Not by me. Prospects sell themselves.Walker wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 4:42 pm I once heard that top salesmen sell dreams.
Is that true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... zMChU1gVBI
PhilX
Not by me. Prospects sell themselves.Walker wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 4:42 pm I once heard that top salesmen sell dreams.
Is that true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... zMChU1gVBI
That makes sense.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 6:19 pm I practice what I refer to as analytical selling. Here's another aspect to it.
Over 10 years ago before there was a federal do-not-call list in the US, telemarketer's tried to dominate or control conversations using objection rebuttals. When the federal DNC list came about around 2003, between 1 to 2 million telemarketers lost their jobs and billions of dollars went down the drain.
The pity to this is it didn't have to be. The rebuttals on balance don't sell. You can sell better without them. Every rebuttal has a sales point embedded within. Wouldn't you say it's easier to sell if you weren't trying to change somebody's declination into a yes? Just take the sales point and make it part of your presentation. Then after you make your presentation, the prospect would know more about the offer and more likely to give a yes as a part of his decision making. So by avoiding trying to change someone's mind, your chances are greater at selling.
PhilX
FlashDangerpants wrote: โMon Dec 04, 2017 11:26 pm You are a minor sales drone at the cheap end of the market.... and stop getting pissy about the fact you are a small time hustler.
I`d totally agree, and even based on no study whatsoever. Any and all abilities where money is to be made tend to being over ranked.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โSat Dec 02, 2017 2:42 pm There are those who believe it's a talent. I don't based on over ten years of study.
I became highly skilled at it which started with "Whoever speaks first, loses." There are those who believe it's a natural talent that can be developed. I don't see a basis for this belief. If a person did have such a talent, then it would be expressed at an early age with no other explanation for it (also how would one define what lies behind the so called natural talent besides the ability to sell a lot?)
What are your thoughts?
PhilX
Your empirical data set is not representative though. As I have already pointed out, you only sell cheap shit to consumers. That's a corner of the sales profession not an overview. You definitely don't have experience of big ticket sales, otherwise you wouldn't have bragged about a 3 grand TV sale. You don't have experience of any sales process lasting more than a few minutes so far as I can see. You don't have experience of building long term sales relationships. Nor of selling to businesses.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 2:49 amNot a straw man fallacy. You contend that people have natural sales ability which I say doesn't exist because it can be explained (and I don't mean by voice nor personality which are the common assumptions with a natural talent). So if it can be explained as I have, then it can be taught as I have.FlashDangerpants wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 12:16 am If that is intended as a response to my post it is a straw man attack.
The fact that you can also teach a skill is not contradictory to anything I have written.
And this...Well that's just sad Phil. Look at what I quoted there.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โMon Dec 04, 2017 11:41 pm Your argument is fallacious because you're saying these people have no talent and the evidence contradicts you.
Now look at the title of the thread.
Then look again at the quote.
That's just self defeating stupidity.
Now. About this philosophy stuff. Address my concerns about the standard of your empirical data gathering please.
Don't try to deflect towards some imaginary data debt I am carrying, yours is the burden of proof here.
Now you want to know about my empirical data gathering. Since my system was developed over ten years, then where do I begin with you? (and keep in mind that a part of it is a trade secret and shall remain so). Furthermore you don't strike me as being open minded so you may have a mental block towards anything I may offer. For example do you want me to use quotas or compare with my coworkers (or both?) I didn't keep all the records you may be looking for. Do you know basic statistics? What do you consider to be a suitable-sized sample?
PhilX
It's all relative to the market. Within each market, there is competition. You talk about cheap. I bet you don't have experience with these type of markets. Therefore you don't know how to sell in the areas I've worked in. Your logic is flawed because you don't consider the competition.FlashDangerpants wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 2:33 pmYour empirical data set is not representative though. As I have already pointed out, you only sell cheap shit to consumers. That's a corner of the sales profession not an overview. You definitely don't have experience of big ticket sales, otherwise you wouldn't have bragged about a 3 grand TV sale. You don't have experience of any sales process lasting more than a few minutes so far as I can see. You don't have experience of building long term sales relationships. Nor of selling to businesses.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 2:49 amNot a straw man fallacy. You contend that people have natural sales ability which I say doesn't exist because it can be explained (and I don't mean by voice nor personality which are the common assumptions with a natural talent). So if it can be explained as I have, then it can be taught as I have.FlashDangerpants wrote: โTue Dec 05, 2017 12:16 am If that is intended as a response to my post it is a straw man attack.
The fact that you can also teach a skill is not contradictory to anything I have written.
And this...
Well that's just sad Phil. Look at what I quoted there.
Now look at the title of the thread.
Then look again at the quote.
That's just self defeating stupidity.
Now. About this philosophy stuff. Address my concerns about the standard of your empirical data gathering please.
Don't try to deflect towards some imaginary data debt I am carrying, yours is the burden of proof here.
