The strongest competitor in a pitch can still be the wrong choice. The problem for the underdog is getting the buyer to notice. Podcast guest Chris Do approaches that problem as someone who advises others on winning business, including a friend repeatedly losing work to a cheaper rival. His perspective matters because the conversation connects a cinematic negotiation with a specific sales intervention he says helped that friend secure a client at twice the competing price.
The thread connecting those stories is not a better presentation. It is a better comparison.
The contest is decided before the pitch
For a smaller provider, the apparent facts can look conclusive. A competitor has a bigger team, more experience, and stronger work. If the client treats those advantages as the only relevant measures, the underdog enters a contest already arranged around someone else's strengths.
Do does not recommend pretending those strengths are imaginary. His argument is more uncomfortable: a seller has to examine what those strengths mean for this particular buyer. The same characteristic that attracts one client can create a problem for another.
That distinction anchors his reading of Air, the film used throughout the conversation. In the scenes he examines, Matt Damon's character, Nike scout Sonny Vaccaro, tries to secure a meeting with Michael Jordan and his mother while Adidas and Converse occupy the preferred positions. Nike is not simply trying to win the presentation. It is trying to become worth hearing.
The scenes are a dramatization, not documentary evidence of every exchange in Jordan's negotiations. Their usefulness here lies in the sales logic Do identifies: the outsider changes the terms of consideration before receiving permission to compete.
The first sale is permission to be considered.
Vaccaro offers a conditional proposition. He will predict the rival meetings. If those predictions are wrong, the family need not meet with Nike. If they are right, Nike gets a chance.
That is a smaller request than asking the family to abandon its preferences. It also puts the claim at risk of being disproved. Rather than demanding trust outright, the character asks the buyer to compare his account with what happens next.
The distinction matters because an underdog's enthusiasm does not automatically create a reason to reconsider. Every bidder wants the work. Wanting it more is not the same as helping the client understand the decision more clearly.
Do's reading concentrates on three obstacles established in the scenes:
- Converse has an impressive roster that makes its offer look credible.
- Adidas is already Michael's preferred choice.
- Nike has not yet earned a place in the family's meetings.
Those are different problems. One concerns status, another preference, and the third access. A generic claim of superior commitment would leave each largely untouched.
Instead, Vaccaro offers questions that can travel with the buyer into rooms where he will not be present. The pitch continues without the pitcher. The family can test the competing offers using a concern Nike has made newly visible.
This is where the approach becomes both powerful and ethically demanding. Shaping a buyer's attention can clarify a decision, or distort it. Do describes the tactic in aggressive terms, including exploiting weaknesses. Its defensible version requires those weaknesses to concern the work or relationship the buyer actually needs.
A seller who cannot win on scale still needs a substantive basis for winning. Otherwise, changing the comparison is merely changing the subject.
The underdog's opportunity begins when the established comparison leaves something important out.
A famous roster can become a crowded room
The Converse sequence turns an apparent asset into a question about priority. The company can point to established basketball stars. In the scene, its representatives treat that company as the attraction: Jordan can join players already associated with greatness.
Vaccaro prepares the family to hear the same offer differently. What looks like prestigious company can also look like limited room to stand out. Do singles out the question that changes the conversation: “How is Michael going to stand out?”
The question does not require denying the roster's quality. It asks whether that quality answers the family's actual concern. Association with great players and a distinct identity for a new player are related benefits, but they are not interchangeable.
A competitor's strength is not automatically the client's advantage.
This is a sharper argument than claiming a large company does not care. The scene tests how its existing commitments affect its proposed treatment of a new athlete. The burden shifts from displaying names to explaining a place for Michael among them.
Do also notices Vaccaro's predictions about the meeting's surface details: clothing, accessories, and rehearsed language. If those predictions come true, the presentation can begin to feel formulaic. The family has been prepared to recognize a pattern rather than simply receive an impressive performance.
But the substantive question does the heavier work. Matching a predicted tie color does not establish that a company will neglect a client. An inadequate answer about differentiation is more relevant. The useful lesson is not to ridicule the competitor's appearance; it is to make the buyer's concern difficult to evade.
The Adidas sequence follows a different route. Vaccaro acknowledges the attraction before directing attention toward decision-making. Instead of arguing that Michael's preferred shoes are undesirable, he prepares the family to ask who runs the company.
In the film scene, the response reveals uncertainty among the representatives. Do reads that uncertainty as a warning about the relationship ahead. If the buyer cannot identify who has the final say, future decisions can become harder to navigate.
That is an argument about authority, not nationality. A company's country of origin does not establish how well it will understand a client. The observable issue in the scene is whether its people can clearly explain responsibility.
The two meetings therefore expose different tradeoffs:
- Prestige versus individual priority. A celebrated roster still needs an answer about how a new athlete will stand apart.
- Preference versus decision clarity. An attractive product does not answer who will make consequential decisions.
Neither tradeoff proves that the larger business is the wrong choice. Each gives the buyer something meaningful to investigate before deciding that familiarity or reputation is sufficient.
