Often the conversation between a sales person and the customer is one of concurrence. The sales person is concurring with customer requests like engagement process, timeframes, roles, and of course price.
Another sales person seems to be in conflict with the customer requests. This sales person challenges delivery, approach, outcomes to achieve, roles and the fee.
Are these two conversations about a sales person’s style or are they strategic?
“Revenue Science™” and the BellCurve tool tell us that on the right side of the BellCurve the buyer buys “stuff” based on price and logistics. The buyer knows everything they need to know to make the purchase and they tell the seller what will make a good transaction. On this side of the BellCurve a winning conversation shows the buyer that the seller understands and will deliver as requested – this is a concurrence conversation.
On the left end of the BellCurve the customer is buying the sellers brain. The seller knows how to solve a problem that is significant and compelling to the buyer and by definition the buyer does not know how to solve this problem. Often the buyer can’t even fully explain the problem, the pain, the options or the best possible outcome. Given this the customer needs the seller brain and help to achieve the “best possible outcome.”
In this case the seller’s communication will appear to be in conflict with what the customer thinks they want. It is this conflict that clarifies the customers “best possible outcome” and what has to be done to achieve that.
Both conversations have their purpose and their place and they are not the same purpose or place