Posts

Case Study #17: Trust-based Selling in the Real World

/5 Comments/in /by

I bought some designer eyeglasses 18 months ago at Pildes Optical in Short Hills, New Jersey. I was well-served, and happy with the glasses.

A few weeks ago a tiny screw came loose. I took it in. The screw had to be factory-ordered—it was made of gold (I said they were designer).

They called me when the part came in, and I went to the store. While the manager was replacing the screw, I asked the Associate about getting a backup pair for travel overseas. I didn’t want to spend as much.

“You don’t have to,” she explained. “Here are some perfectly good-looking frames that are about half the price; if they’re just a backup, you may not care as much about the aesthetics."

“Also,” she continued, “you may not want all the features you have in the lenses themselves. You can get a perfectly good backup pair by changing a mix of lens and frame features."

"But”, she said, “how is your prescription? Does it need changing?”

“Well,” I replied, “my arms are getting a little short again when it comes to reading. It’s been a while since I got an exam.”

“You really shouldn’t think about getting a replacement set,” she said firmly, “until you’ve had your eyes examined again.”

“Actually,” I mused, “if I get a new set, then this one can be my backup, and it wouldn’t cost me anything.”

“There you go,” she smiled. “That would save you the most.”

The manager came out with my newly fixed glasses, and I took out my wallet. “No, no,” he waved his hand at me, “no charge.”
As I walked out, I realized what these people had done.

On the face of it, they turned down two transactions—a repair, and a sale (of backup glasses). But that’s just the surface.

At one level higher, they guaranteed a much bigger sale—a new set of eyewear for me—worth more than the two foregone transactions. Because they focused on the relationship, not the transaction.

At yet one level higher, they virtually guaranteed that that later sale would be to Pildes of Short Hills—not to anyone else. Because they focused on my needs, not theirs.

At a higher level still, they cemented my loyalty. Not just my repeat business; no, they got me to do something even more important. They got me to feel energized enough to, say, write about it for public consumption in my blog.

I think if I had asked them all this, they would have readily agreed to my analysis, but would probably tell me something like, “that makes sense all right, though we didn’t think it through that way. That’s just the way we believe in doing business.”

This is the paradox of Trust-based Selling®—-if you live by the principles of customer focus, collaboration, transparency and relationships-before-transactions, you will make more money than if you lived by the principle of trying to make money. It works in the real world.

And if you want to buy eyewear, I can recommend a good place.

 

 

Test How American You Really Are!

/8 Comments/in /by

As promised in my last posting, here’s a simple self-assessment tool to rate yourself on your general knowledge of the world outside the United States. The fewer you get right, the more American you are, baby!

All have links so you can score yourself immediately (and get educated too—like you care, baby!).

1. Is Sweden East or West of Norway? Answer

2. Can you name the head of State for either Italy or China? Answer

3. Traveling west from Madrid, what country do you first encounter? Answer

4. Which is the most populous world religion—Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism? Answer

5. Where does the US’s biggest city (by population) rank globally? Answer

6. Have you ever heard of Shenzhen? Answer

7. In what country does Juventus compete? (bonus—in what sport?) Answer

8. Is Bangalore in the south or north of India? Answer

9. What language do they speak in Brazil? Answer

10. On what side of Australia (N, E, S, W) is Sydney? Answer

11. Is Ireland part of the United Kingdom? Answer

 

12. What currency is used in Belgium? Answer

13. Is Japan north or south of Vietnam? Answer

14. In which century was the country of Italy formed as a political entity? Answer

15. In which country is the United Nations headquartered? Answer

 

16. Which languages are spoken in Switzerland? Answer

17. Where is Catalunia? Answer

18. Where is Bosnia in relation to Poland? Answer

19. In what sport do the All-Blacks compete? Answer

20. What country lies between Iraq and Afghanistan? Answer part one and answer part two

21. Hugo Chavez—union leader, president, or owner of World Cup soccer champions? Answer

22. How many time zones are in Russia? Answer

23. Singapore is a former colony of what country? Answer

24. If you’re in The Hague, what country are you in? Answer

25. What language is spoken in Austria? Answer

 

OK, score time.

