Identify and Solve the Problem
Not a single book, not a single training tells you about this option. There are good reasons for this. We consider them a little bit later. In the meantime, imagine that both the seller and the buyer are somehow magically able to identify and solve problems that the buyer faces. Let see what comes out.
The good starting point is the problem. This problem may threaten either the buyer or his company.
What trouble can harm a company? There are few such troubles: degrading financial situation, serious losses or competitive disadvantage.
Then, what could threaten the buyer himself? The inability to buy or do something important, personal loss, punishment, loss of status, as well as the need to work harder.
Who could know which of these troubles seems to the buyer the most dangerous? Naturally, only the buyer could. Only he could tell that. This is the first task the seller should complete: find out what troubles threaten the buyer and his company. The list of typical troubles, as we see, is quite compact. Every trouble has its own “scenario” of its happening. Each scenario could be described with a simple formula.
Take, for example, two troubles: degrading financial situation of the company and punishment of the buyer.
The deterioration of the financial situation occurs when the company's costs and money losses grow faster than its income, and the total damage exceeds the tolerable threshold. The formula for this scenario is as follows:
Degrading financial position = (costs + losses - revenues) > threshold
This formula uses four components determining the financial position of a company: its revenues from various sources, the costs of its various activities, losses caused by various undesirable events, and the tolerable threshold for reducing the company's profitability.
The punishment depends on how the detected unjustified violation of the rules exceeded the permissible threshold. What does this mean? People are punished for a violation of the rules. If no violation has been revealed, there is nothing to punish for. As the saying goes, "innocent till proven guilty." If the violation of the rules is significant, exceeds the permissible threshold, it is worth punishing the violator. If the violation is insignificant, then there is no sense in punishing. How could one reduce the punishment? By justifying the violation of some rules, "I tried to comply with other, more important ones." For example, by showing the will to achieve an important result for the whole company. If an excuse is accepted, the violation is reduced and the punishment is reduced appropriately.
One can express this essence in the form of a formula:
Punishment = revealing * (violation - justification) > threshold
Here we see four components that determine the punishment: what is revealed, what is violated, what justification is presented and accepted, and what is the permissible threshold of violation.
When the seller manages to find out from the buyer which particular trouble is considered the most dangerous, it is necessary to clarify the “values” of each component. Then he needs to find out what assumptions arose in the head of the buyer: why he believes that each of these components will necessarily change in the "undesirable" direction, and why the allowable threshold will be inevitably exceeded.
After that, the seller needs to discuss with the buyer ways to avoid each of these assumptions. This discussion results in a set of ideas on preventing the appearance of trouble. These ideas are likely to be formulated in a fairly general way.
To specify them, both seller and buyer need to discuss how each idea could be implemented by using the unique features of the proposed product. As a result, a rather specific solution is produced. In order to implement this solution the buyer needs this product. Thus, having bought a product, he not only can satisfy his and company's needs, but also can avoid the troubles associated with this purchase. Solid allows you to build new solid.
Now let's return back to the question, why not a single book, not a single training tells about this option. The reason is very good: the sales gurus have no idea how to solve the "unsolvable" problems. All “popular” approaches such as brainstorming do not guarantee finding a suitable solution. In addition, these approaches take time, several hours. Arranging such a “creative session” for each objection of the buyer means turning the sales process into a protracted “innovative project.” Neither seller nor buyer could afford that.
The Win-Win Sales Technology proposed here needs neither “creativity” nor “innovation.” It is based on what the buyer knows about his business, as well as on the seller's experience in use of a simple algorithm. This algorithm reflects the real state of affairs: each objection hides the trouble that threatens the buyer; each trouble has its own scenario; every assumption in this scenario can be avoided; each idea can be implemented by using the unique features of the product; as a result, a solution can prevent the trouble. A solid foundation for identifying a latent buyer's problem and developing a solid, reliable, implementable solution.
Concede | Sales Philosophy. Solid vs. Empty | What the Seller Needs