Traditional sales methods are antiquated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OUTSource Sales

The "disconnect" is from reality: anyone thinking that sales approaches are antiquated simply hasn't been outside lately. Or, perhaps because they're selling sales training, it's easy to improve the perception of their offering by implying something negative about that which has been proven successful.

I'd rather see people talking about how they're building on what they've learned versus publishing quotes/videos which are simply not well-researched.

In my experience, there is NO a difference between the auto mechanic, hair dresser, software developer, brain surgeon, or a sales person IF they haven't kept themselves up to date.

Having come through these "antiquated methods", I can't point to the old versus the more recent. So there is an evolution ...

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

What Pat stated above seems quite logical. However, the facts don't support the logic. One of the major differences between the sales vocation and every other major job function is that sales has the largest turnover and failure rates, by far.

People like Pat, who learn traditional sales methods and succeed, are the exceptions, not the norm. What he refers to as an evolution is largely limited to people who have the ability to adjust their behaviors experientially, to what works, rather than adhering to an inefficient sales process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacquesWerth

People like Pat, who learn traditional sales methods and succeed, are the exceptions, not the norm. What he refers to as an evolution is largely limited to people who have the ability to adjust their behaviors experientially, to what works, rather than adhering to an inefficient sales process.

With a sincere apology to him, in advance, for speaking of Pat in the third person, I'll ask Jacque's opinion.

Does Pat's success come from an exceptional ability to execute traditional sales methods, an ability lacking in the majority? If so, doesn't that make those methods viable, but difficult?

Or is Pat, in your opinion, somehow unaware of what works for him, because it is natural for him, and because of that, attributes his success to the popular, and more readily understood, and acceptable, stuff?

I have known people who did not seem to know what made themselves successful, and they often explained it away with cliches.

Would Zig Ziglar have made it with a squeaky voice?

Interesting Jacques. The results should be fascinating if those conducting the research are truly open minded. Beware; preconceived notions might not influence or skew results. And this is a well meaning comment.

Possible reasons why the conclusions generated from the research data will be more or less meaningless; were the fortune 500 sales forces trained properly in the first place? In other words, if researchers introduce a change and get a measurable improvement or reduction in sales efficiency, what does that mean to what you do?

Since Jacques, by his own omission looks at sales process "differently". And I, by my own omission, assert that by far the great majority of sales training within the last 50 years has been crude or mediocre at best, Jacques and I can both argue that what the Fortune 100 companies are doing is inappropriate for different and varying reasons, many perhaps quite compelling.

The above being said, it is Outsource Sales various comments that are the most thought provoking in the thread in my oh so non-humble opinion;

Quote:

I'd rather see people talking about how they're building on what they've learned versus publishing quotes/videos which are simply not well-researched.

I wrote quite a tirade in regards to the "closers are for shysters" thread, on this exact topic. Authors/Speakers/Trainers ARE IN FACT USING SLEAZY TABLOID HEADLINES and EXPLOITIVE SALES & MARKETING TECHNIQUES in order to sell.

The problem with it is that it is working and filling many sales people's minds with garbage. By far the most frustrating part about this style of marketing ploy is there simply is no need to do it to sell boatloads of services and materials, none at all.

Quote:

In my experience, there is NO a difference between the auto mechanic, hair dresser, software developer, brain surgeon, or a sales person IF they haven't kept themselves up to date.

And what is the point? Up to date means what? How about this as a concept - it means that you are either improving or doing the opposite. That repetition is a very strong concept in any training. Just the act of making you think during a weekend, 1/2 or one day event is enough to sharpen your mind and have an impact on skills, let alone the reminders about things you have forgotten!

If the sales training industry was selling the benefits of training, as it is done in sports, for instance, there would be no need for SHOCK treatment to sell.

Exploitive methods in marketing within our industry is what all of us as professionals need to rally against.

The comments about "building on what they've learned" and "evolution" (this in reference to what Pat's comment made me feel first, then Jacques) is, to me, very natural. Of course, as you mature and with experience you will improve. And that applies to whether you were taught sales by XEROX, SANDLER, Jacques, myself or Pat.

