Sales and Sales Management Blog

October 31, 2008

What Does Your Client Touch Program Say About You?

Filed under: Client Relationships, Communication, business, marketing, sales, selling, small business, trust — Paul McCord @ 8:26 am
Tags: , , ,

What are you doing with those prospects that are in your database that aren’t ready to purchase yet?  Are you in the process of establishing trust and good will-or are you demonstrating that you aren’t trustworthy or that you really don’t have anything of value to offer?

Whether you’ve considered it or not, everything you send to a prospect communicates your value-or non-value, and your trustworthiness.  Everything you send.  No matter how small.

Most salespeople, professionals, and companies will put their long-term prospects into a database and keep in touch with them on a semi-regular basis.  They’ll send a monthly or quarterly newsletter, a “how ya doin, ya ready to buy yet?” email or letter on occasion, and make a phone call once in a blue moon.  Some will inundate the prospect with so much junk mail and junk email that the prospect wonders how to get rid of them.

Either way, the prospect is learning about the salesperson or company.  The question is what are they learning?

Let’s look at the three most common negative messages prospects get from salesperson and company communications:

You Aren’t Reliable:

Reliability is a major trust factor and what you send and when you send materials to your prospects will communicate to some extent whether or not you are reliable.  If you promise to send information, do you send exactly what you promised, when you promised?  If not, why should a prospect trust you?

Do you send a monthly or quarterly newsletter?  Is it on time, every time?  If the date on your newsletter is May and it arrives in June because you were too busy to get it out, what message does that send?  Think people won’t notice?  I received the Jan/Feb newsletter from an interior decorator-in April.  Is that how she handles all of her commitments?

You Don’t Value My Time

Are the items you send of real value to the prospect?  If it isn’t of value, why do you send it?

What people will send is amazing.  I get newsletters with recipes, gardening tips, and other information that might be appropriate for some salespeople, but not from the people who are sending it.  Recipes, gardening tips, household tips, etc. might be appropriate in a REALTOR’S newsletter, but not an accountant’s, or financial planner’s, or insurance agent’s, or from an auto repair shop.  If I get something from an accountant, I expect it to have some relevance to my financial needs.  If I get something from an auto repair shop, I expect it have something to do with automobiles.  I don’t expect an attorney to send me an article on how to give a massage (yep, got one). 

What can you send of value?  There is a ton of stuff.  Articles relating to the area you address; special offers; new services and/or products; major company news; and other pertinent information.  All of these items are likely to be of interest to a majority of your prospects.

The key is not to waste your prospect’s time.  Of course, not everything you send is going to be of interest to every one of your prospects.  But if your information is good, all of your prospects will find value in your communications-just not every prospect for every communication.  I get a number of emails after each edition of my newsletter.  Many praise a particular issue; others are indifferent.  But some of those who were indifferent to one issue may email me an issue or two later raving about the latest issue, while the one who was enthused about the first issue emails me to let me know I missed the mark with them on the last issue.  I, like you, have to aim to bring lots of great material to the table, knowing that each reader is at a different place in their careers.  What appeals to one, may not appeal to another.  However, if I bring enough diversity to the newsletter, I can hit everyone’s needs, just not in every issue.  You must aim for the same goal-bring substance to the table, and overtime, you’ll feed the lot.

Every time you communicate with a prospect or client, even with your mass communications, you are teaching them to pay attention to you because you value their time and give them value-or you are teaching them to ignore you because you are nothing but a time waster.

You Don’t Know Your Business

Sending out-dated or erroneous information also will be noticed by many prospects.  If you fail to review and carefully examine your information to make sure that it is up-to-date and accurate, you run a serious risk of convincing your prospect that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

The articles and other materials you send, whether written by you or others, must contain current, accurate and trustworthy information.  Never assume that yours is the only information the prospect is receiving about your subject.  Your object is to inform, not confuse.  Your goal is to impress, not show your ignorance or laziness.  Errors are especially easy to miss when dealing with statistics and factual matters of record.

This isn’t to say that you can’t send items that may challenge conventional wisdom.  You certainly can-and if you can back your information up, these may be your most potent communications.  For instance, I work obviously in the areas of sales and sales management.  Most salespeople and managers know there are a great variety of training methods and theories.  Controversy and going against convention isn’t an issue in this industry.  As a matter of fact, many are well aware that many conventional ways of doing things simply don’t work that well.  Consequently, going against convention and finding better ways is welcomed. 

But in other industries, for example, many sectors of the financial services industry, bucking convention many not only raise many eyebrows, but your very competence may be questioned if your ideas are not well documented by independent sources.  Does this mean that you can’t present non-traditional ideas in these industries?  No.  It simply means that you must go out of your way to document their validity because you know upfront that you’re dealing with a subject where innovation is going to be questioned-not just by peers, but by many prospects also.

