Posts

The Limits of Rational Trust: Part 2

/2 Comments/in /by

Last week we talked about how rational trust, which is to say, being trustworthy because it can be shown that being trustworthy leads to more money or other benefits, can break down, either because a the person involved knew they wouldn’t be around for the long term, or because the reward for betraying a trust was so great that they could cash out.

Other failures of rational trust are:

  • When you’re not at the table, but on the table;
  • when the social mechanisms of reputation and deterrance break down;
  • when someone has a dominant strategy, something they can force on other people.

This post we’ll discuss not being at the table, and the breakdown of social mechanisms of trust.

Are you the roast beef being carved up?

It is rational to be trustworthy to people who are your customers because you want repeat business. But often even if you’re buying something, you aren’t the customer. So, for example, who are the customers for credit cards?

Here’s the odd thing about credit cards. Credit cards which charge merchants more, and that therefore also cost consumers more, since merchants have to pass those costs on, are the ones that are chosen by banks to be offered. Chosen by banks is the key phrase. Almost everyone gets their credit card through their bank. The banks control the pipeline, therefore the banks are the actual consumers. They, and the credit card companies are at the table, retailers and consumers are on the table. The real customer for credit cards isn’t consumers, and it isn’t businesses, who feel they must accept them or give up huge amounts of business, instead it is the banks. Since this is the case, it is rational to charge consumers and businesses more, not less, because the more you charge them, the more you can give to the real customer, the banks, who can deliver what amount to captive audiences.

Just because you’re buying something doesn’t mean you’re the customer, it just means you are paying.

Heads I win, tails you lose!

The next failure point of rational trust is when the social mechanisms for enforcement break down. If CEOs can materially misrepresent their company’s positions, and still be paid millions, if outright systemic fraud can occur throughout an industry, for example, mortgage origination and packaging during the housing bubble, and virtually no one is charged with a crime, and many of the companies which engaged in the fraud are bailed out at taxpayer expense, then why shouldn’t they engage in fraud?

Call it “heads I win, tails you lose”. If I know that I’ve done so much damage that the entire world’s economy is at risk, well, what’s to fear? On Wall Street they used to call this the “eat babies” scenario, which is to say, if the government didn’t step in, things would be so dire that everyone would be eating babies. Apocalytpically bad. Now, one can argue over whether failing to bail out Wall Street would have been so bad (I don’t think so), but it certainly seems the prime actors thought it would be, and unquestionably many actors at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and in power in DC thought it would be.

In capitalism, the joke runs, bankrupt companies go out of business. On Wall Street, they get bailed out. The political mechanism, which is ultimately a social mechanism, for enforcing law and basic capitalist principles broke down.

This has far less grandiose forms than the late financial crisis. It occurs any time when breaches of trust will not materially affect someone’s ability to continue to operate in business and to make money. If the social circle one moves in doesn’t care about breaches of trust or ethics, then it is rational not to care about either. Rational trust is about consequences, if the consequences are less than the benefits, why be trustworthy?

Next post: Dominant strategies, or “you’ll take this deal because you have no choice.”

Showdown at the Used Car Corral

/36 Comments/in , /by

They wanted to sell a used truck. My son wanted to buy one for his business. He asked me to come along to help negotiate.

An enticing ad had gotten us onto their lot. At this point, the truck was pretty much pre-sold. All that was left was to agree on a price that worked for my son, and to pass our mechanic’s inspection. Done deal.

That is…until they decided they had to sell us.

My son was an eager buyer. But instead of asking my son about his business, or even why he wanted the truck, the salesman was all about getting the sale.

The Negotiation

It started with a little lie: “There’s another customer looking at that truck now”

This annoyed my son. Claiming scarcity only works when it’s true. The only other folks on the lot were looking at cars, not trucks.

Then the salesman began to negotiate price. It turns out that the trade-in value was within my son’s range, but my son wanted a lower final price. After some discussion, the price went down a little and then I gave our bottom line number. It was ok. The salesman then stuck out his hand and said: “This is our final price. Deal?”

