If you call up a woman and say «I sell pots and pans door–to–door. I want to come over to your house» and she says «Come on over," at that moment you know that there is at least a part of her that's interested in pots and pans. There's a part of her that wants to buy them, and there are probably other parts that can't yet fit buying them into her well–formedness conditions for her to actually buy something. If you don't take those other parts into consideration when you make a sale, you get what's called «buyer's remorse.»

I think buyer's remorse isn't regret. Buyer's remorse simply means that the product was not adequately sold, and that the decision to buy it was not fully made. In other words, the product wasn't shaped into something that met all the person's standards. Then later when one of these standards is violated, the buyer says «I should have known better," and that wrecks everything. From then on, the product is an anchor for unpleasant feelings.

We once worked with some people who sold china door–to–door. Their problems stemmed from the fact that door–to–door salesmen are the lowest on the prestige ladder. People assume that door–to–door salesmen will try to fast–talk them into buying overpriced goods. Their china was good and reasonably priced; their customers really wanted the china and bought it. Then when the customers went to work the next day, their friends said «Oh! You fell for a door–to–door routine?» and then they felt cheated.

My proposal was for the salespeople to future–pace that problem away. Immediately after writing up a contract, I would have them say this to their clients: «Look. I've got this contract here and I'll rip it up right now if you want me to. I know that people are going to say 'You bought something from a door–to–door salesman? You got burned.' You either want something or you don't. If you don't want the china, I'll tear up the contract.» At that point you can tear the top of the contract a little bit to give them a thrill. You just look at them and say «A lot of door–to–door people sell overpriced goods. If you want to go out and look around and compare, that's fine. I need to know that you want to buy, and that you are sure you want to. I don't want you to come back to me dissatisfied later on. I want customers to send me other people because they're satisfied with what they bought. I know that some people are going to say that you were cheated, and if that creates doubt in you, it's bad for me. I need for you to be sure enough that you won't spoil my reputation.»

That effectively reframes something that is going to happen in the future. When it does happen, it will now elicit a different response. Rather than «Oh, I'm just another sucker» the person responds «Oh, he told me this was going to happen.» That makes the person even more confident, because the salesperson knew what was going to happen in advance.

When I proposed that idea to the china salesmen, they were scared to death. They thought that they would lose a lot of sales. But that proposal is not only protecting the salesperson, it is protecting the client. If you don't do that for your client, you deserve all the customer dissatisfaction you get.

A lot of salespeople think of themselves as taking advantage of people, but their real job is to protect people. I think that should be an industry–wide reframe. The salespeople who operate that way make much more money with a lot less work, because they get so many referrals. They don't have to try to force people into anything. Many salespeople act like bulldozers, and there are a certain number of people who can be bulldozed. But you get a lot of buyer's remorse from that, and you end up having to work a lot harder.

Reframes are not con–jobs. What makes a reframe work is that it adheres to the well–formedness conditions of a particular person's needs. It's not a deceptive device. It's actually accurate. The best reframes are the ones which are as valid a way of looking at the world as the way the person sees things now. Reframes don't necessarily need to be more valid, but they really can't be less valid.

When the father says «Oh, my daughter's just too stubborn» and you say «Aren't you proud that she can say 'no' to men with bad intentions?» that's a really valid way of looking at that situation. At another time and place, that father would actually look at it that way and be proud of her, but he didn't think about it until you brought it up.

You can't reframe anything to anything else. It has to be something which fits that person's experience. Saying to that father «You should like your daughter's being stubborn because that means she's a liberated woman» probably isn't going to work with him. You have to find a valid set of perceptions in terms of that particular person's model of the world.

What reframing does is to say «Look, this external thing occurs and it elicits this response in you, so you assume that you know what the meaning is. But if you thought about it this other way, then you would have a different response. Being able to think about things in a variety of ways builds a spectrum of understanding. None of these ways are «really» true, though. They are simply statements about a person's understanding.

The six–step model of reframing makes the assumption that there's a part of you making you do what you don't want to do, or a part stopping you from doing what you want to do. That's a big presupposition. However, that's one way of describing a difficulty, and usually you can organize your experience in that way. You can make any difficulty fit the six–step model. That description can always be taken as accurate, because something is producing the difficulty.

Sometimes it's more convenient to start out making completely different assumptions. You can act as if the difficulty is that two or more parts are in conflict. Each part has a valid function and a valid way of accomplishing its function, but they step on each other's toes. So it's not that one part is «making you do it»; it's that two parts are each doing something useful, but the ways that they are doing it conflict with each other.

For example, have any of you ever tried to work and not been able to? Is the following experience familiar? You sit down to write a term paper, fill out your insurance forms, or whatever work you have to do. Your work is in front of you, and you have congruently decided that you're going to do it during the next hour. You pick up the pen and you look at the paper. You begin to write and a little voice comes in and says «Hey, baby, want a beer?» «I wonder what's on television?» «Nice day outside; it's sunny.»

Now, the question is, do we describe this situation of not being able to accomplish something as a result of a part that stops you? Or do we describe it as a situation in which you have two parts: one that wants to go out and play, and one that wants to work?

Work and play are both valid functions, and most people also have valid ways to achieve those functions. But if both parts go about doing their jobs at the same time, neither of them can function well. Neither can do their job as well as they could if they had some way of jointly organizing their behavior to get the outcomes that they both want.

Describing it in this way can be much more useful than to assume that the problem is the result of a single part. Either description can lead you to the same outcome. It's a question of efficiency. Sometimes you can get good results more expediently and more quickly if you presuppose two parts.

One indication of there being two parts to reframe is if the inverse of the problem also occurs. How many of you have gone out to play for the day and suddenly a little voice inside said «Your taxes aren't done.» «The house isn't clean.» «You should have written that paper first.» This lets you know that each part interferes with the other.