Pester power: is it always bad?

"Pester power" has become one of those marketing terms that strikes fear in the heart of parents, mostly because it translates into whinging, crying, pouting and floor-rolling whenever you pass a display of something sugar-filled or stamped out in cheap plastic.

My husband tries to combat this by telling the kids they can have a "treat" at the store, then amends this to "a fruit treat - any piece of fruit you want" right before we check out. You can imagine how well that goes over.

Can pester power ever be used for good instead of ill? It seems like the eco-folks have enlisted kids to encourage parents to turn off lights, recycle and so on. Yet are there good ways that other companies can use pester power, or does it require having a product or food that parents like anyway ("Please, mummy, can I have the sprouting broccoli spears!")?

Or should we ban advertisers from appealing directly to kids? After all, any advert that claims a cereal is "fun" or a toy is "cool" is not talking to parents - should it be allowed?

Comments

[Paul Carr]

I like your use of my photograph. I never quite thought o fit in this context, but I think it works.

[supermother]

The charmers give loads back. They make people feel good. People seek them out they are such fun to be around. It's a fair trade as valuable as having a Martha scrubbing your floor and more fun.

[j]

ps I will make you a present of my other fave term atm: you know the kind of job where you have to deal with hundreds of tiny trivial irritating issues, all needing attention? I call it "maggot farming". Small, wriggy, annoying, and if you leave them alone too long they will collectively chew a hole in your leg...

[j]

heh heh Lazymummy, nice to see these things being used!

[Lazy Mummy]

Right and Romantic - those are the guys you want on your side and those are most of the "charmers" I know.

Btw, J, I used "diva management" with a colleague recently she loved it (of course, it had to be a "her"). Just wanted you to know so you can track it & see when it comes into the common lexicon, just like "googled". :)

[j]

"It's nice to praise people, indeed, and make them feel good about themselves, but not if you only do it to get something off them."

Oddly enough I think that Sue and Mumof2 agree on this? Sue, where do you see that Mo2 isnt saying exactly that?

She is quite right that being responsive, considerate and good company is something which people find charming, and will reward. Equally, being abrasive and shorttermpered isnt likely to get people anywhere.

We are not really talking Wrong but Wromantic vs Right but Repulsive here (1066and all that). Right and Romantic cavaliers...

[mumoftwo]

Sue, I don't understand how charmers are getting something for free without giving anything. Charm is a transaction: the charmer is charming and the charmed is, well, charmed. The fact that many people are charmed by charmers means that being charmed is of value to them (they like the attention, they enjoy the game, they appreciate the effort). If you don't want to be charmed, simply pay no attention to charmers, and they will cease to be such, by definition!

[mumoftwo]

I didn't think my use of the term 'charming' was so controversial. I think there is a world of difference between someone who fancies themselves as a bit of a 'charmer' and who uses their (often very dubious) charm to get their own way, and someone who is charming in the sense of delightful to be with. We have a woman at work who is incredibly charming, as she is attractive but doesn't flaunt it, very flattering to others without being insincere and is genuinely interested in others and makes them feel special when she listens to them. I fail to see how anyone is being 'had' by being charmed by her; to me, it adds greatly to the work-place to have people like this around. I don't 'teach' my children to be charming but I do hope they learn through trial and error (as Gipsy said) to interact with people in a positive, appealing and open way and are appreciative of the gifts of others; if others then find them charming, all the better.

[Sue]

Ah well, my definition of 'fair' has to differ from yours, SM! It's nice to praise people, indeed, and make them feel good about themselves, but not if you only do it to get something off them.

On the Cav/Roundhead divide - I don't see it as that at all! I see it as perhaps the 'sons of mary and the sons of martha' divide - ie the workers and the shirkers, the pay-as-you-goers and the freeloaders.

Those who think their charm is all the currency they need are freeloaders. Parasites.

Cheats.

[supermother]

Yes, that is probably so although some cultural and religious conditioning might make some people whatever their nature less likely to charm and more likely to be dour.

I am supposedly ENFJ (see http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFJ.html) but not sure if I have charm, whatever that is.

[Lazy Mummy]

Funny that you mention that SM, as I was wondering the same thing, but I think that's too simplistic as I know lots of protestants who are v. charming. As I said earlier, I bet it's more tied in to things like Myers Briggs Type Indicator/personality type.

[supermother]

Is it the old traditional English divide here then between those boring old protestants puritan roundheads and the fun attractive charming catholic cavaliers? I'm in the Catholic camp.
Don't see what's wrong with getting your own way through charm a bit of flattery and being right too.

It's not deception. It's part of how the world works and recipients of the charm love it too. Yesterday I remember at a work thing flattering someone, not particularly deliberately but he was so pleased. I think I made him really happy for a few moments. What's wrong with that? People do get something from it - they enjoy the company of the flattering and charmer. It's a fair bargain. People like to spend time with people like that.