If you got:

20 or more: You are almost certainly a foreigner—absolutely not an American. You probably don’t know the difference between a Hoosier and a hot dog. You couldn’t tell motherhood from apple pie. You’re quite possibly a communist. We don’t like your kind around here. If you don’t like it here, go back to China and speak Japanese like the rest of them. Nuke gay whales for Jesus!

14 to 19: You may technically be an American, but clearly a lib-dem; 3 to 1 says you’re from New York, possibly San Francisco. You probably went to a private school, and you’re probably in favor of letting immigrants stomp all over our right to bear arms.

6 – 13: Wow, where’d you learn all that stuff? I mean, that’s a lot of work. Who’s got that kind of time? Don’t you think you should be spending your time more productively? It’s all well and good to travel internationally—hey I think Cancun rocks, and I even drove into Tijuana once—but you could be going to an MLB game instead, and supporting the US economy by buying American, like that Sharp TV I bought last month.

0 – 5: Congratulations, awright, you’re an American! Travel? Love it. Can you believe their accent in Buffalo? Great steaks in Dallas fer sure. I always liked the AFC teams best. We’re going overseas next summer, maybe Toronto. Or even New Mexico—do they take dollars there? Either that or a cruise to the Bahamas. Go Yew Ess Aye, Number One!

Americans, Travel and Rushing to Judgment

/12 Comments/in /by

I travel internationally; less than some, more than many. These last three weeks I’ve been in three countries (the third visit for one, 10th and 20-something-th for the others).

Travel is good for everyone, I think, but especially for Americans. All right, OK—for me.

(On Monday I’ll have a tongue-in-cheek self-diagnostic test: find out just how American you really are!).

I know a few who love foreign travel. They assume that people are fundamentally the same, and delight in finding the superficial differences, the spices that make the human stew an infinitely varied source of nourishment.

I admire the hell out of them. Because unlike them, my first reptilian-brain instinct is to go to fear-based judgment. An all-too American response, I think. All right, OK—maybe it’s just me.

Here’s what I’m re-discovering on this trip:

• Judgment feeds on fear.
• Fear feasts on ignorance.
• Ignorance fades when one can hear others—in their terms.
• Our ability to influence depends on our willingness to be influenced.
• Our similarities far outweigh our differences.
• Our behavior in groups mirrors our behavior as individuals.

My personal road to growth has been exposure to others. For me as an American, the benefit of international travel is enormous. Yet only something like 20% of us have a passport. Absurdly few of us speak another language—usually poorly at that.

But what’s the link between individuals and groups? Does the road to corporate trustworthiness go through the individual?

Some see trust issues mainly as group issues. I’m more inclined to see groups as aggregations of individuals. Let’s assume and explore—at the risk of touching on politics—the latter.

Marriage-researcher John Gottman says marriages work best when we are vulnerable to and influenceable by our mates. They’re worst when we judge, shut down, and insist on changing the other.

Might nations be the same? Mark Twain says, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness."

If Gottman’s observation extends to group behavior, then exposure to the world influences us. And, thereby, gives us influence.

Consider foreign student exchange programs, and how deeply they promote understanding. We could afford to spend $10,000 per head to send 500,000 Americans abroad to be influenced, and the same amount to bring 500,000 influenceable foreigners here—all for the cost of about two months’ spending on the Iraq war. With, arguably, better results. In any case, we could use a bit more of that perspective.

One of our presidential candidates said, “the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” It is no accident that this candidate “has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian.” (Hint: it’s not Giuliani). We could use a bit of that kind of perspective too.

Peter Jennings—famously traveled—said, “Whenever I see a coin, I’ve learned to turn it over to see the other side.” We need a bit more of that view, I think.

My suggestions for travel in a new country or city:

  1. First, go walking. A lot. For hours. With no goal but to experience.
  2. Invest a few hours in the national historical museum.
  3. Find a local restaurant without using the concierge or guidebook.
  4. Be curious, not judgmental.

We need a bit of that too. Well, I do anyway.

 

The November Carnival Of Trust

/3 Comments/in /by

Carnival of Trust logo

Welcome to the Sixth Carnival of Trust. As always, we’ve tried to make this Carnival a little bit special, a little bit more value-adding than the average carnival.