The “presumptive close,” accompanied by a smug smile. It just didn’t work.

He was all about trying to sell a truck; he couldn’t see this was about my son buying one.

Despite his eagerness, my son ignored the salesman’s attempt to close. We said he’d buy if the price was really final, with no additional document prep fee–and, we still needed our mechanic to look at the truck.

“EVERYONE pays the documentation fee,” said the salesman.

Funny; after more discussion, the price was reduced by the amount of the fee. Then came the final issue – our mechanic’s approval.

“Our policy is that we don’t let cars leave the lot for mechanic’s inspections. Very few of our customers even ask to have cars looked at by their own mechanics,” said the salesman.

My son called our mechanic from the lot. The mechanic said he’d never heard of a dealer taking that position.

My son got more doubtful by the minute.

The salesman explained that the reason customers aren’t concerned with having used cars seen by their own mechanic is because they buy the dealer’s extended warranty which protects them. Another follow-on service for us to buy, in other words.

We said no, and got up to leave, whereupon the salesman made another offer: “We’ll give you another $500 off.”

I said my son would pay the price without the additional $500 off, as long as the mechanic could OK the truck, but he couldn’t buy without that inspection. The response: “Do you want to put down a deposit? There’s another customer interested, and the deposit will hold it for you.”

They just weren’t listening. At this we gave up and left, disappointed and discouraged. My son really wanted to buy the truck. But we understood they had a policy, and we accepted that was endgame.

But Wait There’s More…

Then, two minutes after driving out, my son’s cell phone rang. Now the dealer was willing to bring the truck to our mechanic–a request we never even made. This last sale attempt convinced my son: “I wouldn’t buy a truck from them at all. I don’t trust them.”

A Few Simple Guidelines

How did this seller permanently lose such an eager customer? What are the lessons this dealer can learn?

  1. Just stop with the lying. Just stop it. Why do dealers lie so much?. Lying loses trust, and trust loses sales.
  2. Don’t fake scarcity. Yes it’s used a lot as a sales tactic. That doesn’t make it right.
  3. Make sure policies are grounded in some principle that is important. “You can’t take the truck to your mechanic” was a policy. And if you’re going to claim you have a policy, at least have the good sense to stick to it.
  4. Stop with the closing. Good closing happens when the buyer is ready to buy. It doesn’t happen because the seller says “deal!”
  5. Listen to your customers. Should it really be that hard?

I guess it’s not all bad. My son got to see how trusting (or not trusting) the salesman can affect a decision to buy even more than the object itself. I’m pretty glad about that.

Beyond Work-Life Balance: Bedtime Stories

/6 Comments/in /by

The other night I met Kevin. Kevin is a late forty-something career consultant; for all but a few years of his career, he spent his work-weeks in various cities away from his wife and son.

Yet he and his son are very close. Kevin consciously developed rituals for the two of them and faithfully followed them.

For years, Kevin read books to his son. Every night. Long distance. As he put it:

Every book I’d buy, I’d buy two copies. We went through all the Harry Potter series together, and a ton more.

We had a standing routine. Every night at 7:30PM his time, I’d call him, we’d each open up our copies of the book, and I’d read.

If I was in a hotel, no problem. If I was driving, I’d pull over. If I was driving with a colleague, I’d ask the colleague to drive for half an hour while I read to my son.

It was great. It was a regular thing, a routine; I knew I had his attention, and he had mine. I really enjoyed that time.

How did that work out? Kevin says he has a rich, warm relationship with his son, now 17. I look at the glow in his eyes and his smile when he tells me about it, and I believe him.

Trust Primer Volume 11

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Our goal at Trusted Advisor Associates is to help people and their organizations become more trustworthy and trust-enhancing. It’s always exciting when we meet people who believe as we do. It’s even more exciting to talk to those who have found success by applying the same principles we talk about.

This month we place a spotlight on real trusted advisors, success stories of real professionals who make trust part of the foundation of their business strategies.

