The following is part one of the transcript of a presentation given by Dale Houle, General Partner of the Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute, at the Jonah^SM Upgrade Workshop/TOC Symposium in May 1998 in London, UK. It is available on video (JUK-13).

Persuading the Customer to Buy
Part One

What I'd like to go into a little bit more here is more in terms of the process itself; and dealing more in the subject or the area of persuading a potential customer or a prospect to buy your company's products or services.

The first question I'd like you to think about is "what do your customers buy?" Do they buy products? Do they buy services? Or do they buy solutions to problems? What do your customers buy? Solutions?

Solutions are sometimes packaged as a product. Sometimes they're packaged as a service.

Whenever you are the customer, are you looking more at it as to what is it: a product or as a service or does it really solve your problems?

Then the question is from the other side, "What do you sell?" Do you sell products? Do you sell services? Or do you really sell solutions to problems? What do you sell?

There's a difference in mindset if we look at it as if we're selling a product or selling a service versus what we're really selling is a solution to their problems.

Another component to think about is on what basis is the value for what you have to offer really established? And here you'll find out two different perceptions of value.

One is from a supplier's point of view, where very often you'll find we have a perception of value for what we as a supplier have to offer based on how much effort we really had to put into making that product or service available. True? Is that how we value our products or services?

On the other side, if you look at it from the customer's point of view, how do they value the product or the service? Based on our efforts to provide it? Or based on the benefits they really expect to derive from acquiring it?

How do your customers value the products? Services? Based on your efforts or on the benefits they expect to acquire?

Look at the question this way. When you are the customer and somebody's coming to you, do you really say exactly how much effort you put into it, and how much investment you made, and on that basis I'll make my decision? Do you care? No. What do you care about? The benefits. Is it really going to help me solve my problems? Is it really going to address my issues?

Taking these things into account, let's go a little bit further on selling solutions and let's look from a salesperson's point of view and the dilemma they sometimes find themselves in.

So, for example, when you talk to a potential customer about the functions, the features, the performance, etc., of your products, your service, what's the most likely response on their part?

Concerns, right? Concerns about how much is all of this going to cost me? And when these types of concerns start to emerge, they start to turn into objections. True?

Now, one of the things that we know is the more objections we get, what happens to all the chances of making the sale? Does it go up or down? Down. So the one thing we want to avoid is creating more objections. True?

Now, where do these objections come from? Where are these concerns provoked from? If there is a mismatch, truly, between what you're offering and what they really need, then the only other place we can start to really produce or provoke objections is coming from the salespersons themselves. Would you agree? Generally they tend to come from either presenting the solution too soon or trying to close too soon.

Let's look at another side in terms of things that we've learned to do. How entrenched are we in giving presentations? Is this usually how we start? Which means basically our starting point is to start with first of all giving a presentation.

On the other side, how many times have we started a meeting, first by conducting an analysis of the prospect's situation to understand what's going on, determining, clarifying his or her needs, not yet solutions, but what do they need. When they fully realize the problems that they have, and the need that should be addressed. Only then do we start to unfold what we really have to offer in terms of our products or services. How many times have we done it this way? Not so many. Okay?

What do you think the chances are it will be more well-received?

If we take it in the context of a cloud (referring to the overhead) and we look at what is the dilemma that the salespeople find themselves in. Their objective is to bring the prospect to see your product or service as the best value for his or her money. Would you agree that's the objective of the salesperson? Or it should be, right?

And in order to bring the prospect to see your product or service as the best value for his or her money you must show value to the prospect. On the other side, you must not cause the prospect to object, to say no.

Now, in order to show value to the prospect, you must show your product or service. True? Which means to present. Why? Because the prospect does understand his or her needs. Definitely the ones that are satisfied by your product or service. This is one assumption.

On the other side, in order not to cause the prospect to object, you must not show your product or service. Why? Because the prospect always raises objections to the salesperson's praising of his or her product or service. Would you agree? You've all been in on the end of somebody selling something to you. You've been the customer. Do these assumptions make sense?

Which means how are we going to go about dealing with the first assumption that says "the prospect really understands his or her needs." First of all, do they? Do they understand their problems, the things they're struggling with?

The problems, yes, the symptoms. Do they understand what underlies clearly those problems? Which means the things they really need to address. No. So what we're going to look at doing is "how do we bring the prospect to agree on the magnitude of his or her problems or needs and the fact that they all stem from one source."

But we still have the other side that says "every time we talk about how wonderful our product or service is, this tends to provoke objections."

So on the CD' side (referring to the overhead slide), it says we're going to do basically the same thing, which is to bring the prospect to agree on the magnitude of his or her problems or needs, and the fact that they all do stem from one source, but we're going to have to do it in a way that builds trust.

If we do it in this way, can we resolve this conflict? What do you think? If we can do that, will it help resolve this conflict?

The seller must first bring the prospect to fully realize the section of his or her needs that relates to the product or service that the seller wants to sell.

This means the seller identifies the prospect's problems which relate to his or her product or service, and brings the prospect to realize the scope and magnitude of the problems, and the fact that they all stem from one source - the source which the seller knows can be addressed by his or her product or service. Does this make sense?

Not less important, of course, is to do it in a way that does not build resistance, but on the contrary, builds trust.

Then, and only then, is the seller in a position to show that the way to address the prospect's needs, and to get to the benefits, is by using the seller's product.

If we do this, what have we arrived to? Now we have at least a prospect that wants to acquire our product or service. True?

Wanting to acquire it doesn't mean they can acquire it. No. Which means there's still another point that's needed, which is dealing with the closing.

How to close is also not as simple as some might think; and this is a place where the seller might erode the prospect's trust in him or her, and lengthy delays or losing the sale might be the result.