In addition to sloppy work, overstatements and exaggerations are another red flag for prospects.  It is perfectly permissible to make strong statements about your products and services as long as you are not the author of those statements and you can identify for your prospects exactly who made the claims about your product or service. 

If you use superlatives about yourself, your product/service, or your company, they cannot be from you and you must fully identify the person who made them-meaning they can be checked out.  If you make the claim yourself, you lose credibility.  If you attribute the superlative to someone who is not fully identified, you lose credibility.  If you use an authority in your particular field and give full identification, you gain credibility.  If you use an everyday customer with full disclosure, you gain credibility.

Examine your prospect communications in light of these three most common mistakes.  Don’t allow yourself to lose credibility while trying to build credibility.  Every communication you have with a prospect or client is just as important as your initial communication with them.  You’ve worked hard to gain their trust and respect.  Don’t blow it by teaching them that you’re nothing but a time waster.

October 1, 2008

Guest Article: “Un-spin Your Competitor’s Propaganda,” by Dave Stein

Filed under: Communication, branding, business, marketing, sales — Paul McCord @ 7:38 am
Tags: , , , , ,

Un-spin Your Competitor’s Propaganda
By Dave Stein

Did you ever feel that you are living in a world of spin and hype? With damage control consultants, corporate spin doctors and whole companies out there whose job it is to reconstruct a corporate image, it’s hard to tell “where the truth lies.”

Here are some considerations for getting to the bottom of a competitor’s press release or interview:

1.Why are they announcing now? Press releases and conferences don’t happen by chance. In order to start to get at the truth, you’ll need to question the timing and ask, why now? Perhaps the company is attempting to preempt their opponent. Or are they were caught off guard and are trying to make up for lost ground.

2.Do you hear (or read) new words, concepts or phrases? That’s generally a sign that someone is jockeying for a leadership, first-out-of-the-gate position. The use of generally accepted terms signifies a me-too position, often by someone who is behind the curve and attempting to justify why.

3.If there is a problem, whom are they blaming for it? If it’s your company, you have just been declared the enemy. What is the real reason for the problemﾗthe one they aren’t discussing? There may lay a source of competitive advantage for you.

4.Who might be offended or threatened by any statements made? You always want to imagine who might be threatened or offended by a statement, whether it is written or verbal. Is the person or company taking “a shot” at someone? If so, that is at least part of their agenda. The person or company who is the target of the statement may not be clear at first. Listen and read between the lines.

5.Does the person name names? If so, they may be the enemy. A proven way to spin an attack is to praise your opponent, then diminish what they are doing in the eyes of the audience. “I think ABC Corporation really has done a terrific job building market share. We believe that the quality of our products will have an impact of the success of our customers, which will enable us to achieve our growth objectives during the coming year.” Translation: Take a serious look at the quality of their products.

6.In an interview, do they answer questions directly or avoid the answer? Here’s an example: A chemical company executive is asked, “Have there been any other toxic chemical spills that have not been reported to the authorities?” The answer, “Our company has the best record in the industry regarding compliance with government regulations and has been recognized by the Green Fund fifteen times.” What they say is often their message. What they don’t say often indicates where their exposure lies.

7.What does the person say when they are interrupted? Will they allow themselves to be driven off course? Or do they persist and continue to drive forward, even overpowering the interrupter. If that’s the case, what they are saying at that moment is likely the real message.

8.Is their body language incongruent with what they are saying? Learn how to read body language. As experienced and coached as President Clinton was, he still managed to touch his nose an inordinate number of times during his televised testimony about Monica Lewinsky.

9.Are questions planted or is the interviewer free to ask what they please? Whether you like him or not, part of the success of Bill O’Reilly’s TV show is his assertion that he will accept no guests who require adherence to pre-determined interviewing questions or subjects that the interviewer must stay away from. That is opposite from prime-time news and interview shows on network television.

Before founding his sales consultancy, The Stein Advantage, Inc., in 1997, Dave Stein served for more than 20 years in various corporate executive sales and marketing roles. Now, through his coaching, speaking, and training, Dave provides companies with substantial diagnostic and remedial expertise enabling them, among other capabilities, to readily overcome tough competitors, refocus their selling efforts resulting in new levels of credibility and differentiation with high-level executive buyers, and to hire the right sales professionals, all leading to greater and more consistent revenues. Dave is the author of the Amazon best-selling business book: How Winners Sell: 21 Proven Strategies to Outsell Your Competition and Win the Big Sale, (Dearborn Trade Press, May 2004). For more information go to his website, www.HowWinnersSell.com

September 26, 2008

Bailout, It’s Just a 7 Letter Word–Or Is It?