The Trust Primer Volume 11 features three powerful interviews: Chip Grizzard, CEO of Grizzard Communications; Jeb Brooks, son of author Bill Brooks and Executive Vice President of the Brooks Group; and Mahan Khalsa, partner of Ninety-five-5 and author of Let’s Get Real Or Let’s Not Play.

Each of these three demonstrate in their own unique ways how concepts of trust have played out for them in sales and leadership careers.

Get the Trust Primer volume 11 here

If you enjoy this ebook, you can email it to friends by following this link. Better yet, stop by the blog and join in the conversation. If you received this from a friend or colleague and would like to subscribe to the series, click here.

Serving To Win

/17 Comments/in /by

Which of these statements resonates more with you?

1. I try to win, because losing sucks.

2. I try to serve my clients, because then I win too.

3. I try to serve my clients, which generally works out best for me as well.

If you chose #1, OK, I get it, I like competing as much as the next guy, but come back another time, we’re not talking to you today.

Today we’re talking about service, winning, and the link between them.

Do you serve to win? Does serving cause winning? Or is winning an occasional byproduct of serving?

What it comes down to is: Why are you serving?

Does Doing Good Cause Doing Well?

There’s a myth being perpetuated by well-intended, wishful-thinking, creative, holistic people out there: the myth that if you do right, you absolutely will do well.

In its more extreme forms, this belief would suggest that all highly ethical and socially responsible companies always make more money, every quarter.

Of course, there’s no shortage of cynical, embittered, hard-bitten “realists” who just can’t wait to whump the idealists upside the head with a good “oh-yeah-take-Bernie-Madoff” or two.

Who’s right?

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Social scientists and game theorists are enamored of The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a two-person game about cooperation and competition. In each game, each player can choose to cooperate or compete.

  • If one chooses to cooperate and the other to compete, the cooperator gets 10 years in prison, while the competitor goes free.
  • If they each choose to compete, they each get 5 years in prison.
  • If they each choose to cooperate, they each get 6 months in prison.

The person economists assume we all are—rational maximizer of self-interest—will rationally choose to compete. So will his competitor. Boom.

That approach sums up approach number 1—play to win. Turns out that businesspeople in controlled tests of prisoner’s dilemma strongly favor approach number one; it fits with what they learned in business school, be number 1 or 2 in your market, competitive advantage, etc.

In a connected world: boom. So much for statement number 1 at the outset of this post. Because in the real world, prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t just get played once.

Playing the Game More than Once

Part of the “trick” of prisoner’s dilemma is to play it more than once. Over time, the optimal strategy turns out to be “tit for tat,” i.e. assume the other party will cooperate, and do likewise. This generally ends up in iterative decisions to cooperate, with only occasional breakdowns of order.

But why do people continue to choose “cooperate?” Is it because the economists are right, and we’re all rational maximizers of self-interest who look at the long run? Do we calculate the odds and figure that the net present value of cooperating is greater than that of competing? Turns out it’s a little murkier than that.

Playing the Game With More Than One Player

In addition to frequency, the game is affected by participation. If there are high levels of information, visibility and interaction about how other players are engaging in the same game, then the cooperation strategy becomes even more dominant. There are fewer defectors from the cooperative strategy trying to squeeze in that last little bit of competitive edge.

Fewer Madoffs.

But: if you have more people choosing to tweak those odds, looking for just the right moment to sucker-punch the other guy after having lulled them into somnolence by a series of apparently cooperative gestures, looking to gain that final advantage—then the system starts to fall apart.

Why We Play the Game Matters

Prisoner’s dilemma is a pretty good metaphor for life. The economists’ fiction of individual actors is just that—a fiction. Francis Fukuyama puts it this way in The Origins of Political Order:

It is in fact individualism and not sociability that developed over the course of human history. That individualism seems today like a solid core of our economic and political behavior is only because we have developed institutions that override our more naturally communal instincts. Aristotle was more correct…when he said that human beings were political by nature.

