Easily Get Off-Line Clients withOUT Selling (Super Ninja)

Sorry, but this is very bad advice. You're asking for data on how effective rather than believing it built on hope only, yet then go on to bash it based on presumptions.

One of them is the presumption that using this method means you must be afraid of sales. It's not about being afraid of selling. It's just delaying a step in the sequence or asserting a better one, until you've removed the initial reflex 95-9% of people have to attempt to evacuate themselves out of a sales call/situation until you are given a better chance of even being able to have a sales conversation without that reflex getting in the way.

Without being able to sell, it's not effective, obviously. I think that goes without saying. But if they are the 'low hanging fruit' who are currently seeking those services, and with a current need/want for the product (as having been predetermined pre-call using the many research or data tools that enable that), it then gives a much better position to be able to tell them what else you can do for them, make them an offer and see if it is right for them.

The above example given in the OP can be improved, and then the method can be done poorly so it isn't as effective as it could be. The problem should be easy to fix on your end but not presented so easily to the other person. They need to know it is an important problem. And communication about it and agreement to fix it should take more than one touch, but drawn out over 2-3 minimum. Making sure in each correspondence and email that promotional banners and links to offer pages are highly visible, like people do with their forum signatures here. Same principle of indirect selling used on this place.

But a more drawn out situation like this, with multiple touches and helping them out with something is just far, far better. You get to pitch more people or get your offer out there because many more are willing to give you the time of day to be able to check you out, and if they have that need, they don't need someone to run them through a series of questions to uncover it. If they do they'll be curious and start asking you questions where then you can use you sales skills.

How is that not sales and selling? It's a great prospecting method when done right. Every example I've ever seen, in phone-selling, online selling, direct mail where people are contacted virtually cold, this more patient, indirect approach to breaking the ice has proven to work much in far greater number than the rates people who just go into balls-out sales mode on cold prospects.

Ha! Ha!.....This was Epic!... Love it...

Zig also said:

"Timid salesmen have skinny kids. "

He sold cookware door to door.

I am pretty sure he didn't find something broken around the house so he could trick them into listening to his pitch.

I think Jason's point is that being direct (in whichever way you choose to approach) is far more efficient for everybody.

The most important thing is how the prospect feels about it. Or it should be that if the goal is to make as many sales as possible in the shortest time as efficiently as possible. Personal bias and preferences should go out of the window.

In cases where sales people are given highly qualified leads, they know pissing about being indirect will lose them the sale in most cases and being direct is the best course of action.

When people are phoned-up out of the blue by someone looking to sell them right of the bat, the overwhelming evidence is most people do not like that and calls that get anywhere are going to be in a very small number for that reason. Breaching their defences in some way that strategically leads that prospect to making a purchase decision is far better.

A great salesman would know how to do both depending on the situation.

I agree with this, too. I've had friends that did what the (MLM) training said to do and it came across as sooooooooo salesy, and totally not them. It sounded like all they wanted was the commission. I didn't buy.

On the other hand, I had friends that just mentioned what they did and left it at that. Then, when I was interested, I approached them and asked questions. I bought from them.

Direct does not necessarily equal aggressive - at all. You can be very low key but still be direct.

Do you prefer being manipulative?

You do not have to be manipulative.

This is something most people have never heard about: that there is a different approach to selling.

You have the conversation to find out whether there's a FIT. A problem you can solve. The right budget. Personalities you can get along with.

This is called Qualifying.

You are always ready to walk away. If it's not a fit, it's not a fit.

Qualify first, sell later.

And selling can be about uncovering THEIR reasons to buy, not yours. No manipulation in that.

In the hands of novices many would make an unsubtle transition and blow things. Even the smooth way they talk about in the podcast will have some people balk and pull out of conversation. But many more will just get read something in the process which slips under their shield and then they can't reverse that. They know this guy can possibly get them 5 birthdays parties next month because that's his average with his other clients in the same business.

At this point they'll either feel duped and not check out the case studies or proceed with interest.

But the point is, you still got to that point in far, far great number than cold callers or direct telesales people get. Or spammers in this case.

This is so obvious that I'm astounded that it is even in question.

It really makes zero difference what approach you use if you can't sell, and worse if you have negative beliefs about selling. Both methods are ways of identifying qualified prospects, not selling to them. Do you not understand this or something? I'm being serious. This is what the issue of OPs post is. Do you understand now?