Filed under: Communication, Economy, business, marketing, sales, selling — Paul McCord @ 7:25 am
Tags: , , , ,

Your daughter has grossly overextended herself.  Her credit cards, mortgage and car payments alone are three times her monthly take home pay.  Up until now she’s been able to rob from one to cover the other, but it’s now caught up with her.  She comes to you to confess her excesses and ask for help.

As a parent, you have options.  You can, of course, send her on her way to suffer the consequences of her behavior and out of control spending, knowing it will take years of work and self-denial for her to right herself.

You could just take out your checkbook and start writing checks-her bailout, if you will, knowing the likelihood of ever getting repaid is virtually zero.

Another alternative would be to work with her and her creditors to see if you could negotiate either reduced payments which you will make or a greatly reduced payoff-which you will immediately write a check to the creditor for, again expecting little or no repayment from your daughter, but at least giving her the opportunity to start over.

But you also have another alternative.  You could go to her creditors and let them know that you’re going to stand behind your daughter, but you’re not going to pay off her debts.  Instead, she’ll take her monthly income and make every payment she can and you’ll step in and make those payments she can’t.  You’ll only take up the slack in her cash flow and for only as long as necessary.  She’ll still be on a beans and cornbread diet for years, but her creditors will be paid, her credit history will be intact.

As her parent, which would you choose?

Now, turn it around.  You are no longer her parent; you’re one of the credit card companies who extended her credit.  Which option do you prefer?  I’d assume you’d like to see her parent take option number two-just pay the debt off.  You know you have a debtor who is going to default if something isn’t done.  You don’t want to negotiate a payoff unless you absolutely must because that is going to cost you money.  Even though her parent has promised to underwrite her payments, they have no legal obligation-they could change their mind.  Besides, since you have a great many other credit card holders in the same situation, you really want your money now, not later.

Although simplistic, these are the basic options congress is debating to ‘resolve’ the financial markets mess.  Do we simply take the bad debt, do we try to negotiate it down to the bare bones, or do we underwrite it?  I certainly recognize there’s more to it than this, and not being an economist, I’m not trying to argue for one or the other, or to explain the intricacies of the options.  But the language used to present the plans holds an important lesson for us in sales.

Certainly, Wall Street has made their preference known-take the bad debt.  Buy their paper at as close to face value as possible, saving their balance sheet, allowing them to go back, in essence, to business as usual.

That, of course, isn’t going to happen.  The Paulson/Bernanke proposal is akin to the third choice, negotiating a greatly reduced payoff-with a twist.  As a parent, you would want to negotiate the lowest possible payoff of your daughter’s debt.  You’d want to get out as cheaply as possible.  The twist in the Treasury plan is to hold a ‘discovery auction’ to determine the current fair market value of those debts.  That is the price at which they would be bought-maybe higher, maybe lower than the lowest possible negotiated payoff.  And unlike you when you payoff your daughter’s debt, the Treasury has an asset they would hope to be able to sell at some point in the future and get at least some of the money back.

The Paulson/Bernanke proposal isn’t a straight bailout, although unfortunately for them, it has been presented in the news that way and the major spokesperson for the plan, Paulson, has even used that term on occasion in the past.  Furthermore, the plan’s goal isn’t to save Wall Street companies but to free up the credit markets-to make it possible and attractive for companies to lend money to both business and consumer.  Without access to credit, the rest of the economy will collapse.

Because of how the plan has been reported in the news media, many people view the plan as simply paying off the daughter’s debt, making the creditor whole while draining the parent’s (taxpayers) bank account.  That’s a misperception based on the language used-and used by some of those involved in constructing and presenting the plan.

Bailout.  It’s just a small 7 letter word, one that everyone knows the meaning of.  Synonyms are ‘help,’ ‘escape,’ and ‘rescue.’   Many people are thinking in terms of ‘escape,’ as in Wall Street companies escaping the consequences of their bad investments and those coming to the ‘rescue’ having to payoff that bad debt in return for—-nothing.

Words are more than simply a collection of letters.  They have both positive and negative meanings-and positive and negative connotations.  Bailout, at least in this context, has the most negative meaning and connotation possible for many taxpayers.  Paulson and others have allowed the term to become attached to the plan, even on occasion using the term themselves, thus positioning the plan in the worst possible light.

As salespeople and marketers, we should take careful note of how just one little 7 letter word can completely change the perception of our presentation.

September 17, 2008

Hearing and Seeing is Believing? Hardly.

