The Venator

"The Lawyer Effect"

Quite often when we secure a call or meeting with a top decision-maker, i.e. the CEO, they will either ask to include or will simply invite one of their subordinates to take part in the first scheduled sales call. If asked, the CEO will say that the reason for including this person is based on efficiency, since they will be an inevitable part of the decision process. He or she may say something like, “Your timing is good since we have been considering this.  I would like to speak further and include my COO or VP.”  Most sales people and their managers see this as an extremely positive move that will shorten the sales cycle, however there is a big danger here hiding in plain sight.

Let’s think about the mostly subconscious but entirely rational reason the CEO is inviting this person: He wants to offset his own positive interest and bring balance to the situation.  I call this the “lawyer effect.” 

Consider what happens when you send a contract to a lawyer for review.  The lawyer’s responsibility is to red line the contract, simply as a function of his or her role in the transaction.  I’m not implying that the requested changes made by lawyer in contracting situations are not critical, but imagine paying a lawyer thousands of dollars to review a contract and the lawyer comes back and says, ”Looks good, no changes needed here.” The lawyer must find challenges or he/she becomes irrelevant.

Now imagine a subordinate being invited to a meeting by the CEO.  The subordinate needs to justify his or her existence in the same way by playing the part of the devil’s advocate.  Most sales people become so overwhelmed with enthusiasm that they fail to notice how the CEO becomes the strong silent one in the room, abdicating most of the due diligence questions to the subordinate. 

To illustrate this point, I was recently involved in a second meeting with a CEO and his subordinate.  The subordinate contradicted and challenged everything the CEO shared with me in the first meeting regarding issues and initiatives.  Luckily my initial meeting with the CEO was strong and I was able to nudge the CEO into taking a leadership position in the meeting and put it back on track, rather than remaining silent and leaving me to arm-wrestle the subordinate.

It’s not what happens in these meetings that matters, it’s what does not happen.  At some point in every complex sale there will be a need to meet subordinates who validate the solution.  Some refer to these people as the stakeholders that can say no, but can’t say yes.  The problem with including this naysayer in the first meeting is the lost opportunity to have a “real” open dialogue with the CEO..   Have you ever tried to get pain or an honest need-state from a CEO in front of their subordinates, or even worse, asking a subordinate to share pain in front of a CEO?  The response you will hear most often is, “Everything is working well here, but we can always improve and are open to hear what you have to present to us.” – You have inadvertently forced a situation where all parties are going to default to a defensive position: Either defending their company, their job performance or their authority.

So what’s the solution? 

When you secure an appointment with a CEO or other top decision-maker, make sure to describe your process and how it works.   Most CEO’s will respect a sales person for saying the following, “I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you further. There is one more thing I must add: While you might feel inclined to ask another person from your management team to join us on this call, I would suggest that this first call be between you and me. Even though I would be more than happy to speak with that other person on a subsequent call, I have found it is most effective to have a conversation with the CEO first, to allow for an open dialogue focused on your individual perspective.   If, after our conversation, we both decide there is reason to move forward we can set up another call with whoever would be part of the ultimate decision.  

This approach may seem counterintuitive to traditional sales, which dictates that the more decision makers that attend the first meeting the better off you are.  But consider the daily experience we all have with contradictions in perspective, vision and hidden agendas; that we encounter in every company we deal with (even our own).   If you subscribe to the belief that the perspective that ultimately matters is the person who signs off on the budget, then consider the importance of getting that perspective unfiltered by subordinates who will seize every opportunity to overshadow it with their own.

© 2011 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

Fishing for prospects...

So often when I work with sales people I find they are "wrestling" with apathetic prospects to get them interested in their products or services. These prospects refuse to open up and admit issues. They present themselves as extremely neutral in their interest and skeptical of needing the sales person's product or service. Disinterested prospects can come from anywhere including cold calls, referrals, networking, trade shows or even call-ins (looking for information).

The biggest trap sales people make is "persistently" attempting to cajole and convince these prospects. Although occasionally this does lead to "temporary” success, where the sales person is able to evoke a vestige of interest from neutral or negative prospects, the problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to a big "think-it-over." It is also not uncommon for sales people who take this approach, to experience a massive amount of last minute cancellations on sales meetings and verbal agreements. When a sales person assumes the responsibility for "selling" or "coercing" the prospect to meet with them or buy from them, this in turn creates an extremely volatile situation for both the sales person and the prospect.

