(((Aaaaarrrrgh!)))

The catch-22 is that I DO have the correct market (depends how you define 'correct'). Additional catch-22 is, if I keep following up with these 100 (100 3x / year) hand-raisers, many of them DO end up signing up.

The frustration comes when I must maintain ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT of the initiative during the sales 'process.'

Analogy: I end up marrying enough of the 100 girlfriends to make it worthwhile (?) -- but the 'relationships' are 100% ONE-SIDED (me putting in ALL the effort ALL the time).

What you say about qualifying them better rings true -- which is why I called it more of a 'sift + sort' issue.

When they say, 'please call me back in two months,' I think it would be fair for me to ask them, 'before I say I'll do that, would you say your interest level is low, medium or high?'

See, part of the problem is, these sales can be very complicated and the sales process can be moths or years long. I'm selling to city + county gov-mints -- things must be approved, sometimes involving grants and all sorts of BS. I must keep them fired up and keep them championing the whole thing. It's hard to tell who's really doing that, and who's "F.O.C." (f stands for 'full'). The real problem is, when the actual SALES (the ones who DO sign up) are traced backwards (to see the trail success left behind), whether they return my calls, etc. is *NOT* an indicator of whether they end up signing up.

So, sifting + sorting + qualifying CANNOT be enhanced by paying attention to who returns my calls + who does not. NONE OF THEM return my calls -- fruitless prospects and (eventual) sign ups alike!

-- TW

PS: I've been doing this (rolling the boulder up the hill 3x/year) for 15 years. It's the fact that I must do it singlehandedly with NO help from the (supposedly win-win) customer, that drives me nuts. Like I said, I'd be fine if I'd have to provide 98% of the initiative -- but, ONE-HUNDRED % ?!?!!?

PPS: Feel free to substitute the word 'marrying' with another more accurate + graphic word, if you wish.