L.B. Jenkins
October 14, 2008, 12:03 PM
TW,
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?'
Correction #1. Don't ask them to call you back. They have proven to you, over the course of 15 years to be unreliable. Set a time and advise them, "I will call back at..." and then move on to your next contact. When you do call back, quickly update who is still in the mix and who has been added or eliminated. Those that have been added, make sure to contact them and bring them up to speed, and then find out how this new contact is now part of the mix.
See, part of the problem is, these sales can be very complicated and the sales process can be months or years long. I'm selling to city + county gov-mints -- things must be approved, sometimes involving grants and all sorts of BS.
Correction #2. This is not a problem, this is the way ALL government agencies purchasing process works. It will never change. Anyone willing to sell to or be a government vendor has to know that this process will always be a long process. If this process is not worth the return, then it's time to seek out non government customers.
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.
Correction #3. It's time to fire some customers. Before you do this, consider, all government agencies want what the private sector has invented and is using. Since governments do not "INVENT", they rely on the private sector to bring new things to the market. So before you fire any of these customers start looking harder at the private sector customers. Their decisions are made quicker and that equals less out of pocket expenses for you.
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!
Correction #4. ALL participants must be considered. Each one effects your costs and profits and must be factor in when you do a cost analysis for operating expenses. If you discover that this group is costing you more and chipping away at your profits, it's time to fire this group.
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 % ?!?!!?
Correction #5. Sales people have always had to provide 100% to close the sale. There is no such thing as win-win in sales. It's winning and winner. The sales person is winning when they close the sale. The customer is the winner if they get the product/service when they want it, how they want it, and at the price they want to pay.
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?'
Correction #1. Don't ask them to call you back. They have proven to you, over the course of 15 years to be unreliable. Set a time and advise them, "I will call back at..." and then move on to your next contact. When you do call back, quickly update who is still in the mix and who has been added or eliminated. Those that have been added, make sure to contact them and bring them up to speed, and then find out how this new contact is now part of the mix.
See, part of the problem is, these sales can be very complicated and the sales process can be months or years long. I'm selling to city + county gov-mints -- things must be approved, sometimes involving grants and all sorts of BS.
Correction #2. This is not a problem, this is the way ALL government agencies purchasing process works. It will never change. Anyone willing to sell to or be a government vendor has to know that this process will always be a long process. If this process is not worth the return, then it's time to seek out non government customers.
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.
Correction #3. It's time to fire some customers. Before you do this, consider, all government agencies want what the private sector has invented and is using. Since governments do not "INVENT", they rely on the private sector to bring new things to the market. So before you fire any of these customers start looking harder at the private sector customers. Their decisions are made quicker and that equals less out of pocket expenses for you.
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!
Correction #4. ALL participants must be considered. Each one effects your costs and profits and must be factor in when you do a cost analysis for operating expenses. If you discover that this group is costing you more and chipping away at your profits, it's time to fire this group.
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 % ?!?!!?
Correction #5. Sales people have always had to provide 100% to close the sale. There is no such thing as win-win in sales. It's winning and winner. The sales person is winning when they close the sale. The customer is the winner if they get the product/service when they want it, how they want it, and at the price they want to pay.