Finally, what bothers me Jacques about your obstinacy, referring to your sales method teaching and your posts in various threads is quite simple. It isn't that you assert what most in the sales industry do not beleive, it's as if you deny that sales people will improve with practice - no matter who taught what methodology.

All I can say is, I think Socrates is rolling in his grave (and this applies to 99+% of what is posted in this forum, let alone any specific thread).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold Calling

Interesting Jacques. The results should be fascinating if those conducting the research are truly open minded. Beware; preconceived notions might not influence or skew results. And this is a well meaning comment.

Possible reasons why the conclusions generated from the research data will be more or less meaningless; were the fortune 500 sales forces trained properly in the first place? In other words, if researchers introduce a change and get a measurable improvement or reduction in sales efficiency, what does that mean to what you do?

Since Jacques, by his own omission looks at sales process "differently". And I, by my own omission, assert that by far the great majority of sales training within the last 50 years has been crude or mediocre at best, Jacques and I can both argue that what the Fortune 100 companies are doing is inappropriate for different and varying reasons, many perhaps quite compelling.

The above being said, it is Outsource Sales various comments that are the most thought provoking in the thread in my oh so non-humble opinion;

I wrote quite a tirade in regards to the "closers are for shysters" thread, on this exact topic. Authors/Speakers/Trainers ARE IN FACT USING SLEAZY TABLOID HEADLINES and EXPLOITIVE SALES & MARKETING TECHNIQUES in order to sell.

The problem with it is that it is working and filling many sales people's minds with garbage. By far the most frustrating part about this style of marketing ploy is there simply is no need to do it to sell boatloads of services and materials, none at all.

And what is the point? Up to date means what? How about this as a concept - it means that you are either improving or doing the opposite. That repetition is a very strong concept in any training. Just the act of making you think during a weekend, 1/2 or one day event is enough to sharpen your mind and have an impact on skills, let alone the reminders about things you have forgotten!

If the sales training industry was selling the benefits of training, as it is done in sports, for instance, there would be no need for SHOCK treatment to sell.

Exploitive methods in marketing within our industry is what all of us as professionals need to rally against.

The comments about "building on what they've learned" and "evolution" (this in reference to what Pat's comment made me feel first, then Jacques) is, to me, very natural. Of course, as you mature and with experience you will improve. And that applies to whether you were taught sales by XEROX, SANDLER, Jacques, myself or Pat.

Finally, what bothers me Jacques about your obstinacy, referring to your sales method teaching and your posts in various threads is quite simple. It isn't that you assert what most in the sales industry do not beleive, it's as if you deny that sales people will improve with practice - no matter who taught what methodology.

All I can say is, I think Socrates is rolling in his grave (and this applies to 99+% of what is posted in this forum, let alone any specific thread).

I agree with much of the above post.

I don't know if the use of the word "omission" twice was a typo, in lieu of "admission", or intentional. But if you really think about it, "omission" just might work in the context of the thoughts expressed.

Most "sales training", as touted by the ever-increasing army of self-proclaimed gurus, is pure pablum.

Everybody participates on this forum for their own reason. As a self-depracating "Joe Closer" (Jung in chic'), I look at the site mostly to get a glimpse of the competition, ie., the minds of those in sales at all levels.

I agree with Gold Call that one can progress as one matures in a variety of methodologies. What I look for, and zero in on, is some form of evidence of that progression.

This wonderful forum has existed for a while. When you take the time to read the posts of those who post here, from months and years ago, it seems the same questions are often there. That is not progress.

I don't want to paraphrase Gold Call, but if he feels that the idea is to pick a good concept, make it your own, and be the best you can be with it, then I would heartily agree.

BTW, Socrates was the contrarian of his day.

Jacques, I'm not sure what you're smokin' but I am NOT the exception: "People like Pat, who learn traditional sales methods and succeed, are the exceptions, not the norm."

