Stop Using This Tactic in Your Prospecting Emails
There’s a specific tactic I see in far too many prospecting emails that always turns customers off.
These emails usually start with a standard product pitch. A few sentences about what the company does. A sentence or two trying to link their solution to a problem I might be experiencing.
But then they end with a line like this:
“Are you opposed to learning more?”
“Would you be against me sending you a proposal?”
“Are you opposed to bringing on new, high-ticket clients?”
This approach is what some sales trainers refer to as “going for the no”.
The idea is simple.
According to behavioral research, people feel safer saying “no” than “yes.”
Saying “no” feels protective. It lowers the stakes and puts us back in control. It’s the same logic Chris Voss talks about in Never Split the Difference; that, in a negotiation, every question designed to solicit a scary “yes” answer can be modified to achieve the same outcome by encouraging the other person to respond with a more comfortable “no”. For example:
Yes-framed: “Would you be willing to compromise on your demands?”
No-framed: “Would you be opposed to finding a middle ground here?”
In theory, it makes sense.
But here’s the problem: Most salespeople use this technique the completely wrong way.
You Feel Clever, but the Buyer Feels Cornered
Most of the time, when a rep asks, “Are you opposed to learning more?”, they’re not giving their customers a real choice. They’re trying to paint them into a psychological corner where the easy “no” gives them the consent to continue their schlocky sales pitch but saying “yes” makes the customer seem foolish or unreasonable.
It’s a logic trap disguised as permission. And traps don’t create safety. They create suspicion.
Buyers are smart. Many of them, especially senior decision-makers, have seen every sales trick in the book. And when they sense you’re not being direct or respectful in how you engage them, they disengage fast.
Instead of lowering their resistance, the “go for the no” phrasing actually triggers it. It feels like they’re being manipulated into agreeing to something they haven’t really opted into.
Think about how these kinds of questions land in your buyer’s mind.
“Are you opposed to learning more?”
Sounds like: You’d have to be irrational not to agree to this.
“Would you be against me sending you a proposal?”
Sounds like: I’m hoping you feel guilty saying no to something reasonable that I’d put effort into.
“Are you opposed to bringing on new, high-ticket clients?”
Sounds like: You clearly don’t care about your business if you say no to this.
That’s not how you create dialogue.
That’s how you create defensiveness.
As a buyer, I want to feel:
- Like you’ve done your homework
- Like I’m in control of the conversation
- Like you’re asking for a real decision, not trying to out-psych me.
When your sales motion relies on cheap tricks, you undermine trust before it’s even established.
Good Psychology Still Needs Good Timing
Let me be clear: the concept of “going for the no” isn’t completely broken.
In fact, when used intentionally and appropriately, it can be disarming in a helpful way. It can take the pressure off. It can reduce anxiety. It can make buyers feel safe saying “not now” without shutting the door forever.
The effectiveness of this technique hinges entirely on context.
When used in cold outreach, especially without prior relevance or rapport, it feels presumptuous.
But when used with nuance, in moments where a buyer is unsure, disengaged, or avoiding risk, it can become a powerful way to lower defenses and open up the conversation. Let me show you what I mean.
The Right Way to Use “Go for the No”
Here are a few examples of how to use this tactic the right way in situations where buyers are stalled, hesitant, or simply undecided (without sounding like you’re trying to win a psychological face-off).
1. Disarming Follow-Up After Disengagement
“Would it be crazy to revisit this in Q3?”
“Are you still opposed to exploring this path, or has anything shifted on your side?”
These lines work because they remove pressure. You’re not forcing the buyer to “opt in” again—you’re simply assessing whether the customer is legitimately interested in continuing the conversation, while giving them an easy out. There’s no manipulation—just honesty.
2. Revisiting a Known Objection
“Are you still against bringing on a partner to help with this?”
“Last time we spoke, you felt our solution was valuable, but you were focused on other projects. Would it be a mistake to revisit that now?”
This approach is rooted in context. You’re referencing something they previously said and asking if that objection still stands. It’s respectful. It’s professional. And it creates space for them to re-engage without losing face.
3. Testing for Internal Resistance (Without Being Pushy)
“Would your executive team push back if we explored this direction?”
“Might there be anyone internally who’d be opposed to this shift?”
Rather than asking directly who the blockers are, you let your buyer reflect on internal friction in a safe, exploratory way. You also demonstrate that you understand the political and emotional terrain of enterprise buying decisions.
BONUS: Clearing the Path to a No—So You Can Get to an Honest Yes
“If it turns out this isn’t a fit, are you comfortable just telling me no?”
“Is it fair to say that if you don’t feel my solution is right, we won’t move forward?”
This approach is especially powerful because it creates psychological permission to say no, a critical factor I’ve discussed in the past when it comes to avoiding the deal-killing power of reactance (the intrinsic desire to push back or resist when we perceive that our ability to choose freely is being restricted). Research shows that buyers who feel safe to walk away are more likely to lean in and explore. You’re lowering the threat level of the conversation and inviting a more real exchange.
A Better, More Reliable CTA
Still, if you’re prospecting, especially cold, there’s a better way to close your outreach. One that’s grounded in data and feels more natural to the buyer; interest-based CTA’s. For example:
“Would you be interested in learning more?”
While in this case you’re going for the “yes”, the level of commitment is lowered by the use of the “interest” factor. In fact, a study of 300,000 emails by Gong showed that interest-based CTA’s outperformed open-ended and even specific asks. Why? Because it respects the buyer’s autonomy. It gives them room to opt in without being coerced. And it’s plain, honest language that’s easy to say “yes” to without feeling like you’re walking into a trap.
The “go for the no” tactic isn’t inherently bad. But most salespeople use it at the wrong time, in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. If you want to use this technique effectively, ask yourself:
- Am I trying to create space, or back the buyer into a corner?
- Do I have enough relationship equity to ask this question?
- Does it feel like an invitation—or a test?
Because sales isn’t about tricking people into saying “yes.” It’s about helping them feel safe, respected, and understood enough to explore what “yes” might look like.
If you want to create more conversations and close more deals, don’t game your buyers. Engage them.
The best salespeople don’t just sell the way they buy.
They communicate the way people want to be heard.
PS – Did you find these approaches helpful and want to learn more like them? Check out the popular Cerebral Selling Sales Academy training program!