Specifically:

  • There are always only ten selections in the Carnival of Trust. They all earned it. They’re good. Or, at least provocative.

  • We’ve added our own perspective to it—this is not a dry list. In some cases, we even take issue with the post—and say why. You may not agree—but at least we offer a point of view.

  • In each Carnival of Trust, a theme emerges; in this one, it’s policy on trust. Issues of policy and trust in health care, in direct marketing, in marketing, in leadership.

Our aim is to make this interesting, educational and profitable. Let us know how it was for you.

With no further ado, let us move to this month’s winning posts.

Trust in Advising and Influencing Logo

Dr. Bleuel has written a gem of a piece about trust and loyalty. I agree with nearly every word he says—a rare thing. Samples: “Trust is built, one transaction at a time,” “loyalty and trust are not passive states,” and “once I trusted the Audi mechanic, the buying process for service is simple: take the car in and describe the problem.” The good doctor from Pepperdine gets it.

Our next post discusses how to make sense of all the clouds of soft-talk around words like integrity, listening, fairness, authenticity, honesty, and transparency. Read Stephen Hopson’s guest-post on the blog Make It Great. In one page, he integrates them all in a way that—to me—feels just right. He’s an ex-WallStreeter, so you sense he knows how to pile on the BS—and most certainly isn’t doing that here.

Don’t miss his vignette on Bob the stunt pilot.

Nagesh Belludi grew up in Bangalore and lives in Indiana. He’s got a Masters in Engineering, and he speaks on personal effectiveness. He’s invested in stocks since age 16, and he reads about Mary Kay cosmetics’ management style. In other words, just the right amount of schizophrenia to describe how to most effectively give advice and have it taken.

Trust In Sales and Marketing Logo

Kaila Colbin noticed a pattern among heavy-hitter reviewers of search engines—they implicitly rated trust, transparency and honesty higher than the non-collection of data. “If trust is more important than privacy, then a company that says up front, ‘We collect all of your search history and use it to target you directly,’ will do better than a company that says, ‘We will not use your search history for anything other than making our algorithm better, and oh by the way those ads today that match your search query from two weeks ago?’ Implication? “one of the single most critical factors for web businesses over the next few years will be the ability to engender trust.”

Next John Whiteside comments on a MarketingProfs article by Lynn Upshaw of Berkeley Business School. Here’s Upshaw’s original:

Marketers need to consider a new calculus: "return on marketing integrity"which can lead to stronger business performance.

Traditional return on marketing investment is calculated using gross margin generated by marketing efforts (GM), minus the marketing investment (I), divided by that investment: ROMI = (GM – I) ÷ I. The calculation for return on marketing integrity is identical, except that investment is replaced with marketing integrity.

Whiteside’s comment:

I am skeptical. I doubt that you’ll ever be able to show much in the way of financial return on something as subjective as "integrity."

A pox on Upshaw, and a raspberry to Whiteside for getting caught up the whirlpool of absurdity that marketing folk sometimes construct.

Hello—If you make increased quarterly margins the measure of integrity, you just lost all integrity. I don’t know how to say it any simpler than that. So read Whiteside’s piece—which does after all do a good job of laying out the trust in marketing issue—and see if you can figure out how to get the message through. To Whiteside’s additional credit, he also suggests integrity might be an end in itself. All is not lost.

Nancy Arter, direct marketer, believes the following:

…it is imperative for us to market ethically — otherwise, we lose the trust of our current and potential customers. …We strongly believe in creating trust through direct marketing — and that by doing this, you build more profitable customer relationships.

Precisely. Interestingly, she agrees with NY State Attorney General Cuomo, who expanded his student loan investigations to include direct marketing.

But—hold on to your seats—the Direct Marketing Association also agrees with Cuomo.

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) came out quickly in support of this investigation saying that "illegal marketing activities erode trust for the entire industry." In fact, Jerry Cerasale, SVP of government affairs for the DMA, went further: "If these actions violate the law, then they should be stopped. Legitimate marketers need to have trust in the marketplace, and violating the law undercuts that trust. This is not retail, where you can walk in and touch a product and buy it. With direct marketing, you don’t hold the product until after you’ve bought it, so trust is essential.”

