Traditional sales methods are antiquated.

I think we might have beaten this one to death. Gold Calling, I understand your use of the word, "rally". I simply don't have the bandwidth ...

One further thought on two of your comments about Xerox:
1. "I would never have survived at Xerox ... 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." In point of fact, Xerox never had the lowest price. It's my recollection that Xerox intended to be the highest price (certainly throughout my time there). You aren't alone: it wasn't meant for everyone!

2. "Xerox did two things very well. They hired well and trained well." The two massive mistakes which Xerox made were:
a) the believed that they were strong marketers but they were NOT (if they were so good at marketing, how can you have the patent and 95% share niggled at for so many years?); and,
b) they had an unwritten policy which made hiring ex-Xoids impossible (when what they needed was someone who'd seen it from the other side and could have come back in for a meaninful difference);

On the topic of marketing, Xerox had a room full of "mainframes without front door" (ie. the next technology). Next door, they had a room with ALL of the latest competitive products. At the time, there was a principle in Xerox marketing called, "don't eat your babies". This forced the company to amortize old technology well beyond the useful lifespan. The barnfull of technology sat until some non-sales type decreed it appropriate.

All of this to say, we were fighting the latest competitive technology with the "old iron" (refurb'd - vs - new) and winning more often than not. There certainly was something to be said for the sales skills!

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Closer

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?

I have no idea how Pat sells. Both of the alternatives that JC suggested are good possibilities and there are myriad other possibilities.

It is typical of most top salespeople to have very little factual knowledge of how they are actually selling or why what they do works so well. And, of course, there are exceptions to that, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold Calling

wrote - in small part.
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 don't remember ever saying or implying that salespeople will not improve with practice regardless of what sales methods they use. In fact, almost all top salespeople started out using typical persuasive sales methods. And, those salespeople either improved or failed. Persuasion has been around since before the days of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.

Most of the best salespeople (the top 1%) intuitively change there methods to a non-persuasive sales method. However, some of the best become experts at persuasion. I believe that it is much easier to do the former than the latter.

If you believe that is evidence of my being "obstinate," that may be indicative of your own passion to prevail.

I seem to "fit the bill" for this thread but I'm really not sure how it's gotten to this stage.

For the record, I am aware of what I'm doing when I'm out there. To something Jacques implies, at this stage, it's probably "unconscious competence". In other words, it is NOT a conscious effort which takes me through the cycle. I'm not following a script as I progress through the selling cycle, so, I find the sales life highly enjoyable.

Your comments are somewhat accurate, "... most top salespeople to have very little factual knowledge of how they are actually selling or why what they do works so well." The phrase would be more accurate if you included some perspective on level of maturity as I believe that my success "has improved with age". Where, I was success as a young SR, what's come with experience is a comfort level with the complex, long sales cycle. I'd attribute this directly to the business acumen that has been absorbed, the more temperate approach which has come with the gray hair, and the evolution of my eons of sales training taken.

I don't know a young sales people who can articulate the reasons for their success other than, perhaps, "... I work hard...". I know some seasoned SRs who can identify elements of what has made them successful.

For the last couple of years, I had managed a relatively young sales team. Last year we generated over $17 mil on a revenue plan of $13 mil. To a person, they attribute their 2 years with me as the turning point in their careers. I could detail their attributes without referring to notes but they could not tell you specifically why they hit those sort of numbers. BUT they would say that the "gray hair" got them to seriously re-think their approach to a number of facets of their approach to the business!

GC, my sales success relates to a broader scope than "an exceptional ability to execute traditional sales methods". I believe that's virtually 2nd nature at this stage which is probably your point (although, I frequently find myself consciously thinking (for example), "... this guy is a low reactor ..."). I'd like to think my success is also a function of my personal style which includes my sense of humour, compassion for my clientele, and a sense of who I am as an individual. ALL of the above makes sales a good fit for me.

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold Calling

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

It's refreshing to see that some people have a problem with this. Kudos GC.

One way to rally against this is by not supporting it. You don't have to look hard in the sales training industry to find sales trainers/authors who participate in that type of exploitive marketing themself or partner with sales trainers/authors who do. Even crazier is that many of these same sales trainers/authors complain about manipulation and ethics in sales. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Outsource (Pat), that was exactly what I was saying about Xerox. At the stage where I was cutting my sales teeth (1979 thru 1983), neither features nor price by comparison had an advantage over the Japanese - quite the opposite in fact (I knew exactly what you were selling). That was why I was so intrigued by the training. After all, there had to be a reason why XOIDs were as successful as they were ... but I never liked the Corporate attitude (not meaning the sales people), which is partially revealed by your story about ex-XOIDs not getting hired back.

Of course, if I was not on the other side of the fence I might have felt quite differently.

In my opinion it was this general Xerox attitude that caused them to loose the market domination. They could have made a better product but the feeling was similar to the one Bell Canada displays. And they are getting eaten up too (this is old news).

I think Jacques quote is amazingly revealing. He said;

Quote:

"I have no idea how Pat sells."

And I have no idea how Jacques sells. This is the very point I was striving at. Let's get some of this out on the table to see what the real differences are if there are any (I have a feeling that they are not that great, that is why I have called all these guys on the phone and spoken to them).

Pat (Outsource) and I both started with the same basic selling skills training program, which is referred to as BASIC for a very good reason. Everyone is expected to build on it or evolve (or whatever term you want to you call it). In my opinion Pat has quite eloquently shown his sales evolution in this forum and I am not picking on Jacques I just want to see where we differ.

Being a little less general in the forum is a good start. After all, if we can't do it here where can we? As this site is listed on top at Yahoo and very close to the top at Google.

Finally, I do not know how to teach persuasion. The word persuasion nor any techniques that would lead anyone to believe that something dark exists exists behind the curtain - like in the Wizard of OZ - and are taught in PSS or in our own 4 hour prospecting seminar or via Gold Calling®.

I do know how to ask the prospect what they need and, if my product addresses those needs, how to show them they can get that from what I offer so they can then make an informed decision.

This is not one iota different than what was taught in 1977 when I took PSS II. That does not mean that I am not more comfortable in my skin today and as a result a much better sales person. It just means that the basics are EXACTLY the same.

So, if I am not persuasive and Jacques teaches sales people not to be, what are we debating? I wish I knew more so that it would be far more interesting and productive.

Understanding once again that influence is something we all have, regardless of what we want to name it (or if we try to ignore it or run from it, which is not what I am saying Jacques does).

I love the argumentative process. It is extremely productive. In fact, I personally can't think of anything that would be more invigorating than debating sales other than selling. With the possible exception of running a river in an open canoe for 4 or 5 days during full spring flood in Northern Ontario or Quebec!

Thanks Speed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by OUTSource Sales

I seem to "fit the bill" for this thread but I'm really not sure how it's gotten to this stage.

For the record, I am aware of what I'm doing when I'm out there. To something Jacques implies, at this stage, it's probably "unconscious competence". In other words, it is NOT a conscious effort which takes me through the cycle. I'm not following a script as I progress through the selling cycle, so, I find the sales life highly enjoyable.

Your comments are somewhat accurate, "... most top salespeople to have very little factual knowledge of how they are actually selling or why what they do works so well." The phrase would be more accurate if you included some perspective on level of maturity as I believe that my success "has improved with age". Where, I was success as a young SR, what's come with experience is a comfort level with the complex, long sales cycle. I'd attribute this directly to the business acumen that has been absorbed, the more temperate approach which has come with the gray hair, and the evolution of my eons of sales training taken.

I don't know a young sales people who can articulate the reasons for their success other than, perhaps, "... I work hard...". I know some seasoned SRs who can identify elements of what has made them successful.

