If I could... would you...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

Would you agree that "Rapport" as defined by Salesguy is vital to personal selling?

I don't like the use of the word "vital" in this instance because it's a strong word that I reserve for other issues in selling that are closer to my heart.

Rapport is important, and SalesGuy chooses a good definition that works for him and I understand his premises I think. I equate it with harmony and open lines of communication. That works for me. Words have different meanings for different people.

There has been both pleasant and heated discussion on this forum regarding the subject of rapport. For those who value other things in selling as more "vital" than rapport, it is easy to unfairly devaluate it as if others were focused on the wrong things.

I keep hearing Jeff's words: "Listen with the intent to understand."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesGuy

Agent Smith, perhaps "Vital" is too strong of a word. Might I suggest the word "Important" instead?

I can agree "vital" wasn't the best or most accurate word choice. "Important" works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesGuy

Rapport, can be defined as a "relation of mutual understanding or trust and agreement between people". In any relationship lacking this rapport what do you have? Nothing.

That definition of rapport is ideal. However, that it's very difficult for most salespeople to learn how to do it effetively.

That is only one of several definitions of rapport that are utilized in sales. Unfortunately, most salespeople have learned and believe that rapport is the art of getting prospects to like them and/or to feel comfortable with them. That definition is one that, most often, becomes the art of insincere mental manipulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacquesWerth

That definition of rapport is ideal. However, that it's very difficult for most salespeople to learn how to do it effetively.

Why do you think that is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesGuy

Rapport, can be defined as a "relation of mutual understanding or trust and agreement between people". In any relationship lacking this rapport what do you have? Nothing.

A post by Jeff caught my eye today. He provided a definition of rapport that he obtained from Google. It said: A relationship of mutual understanding or trust and agreement between people.

That is exactly--word for word--the definition you provided. Out of curiosity, I checked my Webster's New World Dictionary. It's definition was brief: sympathetic relationship; harmony.

The use of the word "harmony" corresponds with my definition. That is not to imply that the Webster's definition is the same as mine.

Here is my thought and a query that comes to mine. Let's assume that your definition is not a coincidence--that Google's source is the same as yours--or perhaps Google is your recent source, as it was Jeff's. Then it would be possible that the functional definition you used before you acquired that definition was expressed differently. If that were the case, why wouldn't your own source of knowledge be just as valid and important as the Google source or, in my case, the Webster source?

I mean it as a real question--not rhetoric. However, it would be dishonest if I were to pretend I didn't have a point to make. It is this: The definitions we choose can be arbitrary. They serve our own functional beliefs. It is very possible that when we talk of rapport, we are all looking through different windows of understanding--not necessarily levels of understanding.

That applies to a lot of discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Boye

A post by Jeff caught my eye today. He provided a definition of rapport that he obtained from Google. It said: A relationship of mutual understanding or trust and agreement between people.

That is exactly--word for word--the definition you provided. Out of curiosity, I checked my Webster's New World Dictionary. It's definition was brief: sympathetic relationship; harmony.

The use of the word "harmony" corresponds with my definition. That is not to imply that the Webster's definition is the same as mine.

Here is my thought and a query that comes to mine. Let's assume that your definition is not a coincidence--that Google's source is the same as yours--or perhaps Google is your recent source, as it was Jeff's. Then it would be possible that the functional definition you used before you acquired that definition was expressed differently. If that were the case, why wouldn't your own source of knowledge be just as valid and important as the Google source or, in my case, the Webster source?

I too quoted a definition provided by Google. I could have just as easily quoted another source such as the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Quote:

RELATION; especially : relation marked by harmony, conformity, accord, or affinity

Both definitions correspond to my original understanding of the word, "rapport".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Boye

...definitions we choose can be arbitrary. They serve our own functional beliefs.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Boye

It is very possible that when we talk of rapport, we are all looking through different windows of understanding--not necessarily levels of understanding.

Different windows (perspective), "Yes".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Boye

That applies to a lot of discussion here.

Differences of perspective are quite often the fuel for disputes both large and small. For instance, when one persons asserts his/her perspective to be the one and only truth. This has happens all across the world including this forum.

Now when two people share the same perspective, such as the perspective that there is no "one and only" truth, this is another example of "rapport". [Chant along with me: "More rapport less war, more rapport less war"

]

This line of thinking reminds me of NLP and NeuroSemantics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesGuy

This line of thinking reminds me of NLP and NeuroSemantics.

Yep. Reading Mind Lines gets me thinking about these things--and I see examples everwhere and on this forum.

For instance, how we nominalize selling (the verb) into selling (the noun) to create a structure for community. Think for instance the next time a new member posts something like: "Hi and Greetings from TimBukToo. I'm in selling and it's great to be here and rap with others.--Joe Closer"

Has anybody even come close to replying with: "Welcome, Joe. Tell us what you sold (the verb) this week and how you did it."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Boye

Has anybody even come close to replying with: "Welcome, Joe. Tell us what you sold (the verb) this week and how you did it."?

Or how about this one, "I'm a ...salesman, marketing rep, etc."

i agree that it's all in the delivery.
the phrase can be extremely useful when used at the right time of the process.
I'm in the car business and it's a great way to establish a starting point for negotiations.

Talk about diggin' into the archives with this two year old thread

IMO, there's nothing wrong with using phrases such as "Where do we need to be in order for us to do business today?" or the truck payment example given in the beginning of this thread.

There's certainly a degree of finesse and proper timing that has to be in place to pull it off.

When I was in car sales, I used both examples many times and sold many cars as a result.

If I could... would you...?

Sales Interview Forum