Why Negative Recruiting Actually Works (If You Let It)

I'm not advocating you to start negative recruiting campaigns. But I am trying to help you understand why it does work - and your role in making sure it doesn't.

Politicians do it. Car salespeople do it. Some of your family members do it.

And, yes. College coaches do it, too.

So why do the people you interact with - or compete with - resort to bad-mouthing you, your program, your crappy location, your outdated facilities, or your record last season? Because (sadly) it works. Who we vote against, the car we don’t buy, and the college coach we don’t commit to is largely due to a negative message, told by someone else, sticking in our head and affecting our opinion.

If you let it.

Most coaches do, but because you’re reading this I’m assuming you might be interested in understanding the science behind why it works so well, and how you can combat it using the same science. It’s fascinating how it all works…and you should understand it as a college coach who is recruiting like your coaching career depends on it (and it does).

First, you need to understand ‘the framing effect’.

There’s a great article on this by Roger Dooley, author of Brainfluence, who cites Benedetto De Martini’s brain research at the University College of London, when it comes to emotional decision making (like the decision making tactic your recruits tend to lean on) and how easy it is to actually manipulate the way they make decisions.

The “framing effect” refers to the difference in response to the same question framed different ways. Is a product shown to be 99% pure good? What about a product shown to contain 1% impurities? Same product, almost the same question, but the way the question is asked may elicit sets of responses that are statistically different. De Martino put this issue to the test, by asking subjects questions while they were undergoing an fMRI brain scan. His questions were based on a simple gambling proposition in which people could choose between a certain option and a gambling option.

Subjects were presented with these choices under two different frames (i.e. scenarios), in which the sure option was worded either as the amount to be kept from the starting amount (“keep 20?), or the amount to be deducted (“lose 30?). The two options, although worded differently, would result in exactly the same outcome, i.e. that the participant would be left with 20… The UCL study found that participants were more likely to gamble at the threat of losing 30 than the offer of keeping 20. On average, when presented with the “keep” option, participants chose to gamble 43 per cent of the time compared with 62 per cent for the “lose” option.

The interesting part is what was happening in the brains of the subjects as they made their choices. In every case, both the amygdala, the brain region thought to control emotions, and the prefrontal cortex, the brain area responsibe for higher level information processing, showed activity. Subjects that exhibited more rational decision-making also showed a greater level of activity in the prefrontal cortex, suggesting that these individuals were better able to balance their emotional response with a rational evaluation process.

So, let me bring this back to your world, Coach:

You have a prospect who loved the visit to campus, connected with your team, and is close enough to home that her parents can come and watch her play when she gets to college. It all lines up nicely.

Until, that is, that jerk of coach from your conference rival mentions that it doesn’t make sense for her to come play for you, because you’re probably years away from winning enough to go to the postseason, and they have a way better reputation as the program where the good players go. Sure, it might be tough to get playing time right away (or ever), but why would she ‘settle’ for just going to play for you when she can see how she does against some of the best talent around on his team?

You know how that end for you. That’s right, your prospect who loved your campus decided to commit farther away from home and risk riding the bench. In other words, she gambled the 30 rather than keeping the 20. Not all the time, of course, but enough of the time so that it has you wanting to keep reading this article.

They frame it their way, and you let them do it. But until now, you may not have known you were letting them do it. Don’t worry, we can fix it.

But first, one more quick explainer on how ‘framing’ is so vital in the world of decision making, who we vote for, and whether or not your top prospects choose you over that jerk down the road you compete with:

Ever wonder why we constantly harp about coaches needing to consistently and methodically tell their story, define their objections and positives, and construct a brand identity for their prospects? This is why.

If you need help, and you aren’t working with us yet, here’s more info.

Three easy to implement strategies to overcome negative framing:

---

These approaches work, but they aren’t some kind of magic potion that automatically puts your prospects or competitor in a trance that makes you invincible. I say that just to emphasize that overcoming (or preventing) negative recruiting requires you to read and react to situations as they evolve, and understand the personalities of your prospect and his or her parents as they go through the process.

That said, here are my recommendations:

1. It’s vital that you frame your potential negative before your competitor frames it for you.

A coach’s general aversion to the negatives of their program (and every coach has them, trust me) right from the start is the thing that ends up hurting them. By not bringing it up, you allow your competitor to define the objection before you do. And