I can tell you in all sincerity that probably 85% of the SRs with whom I worked at 3M, Xerox, Apple Computer, etc. have a sustained history of consistent sales success! In fact, numerous have been more successful once they've departed the politics of the big company ... taken the sales training and run! Without counting, I think there are somewhere in the order of 10 to 15 SRs from my past life who are currently C-level in large companies or retired millionaires!

Your comments are off-the-mark: "What he refers to as an evolution is largely limited to people who have the ability to adjust their behaviors experientially, to what works, rather than adhering to an inefficient sales process." It seems to me that, by bringing it down to "ability", you've glossed over some fairly fundamental strengths which are typical of those who have sustained success in sales. Interestingly, a number of these associates have been nurtured by formal training (time management, business skills, etc.). Others, became successful by taking it on the road with a superb mentor, coach, motivator.

I'd suggest that some SRs flourish in certain environments where others suffer. In these instances, the training is taken with much gusto and they bolt for greener pastures in fairly short order. This is especially true with the young SRs today. A close friend of my daughter's was explaining to me last month why he left a Xerox agency after only about 14 months. Whereas, the sales offering tended to be more robust when I was his age (salaries, pensions fully vested in 5 yrs., etc.), so, we were able to endure the learning curve.

Jacques, I'm missing something: "... the facts don't support the logic." To what "facts" are you referring? My personal experience has been laid out, not for judgment, but in an effort to assist the rookies participating in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, what I've included in the post is factual and I don't see anything in your responses to the contrary.

The authors of business books are interested in selling books, so, they make explosive statements. Thus my apprehension in "facts" which are illustrated in these publications. With respect to research studies, my time managing a marketing team (at Apple), showed me how mis-guided the data can get. Especially, when the stakeholders have a point to make: anyone read a research study sponsored by a pharmaceutical firm?

I'm also having difficulty with: "One of the major differences between the sales vocation and every other major job function is that sales has the largest turnover and failure rates, by far." I'm not sure that you can make this general a statement. I think if you took certain sales jobs, there may be empirical data to support the thought. Real Estate, retail, etc. might well have massive turn-over. The comment might be especially accurate where the roles do NOT include a salary, so the rookies cannot afford to gain real experience.

It would be interesting to see what average tenure for 711 attendants, airport security guards, etc. and compare that to the broad definition of SRs which you seem to be including in your broad statement.

Jacques, I learned a valuable lesson in the hey-day: when dealing with investment brokers, I would ask, "... are you selling any investment products?". The answer to the question was always telling when the particular broker was angling his "advice" towards any specific product (which he happened to be selling).

This analogy to imply, Jacques, that when you're selling a product or service (eg. sales training), you really need to be a little bit more objective when you offer advice. Simply put (by Gold Calling), "Exploitive methods in marketing within our industry is what all of us as professionals need to rally against."

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Quote:

Originally Posted by OUTSource Sales

Simply put (by Gold Calling), "Exploitive methods in marketing within our industry is what all of us as professionals need to rally against."

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

WHY rally against?

I prefer to simply compete against it.

First I'll take care of my family. THEN I'll save the world.

The FACT is we don't need to rally against that, as you suggest. We need to just be better than that.

Joe Closer, the quote is from Gold Calling but I'm truly apprehensive when I see info in the thread being portrayed as "fact".

My experience dictates something 180 degrees away from Jacques' comments. AND, I do not consider myself the exception so something's amiss ... AND, the SRs with whom I worked were successful. Xerox has a history in this regard which cannot be refuted.

I am currently engaged documenting a start-up's sales model (everything from sales compensation to training). Interestingly, they've struck upon a web-based sales training offering. The appeal is that there are about 72 modules (seriously) formatted as videos and the cost is LOW. In this fashion, my client can run the training sessions with these modules as the foundation. The unfortunate thing is that the content isn't an exact match. There are some concerns with the "generic" approach, it's questionable how valuable the lessons learned.

My point: I can't find a PSS-like training offering which fits their needs. It's frustrating to see that every sales training site which I've visited misses the point by miles!

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Quote:

Originally Posted by OUTSource Sales

Joe Closer, the quote is from Gold Calling but I'm truly apprehensive when I see info in the thread being portrayed as "fact".