I’m going to have more to say about trust and the role of industry associations. Meanwhile, kudos to Arter, and to the DMA.

London-based marketer/facilitator Johnnie Moore offers two mini-corporate chilling-thrillers about the power that leaders wield, the deference given them by others, and the numbingly bad results that can result. Read it and hope it’s just those chaps in the UK.  ‘Cept you know it’s not.

Can corporate change happen without personal change? Can leaders lead without experiencing? Can a coach be effective without undergoing a consonant change?

Dave Crisp says no, in a concise way. Methinks he’s right.

Trust in Strategy, Economics and Politics Logo

“One of every nine Americans is a member of a WellPoint health plan,” according to Wellpoint’s website. They are joining hands with Zagat’s (yes, that Zagat’s—the restaurant guide people) to create, again from the website, “a new online survey tool that will allow consumers to share their physician experiences with others.”

I think this is a very cool idea. It speaks to the truth about medical decision-making, which is that bedside manner matters enormously compared to technical ratings; and it offers transparency.

Niko Carvounis, on the other hand, thinks it’s a terrible idea, and does a thorough job of making the case. It’s an important issue, and deserves the thoughtful approach Carvounis brings it. It’s a great way to access some fundamental ideas about the upcoming healthcare debate.

Maggie Mahar helps us educate ourselves for the healthcare debate, arguing against health care maven Regina Herzlinger and consumer-driven healthcare. Who is Herzlinger? What is consumer-driven healthcare? Is it right or wrong? Why should you care? Because it also has a lot to do with sales, marketing and trust, that’s why.

Mahar answers all. Except maybe right or wrong; Herzlinger would argue the consumer is a lot smarter than Mahar et al say. Hey, you decide—this piece will help you. (Full disclosure: Herzlinger was a professor of mine, and I’ve written about her previously in Trust, Politics and US Health Care Policy .)

Thank you to these talented authors for providing great insights into issues of policy and trust the sixth Carnival of Trust. I hope you’ll enjoy these articles as much as I have. If so, please leave a comment for the authors on their sites or recommend these articles to others who will appreciate them.

My aim is is to make the Carnival of Trust interesting, educational and profitable. I always appreciate your feedback; let me know what you think in the comments.

For more discussions of the nature of trust, you can check out the Carnival’s previous editions:

Steve Cranford at Whisper hosted Carnival of Trust #5;

David Maister at Passion, People and Principles hosted Carnival of Trust #4;

the anonymous but trusted Editor of Blawg Review hosted Carnival of Trust #3;

Carnival of Trust #1 and Carnival of Trust #2 started of here at Trust Matters.

Have a look at them. If you’re interesting in hosting a Carnival Edition, please let me know. You can contact me at blogging-at-trustedadvisor-dot-com.

Call For Carnival of Trust Submissions

/0 Comments/in /by

Every month the Carnival of Trust highlights ten of the best posts on trust, whether business related or not. The next carnival will be Monday November 5th. If you’ve written a post you think would be a good fit, or if you have read a post by someone else that you think would be great for the carnival I’d like to encourage you to submit it for the carnival.

Carnival Submission Guidelines:

  1. The Deadline for submissions is midnight, Thursday November 1st.
  2. Posts do not have to be business related. Trust in personal relationships, politics, or any other sphere of life are more than welcome, and, indeed, encouraged.

Posts can be submitted here.

If you’d like to read a sample Carnival of Trust, bothWhisper and David Maister have hosted editions. I look forward to another excellent edition with your help.

Beta Software You Can’t Trust

/7 Comments/in /by

The other day I decided to offer credit card payment capability.  I quickly narrowed it down to two choices—JPMorgan Chase, and PayPal.

Chase was professional and comprehensive, but required me to fill out forms, fax them in, then phone someone a day later. Uh uh, not me.

PayPal offered a cool online menu for creating customized Outlook-generated email with embedded credit card payment links.

I went with PayPal. Then the fun started.

Let’s just say it didn’t work.  I called PayPal tech support.

“Oh yeah, I see. Hmm, you’re right, it doesn’t work. Well, that’s beta software, and we really don’t support it.”
“If you don’t support it—why do you offer it on your website?”
“Well, some people like it. But it’s beta, we really don’t support it.”

