The first number you say decides the whole conversation

A broker told me she’d lost a client over a $495 application fee. She was annoyed about it, because the fee was tiny against what she’d saved them.

Then she walked me through how she’d presented it. The fee came first, on its own, early in the conversation. The savings came later.

Had those been the other way round, I don’t think she loses that client.

What anchoring actually does

The first number someone hears becomes the reference point for every number after it. Everything that follows gets judged as high or low relative to that first figure, even when the first figure has nothing to do with anything.

The classic experiment is almost silly. People spin a wheel that lands on a random number, then get asked an unrelated question with a numerical answer. The random number moves their estimate. They know it’s random. It moves them anyway.

In finance content, this happens every single time you post a figure, and most people are anchoring against themselves without realising.

Where brokers do it backwards

Fees before value. ‘$495 application fee’ lands as a cost with nothing to compare it to. ‘$8,400 a year saved, for a $495 fee’ lands as a ratio, and the ratio is the thing you want them holding.

The rate on its own. Posting ‘5.89%’ with no context invites the reader to compare it to the lowest number they’ve seen anywhere, including the ones with conditions they’d never qualify for. Give the comparison yourself or someone else will.

Borrowing capacity as a ceiling. ‘You can borrow $540,000’ sounds like a limit, and limits are disappointing. ‘You’re at $540,000 today, and here are two things that would move it’ is the same number doing completely different work.

Round numbers. ‘$500,000’ reads as an estimate someone guessed at. ‘$538,400’ reads as a figure someone calculated. The second one is more believable and it’s usually more accurate anyway.

How to use it without being a dick about it

There’s a version of this that’s manipulation, and it’s the version where you anchor against something false. The inflated ‘was’ price. The scare number. The comparison to a lender nobody would use.

That’s not what I’m describing, and in our industry it’s also a very fast way to end up in front of someone from ASIC.

The honest version is just controlling the order. Decide what the reader should be comparing this to, and put that in front of them first, because if you don’t give them a reference point they’ll invent one, and the one they invent will be worse than anything you’d have chosen.

A worked example

Here’s a post I’d rewrite, and it’s a real shape I see constantly:

‘Rates from 5.74%. Get in touch to find out what you could save.’

Nothing to compare 5.74% to. The reader’s anchor becomes whatever number is already in their head, which is usually the most optimistic one they’ve seen on a comparison site.

‘The average variable rate for an existing customer is sitting around 6.4%. New customers at the same banks are being offered closer to 5.74%. If you’ve been with your lender more than two years, the gap is the thing worth looking at.’

The anchor is now 6.4%, which is where they actually are. The 5.74% is relief rather than a target. And the gap has become the subject, which is the only part of this they can do something about.

The short version

• The first number sets the reference point for every number that follows
• Lead with value before cost, and with the real comparison before the headline rate
• A capacity figure framed as a starting position does different work from the same figure framed as a limit
• Odd numbers read as calculated; round ones read as guessed
• If you don’t give the reader an anchor, they’ll make one up, and it won’t be a flattering one

Order matters more than most people writing finance content think it does.