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Pat, I used the word "we", a collective pronoun. Gold call might need to rally. I don't. Therefore, my statement is factual.

I agree with you on your discernment on the word, "fact", as it is used in an arena of opinions, but your apprehension on my usage was misplaced.

That said, I'm intrigued by your current project, and would love to know more.

Joe Closer, I wasn't referring to you wrt "fact", rather, it was back to Jacques' comments.

Gold Calling was right on the money with his insightful comment about "Exploitive methods in marketing within our industry". I'm not on-board with rallying against it ... although I am getting a little stressed on the topic.

My apologies for not being a little bit more clear ...

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Outsource, may I say it again. Terrific job of expressing your thoughts so they are clearly understood. A mighty "Here, Here" from here!

Joe ... this issue for me (and perhaps what stresses Pat) ... is really simple. It is as simple as misuse of sales skills. I cringe when someone says "Oh, he could sell ice cubes to Eskimos!" After all, why would anyone even try to sell someone something they don't need (because they don't have enough prospects?). And while this analogy is perhaps weak, as you cannot force a sale, why would anyone use SLEAZY TABLOID HEADLINES to EXPLOIT HUMAN NATURE just to sell books?

Now, let me be very clear about one thing before I go on - I had the great pleasure of speaking to Jacques on the phone yesterday, which I enjoyed. And I am not specifically referring in this post to anyone in particular (unless referenced), to Jacques' book or his training or whatever it is he does/offers. I am referring to a technique that is doing exactly as Pat alluded to all over the Internet. It stinks.

The issue is human nature. And I say that from all sides. Sales training (there are many trainers here), actual sales and the prospect/client. I am stunned when someone suggests that some form of prospecting means you won't have to deal with "attitudes" (stemming from misunderstandings in communications for instance). That "if you do it right, this never happens" (or words to that affect). It is like saying that what the sales person does belies that the human nature of the buyer or would-be buyer affects communications!

And, the above, this comment about human nature, this applies regardless of what methodology is used - people do misunderstand. And a misunderstanding does not preclude you doing business, not at all. What stops business from being done is a lack of actual need or the inability of the seller to understand the needs and attitudes of prospects.

Who knows? Pat and I came out of the XEROX camp of training. We know it inside out and backwards (though me from the training side, I never worked for Xerox - not an "oid", just oid-like). We don't know what Jacques or anyone else in radical departure from the sales training industry teaches and that is part of the issue. If it is so good, explain why. Don't just make vague reference to some unnamed research or "fact', prove it.

And Jacques, I am not attacking you personally or your method, whatever it is. I am saying - we do not know what it is and therefore cannot evaluate it.

I teach sales and make money doing it. But I am not afraid to share what I know here for free to help people. I would like the 'other camp' to be honest and forthright for the same reason.

Spill the beans and let us see what they are, otherwise you are or could be misleading people. That is what I rally against and would talk others into following me on. Let's keep those who don't know any better yet from being mislead.

What have you got to hide? If nothing then let's have the meat of the matter out in the open.

Why do I have to get debates started to uncover the facts that are heretofore merely referenced and not explained?

There can never be an end to the argument that things have changed or have not, not really. As studies can be slanted either way with exactly the same data ... what is of little doubt is that using the right headline can sell a **** load of training/books/tapes/cd's/dvd's. Even if the information is based on little or no research or is just misleading.

I know a man intimately who sells every day of his life, who is not as intelligent as I am (and he would admit this too, though he is certainly impressive), yet he has gotten consistent results for 5 decades. If you ask him about changes in the world and prospects what he will tell you as an old sage is quite surprising. He can clearly demonstrate what has changed the world and business and loves to talk about it but he can also say that there is no quantitative change in people - in human nature.

"Prospects know more!" Really? I thought people were a little less educated today than before, if anything. Though this is not the knowledge that is being referred to, is it?

Now, hold on. The "other camp", before you jump to conclusions, damn it, try to communicate. And 'listen' to what I am trying to say. I have had "ready, willing and able" ones not buy. Now ... the question is "why not?"