[delilah]

I hope my children all pick up the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they actually look forward to the trip. Charm and a bit of flattery, I think.

[j]

coming in late (have been away)

Sue raises an important point about beibng a manager. Very often, people working for me think their way is right. In fact, I'd be annoyed if they came up with something they knew was flaky. It's a given that we present our best effort with some sincerity.

because I am senior, I get to assess the way forward. Partly I might add new information, or a context they dont have such as wider strategic stuff or legal stuff. What is good I incorporate, what is less good I explain why it wont be happening.

This woprks as I am elected the boss by merit (ie open competition for a post). if I were the boss's mistress then I wouldnt have the credibility to do it. Gipsy is right, leaders have to lead, but only once elected on merit.

This works for children too, as SM says. She doesnt shop much, so she has credibility in not buying pester power things. I do it differently but I try not to treat myself and not them: we all wait for our treats.

I have found that "yes that's lovely, no you can't have it" actually works very well up to age 16 and even beyond.

[Sue]

I think your definition of 'getting your own way' would be my 'getting the right way' - it doesn't matter whose way it is, if it's the right one!

We really can't have a situation where 'my way is the best way' can we, as we would all think that!!!

[Gipsy]

>>Why should anyone of us 'get our own way'

Get our own way implies that it is just handed to you on a plate. Leaders are a necessity in life. Some people are good at leadership, some are lousy. The best leaders are those that can listen to and take input from the people they're in charge of, and ultimately make the right decision based on all the relevant information. Good leaders see through artifice, and know when they're being presented with the truth. We can't all be leaders, but we can all have leadership qualities, and a good leadership quality is to know how to best support the group by getting across the truth as you know it during a decision making process in the best possible way, so that it gets listened to and taken account of.

Those are ideally the best skills that you can teach your children, and I can't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see that there is anything smarmy or exploitative about it.

I really don't understand where you're coming from or what on earth you are talking about Sue. I've dealt with some extremely charismatic and forceful CEO's with none of the bad attitude you get from the likes of Alan Sugar and a ton more money and success because of that. Smarminess or whatever you want to get it doesn't get you to the top. A true leader is confident within themselves, is capable of listening to other people and taking on board what they say but also has the confidence to know when they need to strike it alone and act on their own gut instincts. A true leader treats everyone with respect and is nice to those above them as well as those below them.

[Lazy Mummy]

Or in other words:

Sometimes we should get our own way because we are right and because someone needs to take responsibility for a decision.

Not always, but sometimes.

[Lazy Mummy]

But Sue, there's a fundamental fallacy in what you're saying here, which is the assumption that a compromise is always right/the best outcome, or that a group decision is always the best decision.

Not necessarily true. Maybe from the perspective of group unity and I agree, we've all read the studies/been to the management training that posited that people are more supportive of a decision when they are involved in making it but it also leads to a lot of unnecessary meetings/waffle in many situations. Besides which, if you study group decision making, you'll see that the participants/stakeholders are using their charm/interpersonal skills to influence the group anyway. In fact, people can be just as influenced into making bad decisions by someone who has obnoxious uncharming personal skills as they can by someone who's a charmer. Just a different motivation.

[Sue]

Isn't the issue whether we use charm 'to get our own way'?? If we do, then it's an illegitimate use of charm, and if we don't, then, OK, it's just being 'charming' in a nice sense?

Why should anyone of us 'get our own way', I guess is my basic question? Whatever method we use to get it - eg, charm, flattery, gun to the head, etc!

Thinking about it, I'd say it's actually the 'getting our own way' that I fundamentally object to!! (ie, becuase it implies that somelese does NOT get their own way!) (which is why I only back win-win situations, or take-it-in-turn situations)

[Lazy Mummy]

Oh Sue, please don't start being all intense on definitions. Be a bit charming about this. ;)

From Merriam Webster online:

Main Entry:
charm·ing Listen to the pronunciation of charming
Pronunciation:
\ˈchär-miŋ\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1634

: extremely pleasing or delightful :

Main Entry:
flat·tery Listen to the pronunciation of flattery
Pronunciation:
\ˈfla-tə-rē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural flat·ter·ies
Date:
14th century

1 a: the act or practice of flattering b (1): something that flatters (2): insincere or excessive praise

Two different words; two different meanings and for once the dictionary look-up is faster than me arguing the differences. I agree, one needs to be aware that flattery is a tool others use to get around one, and vice versa. But someone can be perfectly charming and perfectly sincere without trying to flatter or manipulate. The two are not synonymous.

