Ace, I'm not sure where you're headed with your comments about objections being a request for assistance as a "notion". Xerox based part of their sales training on this premise.There is a distinction between models for learning and models for selling, and even companies like Xerox should make that distinction clear. Perhaps they did but failed to re-word it to your liking.
The idea of "removing objections" seems to me unrealistic as what Xerox trains is "recognizing objections". Here's my point: conditions (one type of objection) cannot be "removed". For example, "...we're within a week of bankruptcy..." is a objection/condition which cannot be removed. It MUST be uncovered, identified/clarified, and the SR must move on.As I said before, removal is not a prerequisite for transcending an objection. Weakening by comparison, whether or not taught by Xerox, or within OUTSource Sales' field of experience, is highly effective. It should be taught, but first it should be understood.
My comments come from 30+ years of B2B sales. My formal sales training comes from Xerox, 3M, Apple Computer, etc. I am currently offering sales consulting services.SalesPractice is a good way to get exposure for those services and I wish you well in that endeavour.
Ace, I'm not sure that the language utilized in your post is helping you put forward your thought on the topic. Perhaps, you could re-word your post.I was very pleased this morning to receive a comment from Jeff Blackwell who said, "Excellent post!"
Ace, I'm not sure where you're headed with your comments about objections being a request for assistance as a "notion". Xerox based part of their sales training on this premise.There is a distinction between models for learning and models for selling, and even companies like Xerox should make that distinction clear. Perhaps they did but failed to re-word it to your liking.
The idea of "removing objections" seems to me unrealistic as what Xerox trains is "recognizing objections". Here's my point: conditions (one type of objection) cannot be "removed". For example, "...we're within a week of bankruptcy..." is a objection/condition which cannot be removed. It MUST be uncovered, identified/clarified, and the SR must move on.As I said before, removal is not a prerequisite for transcending an objection. Weakening by comparison, whether or not taught by Xerox, or within OUTSource Sales' field of experience, is highly effective. It should be taught, but first it should be understood.
My comments come from 30+ years of B2B sales. My formal sales training comes from Xerox, 3M, Apple Computer, etc. I am currently offering sales consulting services.SalesPractice is a good way to get exposure for those services and I wish you well in that endeavour.
Ace, I'm not sure that the language utilized in your post is helping you put forward your thought on the topic. Perhaps, you could re-word your post.I was very pleased this morning to receive a comment from Jeff Blackwell who said, "Excellent post!"
So, Ive been in a sales job now for quite a while, however the other day we had a sales training session to keep everything fresh in our heads. During the training, one of the techniques we discussed was open and closed questions.
We were told that we should always use open ended questions to try and get as much out of our client as possible. I can obviously see why they have told us to do that, however it got me thinking about how I personally sell.
When on the phone to a potential buyer, I start by asking the questions that I need to know the answer to in order for me to know the needs of that customer. However, many of my questions are very much straight to the point and I would class them as closed rather than open.
Far enough, you may find out more with open questions, however through my experience, using closed questions can get an answer there and then and hopefully seal the deal quicker.
What does everyone else think? And do you tend to use open questions more than closed or vice versa? -nard1