Do you really think that I would try to sell someone something who doesn't need it? Or that "my camp" uses pain (a word I do not prefer, I like 'needs'), pushing on it to get people to feel the pain so they buy or is it just a word (nearly a direct quote on this forum in response to a post I made!)? What we are interested in is why we loose a sale.

Please, do not trot out here while hiding behind a keyboard and tell me it is because I did not start with a better prospect (that magically had their nature changed and that is why I lost the sale). And, at the same time, don't tell me that TOP PRODUCERS do not walk into prospective client's offices unannounced when they are there anyway and have time until their next meeting. Because I have earned over a million a year, more than once and know many top guys who love old school prospecting, even though referrals are the majority of their income today.

What happens when you ask "Oh, why not?" Are you curious? Is there anything wrong with being curious? Apart from killing the cat, what else does being curious and asking questions do? Allow you to understand the buyer possibly?

My telephone call with Jacques lead me to beleive he is not that much different than I am, though, like Pat, I am from the other camp. Pat and I and others are supposedly unusual, this is what is deduced. It is the only way to fit us into thee empirical data or the thesis. Yet Pat seems to beleive there was a high degree of success at Xerox. Both sides cannot be right .. so what is the truth? Well, like asking the prospect "why not", the answer is very interesting.

Xerox did two things very well. They hired well and trained well.

I would never have survived at Xerox and my hat is off to Pat for having done so. I just thought they were over the top about buying from them. Their brand was the best, never mind features that suited the customer or price.

Remember the K car? Did prospects have to be better informed not to buy that piece of you know what? Or did the Japanese just need to make a car with more value?

Regardless of Xeroid approach, they choose people well and they trained them well.

There is information on this website forum claiming that the reason why conventional training does not stick is what is being trained. How can that be true? Xerox trained conventionally and it stuck. Can it be that hiring is not as good today at Fortune 100 companies as it was when Xerox ruled the world (and did NOT make the best copier!)?

And since I high degree of people succeeded within Xerox and in life afterward it leads us to beleive that the theory that we are unusual; is not based in fact. So what is the truth?

I don't know. I never claimed to know it all. But the main reason I feel unsure to comment further is that the CHANGED WORLD Camp does not explain what is so different about what they teach.

Believe me, I can go on and on about this. And I apologize for the length. But what I am saying is NOT that Jacques isn't on to something. I would like to see disclosure. Put up the support or stop telling us you know something that is unusual/different/better or factual. So far, from what we've gleamed, we have not seen evidence other than opinion to indicate that you are on to something.

What used to be taught b y conventional sales training wisdom from some sales training companies worked amazingly well and still does. From others there was junk and still is, no argument.

I have matured. I am a terrific sales person today. But what I do is the same information I used in 1979 with very little changes except for how I do it (how I say what I say, how it has become more easy. more a part of my nature).

"BTW, Socrates was the contrarian of his day." Yes, he was, and it is my firm belief that he would be today too! That is the whole point. Dale Carnegie was out there and, if by some miracle was alive today, still would be. The inventor of telephone cold calling definitely differed from conventional wisdom too. Doesn't what Jacques is suggesting fit in the same way???

Acting in a way that is contrary does not indicate anything. Columbus might be argued as contrary to popular belief. Magellan definitely was. So what? Some contrarians are ground breakers, some are nuts. Who is to say?

We know one of Megallan's flotilla was first boat to circumnavigate the world and Socrates is now regarded as the "father of western philosophy!" And Xerox training stuck, plus ex-iods, on average, are excellent sales people in terms of success rates.

The truth is the truth and when I use the word RALLY there is no suggestion to torment or start and negativity. All that is mean by me is for us to keep seeking the truth.

Show me a better mouse trap and I can sell it. Show me a better way to sell mouse traps and I will champion it. But tell me you know better and I have to wonder why you aren't proving it - are you just using a marketing ploy to attract buyers?

Yes, I did twice type the same typo in my previous post.

Traditional sales methods are antiquated.

Sales Forum