Taking all of this into context, what sales process do you know of today that relies on first of all, clearly identifying, and getting agreement on, the problems to be resolved by the offering? Whether it's a product or service.

Secondly, it logically paints a complete picture of how the offering will solve the prospect's significant problems?

Thirdly, it will solicit from the prospect all of their concerns about the offering.

And lastly, seek to identify all of the prospect's obstacles to buying.

Which means, if this is how we're going to approach the selling, it probably means we're going to have to undergo some fairly significant changes, alterations in our intuition and so forth about how to sell.

This is where what starts to provide or come in as the framework is something called The Six Layers of Resistance or The Six Phases of Buy-In - the methods that exist that can help us in the process of overcoming each one of these layers. Okay.

If you think about it this way, how many times has somebody come to you with what they thought was a solution to a problem? Does it ever happen? How many times do you immediately say "yes, that's excellent, let's go do it, let's start now."? Very seldom. Why?

Do you have any concerns about the idea, or what they thought was a solution that they brought to you? Yes?

What are the things that really concern you that are not yet sometimes clear? Do you ever have any concerns as to whether or not what they've suggested really is addressing the problem? Is this ever a concern? Yes. Do you ever have any concerns about the whole direction they're trying to go with this type of solution? Yes. Do you ever wonder if it's really going to solve the problem? Do you ever have concerns from the point of view that says "if we do all of this, it might very well solve the problem, but I've got concerns it will create for us some other problems." Which means negative side effects.

What about concerns as to whether or not we'll really be able to implement it? Do these ever inhibit us from saying "that's an excellent solution. Let's start to move on it."?

These are the basic things we are going through, each one of us, when wešre assessing somebody's suggestion as a solution to problems is, first of all, have we really agreed on the problem? If not, we will get resistance in the sense that we are disagreeing still on the problem.

Secondly, there will be discussion, disagreements, concerns on the direction this solution goes in.

Third, that the solution really solves the problems, that it will really provide the benefits, that it will really turn the UDEs into DEs - desirable effects.

Fourth is claiming that the solution will also lead to negative effects.

Five, pointing to obstacles blocking the implementation of the solution.

And, if all of that's clear, there's simply fear which has not yet been verbalized because all of this is expressing our fear or concerns about it.

If we take it into a process of Buy-In or a process of selling and use it as a framework, what are the things that we should seek to achieve? Before we talk about a solution, should we make sure we get agreement on the problem? If not, what are we likely to get back in response? A welcoming to this situation or resistance? More resistance.

Once we've agreed on the problem, then we may have agreements or disagreements on the direction of the solution. And here it comes from one of two sides - solution can be something we have to go and physically change, which means the solution is directed more outwardly.

Sometimes the solution says we have to change much more the way we're thinking, much more the way we've been trained, which means the changes are more in terms of how we are operating as opposed to changing something physical. Yes?

Those are the basic two directions we can go with the solution.

If the direction I have to change more in terms of what I'm doing, how I'm thinking, my behaviors, and so forth, will I probably be more resistant on the direction or more resistant on whether or not it solves the problem? Probably more of my resistance will be centered around moving in this direction. Does that make sense?

If it's more the physical type of change, which means we have to go change something physically - move a building, move something else, then more of it will be focused on "does that really solve the problem? Does it really resolve all of those UDEs?".

Once we've reached agreement that it will solve all of the problems, the next issue that comes up is dealing with the concerns about possible side effects. Which means here what we'd really like to achieve is an understanding, and the basis for it as to why the solution will not lead to any negative side effects.

Once that's clear then the next thing to deal with are the obstacles that stand in the way of actually implementing that solution or buying that product or buying that service. Does this make sense?

It says "this gives us a framework." If we start with a solution, we may get disagreements on the problem, we may get disagreements on the direction, on obstacles. How do we process those disagreements? More importantly, how do we avoid getting into them?

Now, what I'd like to do is show you a little bit about how the methods that you've seen - Current Reality Trees, and so forth - how do they provide us, or how can they provide us with the tools to better achieve each of these phases (referring to overhead slide). In terms of reaching agreement on the problem, there are two tools that can help us. One you've seen already - Generic Clouds, the base of the Current Reality Tree, as well as the Current Reality Tree, which can help us see that from one common core conflict, basically this is from where all of the problems stem.

You see in terms of how do we provoke discussions on the direction, the Cloud becomes a very helpful tool if and when needed.

Agreeing on the solution, that it really solves the problems and all of the ramifications is the Future Reality Tree.

Dealing with concerns that it will lead to side effects, negative ones, is the Negative Branch.

And lastly, addressing or dealing with obstacles are Prerequisite Trees.

This (referring to overhead slide) most of you have seen yesterday, or a similar picture. These are the overall processes.

To get a better sense of it, we'll take a small example. Okay? This is a brand company called Best Baggage Company (referring to overhead slide). Basically they provide luggage sent to their retail shops, which then sell it to their end users, which is you and me.

If you are sitting as a provider of luggage, and what you had in your hands was a very good offer, an offer that really solves their problems, then we have to look not at "how do we start to sell it?"

Looking from the point of view of being the one providing the luggage, looking at the customer, what are their UDEs? What are their real problems?

In this example (referring to overhead slide) their available credit is very limited, their profitability is low, they're squeezed for cash, sales of new products are low, they have difficulty making payments, trouble getting merchandise, high financial expenses, high inventory, and so forth.

Those are the problems of the customer. Okay? What we want is can we address each one of those individually or can we find and address it through what underlies those problems?

This is the end of part one of the transcript of the video JUK-13 - Persuading the Customer to Buy.