What if a sales person's objective was to see if the prospect could convince them that they have a problem which is worth fixing? Rather than using manipulative tactics to get the prospect to buy, you would simply ask the right questions and listen for buying (or non-buying) cues. In sales we frequently make reference to processes used to qualify prospects. It is just as important to have a process for disqualifying prospects and in turn qualifying the time spent with a prospect.

Look at it this way; imagine you are fishing and you feel a tug on the line from a rather large fish. Unfortunately, the fish only nibbles and then swims away. Would you don your scuba outfit, jump in the water and wrestle the hook into the fish’s mouth? Or, would you pull your line back up, reset the bait and recast the line for a new (more interested) fish?

© 2008 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

"It's just another game..."

I was teaching a class the other day, where we discussed the concept of disconnecting yourself from the outcome of the sales call. Developing this ability, to leave your own aspirations outside the sales call is potentially the most important and difficult thing a sales person can do.

When faced with a large opportunity, the worst thing we do is get anxious and excited over the potential "wind fall" commission. How often do you find yourself thinking, "I really need this sale" or "If I can nail this one, I will be set for a long time." Later, after the meeting, you might say to yourself, "Why didn't I respond this way or handle it this way." The reason sales people second guess themselves after the sales call "sidewalk coaching", is a result of their emotions getting the best of them.

In his book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman discusses how our emotions can overtake our intellect, removing our ability to think straight.

Consider this, the reason a catcher makes personal remarks to the batter or says, "You better not strike out or the games over", is to get the batter emotional. It is for this same reason a coach tells the team, "It's just another game...go out and have fun", prior to a critical championship game. It keeps them from thinking about the risk of losing, getting too emotional and thus sabotaging their own performance.

© 2006 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

The Advocate Information Provider

There is a player that frequently comes up in the early stages of prospecting on a target company.  This player is a person that believes their company needs what you offer.  Although this advocate may lack the power to influence any decision makers, they are able to share technical and operational issues that are affecting their company.  They are also willing to give you the names of the decision makers you should call.

 

One of the mistakes we all make when dealing with this person is that we give up too quickly on them.  We may try asking them additional qualifying questions, but we typically get so excited about the fact that we have an angle on the prospect company that we don't bother to push very hard for additional information. 

 

 

 

The issue with hanging up too quickly with these people is that there is a lot more information they can reveal, which sales people typically do not get.  We may tell ourselves we pushed far enough, due to the fact that we asked some additional issue-based questions and we received the old, "There is not much more I can tell you.  You need to call Debra Smith or Mark Jones and they can tell you more."

 

 

The challenge is that these information providers are emotionally disconnected from the effect of the issues, being that they have no control over the budget to fix it.  The only way to get them emotionally connected is to go personal with them. 

 

 

 

What if we diverted a technical conversation to a more personal one and asked them about their role in the organization? For example: How long they have been working there and how they are personally impacted by the issues they mentioned?  In the case of a person who tells you, "I am retiring from the company and you need to call Jack."  What if we asked them about their career at the company and what they are planning to do in retirement? 

 

 

 

If we can get the information provider talking about themselves, then maybe we can get more insight from them.  If a contact tells you about technical issues but suggests you call somebody else who is a decision maker, maybe you can find out some additional information before hanging up:

 

 

 

1) How those issues are distressing the company & department.

2) How those issues areaffecting the information provider’s ability to do their job.

3) What is the amount of time these issues have been persisting?

4) Have there been any attempts or past projects that were focused on fixing these issues?

5) What is the operational expense and/or opportunity cost of lost revenue?

6) Who else in the department and what other departments are the issues affecting?

7) Have the decision makers previously approached the info provider and complained about the issues?

8) What happens if they don’t fix the issue?

9) Can they give you an example(s) of aspecific situation where this issue impacted operations, customer service, sales, etc...?

10) What other projects are they dealing with right now that could interfere with fixing these issues?

11) How do the budget cycles work at their company?

12) If they told you to call their boss Jack then maybe you could get them to tell you about Jack

    a) What is his job?

    b) How long has he been there?

    c) Is he affected by the issue? How is he affected?

    d) Has he complained about the issue? What has he said?

    e) Is he putting pressure or receiving pressure on/from somebody else to fix it?

    f) Will you (the sales person) have any challenges reaching him?

 

 

*Try and get this information about every person the information provider has mentioned to you.

 

The key to remember here is that you cannot get the information outlined above if the information provider is in an intellectual state.The only way to get them emotional is to get them talking first ABOUT THEMSELVES.

