Things That Are Not (Necessarily) In Conflict

The idea that one should “stop selling” and “start helping their clients produce better results” is to pretend that the first conflicts with the second the truth is that the first is one way to describe the second.

A directive that suggests that one should “stop pitching” and focus on serving the buyer is to believe that there is no place for pitching, even though at some point you are going to give your dream client some hint about what you can do to help them.

The admonition that “no cares about your product” and that all the value you create is found at higher levels of value is to forget that there are groups of stakeholders who care deeply about your product and want explore all the features and benefits.

One of the more dangerous ideas is that one “must not interrupt” their dream client with a phone call and should instead “nurture the relationship over time and wait for them to engage. How much time, they never say. Nor do they acknowledge that these two things can be done simultaneously to great effect.

An equally poor and dangerous idea suggests that one can have either “variable compensation” or “salespeople with a value system that ensures they serve the client,” creating a conflict where there isn’t much of one (these folks have spent too much time watching Glengarry Glenn Ross)

Some suggest that the ideas above are in conflict when they are not. The ideas are only in opposition when one approaches any of them with bad intentions, a poor value system, and poor a moral grounding.

Filed under: Sales 3.0

Share this page with your network