Red Herring

Divert attention from objections by introducing unrelated topics that create intrigue and engagement

Introduction

A Red Herring fallacy occurs when irrelevant information is introduced into an argument to divert attention from the main issue. It doesn’t necessarily involve false claims—just misplaced focus. The result is confusion, wasted time, and a misleading sense of progress.

Professionals fall for this fallacy when discussions drift from what matters to what’s convenient, emotional, or easier to debate. In sales, for instance, a prospect might shift focus from measurable ROI to branding “vibes,” or a rep might dodge an objection by talking about awards. The cost: diluted credibility, misaligned decisions, and lost trust.

This article defines the fallacy, explains its psychological pull, and shows how communicators and salespeople can recognize, counter, and prevent it—without alienating colleagues or clients.

Formal Definition & Taxonomy

Definition

The Red Herring fallacy diverts an argument away from its relevant point to a tangential or emotionally charged topic. The distraction may seem related but doesn’t actually address the claim under discussion.

Example (abstract):

•“Our product must be great—look how much the team worked on it.”

•Effort is irrelevant to performance; the argument distracts from results.

Taxonomy

•Type: Informal fallacy

•Category: Fallacy of relevance—diversion away from the argument’s central issue.

•Structure:

•Claim A is raised.

•Irrelevant issue B is introduced.

•Attention shifts to B → Claim A is ignored or assumed resolved.

Commonly confused fallacies

•Straw Man: Misrepresents the opponent’s argument to refute an easier version.

•Ad Hominem: Attacks the person instead of the argument.

•Red Herring, in contrast, simply changes the subject to something emotionally charged or tangential.

Sales lens

Where it shows up in the sales cycle:

•Discovery: Prospect focuses on logo count instead of fit.

•Demo: Rep talks about company culture when asked about security.

•Proposal: “Our competitor uses fancy design” distracts from pricing logic.

•Negotiation: “We’re friends now—you’ll approve this, right?”

•Renewal: Customer steers discussion to unrelated issues to avoid performance metrics.

Mechanism: Why It Persuades Despite Being Invalid

The reasoning error

The Red Herring works because relevance feels subjective. The shift seems harmless—just “expanding the discussion”—but it hijacks attention from evaluating evidence to defending a side topic. The listener’s working memory gets overloaded, and the core question fades.

Invalid pattern:

•Topic X → Introduce Y (emotionally charged or tangential) → Discuss Y → Imply X resolved.

Cognitive principles

1.Availability heuristic: Vivid or familiar details (e.g., awards, testimonials) feel more “real” than abstract logic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

2.Cognitive ease: Easy-to-process claims (e.g., emotional anecdotes) feel more relevant than complex data (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009).

3.Motivated reasoning: People redirect attention away from uncomfortable facts to protect self-image or goals (Kunda, 1990).

4.Reactance: Listeners resist being pinned to a difficult question and subconsciously change the topic to regain control.

Sales mapping

Cognitive bias	Sales trigger	Risk
Availability	Prospect latches onto a memorable brand story	Neglects cost-benefit evidence
Cognitive ease	Rep shifts to feel-good success stories	Avoids addressing real objections
Motivated reasoning	Buyer reframes to justify delay	Missed urgency and decision clarity
Reactance	Rep evades tough pricing question	Damaged trust, perceived evasiveness

Linguistic cues

•“Before we go there, let’s talk about…”

•“That reminds me of…”

•“The real issue is something else…”

•“Anyway, our office culture proves we care.”

•“But everyone else in the industry does it this way.”

Context triggers

•Pressure situations (presentations, negotiations).

•When data challenges someone’s prior belief.

•When conversation goals are unclear (“boil the ocean” discussions).

Sales-specific red flags

•Buyer distractions: “Let’s revisit your company story before the pricing.”

•Rep evasions: “Security compliance? Let me tell you about our customer success awards.”

•Competitive traps: “Sure, they’re cheaper—but their logo is blue.”

•Internal reviews: Leadership debates marketing colors instead of ROI benchmarks.

Examples Across Contexts

Context	Fallacious claim	Why it’s fallacious	Corrected/stronger version
Public discourse	“We shouldn’t discuss pollution—unemployment is worse.”	Changes topic to unrelated social issue.	“Both matter, but let’s finish evaluating environmental policy first.”
Marketing/product	“Our app is innovative because our brand video went viral.”	Virality ≠ functional innovation.	“Our app’s algorithm cut processing time by 40%, driving retention.”
Workplace/analytics	“The campaign failed, but the team worked very hard.”	Effort doesn’t equal outcome.	“Despite effort, CTR dropped 12%; let’s analyze contributing factors.”
Sales (demo)	“We’re ISO certified—so uptime issues don’t matter.”	Certification ≠ current reliability.	“Here’s our 12-month uptime record; ISO supports process discipline.”
Proposal	“Competitor pricing doesn’t count—they’re new.”	Distracts from price-performance comparison.	“Let’s compare total cost of ownership for both vendors.”

How to Counter the Fallacy (Respectfully)

Step-by-step rebuttal playbook

1.Spot the shift.

“I see we’ve moved from [main issue] to [new topic]. Let’s park that for a moment.”

2.Recenter on relevance.

“How does that relate to the original question?”

3.Clarify scope.

“That’s interesting, but our goal today is to decide on X.”

4.Invite evidence.

“Do we have data connecting that factor to our current challenge?”

5.Acknowledge intent.

“Good point—let’s note it for later. For now, let’s resolve the current decision.”