Filed under: Client Relationships, Communication, business, marketing, sales, selling, small business, trust — Paul McCord @ 6:06 am
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Communication is at the core of what we as salespeople do.  We have to find a prospect and then communicate who we are, what we do, how we can help them solve their problems or meet their wants and needs, and we have to do so in a manner that builds confidence, trust, and respect.

This should be a rational process-communicating factual information; demonstrating our trustworthiness by what we do, what we say, and the advice and guidance we provide the prospect; and putting the good of the prospect first.

As a rational process, we should be able to use logic, facts, and figures.  Our trustworthiness should shine through based the actions our prospect sees.  Our desire to seek what’s best for the prospect should be easily discernable based on the quality of our guidance and recommendations.

If only it were that easy.

Many of us make a critical mistake when we assume that our prospect hears what we’re saying and sees what we’re doing.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.  Prospects see and hear what they want to see and hear.

Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the current presidential campaign.  There are hundreds of examples of people hearing and seeing what they want to hear and see, not what is actually being said or done.

Although I go on all day with examples, let me give a couple of examples, one from each campaign:

Pigs and Lipstick.  Everyone has seen the clip of Obama discussing the policies of John McCain during a campaign stop where he stated that you could put lipstick on McCain’s (i.e, Bush’s) policies and you’d still have a pig.

Within context it is obvious that Obama wasn’t speaking about Sara Palin.  He was speaking about the policies of John McCain.  But the reactions to this statement are very interesting.

The reactions of the Obama supporters at the event were the exact opposite of what Obama intended by the statement.  They began to laugh uproariously as soon as the word lipstick comes out of Obama’s mouth.  They immediately thought the statement was going to be an attack on Palin–because that’s what they wanted to hear.  They didn’t hear what Obama said; they heard what they wanted to hear.

Likewise, many of those opposed to Obama heard the same thing-an attack on Palin that didn’t exist-again, because that’s what they wanted to hear.

McCain and Economics. McCain has had the same issue arise with his comment that he wasn’t as well versed in economics as some other areas.  He never said he didn’t know anything about economics, he said he didn’t know as much about economics as he did other areas.

As with the Obama statement, the video clip makes it very evident the meaning of his words.

Many who oppose him didn’t hear his statement.  What they heard was that he doesn’t know anything about economics-again, they heard what they wanted to hear.

In both of the above instances there are those who honestly misunderstood the comments.  There are certainly others who intentionally misunderstand them and have twisted them for their own use.

Both men sought to communicate in a relatively straightforward manner.  McCain made a simple assertion that he didn’t know as much about economics as other subjects.  Obama used a common expression that at one time or another most all of us have used.

It can be argued that both men’s speech was ill conceived.  McCain should have known admitting he wasn’t as well versed in economics as other areas would open him up to criticism.  Obama’s use of the lipstick on a pig expression was ill timed due to Palin’s joke at the Republican convention.

But McCain and Obama are trying to communicate with other humans-and doing so with thousands of words everyday.  As such, each will find words coming out their mouths that are less than optimal to advance their respective causes.  Although both have speech writers, both must speak extemporaneously-and that can be dangerous ground for a presidential candidate–or a salesperson.

Each must take great care to phrase their statements precisely, to insure their statements are placed within a context that fully explains them and insulates them from being misunderstood.

We face the same obstacles Obama and McCain face.  We have prospects who hear what they want to hear, not what we say, who see what they want to see, not what we do.

“But,” you say, “they’re dealing in politics where listeners have pre-conceived ideas and agendas.  I’m selling copiers.”

That’s precisely the point.  Our prospects and clients also have pre-conceived ideas.  They also have agendas.  They also hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.

Just as with McCain and Obama, we must be vigilant in our discussions with prospects and clients.  Fortunately, our job is easier.  McCain and Obama must understand and appeal to their immediate audience while formulating their words for a much larger audience that is present only via the eye of the camera and the microphone of the recorder.

That being said, we, like them, must be intimately tuned into our audience.  We must understand our prospect’s pre-conceived ideas and agendas if we want our words and our actions to communicate what we want to communicate, not what they want to hear or see.

September 4, 2008

Guest Article: “Setting the Climate for Non-Confrontational Negotiation,” by Roger Dawson

Filed under: Communication, Negotiation, business, sales, selling — Paul McCord @ 7:19 am
Tags: , , , ,

Setting the Climate for a Non-Confrontational Negotiation
By Roger Dawson

What you say in the first few moments of a negotiation often sets the climate of the negotiation. The other person quickly gets a feel for whether you are working for a win-win solution, or whether you’re a tough negotiator who’s out for everything they can get.