For creative businesses, the distinction also separates making persuasive work from making a persuasive business case. That broader transition is the subject signaled by The Futur's Moving from Makers to Entrepreneurs. Here, the business case rests on translating an organizational characteristic into a consequence the buyer cares about.
The seller is not asking the client to admire smallness. The seller is asking the client to examine fit.
The question eventually comes back
A seller who supplies difficult questions for competitors should expect a difficult question in return. The scene makes that reversal explicit when Jordan's mother asks Vaccaro what she should ask him.
For Do, this is not an incidental exchange. It is the point at which the underdog must stop analyzing everyone else and explain his own presence. Criticism has created an opening, but criticism alone cannot fill it.
Vaccaro directs her toward his decision to come to Wilmington, North Carolina. Do interprets the response as an appeal to her judgment. The character recognizes her belief in Michael and presents his own conviction as aligned with it.
The contrast is between reciting a company's assets and understanding the person deciding what those assets are worth. Vaccaro has identified the mother as the decisive figure in this exchange. His argument is addressed to her concern for her son's future, not merely to Nike's desire for an endorsement.
“Try to isolate who really has the power,” Do says.
That instruction needs its companion, which he also supplies: hear everybody. Identifying authority is not a license to dismiss the other people involved. It is a way of avoiding a pitch that receives polite attention from the room but never addresses the person who can approve the decision.
The scene makes attention consequential. Vaccaro does not treat the mother as an obstacle between himself and the athlete. He treats her assessment as central to the agreement he wants.
In a sales conversation, that changes what listening is for. It is not just collecting details to repeat later. It is finding the concern that will govern the decision, then showing how the proposed relationship answers it.
The relationship between attention and selling is also reflected in The Futur's The Skill You Need To Win Clients That No One Talks About. The specific lesson here is narrower: a strong argument still needs the correct audience inside the buying group.
There is a corresponding limit to the underdog strategy. The seller cannot hold competitors to a standard and exempt the seller's own offer from examination. Any claim of greater attention, clearer authority, or better fit needs an answer beyond personal sincerity.
The film gives that answer dramatic form through Vaccaro's visit and conviction. A creative provider needs evidence appropriate to the service being sold. The conversation's next story turns precisely on that difference between persuasive language and demonstrated capability.
Before that shift, however, the reversal establishes an important discipline. Questions about competitors create reciprocal obligations. A seller who asks how another firm will distinguish the client should be able to explain how the seller will do it.
A seller who raises confusion about decision-making should be able to clarify responsibility on the seller's own side.
Without that reciprocity, the strategy becomes an asymmetrical interrogation: everyone else must prove the offer, while the underdog asks to be believed. The stronger version welcomes comparison because the seller is prepared to meet the same test.
Opening the door is not the same as earning the contract.
The cheaper rival has to show the work
Do's story about his friend Carrie removes the cinematic scale without changing the central problem. She tells him that another provider offers similar services, uses similar language, and charges less than half her price. Carrie keeps stating her fee and losing the prospect.
The account is Do's recollection, not an independently documented case study. He says Carrie later reported winning a client after following his advice. Its value is the specificity of the intervention, not a promise that the same words will produce the same result everywhere.
He begins by asking whether the competing provider can deliver the work Carrie can deliver. Carrie says no. Do then asks what questions would allow the client to distinguish real capability from borrowed language.
She does not have an answer ready.
That gap is the problem. Carrie believes there is a meaningful difference between the offers, but the prospect has not been given a reliable way to see it. From the buyer's position, similar claims paired with different prices can make the cheaper option look sensible.
Make the comparison about demonstrated capability.
Do's proposed approach begins with acknowledging the buyer's alternatives. Carrie should ask where she falls in the sequence of providers being considered and express a preference for being last. She should also state that her price will be twice another provider's.
Then comes the test: when a provider promises branding, design, and strategy, ask for examples that make the buyer confident the provider can perform that work.
“Because lots of people say things, but they can't back them up,” Do says.
The advice moves the buyer away from evaluating labels alone. Branding, design, and strategy are not evidence simply because someone puts them in a proposal. The relevant question is whether the provider can substantiate the promised capabilities.
Several details distinguish the intervention from ordinary competitor criticism:
- The buyer asks the other provider directly, rather than accepting Carrie's assessment.
- The request concerns examples of the services being offered.
- Carrie makes the price difference explicit before the final conversation.
- A satisfactory answer from the competitor leaves the buyer free not to return.
That last condition matters. The recommendation is not to keep inventing objections until the cheaper provider fails. It is to identify a consequential test and accept that a competitor who passes it can remain a valid choice.
Do says Carrie called back a few days later to report that the prospect had signed at twice the competing price. In his account, the other provider could not answer the basic questions. The buyer returned with a reason to distinguish the offers beyond their fees.
The pricing implication is not that expense proves expertise. It is that a premium becomes easier to assess when the promised difference is visible. The Futur's 99% Of Creatives Lose Money With These Pricing Mistakes offers a related pricing reference; Carrie's story locates the immediate issue in the comparison surrounding the price.
The same fee can look arbitrary beside matching claims and justified beside a demonstrated difference. What changes is not the number. It is the buyer's understanding of what that number purchases.
