matrix. Using this approach certainly placated one customer who it turned out was becoming unhinged by the first discount which met their eye as it was presented in Deal 1: 15%. And then by time they got to the second number  – 10% – they were no longer rational. Conversely when Deal 2 was presented they immediately thought that 40% was a huge improvement over the 15% – even though they knew they were for different products. In their mind they had characterized Deal 1 as 15%, and Deal 2 as 40%. And they thought, in the same way that probably everyone does, that they were a sophisticated, rational and objective purchaser.