 

 

 

 

 

© 2010 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

The Flight Distance

If you ever tried to get close to a bird at the park or beach, you were probably able to get within a few feet before the bird flew off. The same applies to most other animals in the wild. The distance which animals will allow you, prior to making their escape, is part of a defense mechanism called "the flight distance." This distance increases when they sense you are a threat and decreases as trust is developed.

I believe prospects have a flight distance as well. A prospect protects this space by defending their existing situation, expressing a need to "think it over", or attacking you with questions.

The question is, "Does the traditional style of pushing, cajoling and attempting to persuade a prospect, decrease or increase the prospect's flight distance?"

What happens to your flight distance when a sales person pressures you with all the reasons you should meet with them or buy from them?

© 2007 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

Let's break it down...

Whenever a client calls me for "sales coaching", the first suggestion I have is to break down the situation. Often the best approach is to clarify what they know. The next step is to begin the process of mapping out the unknowns.

It's not uncommon for sales people to approach an opportunity the same way people drive to a set destination. Ever drive for several hours on cruise control, only paying attention to the landmarks and exits you are looking for? The problem with this approach, as it relates to sales, is that we tend to ignore critical information which we assume unnecessary in getting to our end goal.

If our goal is to fully understand the entire situation and all of its details, the result is that we empower ourselves and our prospects to make more effective and efficient decisions. It helps to think of a sales opportunity as a story with a beginning, middle and end. Each sales story has underlying facts that are specific to how the prospect got to this point and why they want to make a change. Sales stories also tend to have multiple characters or decision makers, each with their own set of concerns. Finally, there are land mines or obstacles which will impede a successful ending. All of these details must be uncovered prior to providing a solution.

Since the prospect will tend to give the cliff notes version, the responsibility is on you to uncover the entire story.

© 2007 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

"Post-endorsement" dialogue.

For most sales people, it is not uncommon to meet with a person who has the power to accept or reject a subsequent meeting with the next level decision maker. Unfortunately, this next meeting with the additional decision maker does not always work out well.

For example, you meet with a person named John to discuss his issues and concerns, as well as the possible solution you can provide. At the end of this meeting he expresses a high level of desire to work with you and enthusiastically suggests a subsequent meeting with his manager Mary and himself. Upon receiving this approval you rush to establish some dates and times for the three of you to meet. One week later, in this meeting, Mary starts questioning the severity of the problem and the need to work with your firm to fix it. Apparently, John has failed to pre-qualify Mary and has had little or no discussions with Mary regarding his issues or his prior meeting with you. He simply asked Mary's secretary to schedule a one hour block of time. What’s worse is that John is sitting back silently in the meeting, forcing you to do all the "selling". You feel like John has failed you.

Has he really failed you? Whose fault is it that this meeting resulted in grid lock with Mary? Hopefully your answer is, "It is my fault, because I did not spend any time coaching John." All too often, we get so excited when we are endorsed to the next level that we forget to secure a collaborative position with the previous level.

A critical step in multi-level selling is to have a, "Post-endorsement" dialogue with the primary contact. After receiving approval to introduce you to the next decision maker, it is important to respond with some questions. Using the above example, here are just a few sample questions to ask John, prior to the meeting with Mary.

1) Have you had previous discussions with Mary about this topic?
2) What is at stake for her and how committed is she to fix the issues?
3) Will you have an opportunity to review our meeting with her, prior to all three of us getting together?
4) What will you tell her?
5) What type of response do you anticipate?
6) How will you handle any objections from her?
7) When the three of us get together, are you comfortable openly sharing all the thoughts you discussed with me?

If you take the time to engage a primary contact in this dialogue, you should begin to sense a collaborative spirit of driving toward a shared objective. It also gives you an opportunity to test your primary contact's commitment level.

Incidentally, regardless to where your entry point is in the decision chain, this conversation is extremely beneficial. Whether your initial contact is with CEO sponsoring a next step meeting with his or her management team or a spouse endorsing a follow-up meeting with their other half, a "post-endorsement" dialogue will help to insure a successful subsequent meeting.

© 2009 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

GREAT meetings that go nowhere...

"Have you ever had the following experience?"

You meet with a middle level manager who is extremely interested in engaging your company to fix an issue.  This person willingly shares information with you regarding their perception of the challenges their company faces and how personally committed they are to fixing it.  The meeting ends with an agreement that they will run your proposal by their boss and an expectation that it will be a "rubber stamp".  The action item is for you to follow up "next Monday" at which point they will have the "OK" to move forward.  Unfortunately, when Monday comes they tell you they have not had a chance to speak with their boss, but they expect to have the opportunity to sit down and have the discussion within the next few days.  Days turn into months, which inevitably turn into an endless sales cycle of following up.

