Salespeople sometimes dig themselves into a hole by leaping into action at the very first sign of interest from a prospect.
Maybe something like that has happened to you. Perhaps you had a “good initial discussion” with a prospect, and, based on that conversation, you agreed to invest time and energy gathering information, working up prices and putting together your presentation.
Then what happened? You kept your word. You delivered your presentation in a competent, professional manner. As you wrapped up, you felt confident that one of two things was going to happen: You were either going to get the sale (which was what you wanted), or at the very least, you were going to obtain a clear decision. Instead, you got one objection after another, followed by a series of stalls, and finally, you left with nothing more than the prospect’s promise to give your presentation some “careful thought.”
Unfortunately, the above scenario is a common one. If your expectation about what will be achieved during a meeting and how it will be achieved is different from that of the people with whom you are meeting, it’s a sure bet that someone (you) will leave the meeting with unfulfilled expectations – likely accompanied by feelings of frustration and resentment – and no sale. In this case, the salesperson might want to blame the prospect for being noncommittal or even misleading.
Perhaps, however, the salesperson is missing something.
Before you volunteer to get started with any work involved in a new relationship, it makes sense to establish clear, appropriate expectations and time investments on both sides. How do you do that? Lots of salespeople are familiar with the Sandler concept of the Up-Front Contract, under which both sides agree ahead of time about what the ground rules of a discussion will look like, and what the possible outcomes of the exchange will be. Yet too many salespeople end up attempting to establish “contracts” that do not require the prospect to do much of anything! In reality, that is more of an up-front surrender.
Over the phone, at the end of that “good initial discussion,” the up-front contract where the prospect is fully engaged might sound like this:
You: “Beth, why don’t you pick a day when you can invite me in for an hour and we can determine if the type of targeted marketing programs my company has created for other distributors would make sense for you.”
Beth chooses Tuesday from 10 to 11 a.m.
You: “That’s great. Can we set aside an hour for this discussion?”
You: “Wonderful. When we get together in person, it would be helpful if you would provide me with some samples of your previous successful marketing campaigns – to help me develop a more complete picture of exactly what your customers respond to. Would you be comfortable doing that?”
You: “That would be great. Then, I could share with you the approach I would take and explain what would be involved. If you are comfortable with my approach, we would then have to discuss the various aspects of implementation such as objectives, timelines, budgets, people and so on. If we get that far, I could then put together a formal presentation for you. But, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. When we get together next Tuesday, let’s focus on determining if there’s a good fit between us. Does that make sense to you?”
Notice the three questions in bold. You must receive a positive response to these questions in order to have a “contract.” If Beth is uncomfortable or unwilling to commit to the defined actions, is there any point in having the meeting? (Hint: the answer is “no.”)
By engaging your prospect to make clear commitments and to actually do something before the meeting, you’ll spend more of your valuable time with people who are just as invested as you are in producing a positive outcome. You’ll get out of the cycle of doing all the up-front work. You’ll avoid long meetings with “decision makers” who won’t really make decisions – and you’ll close more sales.
Bob Bolak, president of Sandler Training, can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org.