I'm 110% with SM on this one. I've worked for only one person who was utterly charming (ironically a sales guy) but also completely sincere, highly ethical and very competent. It was a delightful experience -far more pleasant than all the other people I've worked for who were equally competent, sincere & ethical but far less charming.

[Sue]

I really do think we have to distinguish very clearly between being nice - pleasant, polite etc - and being 'charming'. 'Charm' is what it says it is 'charm' (a spell, a glamour, etc), something that is INTENDED to decieve the recipient, something INTENDED to allow the charmer to get something for merely the 'price' of charming their target. There is NO fair exchange of value, that is my point - the charmer merely 'charms' (smiles, schoozes, flatters, whatever) and gets their own way off someone, WITHOUT (and this is my essential point) giving anything in exchange (other than their 'charm' - and if you're daft enough to think that of value, well, shame on you)(a la the fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!).

Yes, of course I think busienss transactions - daily life transactions - should be conducted in a polite, pleasnat way - we all know the surly check out person, the grumpy sales assistent (and customer!), who just go round spreading their unpleasantness, BUT that to me is nothing to do with trying to 'charm' someone into doing what you want, for your own benefit, NOT THEIRS. Charm is, essentially therefore, exploitative and parasitic - you GET, but you don't GIVE. That's why its immoral.

As for flattery - well, always check the Qui Bono (is that the phrase?!) Who is actually benefitting?? And as Delilah says, it's very hard to resist a skilful flatterer! After all, isn't the most flattering thing you can say to someone that they're too smart to fall for flattery?!!!!!!

No, I stand by my original premise - if someone wants something off you for their benefit, without any exchange of value, then it's just not on.

[DELILAH]

I think Sue is quite wise to be suspicious. Let's call schmooze by its old name - flattery. Flattery is a very powerful skill. I once accompanied a pair of Eurocrats on a series of meetings with senior officials around Eastern Europe. These two courtiers enlivened their visits by playing a game with each other - to see who could get away with the most outrageous flattery of their hosts. A tally was kept in a notebook and updated in the hotel before dinner, with triumphs of manipulation and foot-in-mouth incidents in different columns. A sum of money changed hands at the end of each visit, depending on the result. Raised with a rather dour Presbyterian attitude to flattery, I was astounded at how readily the victims lapped up the most outrageous compliments, then became overbearing purveyors of advice and criticism to this demon duo (all eagerly accepted, to all appearances); and then how quickly they became dependent on the flatters' opinion, which allowed the flatterers to manipulate things in a direction of their choosing. I have to say I've used this experience to great effect myself. It seems that no-one is immune to flattery; even the seemingly most humble person is vain enough about something - say, their expertise in economics, or their rare book collection - to be vulnerable to flattery, if skilfully done. The only defence is Sue's; a personal reality-check that reminds you that you're probably not as clever/perceptive/well-connected as this chap is telling you you are. Is flattery immoral? Probably, but no more than telling white lies; after all, the recipient of the flattery is better informed about the subject than you are!

[Gipsy]

Oh Sue, I'm going to have to stop replying to you. It is just too emotionally draining living in your world, even just a little bit through your posts.

We all use being nice to get what we want - it is a necessity. Want to earn more money by setting up your own business? No doubt you'll be nice to the bank manager no matter how odious they might be. And so forth. A business lunch or conference? Then you have to schmooze a little, it's unavoidable - it is the small talk you make.

[supermother]

I don't understand the objection. Some people have lousy personal skills, are great at their work but get nowhere. It's how the world works, surely? Others can make others feel good and use that to their advantage - what's wrong with that? It's not deception. It's how you get on at work, with partners and with others.

Obviously if someone is deceiving you, pretending to be single when they're married to get you into bed or saying the products they are selling you are wool when they're acrylic then yes we need our children not to be gullible and see through people like that but if we just mean someone who is charming, they are great people to be around. I would love my children to be seen as charming and good company. There are plenty of ways to persuade someone to do a deal and charm is just one extra arrow in our quivers surely?

[Sue]

Just the reverse, SM! We urgently need to teach our children to realise when they are being schmoozed (ie, taken for a sucker!) and so resist it. The last thing we need in this world is yet more 'users' of other people.

You so often talk good sense (if toughly!) that I'm quite 'shocked' to hear you say what you did. I really, really do feel, deep down in my guts, that people who resort to charm to get their own way are exploitative users who think the rest of the world is 'meat' for them to feed on.

The only 'safe' way to deal with such people is either to stonewall them straight off, and let them know they haven't found yet another sucker in you, or, in some rare instances, to 'enjoy the game'. I think the old fasthioned traditional male would do this sometimes - he could see perfectly clearly that Little Miss Kitten was trying it on, and would, out of his own free will, allow her to (think she was!) get away with it, because he enjoyed the performance (and presumably the sex he got as a reward!!!)