I once worked for a guy who’d say: “The sale begins when you get the first NO!”
I can still remember the little gleam in his eye and that shitlord smirk when he’d say that.
He’d also say how every sale was a ‘straight line’. I asked if he knew Jordan Belfort because he’s basically describing his Straight line system.
“Yeah I know Jordan. I practically invented the straight line system!”
Ok. To his credit, he was an absolute beast on the phone. Smooth, confident, Sharp..
But he’d also get callbacks asking for refunds. People saying things like:
“I have no idea what just happened, but I’d like my money back”
“I didn’t like that guy at all. He’s too aggressive”
Watching him, it was clear that controlling the interaction was more rewarding than having a happy customer.
He didn’t give a fuck.
Resistance just made him double down. I respected, even admired, this quality in him. But on a deeper level I was also repulsed by the approach. It also seemed exhausting to sell this way.
I call it the “Pitbull” approach.
I, like many of you, prefer selling to be no harder than it needs to be. Limit my effort to minimal. Please and Thank you.
So I came up with this approach instead:
🐲: The sale begins when you beat the buyer to the NO
I’d much rather explore the reasons NOT to work together AND be the first one to bring it up in conversation.
This conversation around the “No” is already happening whether it’s with you, with their other stakeholders, or even with themselves. It is unavoidable.
So why not be the first one to do it so you can influence what happens next? Much easier to have this conversation on your terms vs theirs.
The end result is always either:
increased odds of working together by disqualifying the No’s
getting a fast No (you disqualify them)
It perfectly captures the fearlessness of the “Pitbull” approach without behaving like a bulldozer.
If you can seriously consider and accept that there are far more REAL and LEGITIMATE reasons why they shouldn’t buy your product/service, then they won’t have to worry about carrying that entire side of the conversation themselves.
You see, Humans desperately crave balance. We need No to balance out the Yes. and we need Yes to balance out the No. Being stuck in one or the other for too long is not good.
So when selling, you temporarily own the No position which gives them space to take the Yes position.
You are taking the energy out of them feeling like they have to defend themselves against a pushy salesman.
to me, that’s also a high level implementation of the moral authority frame. the implicit message is:
“I care more than you do if you’re a fit”
Who would do that? Someone with strong morality.
Ofc they can instead join you in the No, but that’s a good thing too. Better to have a Fast No than be led on for weeks/months/years.
you win either way.
When I sold software, I wasted so much time & energy trying to run through walls without noticing there was a door to my right.
I’d do all the typical behaviors such as:
-Always defend our product.
-Explain why we were the best option
-Prepare to argue and prove why the other person was wrong
The buyer would say their systems are disconnected? I’d get excited and explain why that could be a catastrophe and how our product could help them avoid impending doom.
I’d spend so much time preparing little smart talk tracks, feel so good as I say them, only to get met with:
“that’s a great point. we’ll need to discuss it internally and then get back to you. but thanks for the demo. it was soooooper helpful. Cya!”
what’s even more humiliating is believing I’d done a great job!
I’d never hear back from these people again, or find out later they’d gone with a competitor / stuck with status quo.
Guys. Fuck that. You don’t need to suffer for results.
If you had ZERO product/service to sell, but you had domain expertise, and someone close to you tells you their systems are disconnected and they think they need new software. What would you actually say?
How would you carry yourself?
you’d behave nothing like you do when you’re actually selling. and that’s the point. Identification is a motherfucker.
you see, there are probably valid reasons why those systems are separate to begin with.
What are those reasons?
Maybe each team chose the tool best suited to its work at the time.
Maybe “streamlining” everything will introduce costs and dependencies they don’t actually want.
prospect: we’re looking at changing xyz
🐲: why?
»our systems are disconnected so we want to streamline things
🐲: maybe that separation / fragmentation actually lets each team work the way they prefer to?
»yeah.. that’s exactly why we set it up this way. but now we need to make changes because..
🐲: and that really offsets the hassle of changing? how so? what’s the rationale?
let’s see if their argument makes sense. if it doesn’t, maybe you can help them!
you give them room to reveal so much more information if you’d just stop fucking trying to sell them.
Notice how much easier it feels to find when you’re not identified with being a “seller”?
Low Effort Selling
My new course. Learn how to ask questions that guide buyers to discover their own truth. Dismantle the blocks preventing you from top performance.
Work with me 1:1
Access to yours truly to help you with your deals. Think of me as your cartoon advisor on retainer. There to help you win more deals and stop you from making avoidable mistakes. Talk to me if you’re interested. Link.