Reusable counter-moves

•“That’s an interesting tangent—can we link it to the goal?”

•“Let’s park that for a later phase.”

•“How does that directly affect the metric we’re solving for?”

•“Could that be a different discussion?”

•“Let’s close this loop before opening another.”

Sales scripts

•Discovery:

Buyer: “Tell me more about your company perks.”

Rep: “Happy to, though today we’re focused on integration fit—can I show you the workflow impact first?”

•Demo:

Buyer: “You said ‘AI’—what’s your take on generative art?”

Rep: “Fun topic! For now, let’s stay on your automation goals and ROI.”

•Negotiation:

Buyer: “I just don’t like your competitor’s color palette.”

AE: “Design tastes vary—but let’s compare the support SLAs and data policies that impact you directly.”

Avoid Committing It Yourself

Drafting checklist

•Is every claim relevant to the stated objective?

•Have I introduced an emotional or unrelated example to deflect a weak point?

•Does this argument stay on topic under pressure?

•If I remove the side story, does the reasoning still stand?

Sales guardrails

•Stay anchored to decision criteria: value, risk, ROI—not reputation or emotion.

•When unsure, ask “Does this relate to the buyer’s success metric?”

•Acknowledge tangents without indulging them.

•Use transitions (“parking lots”) for unrelated but valid concerns.

Before/After Example

•Before (fallacious): “We can’t discuss implementation time—our customer satisfaction scores are top-tier.”

•After (valid): “Implementation averages 6 weeks; satisfaction scores confirm ongoing value once live.”

Table: Quick Reference

Pattern / Template	Typical language cues	Root bias / mechanism	Counter-move	Better alternative
Effort diversion	“The team worked hard, so it’s fine.”	Cognitive ease	Ask for outcome data	“What results did the effort produce?”
Emotional tangent	“Our mission proves we’re right.”	Motivated reasoning	Recenter on metrics	“How does the mission align with measurable results?”
Irrelevant comparison	“Competitor’s ads look bad.”	Availability bias	Redirect to value	“What’s their ROI relative to ours?”
Sales – Branding detour	“We’ve won many awards.”	Cognitive ease	Link to performance	“Awards reflect culture; here’s proof of impact.”
Sales – Buyer distraction	“Let’s talk about our partnership logo.”	Reactance	Refocus on criteria	“Logo’s great—can we align on KPIs first?”
Sales – Feature tangent	“This add-on looks futuristic.”	Novelty bias	Ask for utility link	“How does it improve your workflow outcome?”

Measurement & Review

Communication audit

•Peer prompts: “What’s the main claim—and did we stay on it?”

•Logic linting: Highlight every off-topic transition.

•Comprehension check: “Would a listener summarize the same key point?”

Sales metrics tie-in

•Win rate vs. deal health: Tangents prolong sales cycles.

•Objection trends: Frequent deflection = low perceived confidence.

•Pilot-to-contract conversion: Improves when reps stay evidence-based.

•Churn correlation: High when deals were closed on unrelated “soft” factors.

Analytics guardrails

•Define decision criteria before evaluation.

•Track question drift in meetings (time spent off-topic).

•Summarize discussions with bullet-point outcomes to confirm focus.

(Not legal advice.)

Adjacent & Nested Patterns

Common pairings

•Red Herring + Straw Man: Misrepresents argument and diverts to a new one (“Our product isn’t slow—competitors are worse!”).

•Red Herring + Ad Hominem: Attacks person and sidesteps issue (“You’re too new here to understand this metric”).

•Red Herring + Appeal to Emotion: Shifts from reason to feeling (“We care deeply, so trust us”).

Boundary conditions

Not all topic shifts are fallacies.

•Valid redirection: Expanding scope to clarify context (“That factor influences this metric—let’s link them”).

•Invalid redirection: Changing subject to dodge an uncomfortable point.

Example:

•Valid: “Security affects uptime—let’s include both in the review.”

•Invalid: “Security questions are boring; let’s discuss our design.”

Conclusion

The Red Herring fallacy distracts attention from the real issue, substituting comfort for clarity. In professional contexts, it drains focus, slows decisions, and replaces logic with noise. Detecting and defusing Red Herrings helps teams stay aligned, clients feel heard, and decisions rest on evidence—not theatrics.

In sales, staying on-topic demonstrates confidence and integrity—key drivers of sustainable relationships and accurate forecasts.

Actionable takeaway:

When a discussion drifts, gently name the drift and guide it back to the core question. Clarity beats cleverness every time.

Checklist

Do

•Keep discussions anchored to goals and criteria.

•Identify tangents early and “park” them.

•Ask, “How does this relate to our objective?”

•Support claims with direct evidence.

•Encourage peers to call out off-topic reasoning.

•Use summaries to reframe focus.

Avoid

•Using emotional or PR distractions as proof.

•Dodging tough questions with unrelated anecdotes.

•Equating relevance with comfort or familiarity.

•Rewarding tangential talking points in meetings.

•Allowing focus drift to decide outcomes.

Mini-Quiz

Which statement contains a Red Herring?

1.“Let’s focus on uptime, not our team’s pizza policy.” ✅

2.“Uptime improved 4% after deploying the patch.”

3.“We can compare uptime with competitor benchmarks.”

Sales version:

“Forget ROI—our logo redesign shows innovation.” → Red Herring.

Better: “Our ROI data proves innovation drives measurable growth.”

References

•Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2016). Introduction to Logic.**

•Walton, D. N. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach.

•Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.

•Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.

•Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency.