I've been wrong all along - I have to apologize to all of you.

Here I have been saying that the world may be changing but people are not, then a small piece of the puzzle came together. This from the best sales speaker I have ever heard;

"The day of the snow job artist is over. He/she no longer has a place in our society. The sales person who overwhelms people with words just doesn’t belong in sales any longer.

Today, the great sales people sell not by telling people but by asking questions. You can ask your way into far more sales than you will ever talk your way into."

What do you think? Does this quote accurately fit with the way you think the world and sellign is changing?

I voted no.

Not because I don't believe that the day of the fast-talking sales person is over. I do.

I just think it happened a long, long time ago.

Asking questions has been the dominant model in sales for well over a decade - closer to two - certainly amongst leading practitioners.

Regards

Ian

Excellent Ian, that is what this kind of thread is about. There is really no wrong answer ...

We are 9 to 1, anyone else care to commewnt - keep voting the poll ends on Saturday.

By the way, Ian, if you feel this change in the quote has been prevalent for a decade to two, what if anything has changed recently?

I don't think people on the whole have changed much emotionally. People are still struggling with the same vices and virtues from days of old. Personal communication - questions, listening, etc. -probably hasn't changed much either.

I think you're right that the fundamentals don't change - but my experience has been that some things do.

For example, our attention span (or certainly the attention span of my kids) has been shrinking year on year as a result of the sound-bite culture on TV. We're also exposed much more to a wide variety of influences and experiences (my kids use the word "candy" to mean what we Brit's call "sweets" for example, thanks to all the Disney channel they watch).

In terms of how that impacts on sales, I've noticed 3 things:

1) People are more demanding of how they're dealt with. They want things their way. They don't want to be interrupted, and they don't want direct selling/mail/calls pushed at them.

2) People are more cynical - and ignore things which are blatant sales attempts. Example - Jakob Nielsen the web usability guru has long identified a phenomenon called "banner blindness". Shortly after advertising banners became prominent on the internet Nielsen noticed in his eye-tracking studies of web users that most people learnt to ignore them. Anything that looks like an advertising banner doesn't even get looked at nowadays - even if it's not actually an ad.

3) People get used to sales tactics and see through them. The classic long sales letter (with page after page of benefits and testimonials, and the price at the end, 15 pages in), for example, has long been shown in direct mail to get a much better response than shorter, prettier communications. However, James Brausch and Michael Fortin have both reported their own recent studies showing better response rates for shorter, clearer pitches. Personally I hate long sales letters nowadays. If I'm reading one I just page through to get to the price - I don't read all the benefits & testimonials at all (in contrast to 5 years ago when I used to read through them. I've read so many now they all seem the same, and they seem manipulative).

In my own field of large sales - the sort of tactics which used to get you a meeting: talking about the savings the potential client could get, or learning about the work you've done with some of their competitors or related industries - they're now used by so many competitors from photcopier salesmen to high-end strategy consultants that they just disappear into a blur and get largely ignored.

Anyhoo - just my 2c. I guess the logic behind it is that while we as people don't change in terms of our biology and fundamental drives - our experience and our education does change - and so we change as a result.

Ian

This is an important topic - and poll - and I think much can be learned here. If you haven't done so already I encourage you to participate and cast your vote.

Ian;

Once again I like your posts for a specific reason. Mostly because you take a risk and actually do more than state opinions, which there is too little of in this forum.

You have stated that "they don't want direct selling/mail/calls pushed at them." Then you mentioned as well; "the sort of tactics which used to get you a meeting ... they're now used by so many competitors from photcopier salesmen to high-end strategy consultants that they just disappear into a blur and get largely ignored."

So how are you getting meetings? If people don't want calls or mail and they tactics you used prior to get meetings "disappear into a blur", what do YOU do?

Maybe selling only "looks" like it's changing to some people because they were following poor sales practices to begin with even though they still made sales. As people become more and more conditioned to these poor sales practices salespeople will have to change to more effective sales practices to achieve the same performance level. The more effective sales practices aren't new they are actually old.

So, you voted no Houston?

And, if I understand you correctly, you feel that to some sales people because they became more aware they thought sellign was changing, it was actually they who changed, they just started to realize they needed to due to the fact that they were poorly trained initially? Very sharp premise, one that had not occurred to me. Excellent post.

As you can see, "we" do not take sides, no answer is wrong necessarily. Anyone else care to vote?

Yes I voted No and Yes that's what I meant.

Originally Posted by Gold Calling So, you voted no Houston? And, if I understand you correctly, you feel that to some sales people because they became more aware they thought sellign was changing, it was actually they who changed, they just started to realize they needed to due to the fact that they were poorly trained initially? Very sharp premise, one that had not occurred to me. Excellent post. As you can see, "we" do not take sides, no answer is wrong necessarily. Anyone else care to vote?