For the last couple of years, I had managed a relatively young sales team. Last year we generated over $17 mil on a revenue plan of $13 mil. To a person, they attribute their 2 years with me as the turning point in their careers. I could detail their attributes without referring to notes but they could not tell you specifically why they hit those sort of numbers. BUT they would say that the "gray hair" got them to seriously re-think their approach to a number of facets of their approach to the business!

GC, my sales success relates to a broader scope than "an exceptional ability to execute traditional sales methods". I believe that's virtually 2nd nature at this stage which is probably your point (although, I frequently find myself consciously thinking (for example), "... this guy is a low reactor ..."). I'd like to think my success is also a function of my personal style which includes my sense of humour, compassion for my clientele, and a sense of who I am as an individual. ALL of the above makes sales a good fit for me.

Good luck & Good selling!
Pat

The above post is so instructive, it should be copied, pasted, studied, and frenquently referred to.

On an Internet forum, a person can be anyone he/she wants to be, and sometimes get away with it for a while.

I don't know Pat. But I can say now with absolute certainty, he is the real deal. A rare breed. For anybody who wants to know what a true professional has inside, you just saw it.

I certainly to agree Joe. Pat has a real straight up, straight forward professional approach to selling. Love it or not (and I do), you have to respect him for this overall attitude.

My last post was badly edited – please replace the first paragraph with this;

Outsource (Pat), that was exactly what I was saying about Xerox. At the stage where I was cutting my sales teeth (1979 thru 1983), neither features nor price by comparison had an advantage over the Japanese - quite the opposite in fact (I knew exactly what you were selling). That was why I was so intrigued by the training. After all, there had to be a reason why XOIDs were as successful as they were ... but I never liked the Corporate attitude (not meaning the sales people), which is partially revealed by your story about ex-XOIDs not getting hired back.

---- ----- ---- ---- ----

For those who do not know the story, Xerox had the patent on plain paper copier technology (Xerography, invented by Chestor Carlson), which did not expire until the late 70's. There was a very smart decision made by Halloid Corporation (by then they changed their name to Xerox), to rent their equipment, leading to the single most profitable invention until the subversive nature of the micro chip and personal computers (Xerox 914).

When the patent expired the company from the Corporate end believed they were the be all and end all. Following through with this vision, selling inferior product, their sales reps won business mainly based on the name and reputation as well as a stable company. This approach eventually failed (as it must, because people buy value - no not price - VALUE!) and Canon is now the largest copier company in the world.

In fact, indirectly Chestor's invention led to what we know as the laser printer. All it took was to realize that the DEVELOPER (iron fillings) in Xerography could be replaced by another element that both held a static charge and could be fused (ceramics). This technology, belonging to Cannon, is used under license by Hewlett Packard and many other laser copiers, fax machines, printers and copiers.

Interestingly, Xerox is not the first to blow it in the copier market. APECO, dominated prior, starting in the 30's with a machine that was basically an enclosed dark room. They were offered exclusivity of the Xerography license, because American Photocopier Equipment CO. (APECO) was the largest. After stupidly turning it down they basically disappeared to obscurity inside a decade.

About the time that the Xerox 914 was taking over, my dad won the APECO's National Sales Contest in Canada (1963 I beleive) and got an cash award of $900.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this topic thread if we were referring to the antiquated marketing strategies and corporate attitudes of many companies, especially both Xerox and APECO, who lost big time as a result. Though APECO paid the much bigger price.

The sales training and sales people, however, at both companies, they weren't to blame and were quite the opposite. The word excellence comes to mind.

In fact, APECO's influence (there's that word again) to some degree brought about the creativity that spawned the phrase now trademarked as GOLD CALLING®, which belongs to me in both Canada and the U.S. and is destined to become well known in sales.

Thanks to everyone for the great information and responses!

Traditional sales methods are antiquated.

Sales Forum