The only serious debate is between statements two and three. Do you cooperate to win? Or do you cooperate because—that’s what you do? It’s the latter attitude, held by enough people over a long enough time period, that drives economic wealth.

  • A business strategist who advises any given company to be socially responsible because they’ll make more money that way is detracting, not contributing, to social responsibility;
  • An investor looking for socially responsible companies solely in order to make more money on their investment is a risk-seeking investor;
  • A society of people who cooperate “in order to win” is in trouble.

The Paradox of Trust

Belief number two—serving your clients because that way you win—is ultimately self-defeating. Because if “to win” is your ultimate goal, you’ll sooner or later end up facing a situation where you have to choose between serving and winning. And you’ll choose winning.

And then people will stop trusting you. And that disease is communicable.

Two variables make it all work: time, and numbers. Play the game enough times, with enough players, and it works. Where it goes wrong is when we:

  • Start managing to quarterly earnings
  • Start analyzing performance metrics in the short term
  • Analyze individual psychology outside of group psychology
  • Use the language of self-interest instead of group interest.

The paradox is: economics work if we justify it ethically. But if we try to justify ethics economically, it all falls apart. Beware of those who justify ethical behavior by the bottom lines.

Answer three—serve your clients because things generally work out better that way—is the “right” answer for all of us. If we remember to keep it long-term, and keep it social, then it works.

Help, Leadership and Teamwork

/8 Comments/in , /by

“I helped Maia and Maia helped me”… was the breathless comment of a three year old at the end of a very successful Easter egg hunt recently; she had formed a partnership with an equally ambitious four year old egg-hunter to be clear winners in the task of finding (and consuming!) as many Easter eggs as possible.

At the other end of the age spectrum, a Chief Operating Officer said to me last week that senior leadership relationships in his organization were improving through an increased readiness to approach colleagues with the simple request, ‘I need some help. Please do me a favour.’ It had not been easy to start to do this, he pointed out, because it had implied a declaration of vulnerability but the results were making it most worthwhile.

As leaders strive to build the agile, trust-based cultures that fuel the quality conversations – strategic, creative, curious, experimental – needed to generate breakthrough ideas and breakthrough execution, I notice them using more and more the language and approaches of ‘help.’ Are you noticing this too?

Thinking About Helping

If so, we might turn to Ed Schein’s 2009 book Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. Schein suggests ‘what we think of as effective teamwork, collaboration and co-operation can all be understood best as consistent effective mutual helping.’ He defines teamwork as ‘a state of multiple reciprocal helping relationships including all members of the group that have to work together. Building a team therefore is not just creating one client/helper relationship but simultaneously building one among all the members.’

Schein points out the many challenges involved in giving and receiving help. As receivers of help, we can often feel diminished or ‘one down’ when offered help. As givers of help, we must consciously pause and turn away from what seems to be most pressing at the time in what are often very busy, hectic lives.

Principles of Helping

Three principles and tips stand out from Schein’s advice to leaders:

  1. Task interdependence is the foundation of strong mutual helping relationships. Maia of the Easter egg hunt understood perfectly that she and her little friend had better chances working together than did others searching on their own. Similarly, a VP of Sales and a VP of Operations in an IT Services company have formed a very strong ‘helping’ relationship around the challenging task of entering a new market. Schein argues that, without these mutually important tasks, it is very difficult to form strong ‘helping’ relationships. He zeroes in on the importance of solicited, specific, descriptive and goal-related feedback–enabling colleagues to become more helpful.
  2. The strongest helping relationships occur when both giver and receiver are ready, and the relationship is equitable. He urges the giver of help to check whether the person she wants to help is ready and able to receive it; and the receiver to give regular feedback on what is and is not helpful—in particular, being clear when help is no longer required.
  3. Effective helping starts with pure inquiry, a strong effort to understand and empathise with the needs of the person requiring help. No matter how clear the request for help, he urges us to pause and reflect, truly to listen, and to challenge our own assumptions. This is particularly important at the beginning of a helping relationship because it enhances the status of the one being helped, and maximises the information available to the helper.