Now, I like PayPal.  It’s a business I’d like to see succeed.  Nice technology.  Nice people, good customer service manners, cool techies.

But the end result—in this case—is flakey. Doesn’t work. Undependable.  Can’t rely on it. Untrustworthy in that sense.

And the big sin?  They think it’s OK!  After all, it’s just beta!  What do you expect?

Increasingly, I expect it to work.

PayPal is not alone.  I remember discovering Plaxo, one of the early contact management software updating programs, and thinking, “what a great idea.”  It was being offered in beta test format.

I tried it.  Spent hours on it.  Pissed off several friends.  I called to complain, and the nice/service-oriented/tech-savvy person offered me a free year if I’d come back in a month and try their update.

I did.  It was not updated enough.  I left them, and now here I am saying bad things about them online.  They blew two chances with me, and thought it was OK!

I think it started with Netscape. In its early days, academics and gurus were raving about this new business model that allowed customers to actually contribute to the design. User-friendly! Cutting-edge!

True. But also flakey. Undependable. Untrustworthy.  But they thought it was OK!

I’d be interested in hearing from others, but for my money, the trend has gone way past the equilibrium point. 

I don’t want to help design some trivial widget—I just want the stupid thing to work.

And I certainly don’t want to contribute to testing something I’m going to be depending on—like payment systems, Outlook add-ins, printer driver updates, data converter programs.

The tweaks just ain’t worth it. Dependability is worth it.

We are well past the invention of major new categories. We are into the ability to trust things like we used to trust dial-tone. That is to say, we want 99.9% dependability.  But too many developers still think selling mediocrity-in-progress is OK!

The new killer app isn’t email.  It’s dependability.  Software producers, you’re on notice.  I’m quite happy to pay full retail for a working product; I’m not falling for anymore “get it first” or shareware-priced new software.

I want software I can trust. Software that works.  I’ll pay good money for it.

But I’m done paying you money for the privilege of debugging your marginally-interesting flakeware.

Do your own damn beta.  It’s not OK by me anymore.

Mummers, Trust, and the Threat of Violence

/4 Comments/in /by

If you’re like me, you have a (very) vague sense of “mummers.” Or “mummers plays,”  or of Philadelphia’s “mummers’ parade.”
Turns out mummery (or mumming—hard to know what noun form to employ) takes on some curious forms. Particularly in parts of rural Newfoundland.

Check this out:

COLUMBIA, Mo. – Residents of small isolated fishing villages on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland have participated in the ritual of “mumming” for centuries. According to the tradition, small groups of villagers, or mummers, disguise their identities and go to other houses to threaten violence, whereupon the people of the houses try to guess the intruders’ identities.
A study by researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia argues that this tradition is a manner of communicating trust and trustworthiness. The mummers who threaten violence must prove themselves trustworthy by not committing a real act of violence, and the hosts of the invaded home must demonstrate trust by not responding to threats with fear or violence, said Christina Nicole Pomianek, an MU doctoral student.
“In this ritual, participants are making themselves vulnerable at the hands of the other,” said Craig T. Palmer, assistant professor of anthropology in the College of Arts and Science. “It’s a way for community members to prove their trust and commitment to each other.”

If even remotely true, this is one of those quaint social innovations that is firmly rooted in and serves to elucidate human nature.

There is no such thing as trust without risk, I would argue.  Blind faith is not trust at all, because it rules out risk as irrelevant.  And if you are dealing in probabilities alone, you are similarly not dealing with trust, but with statistics.

Trust exists at that interesting boundary line, where you must take a step forward not being entirely sure that there will be solid ground to support your step.

You’re invaded by dressed-up mummers.  In all likelihood, they are just the boys up the road, doing the halloween-like ceremony.  But there’s always the chance—well regaled in lore—that one or more of them really are out to rape, pillage and burn your house down.  Do you keep one hand on the shotgun?  Or decide to trust?

You’re a dressed-up mummer, going down the lonely dark road in Newfoundland to drop in those strange old folks down the dark road you only see in town rarely. That’ll add some edge to your life.  You mean them no harm, you want to play the game and have a drink after—and make some friends.  But they may have a shotgun handy too.  Do you play the game to the hilt? Or rip off your mask to guarantee your life—but ruin the game?