That’s one problem that I have with the way that attorneys negotiate-they’re very confrontational negotiators. You get that white envelope in the mail with black, raised lettering in the top left hand corner and you think, “Oh, no! What is it this time?” You open the letter and what’s the first communication from them? It’s a threat. What they’re going to do to you, if you don’t give them what they want.

I remember conducting a seminar for 50 attorneys who litigated medical malpractice lawsuits, or as they prefer to call them, physician liability lawsuits. I’ve never met an attorney who was eager to go to a negotiating seminar, although that’s what they do for a living, and these people were no exception to the rule. However, the organization that was giving the attorneys their business told them that they were expected to attend my seminar if they wanted to get any more cases from the organization. So the attorneys weren’t too happy about having to spend Saturday with me in the first place, but once we got started, they became involved and were having a good time. I got them absorbed in a workshop involving a surgeon being sued over an unfortunate incident involving a nun and walked around the room to see how they were doing. I couldn’t believe how confrontational they were being. Most of them started with a vicious threat and then became more abusive from that point on. I had to stop the exercise and tell them that if they wanted to settle the case without expensive litigation (and I doubted their motives on that score) that they should never be confrontational in the early stages of the negotiation.

So, be careful what you say at the beginning. If the other person takes a position with which you totally disagree, don’t argue. Arguing always intensifies the other person’s desire to prove himself or herself right. You’re much better off to agree with the other person initially and then turn it around using the Feel, Felt, Found formula. Respond with, “I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way as you do right now. (Now you have diffused that competitive spirit. You’re not arguing with them, you’re agreeing with them.) But you know what we have always found? When we take a closer look at it, we have always found that . .”

Let’s look at some examples:

* You’re selling something, and the other person says, “Your price is way too high.” If you argue with him, he has a personal stake in proving you wrong and himself right. Instead, you say, “I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way as you do when they first hear the price. When they take a closer look at what we offer, however, they have always found that we offer the best value in the marketplace.”

* You’re applying for a job, and the human resources director says, “I don’t think you have enough experience in this field.” If you respond with “I’ve handled much tougher jobs that this in the past,” it may come across as, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” It’s just going to force her to defend the position she’s taken. Instead, say, “I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people would feel exactly the same way as you do right now. However, there are some remarkable similarities between the work I’ve been doing and what you’re looking for that are not immediately apparent. Let me tell you what they are.”

* If you’re a salesperson and the buyer says, “I hear that you people have problems in your shipping department,” arguing with him will make him doubt your objectivity. Instead, say, “I understand how you could have heard that because I’ve heard it too. I think that rumor may have started a few years ago when we relocated our warehouse; but now major companies such as General Motors and General Electric trust us with their just-in-time inventories, and we never have a problem.”

* If the other person says, “I don’t believe in buying from off-shore suppliers. I think we should keep the jobs in this country,” the more you argue the more you’ll force him into defending his position. Instead, say, “I understand exactly how you feel about that, because these days many other people feel exactly the same way as you do. But do you know what we have found? Since we have been having the initial assembly done in Thailand, we have actually been able to increase our American work force by more than 42 percent and this is why . . .”

At my seminars, I sometimes ask a person in the front row to stand. As I hold my two hands out, with my palms facing toward the person I’ve asked to stand, I ask him to place his hands against mine. Having done that and without saying another word, I gently start to push against him. Automatically, without any instruction, he always begins to push back. People shove when you shove them. Similarly, when you argue with someone, it automatically makes him or her want to argue back.

The other great thing about Feel, Felt, Found is that it gives you time to think. Sometimes something will come up in a negotiation that you weren’t expecting. You haven’t heard anything like this before. It shocks you. You don’t know what to say; but if you have Feel, Felt, Found in the back of your mind, you can say, “I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way. However, I have always found . . .” By the time you get there, you’ll have thought of something to say. Similarly, you sometimes catch other people at a bad moment. You may be a salesperson who is calling to get an appointment and the person says to you, “I don’t have any more time to waste talking to some lying scum-sucking salesperson.” You calmly say, “I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way. However . . .” By the time you get there you will have recovered your composure and will know exactly what to say.

Key points to remember:

Don’t argue with people in the early stages of the negotiation because it creates confrontation.

Use the Feel, Felt, Found formula to turn the hostility around.

Having Feel, Felt, Found in the back of your mind gives you time to think when the other side throws some unexpected hostility your way.

Roger Dawson is a professional speaker the author of two of best selling books on negotiating: Secrets of Power Negotiating and Secrets of Power Negotiating for Salespeople, both published by Career Press. He was inducted into the Speaker Hall of Fame in 1991. You can contact him at rogdawson@aol.com. His website address is: http://rdawson.com.