The Trust Equation and Helping

The Trust Equation supplements Schein’s notions as a strong frame for effective helping relationships. To be truly helpful to you, I focus on your needs, not mine (low Self-orientation); you are safe raising any issue you wish with me, and I will engage with you at both emotional and rational levels (high Intimacy); when you ask for advice, I will be clear and truthful (high Credibility); and you can rely on me to be available to you when needed (high Reliability).

I recently saw one CEO commit to his organization to:

  1. Encourage open feedback across my leadership team about the pursuit of the team’s collective and individual goals. Above all, cultivate a readiness in the team to say ‘I am not sure’, ‘I need some thoughts on this one’, ‘This is not quite going as we would wish it to.’
  2. Adopt an even more inquiring approach with my colleagues, really listening in order to understand their needs for help, and challenging my own assumptions about what I think they need.
  3. Check in regularly on what help is needed and how this is changing.
  4. Invite help myself, showing my own vulnerability as a result. Acknowledge my own deficit of understanding and knowledge in numerous matters.

He will help his organization and his organization will help him. Just like the Maia egg-hunting partnership.

Upcoming Events and Appearances: Trusted Advisor Associates

/0 Comments/in /by

Join us at one or more upcoming Trusted Advisor Associates events. This Spring, we’ll be hosting and participating in events in Cambridge, MA; Boston, MA; London, England; Washington DC and through globally accessed webinars.

Also, a word about the Trusted Advisor Mastery Program.

—————————————-

Fri. May 6th Cambridge, MA Charles H. Green

Charlie Green will be a panelist at the Sloan Sales Conference, today, at MIT.

 

Wed. May 18th Boston, MA Stewart Hirsch

Stewart Hirsch will be a guest lecturer at Emerson College, speaking on “Becoming a Trusted Advisor.” The class to which Stewart will be addressing is a part of a professional services marketing course taught by Prof. Silvia Hodges, Ph.D.

 

Tues. & Wed. May 24th-25th London, England Julian Powe & Charles H. Green

In a highly interactive, practical and lively day-and-a-half program, TAA will be offering the opportunity to accelerate your professional growth, identify and strengthen the outstanding practice you already have, and address areas for improvement. This is the first time these two extraordinary presenters have offered this program together! Our early-booking price for the program will be $2200, with discounts available for group participation. For more information or to register contact Julian Powe or Tracey Del Camp, respectively.

 

Wed. July 20th Washington, DC Andrea P. Howe
(Rescheduled) Andrea will be speaking at the Washington DC Chapter of the Project Management Institute (Reston Luncheon) on “Trust and Influence: What Every Successful Project Manager Needs to Know.” 11:30am. Registration information to be announced soon. PDUs will be available for Project Management Professionals (PMPs).

 

Wed. Aug. 24th Washington, DC Andrea Howe
Andrea will be speaking at the Washington DC Chapter of the Project Management Institute (Washington Circle Luncheon) on “Trust and Influence: What Every Successful Project Manager Needs to Know.” 2101 L Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC. 11:30am. Registration information to be announced soon. PDUs will be available for Project Management Professionals (PMPs).

——————————-

The first tranche of the Trusted Advisor Mastery Program has completed the 19 modules in the program, individual coaching calls and its third group call, and the members have agreed to keep up lively discussions on the online Forum. Here’s what one participant has to say about the program:

“The Trusted Advisor Mastery Program delivered professional and personal results beyond expectations. The first coaching call was worth the whole price of admission.” (Virginia Sambuco, Sr. Director Marketing Services, Enterprise Solutions, Harland Clarke, San Antonio, TX)

To be notified of the next available program, email us at: [email protected].

Valuable Content Award Winners Announced

/3 Comments/in /by

One of the hot issues on the web these days (along with curation and inbound marketing) is content. Actually, other than a short period where portals ruled the headlines, I’m not sure if “content” ever really went out of vogue.