A price warning is not a value argument
There are two distinct moves inside Do's advice to Carrie. One establishes an evidence standard. The other prepares the prospect for a higher price. Combining them matters because neither can substitute for the other.
A seller who announces a premium without demonstrating a difference has merely given advance notice of being expensive. A seller who demonstrates a difference but conceals the likely price until the end can still create a jarring final conversation.
A premium should arrive before the proposal does.
In Do's account, the early disclosure means the returning buyer already knows what to expect. Carrie is not relying on a final burst of persuasion to explain why her number exceeds the competitor's. The premium has been part of the decision from the beginning.
Do describes this as priming the prospective buyer. His language suggests that the price becomes a cost of doing business rather than a barrier. The narrower, more defensible conclusion is that disclosure removes surprise; it does not create a budget or eliminate every objection.
The prospect still has to decide that the difference is worth paying for. That is why the evidence request cannot be an accessory to the price warning. It supplies the reason the warning is more than an apology.
The practical sequence in the story is straightforward, although Do does not present it as a named framework:
- Ask where the conversation falls among the buyer's other meetings.
- Request the final conversation if other providers remain under consideration.
- Disclose that the fee will be substantially higher.
- Give the buyer a relevant question to test the promised services.
- Invite a return only if the competing answers are insufficient.
Being last has a specific function here. It lets the prospect complete the comparison before returning to the higher-priced offer. The transcript does not establish a universal rule that the final bidder always wins.
Nor does the story establish that every cheaper competitor lacks competence. Carrie's situation, as Do recounts it, depends on a claimed difference in delivery. Without that difference, the same approach could simply confirm that another provider is suitable at a lower price.
This is the useful pressure the strategy puts on the seller. Before coaching the client to ask for proof, the seller has to know what proof the seller can provide. Otherwise, the comparison can expose the underdog as readily as the favorite.
The advice also replaces a recurring reaction with a deliberate response. Carrie had been treating each lost pitch as another discouraging encounter with the same rival. Do pushes her to address the pattern before the next price conversation, rather than explain the loss afterward.
That does not make every lost sale the seller's fault. It identifies the part of this situation the seller can change: whether the buyer understands how to evaluate the work being promised.
The difficult preparation happens before the call. The seller needs a distinction that matters, a question that reveals it, and evidence that survives the same scrutiny. A higher price then becomes a decision the prospect can examine, not a surprise the seller must defend.
The closing changes when the terms change
The final Air scene shifts the negotiation from choosing a partner to defining compensation. Jordan's mother asks for a percentage of revenue from shoes bearing his name. Vaccaro responds with the familiar defense of an established arrangement: that is not how the business works.
Her answer, as presented in the film, focuses on the source of meaning. Nike can make and market the shoe, but Michael has to perform at a level that makes his name valuable on it. If his contribution helps produce the demand, she argues, his compensation should reflect that contribution.
Do's interest is not merely in persistence. It is in the refusal to let an existing practice settle a question about fairness and value. The negotiation moves away from what athletes customarily receive toward what this athlete is being asked to create.
Question the terms, not only the amount.
The mother's argument also has a defined scope. In the scene, she is not demanding a share of every Nike sale. She specifies the shoes with her son's name. That boundary connects the requested participation to the contribution she is defending.
The counterargument about exposure receives equally direct treatment. Nike suggests that marketing Michael's likeness benefits him. She does not accept visibility as a complete answer to the value his performance and identity would bring to the product.
For service businesses, the scene poses a more demanding question than how to increase a fee. It asks whether the proposed agreement reflects the value each side is expected to create. The transcript does not supply a universal royalty model for creative work, and the scene should not be stretched into one.
It does, however, distinguish two negotiations that sellers often collapse together. One concerns the size of the payment. The other concerns the basis on which payment is calculated.
Do also draws a lesson about concentration from Nike's commitment in the story. He contrasts putting resources behind one athlete with scattering them across many. His application is to businesses diluting their effort across too many offers, audiences, and problems.
That observation returns the conversation to the underdog's original challenge. A focused offer gives the seller a clearer claim to defend. A collection of loosely connected promises gives the buyer more language to compare and less reason to recognize a distinct advantage.
None of this requires importing the transcript's financial estimates or treating the film's exchanges as a verified historical record. The negotiation lesson stands on the arguments being examined: test the proposed relationship, identify the contribution, and make the requested terms answer to it.
The final challenge is therefore directed as much at the seller as the buyer. Before another pitch, the underdog needs to know which competitor advantage creates a genuine tradeoff, which question exposes that tradeoff, and what evidence supports the alternative.
Then the seller has to submit to the same questions. Clear authority. Demonstrated capability. An explainable premium. Terms connected to contribution.
A weak competitor does not make a strong offer.
The underdog earns the contract when the buyer can explain why the offer is right without the seller in the room.
TRANSCRIPT
Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.
Get insights on selling creative work without feeling salesy.
You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.
“Because lots of people say things, but they can't back them up.”
— Chris Do
Key Takeaways
Subscribe
Details
- Topic
- SALES