We're not interested objection

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacquesWerth

Salespeople that know how to find and meet with prospects that are ready, willing and able to buy, sell a lot more than those who engage "interested" prospects. End of story.

If you don't know how to find and identify high probability prospects, and you don't want to develop that skill, then your only alternative is to vigorously defend a second rate sales process.

1. Jacques, perhaps you could explain to the community how you go about finding prospects who are "ready, willing, and able to buy" unless you've engaged them.

2. I think your second paragraph is self-serving. I believe that there is a lot to be learned from various sales thinkers, sales trainers, and veteran salespeople other than just Jacques Werth. I don't know if I know of any "second-rate sales processes." But I know of a third-rate one: it's called "high probability selling." End of story.

Skip Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson

1. Jacques, perhaps you could explain to the community how you go about finding prospects who are "ready, willing, and able to buy" unless you've engaged them.

2. I think your second paragraph is self-serving. I believe that there is a lot to be learned from various sales thinkers, sales trainers, and veteran salespeople other than just Jacques Werth. I don't know if I know of any "second-rate sales processes." But I know of a third-rate one: it's called "high probability selling." End of story.

Skip Anderson

You advocate not to personally attack anyone on this site yet you squeeze your comments in at every opportunity against certain members of this community. What's your deal man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacquesWerth

Salespeople that know how to find and meet with prospects that are ready, willing and able to buy, sell a lot more than those who engage "interested" prospects. End of story.

"Ready, willing and able" takes more time, and whether you're going to invest that depends upon what you're selling and the length of the cycle. If it's going to take five meetings and six months to place equipment in the six figures, that's one type of prospecting. With the cost of a selling encounter steadily rising, I'd indeed want the salesperson to do some advance work in order to know the best way to approach an organization, and to know the factors that influence the likelihood of a buy.

If you're looking to sell life insurance to a young family, it's different. "Interested" is probably good enough, so long as my qualifying questions have determined the need, whether husband and wife are in accord for the purchase, and if they're financially ready to move forward.

But then, "interested" really morphs into "ready, willing and able," doesn't it?

There's a fine line at work here, and maybe the lesson involved is that salespeople should ask more qualifying questions before they ever agree to sit with a prospect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson

1. Jacques, perhaps you could explain to the community how you go about finding prospects who are "ready, willing, and able to buy" unless you've engaged them.

2. I think your second paragraph is self-serving. I believe that there is a lot to be learned from various sales thinkers, sales trainers, and veteran salespeople other than just Jacques Werth. I don't know if I know of any "second-rate sales processes." But I know of a third-rate one: it's called "high probability selling."
Skip Anderson

1. I have described the High Probability Prospecting process in great detail numerous times in these SalesPractice.com forums. If you really want to know, they are easy to find.

2. When you make it clear that you have no understanding of the HPS process, but cast unfounded aspersions at it, you show everyone what you are made of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Training

"Ready, willing and able" takes more time, and whether you're going to invest that depends upon what you're selling and the length of the cycle. If it's going to take five meetings and six months to place equipment in the six figures, that's one type of prospecting. With the cost of a selling encounter steadily rising, I'd indeed want the salesperson to do some advance work in order to know the best way to approach an organization, and to know the factors that influence the likelihood of a buy.

If you're looking to sell life insurance to a young family, it's different. "Interested" is probably good enough, so long as my qualifying questions have determined the need, whether husband and wife are in accord for the purchase, and if they're financially ready to move forward.

But then, "interested" really morphs into "ready, willing and able," doesn't it?

There's a fine line at work here, and maybe the lesson involved is that salespeople should ask more qualifying questions before they ever agree to sit with a prospect.

You are right. But, the line is not very “fine.”
Coincidentally, I used to own an insurance agency. Before that I was VP, Sales for a company that built capital equipment for electronics manufacturers. The largest single sale that I closed was for $14 million.

Regardless of the sales situation, it is easy to determine if prospects are ready, willing and able to buy, or not - before you decide to spend your valuable time with them.

If you know can do that, why would you ever make an appointment with someone who is merely interested?

Quote:

Salespeople that know how to find and meet with prospects that are ready, willing and able to buy, sell a lot more than those who engage "interested" prospects. End of story.

If you don't know how to find and identify high probability prospects, and you don't want to develop that skill, then your only alternative is to vigorously defend a second rate sales process.

Finding and meeting with prospects that are "ready, willing and able to buy" does not eliminate objections (i.e. "We're not interested") caused by a salesperson not doing their due dilligence in the sales process. Even the most qualified prospects still need to be convinced that your product or service will be beneficial to them and/or their company.

Although I appreciate your attempt to promote your product and process I still have to disagree that your solution is a "magic potion" and will guarantee no objections. Telling salespeople to only look for "laydowns" and not do their due dilligence in qualifying and delivering a solution for a potential customer is both impractical and irresponsible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacquesWerth

1. I have described the High Probability Prospecting process in great detail numerous times in these SalesPractice.com forums. If you really want to know, they are easy to find.

2. When you make it clear that you have no understanding of the HPS process, but cast unfounded aspersions at it, you show everyone what you are made of.

Jacques, what you seem to be missing is that you have no problem calling any system that is non-hps "second rate", yet when someone calls your high probability selling "third rate", you acuse that individual of casting "unfounded aspersions" of your system.

Do you see how that might not appear to be fair? I suggest that you either quit casting stones at others' systems, or accept stones when they're cast back at your system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robhalv1

Finding and meeting with prospects that are "ready, willing and able to buy" does not eliminate objections (i.e. "We're not interested") caused by a salesperson not doing their due dilligence in the sales process. Even the most qualified prospects still need to be convinced that your product or service will be beneficial to them and/or their company.

Although I appreciate your attempt to promote your product and process I still have to disagree that your solution is a "magic potion" and will guarantee no objections. Telling salespeople to only look for "laydowns" and not do their due dilligence in qualifying and delivering a solution for a potential customer is both impractical and irresponsible.

Can you please provide the source for the quote above that you attributed to Mr. Werth?

If not, are you willing to rescind the word "irresponsible".

It's OK to disagree, but let's play fair. Misquotes to support an accusation of irresponsbility doesn't constitute playing fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson

Jacques, what you seem to be missing is that you have no problem calling any system that is non-hps "second rate", yet when someone calls your high probability selling "third rate", you acuse that individual of casting "unfounded aspersions" of your system.

Do you see how that might not appear to be fair? I suggest that you either quit casting stones at others' systems, or accept stones when they're cast back at your system.

Which systems did Mr. Werth apply the words "second rate" to?

Quote:

Can you please provide the source for the quote above that you attributed to Mr. Werth?

If not, are you willing to rescind the word "irresponsible".

It's OK to disagree, but let's play fair. Misquotes to support an accusation of irresponsbility doesn't constitute playing fair.

If you know how to find prospects who want what you have to offer, you won't waste time on disinterested prospects. You won't even spend time with interested prospects that are not ready, willing and able to buy.

- This statement implies that these prospects would have no objections what so ever which is impractical

If you don't know how to find and identify high probability prospects, and you don't want to develop that skill, then your only alternative is to vigorously defend a second rate sales process.

- This statement implies that unless you are only working high probability prospects everything else is second rate. That is irresponsible. I close a lot of business and a large portion of them are not high probability prospects. They are prospects!

Again, I have no argument with the point that working only highly qualified leads makes your life easier. But to imply that it is the only way is wrong. This topic is about dealing with the objection "we're not interested" not "high probability prospecting".

We're not interested objection

Sales Resistance Forum