The issue here is that the well intentioned prospect, who wanted to believe they would get the OK from their boss, lacks the ability to get the final buy-in.  There are many reasons for this, the least of which could be that the boss does not perceive there to be any issues or does not believe the issues can be fixed.  Either way, your contact lacks the influence over their boss.   Again, because nobody wants to believe they lack power and influence, the prospect assumes they will get a "rubber stamp".

So, how do you know you are dealing with a non-influential person? 

First, have you ever experienced the opposite?  A prospect that was capable of driving decisions up the corporate ladder, methodically getting what they want!!!  If you have, then you can begin to see the difference between these powerful prospects and their counterparts who lack the power.  Here are some apparent differences between the two:

Non-influential prospects, with very little (if any) power:

1. Will tend to complain about their manager.
2. Will not have shared the fact that they are meeting you, with their manager.
3. Will have had very little, if any, experience influencing their manager in the past.
4. Will be unable to define their manager's vision, goals and potential objections.
5. Will plan to present the features and benefits that you offer, as justification for the cost.

Influential prospects, which are empowered to make decisions:

1. Will speak positively about their manager.
2. Will have shared the fact that they are meeting with you, with their manager.
3. Will have an experiential understanding of how their manager makes decisions.
4. Will be able to clearly define their manager's visions, goals and possible objections.
5. Will work with you to co-develop a solution that will address their manager's issues, concerns and desired results.

They say the first step to fixing an issue is to admit you have one.  In this case, the first step for a sales person is to become extremely perceptive of the type of prospect they are dealing with.  It is just as critical for a Sales Manager to implement a sales process and coaching system, which sniffs out these situations rather than allowing the sales people to clog up the pipeline with non close-able business. 

So how many GREAT meetings are your sales people having with prospects that want your solution but won't be able to influence the other decision makers to spend the money? 

For more on this topic, please refer to the article, "Post-endorsement" dialog.

© 2008 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

"You got 30 seconds..."

Several months ago, I attended a CIO conference in Westchester. At the end of the conference I had an opportunity to ask the panel of Chief Information Officers the following question: "How do you feel about sales people cold calling you?" The overall response was, "Most sales people waste your time by using the first 30-60 seconds of the call to impress you with features and benefits, as well as name dropping of other organizations they work with." They all seemed exhausted with this approach. They told us their standard reply to this cold call was either, "Send me information" or "Call one of my subordinates." I then asked, "What would be a more effective approach to getting your attention." The response was, "If you want my ear, then you got 30 seconds to tell me what keeps me up at night." So, what's keeping your prospects up at night? © 2007 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.

Get in the "Gap"

If you enjoyed "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman, check out what his other half has to say about the topic. I recently completed and thoroughly enjoyed, "Emotional Alchemy" by Tara Bennett-Goleman.

One of the main points I found very helpful is the strategies she presents for getting into "the Gap". This Gap is the place where a person suspends all aspirations, hopes, fears, desires and preconceived notions. It is a state where you are completely open to any and all possibilities. It is literally the Gap between thoughts and emotions.

Many athletes refer to the Gap as, "the Zone." If you golf, it is in the Gap or Zone where you experience a perfect swing. It is a "swoosh" in basketball and in baseball it is perfectly connecting with a pitch and hitting the ball over the fence. I guess the Gap is an extremely important place to be when an Olympic Gymnast needs to stick a landing off the uneven bars. The good news is that you don't have to be an athlete to experience this Gap. For some the Gap is achieved by simply working out, playing a musical instrument, going to the park or hanging out in the back yard.

So how does this Gap pertain to selling? To better understand what it means to be in the Gap on a sales call it helps to first consider the opposite. When you are out of the Gap you find yourself thinking about convincing the prospect, making the sale and earning the commission. The Gap in selling is a mental state where there is no need for approval or fear of rejection. The only concern is actively listening to the prospect and fully understanding their needs as well as the underlying issues beneath these needs. It is being completely present and fully attentive to everything the prospect is saying and doing while sitting with them.

I truly believe that this Gap is the place where prospects begin to fully trust and respect you. It also enables you and the prospect to develop a much higher level of Bonding and Rapport than they would experience with a sales person whose sole focus is making the sale.

Additional article which references this topic, see "It's just another game..."

© 2006 Jay Spielvogel. All rights reserved.