It's not universal, obviously. The crutch is the strength of the proposition. For example, if you had powerful case studies of solid proof and a really great service that has proven to make money or whatever and was highly relevant and timely and they had a need, and they get to see that, then aside from some people are so pedantic and uppity they'll have just the same response as they do to the person calling them out of the blue and trying to sell them for the most part, they'll be keen to pursue things more. Same principles as any funnel. You can't make a piss poor funnel that doesn't work and then say all funnels don't work. They do if done right.

If what you have to offer is solid and attractive, rather than some lame service, then the draw of that would be enough for most people to outweigh any indignation or feelings of being bait and switched.

Most people use this with very poor transitions and then reveal themselves just the same as everyone else who pitched them that week or whatever.

But if you have something unique and a very strong value proposition and can sell that well, it's different altogether.

Very well said.

I think this happens a lot here on this section of the forums. There's always more then one way to skin whatever so dumping on some one just because is really silly.

I'm not arguing about one exclusive method to the dismissal of all else, this or that. Although I know that statistically for a fact that if you send out 10000 'Full Sales Pitch' emails versus 10'000 questions don't be surprised if one causes major problems trying to keep up with replies and the other doesn't.

Now, transitioning from there is to a successful conclusion can be done in many ways, or not as the case may be. But you have at least bought a different dynamic into the situation. With them stepping forward and giving you the chance to at least speak. Which the other way they don't not give you that. This case is cut and dry. There is no debate about what might work for one might be different in other cases. To point that out is not trying to devalue something but acknowledging the facts.

With regards to calling up and directly pitching and trying to sell there and then, versus using a method like the OP suggests, then it's more closet to a matter of preference and there is no hard data on what one would be better at this point.

We'd all prefer to do that and be able to just pitch and get a yes or no. And I'll be using direct offer approach for a nominal fee trial service shortly myself, as it would work better than indirect pitches.

It pisses me off when people come on threads and see the commotion in a debate and immediately conclude that everyone's right in their own way. Particular on this place because often such misinformation and nonsense from influential members often gets acted upon by newcomers and really it stymies their results and sometimes you have to be persistent in stating your case against mis-info.

If you phone someone up and lead with some thing personal, relevant, timely and personalized to them and their situation and grabs their interest in way they can't dismiss because it is critical info about their business, like info that is losing them a lot of money and will save them a lot or make a real difference, who is going to ignore that? If you clearly demonstrate and sell them on fixing it?

The outlying fools only. The morons. It will just not be dismissed like some jackoff telling them they help people improve their marketing and would the be interested in ....... And then once you have established the trust and the time is right, you can sell for there having earned the platform to do that. You will get this platform far more often and easily if you can ring people up and give them solid, pertinent info they can't ignore.

I'm note particularly wedded to that. I just can't believe how many so called expert shit on that idea and mock it and get so worked up about it. It's incredible.

Yes, you have to sell. But these don't seem to realize that they only ever get 2-3-4-5 people out of 100 hundred that will give them the time of day and haven't instantly decided they'll end the call as soon as they can when they know the purpose of the call was for the salesperson to find out whether they could sell them something.

Trying getting brushed of that many times when the reason for you call is because you've found a major, immediate problem you wanted to discuss with them. Obviously, it's foolish to help them and then not try to sell your services when you get the chance. But it will be far more often if you do this process right and genuinely, because they will not shut down and brush off a call about a specific problem they have if you communicate with them properly in the same way an overt sales message will.

Aside from meeting one of those massively rude and aggressive with everyone for no reason, what reason, other than they are extremely busy, would they have for saying no thanks I don't want you to tell me about a problem I have, unless they think you're a sales person.

There isn't one. Like Jason's opener is genius as getting by gatekeepers by lowering their barriers so you atleast get a chance to say why you are there a lot more often, this makes it virtually impossible for any sane, intelligent person to not engage with you.

If you can sell or have a great personality this method is a killer. Without them a waste of time.

Thanks. I got drawn into this just because the guy, and anyone on the fence about using non-salesy methods to sell (which is far more effective) was getting just terrible advice and this kind of method dismissed outright. It's needs to, and could easily be improved, by not ducking out at the point where you've helped them and just giving a brief reference to what you do, but building from there. This is a method that when perfected would help people greatly improve their sales revenue with less stress and wasted effort than the usual methods being advocated. 300-400% in the approach used and verified by Salesforce.com.


Jason, more than nearly anyone on this forum, could have given him a nice, non-pressure way to lead the conversation once he has been given a platform/golden opportunity to do that. And yes, as it is, this method as posted by the OP is like getting the chance to take a free shot at goal and not taking it because you assume your team can easily score another goal and win anyway. Not the best idea.

