Buyer's Remorse

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson JC, isn't "engaging in relationship" a "sales technique"?

Yup. Intentional engagement is a sales technique.

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson JC, isn't "engaging in relationship" a "sales technique"?

No.

I have relationships that I would not trade for ten thousand sales techniques. It's a matter of personal values I think.

However, I would guess that in the spirit and context of Sam's fine comment, the two ideas could be considered quite similar.

Originally Posted by Joe Closer No. I have relationships that I would not trade for ten thousand sales techniques. It's a matter of personal values I think. However, I would guess that in the spirit and context of Sam's fine comment, the two ideas could be considered quite similar.

Nobody is suggesting that you trade sales techniques for relationships you have.

"Engaging in relationships" is a sales technique, but it is not exclusively a sales technique.

Originally Posted by Skip Anderson Nobody is suggesting that you trade sales techniques for relationships you have. "Engaging in relationships" is a sales technique, but it is not exclusively a sales technique.

Oh..sorry. Your question was rhetorical then. It surprised me that you asked a question that could be answered with a yes or no, something you have preached against. That explains it.

It's really a syllogistic issue, then...isn't it. Or maybe understanding the difference between tactics and objectives. I think of technique as a tactic. I think of relationship in this context as an objective. Like the difference between tasks and goals.

In your sales training, do you teach the difference between tactics and objectives? Do you think it's important?

Originally Posted by Joe Closer Oh..sorry. Your question was rhetorical then.

My question was "isn't engaging in relationships a sales technique?

There's nothing rhetorical about that question, so I don't understand why you would suggest that.

Originally Posted by Joe Closer It surprised me that you asked a question that could be answered with a yes or no, something you have preached against. That explains it.

I don't think you understood my "preachings." What I have promoted is the use of open-ended questions to foster dialogue and engagement.

However, closed questions are very appropriate (and usually the best types of questions) for: (a) clarifying and (b) closing. I was asking you a simple yes/no question as a point of clarification, but it appears that I upset you by doing so.

Originally Posted by Joe Closer It's really a syllogistic issue, then...isn't it. Or maybe understanding the difference between tactics and objectives. I think of technique as a tactic. I think of relationship in this context as an objective. Like the difference between tasks and goals. In your sales training, do you teach the difference between tactics and objectives? Do you think it's important?

My simple question to you was to ask if you believed "engaging in relationships" was a sales technique. Using your lexicon, the question could be rephrased as "do you believe "engaging in relationships" is a sales tactic?

In my sales training, I teach strategies to achieve the objective of selling more.

My partner and I were having a discussion the other day about whether or not people engaged in 'relationship building' in business networking were actually engaged in a (longer term perhaps) process of selling.

I think we are - and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. What's wrong is when we pretend that that's not what we're doing. That's when it gets creepy.

When I'm building relationships in business I try to do it from as playful and speculative a place as possible. The more people I know and the more open to opportunity I am, the more 'lucky' I'll be.

I'm not ashamed of that kind of opportunism. The question for me in selling isn't whether or not relationship building is a part of selling or not (it is!) it's whether or not we're open about it and at ease with it.

I'm not a fan of euphemisms. One I HATE is 'investment' instead of cost and when someone uses it, it suggests to me that they don't really believe in the value of their product. As a result, I won't touch it - the opposite reaction to what they intended.

Originally Posted by Sam Deeks My partner and I were having a discussion the other day about whether or not people engaged in 'relationship building' in business networking were actually engaged in a (longer term perhaps) process of selling. I think we are - and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. What's wrong is when we pretend that that's not what we're doing. That's when it gets creepy. When I'm building relationships in business I try to do it from as playful and speculative a place as possible. The more people I know and the more open to opportunity I am, the more 'lucky' I'll be. I'm not ashamed of that kind of opportunism. The question for me in selling isn't whether or not relationship building is a part of selling or not (it is!) it's whether or not we're open about it and at ease with it. I'm not a fan of euphemisms. One I HATE is 'investment' instead of cost and when someone uses it, it suggests to me that they don't really believe in the value of their product. As a result, I won't touch it - the opposite reaction to what they intended.

Sam, I am so much impressed with your thoughts, and equally impressed with the way you express them. I am sincerely humbled. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Thanks, Joe. God I love text NOT it's impossible to tell when someone's being sarcastic or flattering. Perhaps that's just as it should be lols

Originally Posted by Sam Deeks Thanks, Joe. God I love text NOT it's impossible to tell when someone's being sarcastic or flattering. Perhaps that's just as it should be lols

That was meant very sincerely, Sam.

/tips hat

Much appreciated