13285: Two. Not Three.

Hey there, hero!

Simon Sinek recently reminded me of a story I’d heard for years: two, not three.

Ben Prober, a successful shoe salesman, found that fewer choices made the decision about which shoes to buy easier.

In the 1950s, he limited customers to two pairs of shoes at a time, taking away a pair if the customer wanted a third. This idea connects to a psychological principle: more choices can overwhelm us, making decisions slower and less satisfying.

As a performer or writer, when you’re building a character, think about this. Instead of layering on every possible choice or detail, focus first on just a few key traits or decisions.

(As noted in the episode, this can also work for hamburger joints.)

In this episode, we discuss narrowing down your options can help you connect with the role more quickly and easily. Too many choices can delay the crafting of the character, while fewer, stronger choices can make it feel sharper and more real.

Have you heard a version of this story? Do you overwhelm your contacts sometimes with too many choices? Do you feel that way sometimes yourself? Let me know in the comments below.

ANYTHING YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT IN THE PODCAST? EMAIL ME AT [email protected] and let me know.

SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts | YouTube Music | Spotify | Pandora | Amazon Music | iHeartRadio | TuneIn/Alexa | Podcast Index | Podcast Addict | Podchaser | Pocket Casts | Deezer | Listen Notes | Player FM | Overcast | Castro | Castbox | PodFriend | Goodpods

Want to be a better VO talent, actor or author? Here’s how I can help you…


Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I use a similar technique when coaching students to develop their character-building for VO. It’s a framework that breaks the character into 4 areas, each of which is a 2-option choice based on a vocal characteristic. It definitely takes away the paralysis introduced by having too many options, and lets the creative process fill in the rest.

  2. a good idea here. I was taught to give three options “A, B, or C”. “C” is cheap but not quite enough to fill the ask of the client. “B” is the choice you expect to be the balance of your best answer to the need. “A” is the best answer to their need but will likely push the budget button for the customer. I dropped “C” some time back because why offer something that is not going to get the job done? So, I very much agree with the two not three. However, you must do the needs analysis to find out what the customer is after before making recommendations. Often the first thing out of a potential customer’s mouth is “how much will this cost” before they have seen the why that is involved.

  3. When I was selling houses in Florida, my boss told me to limit the number of houses you show a client to 3 per visit, because any more than that and they don’t remember which house had what they liked and which one they hated.
    And I know restaurants where there are what seems like hundreds of choices hurt my head.
    I think limiting the choices offered is a grand idea in any situation.
    As always, David, thank you for giving me things to ponder.

  4. There are studies of making choices in the behavioral sciences. A recent book, The paradox of choice by psychologist Barry Schwartz can be instructive. The most well known study was known as the ‘Jam Experiment’ wherein shoppers were offered taste samples of 24 jams one day and six on another. The larger array drew the most shoppers but the smaller array sold more jam.

    While research has shown optimal numbers between seven and twenty four, it can be agreed that benefits, especially for the salesman, begin to deteriorate after two. Perhaps the most concerning factor the one who thinks “the more the merrier,” should consider is that a wealth of choices can become a burden to the buyer; who is then likely to blame someone other then themselves.

    Then there is the “Iron Triangle.” Good, Fast, and cheap; pick two (or forego one.) The mitigating factor is that the project must produce a customer acceptable end product.