But this is what really got me involved enough to defend my point. Ask any of these naysayers to line up 300 cold prospects ripped from a scraper next to 50 pre-targeted and researched prospects with the problem the OP had about a fault with their paid advertising where they are currently hemorrhaging in their campaign and can easily fix it. or something equally pertinent. Make that 20 prospects with that problem versus 300 random prospects.

Have them call 300 random people with the usual ''Hi. Name's Mike from California Internet Solutions and I specialize in helping businesses get more leads, more sales and more repeat customers from their internet marketing and I just wanted to find out if this is something you're currently having trouble with and whether you'd be open to discussing how you could improve....''. You get the picture. There's a million variations on that opener and they all basically say, ''I'm a salesman and I'm here to sell you something if you don't mind''. Which is cool. It's honest and upfront. The only problem is, even tho the salesman couldn't care less, most people cringe inside and can't wait to get of the phone.

And then have them call the group of 20, with something along the lines of ''Hi, I was trying to access one of your offers advertised on Google while I was doing some research for my company and found a major error that wouldn't let me do that. And since this obviously must be costing you a fair bit of revenue right now that you otherwise would be getting, I thought you'd want to at least know about it....'', I don't know, something along them lines. It can be subtle and smooth. Done genuinely, if people are not fixated on outcome and can allow the conversation to flow and lead where appropriate.

And then have them record how many people were far more open and receptive to them using those two approaches and engaged with them. How many gatekeepers that put them through versus the other one. How many people actually was pleased they called and just talked to them like a fellow human being with no guard up.


What they are suggesting to the OP is that he dismiss an opener like that, that gets him far more chances to get into a sales conversation, and instead go for the 300 approach.

NO. How ridiculous. The correct advice is to create a process to go from there once they have positioned themselves as a knowledgeable advisor rather than a PITA salesman into an effective transition that leads them onto a far more open and casual discussion about their business or getting info from them to use later in the pitch. I would buy Bob Etherington's Cold Calling for Chickens and use the 7 step question process he has there to make that transition once you have gotten to an appropriate stage in the interaction to question them about their business further and move on.

Either way, I'd build on that opener and include intelligent, no pressure sales tactics and intelligent questions to further qualify them and gage interest.

Advising the OP or anyone thinking of trying a different kind of 'in' with prospects to drop an approach like that and go for a pure sales one is extremely foolish advice.

Aaron Ross generated over a 100 mil in recurring income for Salesforce.com in a few short years and tripled sales with an even more convoluted approach that started with an email with a simple question asking who to speak to in the organization about whatever it was he was selling.

In this post he talks about sending 100 and getting a 10% response rate, versus sending 100 pure sales emails and getting no response. And getting the ball rolling that way. And going from 2 qualified leads in a month to 8. These were big accounts.

Here's what he found out and talks about:

Warriors are usually so hard up they can't relax and take a better approach. And then senior members pass on those habits born out desperation, or at least with their roots in that, where the need to make a sale is so great they mistakenly fear to jeopardize that and not going for the kill in the first 20 seconds.

Why Sales People shouldn't Prospect - An interview with Aaron Ross | For Entrepreneurs

This second article is also a great read from a another highly experiences and successful salesman for anyone interested in developing a genuine advisor type approach versus salesman approach. When Selling is the worst way to win customers | For Entrepreneurs

Hi squidface:

You are RIGHT! It may be inefficient, and not for you.

This is just an alternative for people who:

-don't like to call people for the sake of purely promoting themselves (it gives them a HELPFUL reason to call, and maybe start a conversation at that time or later. That's it.

This also eases the "nervousness" that people have b/c when you really help someone w/OUT expecting anything in return, the nervousness is reduced greatly.

-don't want to spend money on advertising yet (this would be an efficient way IF the cost makes sense)

When the person who taught me this did this, it worked. He has his own IM business but somehow came across a dead Adwords link. He phoned the business just to notify him of that link and that he should fix it b/c he knew he was losing money since he knew how PPC works. Then, he simply explained why the link was showing dead. This started a conversation where the business owner said, and I paraphrase, "darn, maybe I should be hiring YOU!"

But, he told the business owner he had to do a webinar (which he really did) but that he could reach him at XXX-XXX-XXXX. The next day or two the business owner called him and hired him.

I know there are 101 ways to get customers, this is just one way.

What ever works for you is the "right" way.

Thank for your comment.