My new book will be out in a little less than two months. The Four Conversations: A New Model for Selling Expertise is the “here’s-how-to” follow-up to The Win Without Pitching Manifesto.
The Four Conversations contains the full set of principles and frameworks that we teach in our Win Without Pitching workshop and team training.
The hardcover of The Four Conversations is available for pre-order on Amazon.com now. Pre-orders of other formats and in other jurisdictions will become available in the coming weeks. Stay subscribed here for more information.
One of the principles in the book is to Assume an Advantaged Player. Here is an excerpt…
Assume an Advantaged Player
In every competitive sale we should assume that somebody has the advantage. Someone has inside information, an internal advocate working on their behalf or is identified as the preferred option—sometimes to the point where the decision has already been made and the conversations taking place are for show, the bids being solicited for the purpose of procedural compliance or pricing leverage.
While not all competitive sales begin with a player in the inside lane, someone always comes to occupy it. It would be naive for us to assume that this happens only at the end, with a final weighing of all criteria. It does not. We should assume the game is largely won well before it is declared.
With this assumption, selling is no longer a numbers game, at least not one in which the math is straightforward. If we always assume an advantaged player then our odds of winning in a competitive sale are not 1/n (n being the number of players under consideration). They are far better than that if we have the advantage, and they are far worse when the advantage lies with a competitor. How much better or how much worse the odds are will vary depending on the size of the advantage but even a small advantage can change the odds from less than 1/n to better than 1/2. If the advantage is ours then we see that as an invitation to proceed. If it doesn’t lie with us then we see that as a warning that the odds are long. So let’s find out if the advantage is ours or if it is available to us. We do this by seeking concessions.
Seek Behavioral Concessions
By extracting behavioral concessions we affect the buying process, effectively changing the rules as they pertain to us. We ask the client to treat us differently through these concessions and we view their willingness to do so as a measure of their preference for us.
Almost any concession where the client treats us differently or allows us to behave differently can be interpreted as an advantage. The more significant the concession, the larger the advantage. Some examples of behavioral concessions, ranked from moderate to more significant, include the client agreeing to:
- Move the date or location of a meeting
- Provide access to confidential information not being shared with others
- Allow for the submission of an existing credentials document instead of responding to a questionnaire
- Complete a written needs assessment
- Have all decision makers complete a needs assessment
- Assemble all decision makers to discuss the needs assessment findings
- Increase the budget
- Allow access to senior decision makers when we are told that access is not allowed
- Change the scope of the engagement
- Agree to pay for a first phase diagnostic
There are many more concessions that we might seek than what are listed above, most of which are specific to the buying process or the engagement itself.
Revealed Preferences Trump Stated Preferences
One of the most beneficial impacts we can have on the sale is to get the client to rethink their understanding of the problem or the solution. But this on its own is not enough. The concessions we seek are behavioral—we want the client to treat us differently. We consider preferences revealed through behavior to be validated, and those merely stated as suspect. When a client tells us we have the advantage, therefore, we ask them to prove it but not directly—we simply ask for a concession.
For example, the client might say to us that we are the one they want to work with, that they “just have to go through the process.” Of course this is good news, but we seek behavioral proof. So we might respond, “I appreciate that you have to go through this process, but can we find a substitute for having to complete this arduous questionnaire? We already have a credentials document that answers most of these questions. How about we submit that instead and you can check the ‘Questionnaire Completed’ box?”
Or we might push for a more significant concession. “I’m pleased to hear that you want to work with us. We think it’s a great fit as well. I’m happy to submit a proposal, but I’d like 30 minutes to conduct an interview with your boss to make sure we have all their issues addressed. Can you set that up?”
Or we might go further if the client’s process includes getting competitive bids: “I understand you are compelled to get two more bids. You already know we’re not going to be the lowest bidder, so let me suggest that you get those other bids then let’s have a conversation about whether or not it makes sense for us to submit one.”
Obviously, there are situations and domains (e.g., government or regulated industries) where this last suggestion would contravene regulations, public interest or ethical norms and this approach would not be appropriate. But equally there are situations where a client who seeks transformation is constrained by an ill-conceived procurement process designed to cut costs with no consideration for the negative impact on value creation. The best of the latter client types are willing to spend political capital to bend overly bureaucratic processes to do what is best for the organization.
If we have succeeded in getting the client to rethink their problem or solution then we should be able to garner a significant concession, which might be a paid diagnostic in which we put their selection process aside and ask them to take a small, paid alternative next step. For example, “Since we agree that there is some uncertainty around the underlying issue, I suggest as a next step that we take a small amount of the budget and test our hypothesis.”
Play a Different Game, with Better Odds
On a level playing field, with no advantaged player, a sales strategy built on an assumed win ratio of 1/n might be valid. We would enter as many competitions as we could and, with long-term results reverting to the mean, we would win our fair share. The sale of many lower priced products and transactional services, sold at scale, is based on this more straightforward math.
When we assume an advantaged player, however, a better strategy is to enter as many competitions as we can, determine early on if that favored position is ours (or is available to us) then play only those games where the odds are in our favor. The games we play are the ones where we get the rules changed in our favor, where we have extracted concessions.
Thus it is not the polite, compliant rule follower that is most likely to win. It is the player who asks for, and is granted, behavioral concessions.
Excerpted from my forthcoming book, The Four Conversations: A New Model for Selling Expertise, out later this year.