It’s probably the biggest hurdle any B2B vendor has to get over. It’s called the Status Quo Bias, and it’s deadly in any high-risk purchase scenario.
According to Wikipedia, the bias occurs when the current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss. In other words, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We believe that simply because something exists, it must have merit. The burden of proof then falls on the vendor to overcome this level of complacency.
The Status Quo Bias is actually a bundle of other common biases, including the Endowment Effect, the Loss Aversion Bias, The Existence Bias, Mere Exposure effect and other psychological factors that tend to continually jam the cogs of B2B commerce.
Why B2B? The Status Quo Bias is common in any scenario where risk is high and reward is low, but B2B in particular is subject to it because these are group-buying decisions. And, as I’ll soon explain, groups tend to default to Status Quo bias with irritating regularity.
The new book from CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) -- " The Challenger Customer " -- is all about this bias.
So why is the bias particularly common with groups? Think of the dynamics at play here. Generally speaking, most people have some level of the Status Quo Bias. Some will have it more than others, depending on their level of risk tolerance.
But let’s look at what happens when we lump all those people together in a group and force them to come to a consensus. Generally, you’re going to have a one or two people in the group driving for change. Typically, these will be the ones that have the most to gain and have a risk-tolerance threshold that allows the deal to go forward.
On the other end of the spectrum you have some people who have low risk-tolerance levels and nothing to gain. They may even stand to lose if the deal goes forward (think IT people who have to implement a new technology).
In between, you have the moderates. The gain factor and their risk-tolerance levels net out to close to zero. Given that those that have something to gain will say yes and those who have nothing to gain will say no, it’s this middle group who will decide whether the deal will live or die.
Without the Status Quo Bias, the deal might have a 50/50 chance. But the bias stacks the deck towards negative outcomes for the vendor. Even if it tips the balance just a little bit towards “no," that’s all that’s required to stop a deal dead in its tracks. The more disruptive the deal, the greater the Status Quo Bias.
Let’s remember: This is B2B. There are no emotional rewards that can introduce a counter acting bias. It’s been shown in at least one study (Baker, Laury, Williams – 2008) that groups tend to be more risk averse than the individuals that make up that group. When the groups start discussing and -- inevitably -- disagreeing, it’s typically easier to do nothing.
So, how do we move past this bias? The common approach is to divide and conquer -- identifying the players and tailoring messages to speak directly to
The counterintuitive finding of the CEB Challenger Customer research was that dividing and conquering is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It actually lessens the possibility of making a sale. While this sounds like it’s just plain wrong, it makes sense if we shift our perspective from the selling side to the buying side.
With our vendor goggles on, we believe that if we tailor messaging to appeal to every individual’s own value proposition, that would be a way to build consensus and drive the deal forward. And that would be true, if every member of our buying committee was acting rationally.
But as we soon see when we put on the buying googles, they’re not. Their irrational biases are firmly stacked up on the “do-nothing” side of the ledger. And by tailoring messaging in different directions, we’re actually just giving them more things to disagree about. We’re creating dysfunction rather than eliminating it. Disagreements almost always default back to the status quo, because it’s the least risky option. The group may not agree about much, but they can agree that the incumbent solution creates the least disruption.
So what do you do? Well, I won’t steal the CEB’s thunder here, because "The Challenger Customer" is absolutely worth a read if you’re a B2B vendor. The authors, Brent Adamson, Matthew Dixon, Pat Spenner and Nick Toman, lay out step-by-step strategy to get around the Status Quo Bias. The trick is to create a common psychological frame where everyone can agree that doing nothing is the riskiest alternative.
But biases are notoriously sticky things. Setting up a commonly understood frame requires a deep understanding of the group dynamics at play. The one thing I really appreciate about CEB’s approach is that it’s “psychologically sound.” They make no assumptions about buyer rationality. They know that emotions ultimately drive all human behavior -- and B2B purchases are no exception.