August 29, 2008

Book Review: Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear, by Dr. Frank Luntz

Filed under: Book Recommendations, Communication, business, marketing, politics, sales, sales psychology, selling — Paul McCord @ 6:29 am
Tags: , , , , ,

Imagine knowing the words, ideas, and concepts that influence people to buy, to make a choice, to solve a problem, to commit to your solution. Imagine being able to write or say something that immediately strikes a nerve; that people will remember and act upon. Imagine having the power that moves prospects, coworkers, employees, better yet, your spouse to your point of view.

Few of us in sales and marketing are writers–that is true wordsmiths. Few of us think we have the talent to be. Most of really don’t aspire to be. But all of us yearn to-we must-influence those around us. We must be able to persuade, to move men and women to make choices-to pick up the phone, to exert more effort, to sign the contract, to buy the product, to commit to our goals, our vision, our solution. And most of us, if we’re honest with ourselves, are simply tossing darts, hoping that eventually we will hit upon a phrase or a sentence that hits the mark.

Although we may never become a Faulkner or Hemingway, we can learn to use words in ways-or at least we can learn the words–that impact our audience. Instead of writing our typical drivel that hangs together loosely, which we vaguely hope will strike a nerve with someone, we can learn to tighten up our communication by learning what people really react to-and why.

Dr. Frank Luntz has given us a good gulp of these gems. His New York Times best-selling book, Words That Work (Hyperion, 2007), lays out his findings about words, ideas, concepts. Luntz is a linguist that gets it-who can take research and translate it into a format that we simpletons can not only grasp but actually use in our everyday lives.

Certainly, if you’re a political junkie as I am, you’ll love the book for its insights into how politicians influence the electorate. Luntz gives example after example of both the words that have worked and the words that have flopped. But don’t think of Words That Work as just a political book. It is, of course. But it is also a sales book, a marketing book, an everyday life book.

Some have been put off by the fact Luntz is a Republican pollster. If you don’t like his politics, don’t let that stand in your way. He gives positive and negative examples from all political points of view, but more importantly, if you view it as a political book as many have you will miss the message of the book.

If you really want to improve your ability to communicate-whether in marketing, sales, or changing your kid’s minds, you’ll find a great deal of meat in Words That Work. From “The Ten Rules of Effective Language” to corporate and political case studies to understanding what people really care about, Luntz lays out the words, phrases and concepts that influence and change minds and backs them up from his studies with thousands of everyday men and women from across the country.

August 26, 2008

Guest Article: “How To Be An Effective Communicator,” by Nido Qubein

Filed under: Communication, Leadership, marketing, sales, selling — Paul McCord @ 6:18 am
Tags: , , , ,

How To Be An Effective Communicator
by Nido Qubein

A young man whom I had known since he was in high school stopped by to see me and proudly display his new MBA.

“I know a master’s degree alone doesn’t guarantee success,” he said. “What do you think is the most important quality for someone who wants to become a business leader?”

I answered without hesitation: The ability to communicate.

Individuals who communicate effectively with people at all levels, of both genders, and from a variety of cultures and backgrounds are today’s pacesetters.

In the old-style hierarchical, authoritarian setting, communication is relatively simple. The top person tells the underlings to jump, and the underlings need only ask, “How high?”

In a modern organization, communication requires more finesse. The leader is not a transmitter of commands but a creator of motivational environments.

The workers are not robots responding to switches and levers, but thinking individuals pouring their ingenuity into the corporate purpose.

The corporate ideal is not mechanical stability, but dynamic, innovative, continuous change.

The leader who can’t communicate can’t create the conditions that motivate. The genius who can’t communicate is intellectually impotent. The organization that can’t communicate can’t change, and the corporation that can’t change is dead.

The good news is that anyone can become an effective communicator. The door to effective communication will open to anyone who uses these five keys:

(1) Desire.

Human infants have an inborn desire to communicate, and that desire enables them to pick up words quickly and to enlarge their vocabularies continuously.

That same kind of desire can enable you to enlarge your stock of words and improve your skill in employing them. Demosthenes, the Greek orator, had a desire to achieve eloquence after he was hissed and booed off the platform in Athens.

He cultivated the art of speech writing, then went to the shores of the Aegean Sea, where he strengthened his voice by shouting into the wind for hours at a time.

To improve his diction, he practiced speaking with pebbles in his mouth. To overcome his fear, he practiced with a sword hanging over his head. To clarify his presentation, he studied the techniques of the masters.

Today, more than 2,000 years later, the name Demosthenes is synonymous with oratorical eloquence.

(2) Understanding the Process.

Reduced to basics, communication consists of sending and receiving messages.

Language is the primary conveyer of thoughts and ideas. It turns abstract concepts into words that symbolize those thoughts. Those words take the form of spoken sounds or written symbols.

If the mind can immediately translate the sounds and symbols into mental pictures, communication becomes much more vivid and much more meaningful. If I say “I want a desk for my office,” my listener has only a vague and general idea of what I want. If I say “I want a brown walnut desk,” the listener has a more vivid mental picture.

The more skillful you become at conveying images, the more effective your communication will be.

(3) Master the basic skills.

Some people think the first requisite for good communication is an exhaustive vocabulary. Some people think it’s impossible to communicate well without first absorbing a heavy dose of grammar, then memorizing a dictionary of English usage.

Words are important. Good grammar is important. And yes, it helps to know which words and expressions are considered standard and which are considered substandard among educated people.

But slavish allegiance to the rules of grammar can actually impede communication. People will sometimes go to great lengths to avoid usage that somebody has pronounced “ungrammatical” or “substandard.” In the process, they forget the most important rule of communication: Make it clear and understandable.

The vocabulary you use in every-day speech has probably served you well. You use the words that you understand. Chances are, they’re the words your friends, colleagues and employees understand.

If you try to use words beyond the vocabularies of the people you’re trying to communicate with, you’re not communicating; you’re showing off.

Read the Gettysburgh Address, the Sermon on the Mount or Robert Frost’s poetry. The communications that endure are written in plain, simple language.

(4) Practice

I remember a story that gave me inspiration. A young musician had listened with awe as a piano virtuoso poured all his love and all his skill into a complex selection of great compositions.

“It must be great to have all the practicing behind you and be able to sit down and play like that,” he said.

“Oh,” said the master musician, “I still practice eight hours every day.”

“But why?” asked the astounded young man. “You’re already so good!”

“I want to become superb,” replied the older man.

I teach communication skills to thousands of people each year, through seminars, audio tapes, videotapes and books. Most of the people I reach are content to become good. Few are willing to invest the extra effort to become superb.

To become superb, you have to practice. It isn’t enough to know what it takes to connect with people, to influence their behavior, to create a motivational environment for them, to help them to identify with your message. The techniques of communication have to become part of your daily activity, so that they are as natural to you as swimming is to a duck. The more you practice these techniques, the easier you’ll find it to connect with people, whether you’re dealing with individuals one-on-one or with a group of thousands.

(5) Patience

Nobody becomes a polished, professional communicator on the first try. It takes patience. A few years ago, William White, a journalism and English instructor, edited a book of early writings by Ernest Hemingway. The young Hemingway was a reporter for a Toronto newspaper, and this book was a collection of his articles written between 1920 and 1924.

The writing was good, but it was not superb. It gave a faint foregleam of the masterful storyteller who would emerge in The Old Man and the Sea, but it wasn’t the Hemingway of literary legend.

What was lacking?

Experience. The genius was there all along, but it needed to incubate. The sands of time can abrade or polish. It depends on whether you use your time purposely or let it pass haphazardly.

Acquiring skill as a communicator requires constant, careful, loving attention to the craft.

The cub reporter didn’t transform himself into a successful novelist through one blinding flash of literary insight. Like most people, he progressed from the “good” to the “superb” through hundreds of tiny improvements from day to day.

You can use the five keys to effective communication in many settings, under a variety of circumstances. You can be a virtuoso at inspiring your work force, at negotiating business deals, at marketing your products and at building a positive corporate image. All these are important communication skills. But always remember: Whatever communication task you undertake, your objective is to connect with people.

Nido Qubein is president of High Point University, an accredited undergraduate and graduate institution with 3,000 students from 50 countries and 44 states. He has written numerous books and recorded scores of audio and video learning programs including a bestseller on effective communication published by Nightingale-Conant and Berkley. Qubein’s business savvy led him to help start a bank in 1986 and today he serves on the board and executive committee of a Fortune 500 financial corporation with 115 billion-dollars in assets and 25,000 employees. He is also chairman of Great Harvest Bread Company with 218 stores in 42 states. He serves on the boards of several national organizations including the La-Z-Boy Corporation, one of the world’s largest and most recognized furniture retailers. Learn more about Nido Qubein at www.nidoqubein.com

August 23, 2008

Great Strategy–But Was It Too Much?

Filed under: Communication, Personal Marketing, business, marketing, politics, sales, sales psychology, selling — Paul McCord @ 8:23 am
Tags: , , , ,

No doubt the Obama campaign had a great strategy in building interest in his VP selection. Not only did he manage to get hundreds of thousands of cell phone numbers and email addresses he can now use to generate additional donations, but he dominated the news programs for almost the entire week. It put John McCain on the news sidelines and gave him an opportunity to put the Saddleback event behind him.