The Columbia researchers speculate that the timing of the holiday—early winter—supports the need to develop trust during the long cold dark season to come.

How clever—a mutually created mutual threat, almost certain to be resolved—but not quite guaranteed. In order to create trust.

Makes sense to me.

Many thanks to Ed. (short for "editor") of Blawg Review  for tipping me to this; it comes courtesy of Andrew Sullivan’s online column The Daily Dish at Atlantic.com.

Customers and Bottled Water: It’s the Coverup Not the Crime

/3 Comments/in /by

Advertising Age presents Martin Lindstrom, at Coca Cola’s home in Atlanta, in his video:
 

Watering Down the Coke Brand?

Admitting the Source of Bottled Water

ATLANTA (BRANDFlash) — It’s surprising how just three letters — "PWS" — can generate such angst throughout an industry as large and savvy as the North American beverage business. But the issue of publicly admitting that bottled water comes from a "Public Water Source" is a huge one for marketers such as Coke. The concern, of course, is that if the consumers know those expensive bottles of water come from the same public reservoirs as tap water they’ll cease buying them. But, in fact, similar experiences in other categories show that consumers will not easily abandon products that have become as much of a habit as bottled water.

Lindstrom talks about Coke’s effort to introduce Dasani in the UK as a pure, pristine water. It’s a message that didn’t go over well when the truth came out (PWS), then took a second hit from a bottling contaminant scandal.

Lindstrom’s tone is bemused. And rightfully so.  As businessmen and politicians are continually rediscovering—it’s the cover-up that hurts you, not the crime. Think Nixon. Jeff Skilling. Larry Craig. OJ.  Monicagate.  Rigas. Mark Foley.  Corvair. Ted Haggard. Dan Rather.  Bhopal.  It’s endless.

And yet—as Lindstrom accurately reports, “The [marketers’] concern… is that if the consumers know those expensive bottles of water come from the same public reservoirs as tap water they’ll cease buying them.”

I know! I’ve got an idea! Let’s just shade the truth a bit.  Not a flat out lie, of course.  Just repositioning.  Images, not words.  Suggestions, hints, juxtapositions, transference, intonations.  Nothing illegal.  No lies, of course.  After all, what do you take us for?

It is shockingly hard for most of us to just tell the truth.  Maybe marketers have just a little harder time than the rest of us?  Maybe their paranoia is just more publicly visible. 

What’s peculiar is—as Lindstrom points out—the truth really isn’t so bad.  Consumers can be quite comfortable buying PWS water. It mainly depends on—whether they’ve been told the truth about it.  The whole truth.  And nothing else.

If we doubt the truth of any part of a message—not just lies, but omissions, shifts, allusions, and particularly motives—then everything begins to unravel. What a tangled web we weave…

Once we doubt someone’s motives, it’s like dominoes—one statement after another gets challenged.  We become cynics.  And we end up not trusting the speaker.

A good case  can be made for Public Water Supply water; it’s not so hard to make.   And it beats the heck out of an implied fake that ends up being discovered for what it is.

A lie by any other name will smell the same.  Like contaminated water.

 

Who Do You Trust? What Trust Rankings Really Tell Us

/1 Comment/in /by

You’ve probably noticed, from time to time, survey results on trust—which professions we trust the most, which institutions, which messages, channels, and so forth.

The most recent such data—from Nielsen— tells us that web users around the world trust the recommendations of others more than they trust advertising.

Other surveys tell us we put “a person like yourself” ahead of all others. 

Still others tell us the relative trustworthiness of various professions.
There are two messages in these surveys—one explicit, the other implicit.

The explicit message is the headline—we trust doctors more than newscasters, we trust blogs more than advertising, and so on. Those data tell things like “who’s winning,” and how Australians differ from Chinese. Interesting. Food for marketers’ thought. And great for parlor conversation.

But the implicit message is about the nature of trust itself. Which is not at all obvious.

Imagine a survey asked people “How closely are you related to other people?” Now imagine findings like: “Parents top the relation list; followed closely by children and siblings. Cousins are found to be less related, about tied with in-laws. Neighbors and TV sitcom families appear to be the least closely related.”