In any case, friend across the pond Sonja Jefferson runs Valuable Content. They do website development—but with an avowed focus on content. As they put it, they develop “websites rich with content customers appreciate that consistently generate qualified leads.”

Which, come to think of it, also has to do with curation and inbound marketing.

Anyway, they have recently initiated the Valuable Content Awards; here are this month’s five winners:

The Payroll Services Centre—yes, payroll services. At Payroll-Services-Center.co.uk

Bryony Thomas, a marketing consultant, at http://www.bryonythomas.com/

Heather Townsend, an all-things-networking business at JoinedUpNetworking.com

Formicio, an IT transformation and innovation consultancy, at www.Formicio.com

Oh yeah and a little business called Trusted Advisor Associates got one too. We are grateful.

Thanks to Sonja (@sonjajefferson) and Sharon (@sjtanton), Mick and Eli for doing the heavy lifting to put the awards program together. Good content deserves recognition.

 

 

Lessons in Leadership and the Three Umpires

/6 Comments/in /by

This is one of my all-time favorite stories. Three umpires (baseball, for our international readers) were talking about how they make calls on each pitch.

The first umpire said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them like they is.”

Umpire number two said: “No, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ’em like I see ’em.”

But it’s umpire number three that I like. He said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ until I call them.”

The Third Ump

What sets umpire number three apart? First, he understands that distinguishing a strike from a ball is fundamentally a judgment call. Television’s K-zone aside, it’s his job as the umpire to set a strike zone, to watch the pitches and declare where each pitch sails: inside, outside, high, low, or right down Broadway.

Second, he knows the integrity of the game depends on his certainty in his calls. The pitches really aren’t anything until he makes his pronouncement, and he has the courage of his convictions.

Lessons in Leadership

And how does the third umpire tie into leadership? A good leader does the following:

  1. Knows that a lot of decisions are in fact judgment calls, and is willing and able to make them – command presence.
  2. Provides clear and concise direction.
  3. Demonstrates passion and yes, courage of her or his convictions.
  4. Sets a fair and consistent “strike zone” and applies that to everyone.

The third ump, or the good leader, isn’t arrogant, non-collaborative or deaf to others. The good leader is willing to take on the tough responsibility of setting priorities, being clear in direction and demonstrating the passion to get others believing in the vision.

PS: For a great real-life story of courage and leadership, read Mike Myatt’s great piece.

Books We Trust: You’re Working Too Hard to Make the Sale

/5 Comments/in /by

This is the first in a new series called Books We Trust. We expect to publish it irregularly, but about monthly.

The first book was a no-brainer for me. You’ve probably never heard of it; it was not a best-seller; it ranks about 900,000 on Amazon (not high). But I’m telling you; it is a wonderful book. It’s called You’re Working Too Hard to Make the Sale, by Bill Brooks and Tom Travisano.

—–

I came late to the study of sales (though early, and miserably, to selling itself). None of it made much sense to me—it all seemed either excessively hormonal, abstract, or manipulative. It all felt vague—a feast of gratuitous adjectives and amateur psychology.

I persisted, reading books I won’t mention, which only made it worse. Then one day, I ran across You’re Working Too Hard , by two folks I’d never heard of.

It made everything click for me. Suddenly I could make sense of trust, influence, psychology, money, fear, and closing.

One of the points that book made was that the concept of “needs” had gotten over-used. Everyone, they said, was focused on identifying needs and generating a complete picture of what the clients needed so that they could consultatively package and sell a solution that fit the specs of what the client really needed.

I had always felt something was lacking in that formulation (years later, John Caddell wrote, “No one ever bought a value proposition”), putting more words to my feeling—but that was later). Brooks nailed it down, with page after page making fun of the penchant for identifying needs.

It was “wants,” he insisted, that motivated buying behavior, not needs. Needs included toothpaste, bicycles, audits and CRM systems. But wants—that was different: wants included a myriad of hopes, wishes, fears, desires and aspirations. If a seller could connect on that level, the story went, buyers would transfer the purchase of their “needs” to those who had made the wants connection.