Hype works, no doubt. But timing in building excitement and interest in any announcement is critical, whether you’re dealing with a VP selection or a new product. Trying to maintain the interest and the excitement is one thing, but the end goal is to punctuate that interest and excitement with an announcement that not only lives up to the hype, but builds on it. Start building too early or drag it out too long and it doesn’t burst on the scene with a bang as intended.

But did he try to milk it too much? By Thursday morning almost all the commentators and pundits had come to the conclusion that Joe Biden was the selection, so when the announcement came instead of, “Wow! What a great (or lousy, depending on your view of Biden) choice,” a common reaction was, “OK, big deal, I figured he was it.”

For maximum impact, Obama waited too long. Certainly he was prepared to spice up the speculation by having someone leak out the information that Chet Edwards was on the short list, although no one seems to have taken that bait too seriously.

On the plus side he got the news all to himself for several days. On the downside, ultimately the announcement was something of a letdown for many since they figured the announcement was just a conformation of what they already ‘knew.’

Obama’s announcement garnered much of what he wanted, and he only missed the peak by hours, but with a just a little better timing it could have had the full impact he was hoping for.

August 21, 2008

Social Media–It Ain’t All Good

Filed under: Communication, Culture, business, technology — Paul McCord @ 7:21 am
Tags: , , ,

At times the praise of social media would make one think it equivalent to the Second Coming.  Although there are certainly many good things about the uses and potential uses of the various technology now available to businesspeople and businesses, I find that there is an element to social media that lends itself not to enhancing business and one’s ability to interact with others, but rather to coarsening business, leading users to communicate in ways that they would probably never–or maybe more correctly would never have done previous to social media–do in a traditional one-on-one format.

Although allowed in a number of places, the use of screen names instead of one’s name is most prevalent in community forums and allows people to comment without disclosing their real identity.  Inevitably, this ability to say what one wants without having to be responsible for the comment has lead to the breakdown in many cases of social norms and a very real coarsening of communication.

Up until recently, most of the coarsening of communication that I’ve noticed via the Internet has been somewhat limited-primarily to discussions of politics, religion, and other very personal areas.  That seems to be changing.

I’m beginning to see more and more personal attacks, vulgar language, and even veiled threats in business forums.  To date this coarsening in business communication seems to be relatively rare-but growing.  Even the Sales Sandbox on The Customer Collective in their tag line of “Learn*Share*Create*Play Nice” felt a need to ask users to be civil in their comments.

I suspect as more people encounter these instances of the breach of acceptable communication the practice will broaden and become more acceptable.  But as it becomes more acceptable on the net will that bleed over into our daily communication with one another?  To some extent it seems to have done so within other areas of discussion.

The available anonymity of social media is one of the major drawbacks of the technology.  If we could only eliminate screen names and communicate with one another once again as real humans!

August 20, 2008

Did Yesterday’s Post Go Far Enough?

Filed under: Communication, Presentation Skills, marketing, sales, selling — Paul McCord @ 8:30 am
Tags: , , , ,

I received an interesting email last evening from a reader of yesterday’s blog post wondering if the impressions people have of who they would purchase from would change if they took into consideration the candidate’s communications over an extended period of time.

Here’s the email:

Paul,

First, let me say I enjoyed today’s post about Obama’s and McCain’s speaking styles during Saturday’s televised event. I do understand you chose that event specifically because the was easy to compare and contrast the two candidates since they were in identical situations.

But most salespeople aren’t in a one-time close situation (which is what I’d compare that event to). How would the people you surveyed respond if the question had been who would they buy from IF they were judging the two candidates over a long series of presentations/interactions? Would there conclusions be different if they were to consider say the last six months speeches, presentations, and interviews as an extended sales relationship? It would be interesting to find out who at this point they’d buy from since during that time each has had situations where they came off strong and in control and where they haven’t.

I know this is asking you to have your staff invest a couple more days surveying the original list and that might not be something you want to have them invest their time doing, but I’d be very interested to see if their impressions changed.

Mike Collins

Mike’s right, I really don’t want to go through the survey process again. I also think it would be even more difficult to separate out the political views of the survey respondents if asked to judge the ‘sales’ performance of the two men over an extended period of time. Saddleback lent itself to this question because it was a more controlled event than any other event they have or will appear in. Even though I’m concerned the emphasis will go from specific communication style to simply which candidate you like, I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

Based on what you have seen of the two candidates and as much as possible only on their presentation/communication style, who would you buy from-and why?

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.