Comparing offers: do the easiest criteria to assess take precedence?
In high-value-added selling, describing an offer's strengths does not guarantee that the customer can evaluate them. The management question is precise: how can an easily compared criterion be prevented from overshadowing an important but less readily interpretable advantage?
What the literature establishes
Christopher K. Hsee (1996, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) demonstrates experimentally that preferences can reverse depending on whether options are evaluated separately or jointly. His explanation concerns attribute evaluability: a characteristic that is difficult to assess in isolation can carry more weight when comparison becomes possible. For selling, this suggests that a well-documented feature is not necessarily one the customer knows how to judge.
The benchmark that makes an advantage interpretable
Christopher K. Hsee, George F. Loewenstein, Sally Blount and Max H. Bazerman (1999, Psychological Bulletin) review preference reversals between separate and joint evaluation. Their analysis clarifies the role of knowledge that helps people put an attribute into context: without a benchmark, a technical value may convey little useful information. The commercial task is therefore not merely to supply a figure, but to make its basis for assessment explicit.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that every proposal should include a comparison table. Yet these studies do not establish that comparison always gives greater weight to criteria relevant to actual use. It may also highlight a measurable difference of limited operational importance: making a comparison easier does not establish its relevance. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not demonstrate
These studies examine judgements and preferences in experimental settings, not the results of sales teams in Sion. They do not establish that adding a benchmark to a proposal increases signed contracts or improves customer profitability. In professional purchasing, regulatory requirements, operating constraints and formal selection criteria can also strongly shape evaluation.
A practical check in Sion
As part of SHR — Swiss Human Resources' « Vente à forte valeur ajoutée » programme, an exercise in Sion could focus on a difficult-to-assess attribute: hydropower equipment availability, response time in healthcare, water consumption of a viticultural system or downtime of an Alpine tourism installation. Over four weeks, randomly allocate comparable opportunities to either the usual proposal or a version that adds a documented benchmark for that attribute and explains its connection to the customer's use, without changing price or scope. Before the decision, ask the same open question — “What does this characteristic mean for your operations?” — and measure, in each group, the proportion of answers that correctly explain the benchmark and its operational consequence, using a predefined assessment rubric. This check measures understanding of the offer, not an assumed increase in sales. To go further: explore the High-Value Selling training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: High-Value Selling in Sion
- high-value selling
- Sion
- research
- training sion