Sales Myth No. 1: Sell The Benefits

I just watched Grant Leboff's video for the second time. It's titled "Sales Myth #1: Sell the Benefits." It can be viewed at Grant Leboff - Sales Myth: Sell the Benefits

Here's are my problems with Mr. Leboff's concept:

1. He says "the oldest myth in selling is you sell the benefits and not the features." I disagree that this is a myth; and I disgree that you shouldn't present benefits to prospects, especially after you've determined that the prospect needs or wants those benefits.

2. As "proof" of his thesis, he equates benefits with (1) overselling; and (2) creating customer objections. Benefits have nothing to do with overselling; and, if anything, understanding what benefits your prospect want to achieve will help prevent objections.

3. He says benefits selling "makes you sound the same way as everybody else." That's silly, imo. The goal shouldn't be to sound different or the same as everybody else; it should be to utilize sales methodologies that work.

4. He says "benefits never get you to the root of the buyer motivation." He's right. But what he doesn't understand is that they're not supposed to. The needs and wants investigation is supposed to get you to the root of the buyer's motivation; a "benefit" is something you present during a presentation, AFTER you've identified prospect needs. He's got terms mixed up topsy-turvy to make an argument that doesn't hold water.

5. He tells a story about an Italian restaurant; but he's confusing "branding" and "unique selling propositions" with "benefits selling." His story has nothing to do with selling, but has to do with marketing. Yet, he uses it as evidence of why "benefits selling" doesn't work.

Viewer beware! Misinformation lurks throughout the 'net!

__________________
Skip Anderson
Selling To Consumers | Sales Training to Sell More™
Free sales training newsletter. Subscribe!

F.eatures

B.enefits

I.ncentives

I say sell the Incentives because they are what motivate the customer to buy!!!

It is great that the copier has a stapler. (Feature)

It is greater because it will staple multiple page copies by itself. (Benefit)

It is greatest because you can be more productive doing a more important task than stapling. (Incentive)

Sell4Alivn:

FYI: What you are calling an "incentive" is what I call a "benefit." A "benefit" is the realized benefit of owning a product or using a service.

I was just regurgitating what I was taught many years ago.

I say people don't buy Features and Benefits, they buy a solution to a problem they have. If you learn how to create a "solution" to their problem that they 'can't live without' and they are the decision maker, they will buy it from you.

That is not selling features and benefits.

You probably don't agree with me, however.

__________________
Paulette
www.estc.sandler.com
paulette@sandler.com

Hi Paulette. I don't know who your "you probably don't agree with me" comment is directed to, but I would like to share a few thoughts (and questions):

1. Paulette, isn't it possible for a customer to buy a product's benefits, and at the same time buy a "solution to a problem?"

"Solving a problem" and "buying benefits" are not mutually exclusive concepts, are they? Can't a customer (and salesperson) do both at the same time? My opinion? They're not opposites.

2. Isn't it a product's benefit that provides the solution?

Let's take this a very simple, even ridiculous, level: If you need to cut a steak and you don't have a knife, you have a problem, right? And the benefit of a knife is that is is sharp and will slice through meat so that you can eat it, right? So if I'm a knife salesperson and learn that my customer doesn't have a way to cut steak, I could present my product solution to him, and during the presentation, I would present the benefit of my product. Paulette, is that sound sales methodology in your opinion?

3. A comment: I believe customers are not always buying to "solve a problem." In fact, their over arching need (what I call the "Super Macro Need" is to feel good. And you can "feel good" without solving a problem.

There are macro needs (using my terminology), that customers want to meet. For instance, one of the macro needs is "To Take a Stand." If you're a consumer and you're tired of foreign countries controlling the U.S. oil supply, you just may go out and buy an electric car to take a stand (this may or may not solve a problem, in fact your purchase of an electric car probably won't solve anything except your need to "take a stand.").

Another macro need is "To Be Generous." Sometimes customers buy from people they like (or contribute money to them in a fundraising effort, for instance) because they like the salesperson (or fundraiser, or waiter, or whatever) and want to be generous. They bought from person "B" instead of person "A" because they really liked person "B"...that's not "solving a problem" it's "being generous." I gave a really big tip to my hair stylist last week. That didn't solve a problem. But it made me feel good. And I was being generous.

What do you think, Paulette and others?

I believe people buy for one of two reasons: to resolve a problem (or avoid having one) or for pleasure. The stronger buying motive is resolution of a problem either currently happening or the fear of it happening.

The more a problem is perceived and quantified as to 'what the cost to the company is' then the greater the likelihood that someone will 'spend money' to fix it. Viola, a sale....for the product or service to provide the remedy.

Lets take your steak and knife scenario. If I am NOT hungry, and am uninterested in eating the steak, whether I have a knife or not is unimportant and not a problem. If however I am starving, then I might pay ANY amount of money for a knife to cut the steak, so that I can eat it. However, if I was really hungry, I would just use my teeth, and eat it without the knife, as the cavemen did. Showing you a different point of view.

I don't share your opinion that people buy to be nice or just generous. A philanthropist sees a problem and knows he can have a positive impact with his generous donation. He thrives on the attention and knows his money is doing good work.

If I had a 'need' to buy a car, and I was considering 2 different vehicle types I might choose one that 'was better for the environment (your version would be took a stand on something)....but if I have no need to buy a car, I have no situation under which I would 'take a stand'. I don't believe people do it, just to make a point.

You may not share my point of view. I have believed this for years, and in all my sales environments, I have trained sales people to identify the problems their product or service solves and sales have increased.

That is one of the magical pieces of the Sandler Sales System.

Paulette, I agree with most of what you wrote. But you didn't answer my questions. So I'll try one question again:

Isn't it possible for a customer to buy a product's benefits, and at the same time buy a "solution to a problem?"

They are buying the solution to the problem. The benefit to them is that the problem 'goes away'.

So Paulette, then you're saying it isn't possible for a customer to buy a product's benefits, and at the same time buy a "solution to a problem" is that correct?