Silly, because such a survey just re-enacts a trivially true definition as if were a new empirical discovery.

But isn’t trust much the same? We all have an instinctive sense that we trust certain people more than others. If I know you, have history with you, have shared personal moments with you, converse with you, work and play with you—then the odds are far greater that I’ll trust you than I’ll trust someone two degrees away on LinkedIn.

So when Nielsen tells us that consumers trust consumers more than advertising, the headline is about the low trust scores of advertisers.  But perhaps it shouldn’t be.
Perhaps that finding rates a giant, massive “Duh!”

Perhaps the headline should be, “trust linked to personal relationships.”

A major business trust issue today is how to “scale” trust. What can be done to networks of strangers to approach the high level of trust we see in more personal relationships?

Some efforts focus on increasing network size—Amazon’s algorithm for predicting what books you’ll like, for example. It works very well—for predicting books you’ll like. But for whether you should buy a house now in this market?  Hmmm.

Other efforts focus on track records. Of those who recommend buying a house now, vs. waiting—who has the better record of predictions? This helps with investing—but do you trust your investment advisor to recommend restaurants?  Or to play matchmaker?

Still other efforts increase the bandwidth available for us to evaluate others: Facebook and Match.com owe a lot to the ability to let people be who they are, let it all hang out—and share it with others.

The most successful networks will be those that replicate the full human experience—providing us broad markets, rich data—and deep exposure to the humanity of the others that lets us create bonds.

Those are the networks that will end up being trusted. And end up scoring high on trust surveys.

It’s no secret.

The Limits of Needs-based Selling and Consultative Selling

/7 Comments/in /by

These are popular concepts in today’s sales world:

Consultative Selling Amazon 568 mentions
Consultative Selling Google 270,000 mentions
Needs-based Selling Amazon 158 mentions
Needs-based Selling Google 22,800 mentions.

Both approaches ask questions to define buyer needs, so that the seller can alter or position the product to address those needs, thereby raising the value to the customer and the likelihood of closing the sale.

This may sound stunningly obvious and commonsensical. To that extent, it’s a tribute to the triumph over the old product-focused approach of convincing people they needed whatever it was you had to sell.

(At the same time, sounding obvious doesn’t mean it gets practiced all the time, or even usually. Product-based selling is far from dead).
The mainstream view among sales practitioners is that needs-based selling and consultative selling represent the state of the art, the high road, professionalism in selling.

But it’s just not true.

Reading the consultative or needs-based books, websites or training programs, you’ll find two beliefs—implicit or explicit—that limit the value of these approaches to selling. Those beliefs are:

1. Their primary intent is to close the sale
2. A secondary intent is to qualify prospects.

Those may sound obvious and benign as well, but look at it from the customer’s side.  Together, those two beliefs mean that if you’re paying attention to me as a customer, it’s only for as long as you think this transaction will result in a sale for you.

That means:

a. while you’re definitely in it for you, you’re only in it for me if it bodes well for you, and
b. while you’re willing to talk about my needs, you’re not willing to do so unless you see a sale close at hand.

Either way, it certainly appears you don’t have my interests very much at heart.

There is another way. It’s called Trust-based Selling®. It says focus on buyer needs, so that you can better articulate them and get them met.  Period.

You don’t focus on their needs because it’ll get you the sale—you do it so you can help them better articulate their needs and get them met.  Period.

You don’t focus on buyer needs in order to screen out buyers who don’t need what you have to sell. You do it so you  can help them better articulate those needs and get them met. Period.

The key difference lies in liberating sales from the transaction.  Trust flourishes only when then quid and the quo have some blue sky between them.  Screening at the transaction level screams “I only care about your wallet;” trust-based sales screens at the strategic customer selection level, not the tactical transaction level.

For needs-based or consultative selling to become trust-based, you need to migrate away from the tight leash of the transaction.  Loosen up.  Get free of the “pay me now or I quit doing this consulting” mentality.

Trust-based selling says, if you consistently do the right thing by your customer, then when the customer needs what you’re selling, you’ll get the first call. And you’ll therefore make more money.

The highest profit comes when you make profit a byproduct—not a goal—of a truly customer-centric sales process.