Philosophy Explorer wrote: βSat Dec 09, 2017 5:08 pm
The most important thing is the difference with the advice. And I've been consistent that I don't recognize a sales talent.
Let me add there are big differences between companies even when they're in the same market or industry. For example you mentioned Boeing. You try to belittle my experience since I haven't worked for substantial companies (an ad hominem). With those expensive airplanes from Boeing, I'm sure they allow the buyer to pay it off over time. With the newspapers, the subscribers paid up front. With the tvs, the buyers were allowed to pay off over time (an indication that the TV's were expensive). So FDP you've overlooked important details.
PhilX
FFS you lazy moron, that isn't an ad hominem, I am arguing against your investigative method. I am pointing out quite accurately that you simply don't have universal experience of sales as an industry. This is indisputable. You are using your own experience to describe what does and does not exist in that industry. So the point that you haven't seen the whole industry is relevant.
You are not being consistent. You wrote these words...
I gave you examples of what are teachable subjects where talent can also clearly be said to apply (basketball, chess and violin)
And you are not so far expressing any reason why salesmanship cannot be in that list.
All you are doing is flatly denying that it is, but without making any point as to why.