Daniel Pink argues that pitching with a question works better than traditional pitches when your facts are strong. Reagan's "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" made voters generate their own reasons to agree. But if your evidence is weak, the audience will pick it apart.
The elevator pitch? That's a little 20th century. Today, if we want to spread our ideas, sell our cause, or improve the world, we need some new ways to pitch. It's 1980 in America. Ronald Reagan is running for president against Jimmy Carter, who'd been elected in 1976. The economy stinks, and Reagan must convince voters that it's time to kick Carter out of the White House. He could pitch with a statement. Your economic situation has deteriorated deteriorated in the last 48 months. But instead, he asks a question: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? Political magic. But why? Questions, unlike statements, elicit an active response. They get people's wheels turning. That's why researchers at Ohio State University have found that when the facts are clearly on your side, question pitches are really effective. By getting folks to do a little work, To chew on the facts, people often come up with their own reasons for agreeing with you, which they believe more deeply and adhere to more strongly. But beware, when the supporting facts are weak, question pitches have the opposite effect. They get people actively evaluating the evidence, which can lead them to their own reasons for disagreeing with you. So, when the facts are strongly on your side, pitch with questions. When they're not, Get some new facts.