The data were astonishing. Travisano in particular—a former political consultant and pollster, I believe—had crafted the research to explore exactly that thesis. And, they’d done it across several relevant business sectors, including CEOs of small entrepreneurial companies and CIOs.

I knew how serious, educated people made big dollar decisions for serious investments in major services, and the rational, deductive model of decision-making that I had been taught simply did not bear resemblance to the undeniable parade of actual decisions I had seen. This book explained it.

And the punch line was marvelous: you didn’t have to satisfy people’s wants to get the sale—who would believe a salesperson could deliver on a buyer’s wishes, needs, hopes fears and aspirations? It was enough that you connected; that they felt understood, that someone “got” who they were. That, the research said, powerfully drove sales.

It was a eureka book for me. It meant you could be a real, genuine, flawed, warts-and-all human being—and still sell. As long as you could connect to the real person on the other side of the table. Faking it did not work; self-obsession did not work; the answer didn’t lie in process, or in mastery of closing lines, or even of the collection of questions and needs. It lay in understanding the human being in front of you. Suddenly I liked selling.

Co-author and researcher Tom Travisano died a few weeks after the first edition; lead author and more famous sales consultant Bill Brooks carried on with The Brooks Group in North Carolina. Brooks himself passed on in 2007, but his company is aggressively continuing, even prospering, through the efforts of his sons Jeb and Will.

I spoke with Jeb recently.

——–

CHG: This book was one of the top three sales books I ever read, and the one that had the most impact on me. How did your dad come to write it?

JB: First, we’re touched; thank you. Dad wrote over 20 books, but we always thought this one was the sleeper. He wrote them all longhand, on yellow pads, by the way. This was maybe the 6th or 7th book for him. It was released twice, first in 1995, then 2005.

I was young when I first read it. I thought, “What’s the big deal?” It seemed so commonsense, so obvious.

CHG: I had that feeling too just recently, re-reading it. But at the time, for me, I had to work at it to get it. It sounded simple—maybe I just couldn’t accept that it really was that simple.

JB: Dad said that back then, everyone was focused on needs, needs, needs. He made a lot of fun of “needs-based selling” in that book. He felt that Frank Bettger had it right years before—the idea that if you could show people what they really wanted, they’d move heaven and earth to get it. When dad got together with Tom Travisano, a skilled political researcher, they set out to prove it, and to prove that the dominant needs-based sales mantra missed the boat.

CHG: I still hear a lot of focus on needs; this book needs a rebirth. I always remember how they collapsed the key insight into one critical sentence: “Buyers are eager to buy what they need from salespeople who understand what they want.” Almost every word in that sentence is significant.

JB: Other insights included “People buy the salesperson, not the product,” and “the opening is where the sale is made, not the closing.”

CHG: And the research is solid; thousands of buying situations, blinded studies, both complex and simple B2B products and services. But let me ask you; in today’s sales 2.0 world, do you think his findings about buyer motivation are less relevant, or perhaps more?

JB: Without a doubt—even more relevant. In Sales 2.0, the buyer is supposed to be in control, and that’s true—but the buyer still doesn’t know what they want. If anything, they’re more confused by all the data, because they think they should know. So because it’s easier nowadays to find all your needs, that means it’s even more important to find someone you trust, who understands your wants.

I recently had to buy a health care plan for our business, and it was tough. I didn’t know much, and I didn’t want to do the wrong thing, I didn’t want to upset people, and so on. In fact, I had a lot of wants. And guess who I went with? The person who worked hard to find out what I wanted, without making me feel stupid. And you know what? That is just, plain, simple how it works. That’s what dad and Tom said so clearly. It sounded so obvious not because it was obvious—they had to uncover the truth to say it so plainly.

CHG: How do you and your brother think about that book these days, besides being proud of it?

JB: We live the values he talked about: Integrity and Intense Customer Focus. We’re a sales-driven company, meaning we deliver on buyer wants. And that’s what he talked about.