Now you want to know about my empirical data gathering. Since my system was developed over ten years, then where do I begin with you? (and keep in mind that a part of it is a trade secret and shall remain so). Furthermore you don't strike me as being open minded so you may have a mental block towards anything I may offer. For example do you want me to use quotas or compare with my coworkers (or both?) I didn't keep all the records you may be looking for. Do you know basic statistics? What do you consider to be a suitable-sized sample?
PhilX
Whether there is such a thing as sales talent or not isn't interesting to me really. What I want you to understand is the deep logical flaws in your argument whereby you express knowledge of things you clearly don't know along with a flat assertion that selling a fleet of corporate jets, or international oil trading, or slinging heroin on a street corner is not different to whatever low cost crap you are selling to housewives today.
As I have mentioned already, if you are as good a salesman as any in existence, you should be able to go to work somewhere that has a long involved sales process and still be top dog. You should be able to sell yourself in the interview and get the job, and then you should earn millions of dollars a year. That is what somebody with sales talent would do after all.
Your data is useless. You haven't gathered your it from an environment where you would expect to observe genuine talent.
Think of pro sportsmen. They have talent for basketball or whatever right? If you joined a basketball team at your office and found nobody was talented there, but you could become the best in the team with some simple hoop practice, your current methodology allows you to loudly announce there is no such thing as a talent for basketball.
Correct up to a point. I have no idea how to do sales dronery of the sort you specialise in. But that is why my logic isn't flawed. I recognise that if I make a generalisation about all of sales based my own limited experience, I would be no better than you, cherry picking from data from an incomplete set. And that would make my theory unsubstantiated. Like yours is.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm It's all relative to the market. Within each market, there is competition. You talk about cheap. I bet you don't have experience with these type of markets. Therefore you don't know how to sell in the areas I've worked in. Your logic is flawed because you don't consider the competition.
I gave you a suggestion for testing that already. Sell yourself in an interview at a company which sells big ticket items to companies, soar to the top of their sales pyramid - which you can do as you are the only person with this proprietary sales mechanism. After that, we can discuss your hypothetical thought experiment.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm Here's something else to consider. Suppose everybody sold well due to my methods. Then how could you say that anyone is sales talented?
All your stuff is cheap. You sell it all to consumers. It isn't even the most expensive stuff they buy - cars and houses and pensions and so on. Stop trying to accuse me of writing other things than I am, I don't care if what you are selling is the most expensive stuff in whatever product category it inhabits, that product category is not big ticket stuff and that's all there is to it. Don't straw man me like that.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm As far as cheap goes, many prospects assume that a "cheap" price means inferior quality and you would be asked "what's the catch?" My method overcomes that difficulty..Are you one of those who believes in controlling the conversation? You seem to be focused on money while there's more to selling
PhilX
One of the things that would hamper my interviews is my varied background (interviewers prefer those that list one or two jobs on their resumes), another drawback is my age. So not all applicants are equal. In any case I'm enjoying my retirement.FlashDangerpants wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:53 pmCorrect up to a point. I have no idea how to do sales dronery of the sort you specialise in. But that is why my logic isn't flawed. I recognise that if I make a generalisation about all of sales based my own limited experience, I would be no better than you, cherry picking from data from an incomplete set. And that would make my theory unsubstantiated. Like yours is.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm It's all relative to the market. Within each market, there is competition. You talk about cheap. I bet you don't have experience with these type of markets. Therefore you don't know how to sell in the areas I've worked in. Your logic is flawed because you don't consider the competition.
Which is why I am not proposing one (also the topic is boring and I wouldn't waste my time generating a theory).
I gave you a suggestion for testing that already. Sell yourself in an interview at a company which sells big ticket items to companies, soar to the top of their sales pyramid - which you can do as you are the only person with this proprietary sales mechanism. After that, we can discuss your hypothetical thought experiment.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm Here's something else to consider. Suppose everybody sold well due to my methods. Then how could you say that anyone is sales talented?
All your stuff is cheap. You sell it all to consumers. It isn't even the most expensive stuff they buy - cars and houses and pensions and so on. Stop trying to accuse me of writing other things than I am, I don't care if what you are selling is the most expensive stuff in whatever product category it inhabits, that product category is not big ticket stuff and that's all there is to it. Don't straw man me like that.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 4:29 pm As far as cheap goes, many prospects assume that a "cheap" price means inferior quality and you would be asked "what's the catch?" My method overcomes that difficulty..Are you one of those who believes in controlling the conversation? You seem to be focused on money while there's more to selling
PhilX
My basketball analogy for your argument is still in play by the way. Don't ignore it.
So you aren't as talented at selling as other people who can get through those interviews by selling the experiences they do have as a positive.Philosophy Explorer wrote: โFri Dec 08, 2017 5:05 pm One of the things that would hamper my interviews is my varied background (interviewers prefer those that list one or two jobs on their resumes), another drawback is my age. So not all applicants are equal. In any case I'm enjoying my retirement.
So far your straw man arguments fail to persuade.
PhilX