United States – Page 2 – understand-culture

Closing Techniques

Wikipedia lists the following kinds of closes (asking for and making the sale, getting the order):

Alternative Choice

Alternative Choice close, also called the positive choice close, in which the salesperson presents the prospect with two choices, both of which end in a sale. “Would you prefer that in red or blue?”

Apology

The Apology close, in which the salesperson apologizes for not yet closing the sale. “I owe you an apology. Somewhere along the line, I must have left out important information, or in some way left you room for doubt. We both know this product suits your needs perfectly, and so the fault here must be with me.”

Assumptive

The Assumptive close, also known as the presumptive close: in which the salesperson intentionally assumes that the prospect has already agreed to buy, and wraps up the sale. “Just pass me your credit card and I’ll get the paperwork ready.”

Balance Sheet

The Balance Sheet close, also called the Ben Franklin close, in which the salesperson and the prospect build together a pros-and-cons list of whether to buy the product, with the salesperson trying to ensure the pros list is longer than the cons.

Cradle to Grave

The Cradle to Grave close, in which the salesperson undercuts prospect objections that it is too soon to buy by telling them there is never a convenient time in life to make a major purchase, and they must therefore do it anyway.”

Direct

The Direct close, in which the salesperson simply directly asks the prospect to buy. Salespeople are discouraged from using this technique unless they are very sure the prospect is ready to commit.

Indirect

The Indirect close, also known as the question close, in which the salesperson moves to the close with an indirect or soft question. “How do you feel about these terms” or “how does this agreement look to you?”

Minor Point

The Minor Point close, in which the salesperson deliberately gains agreement with the prospect on a minor point, and uses it to assume that the sale is closed. “Would the front door look better painted red? No? Okay, then we’ll leave it the colour it is.”

Negative Assumption

The Negative Assumption close, in which the salesperson asks two final questions, repeating them until he or she achieves the sale. “Do you have any more questions for me?” and “do you see any reason why you wouldn’t buy this product?” This tactic is often used in job interviews.

Possibility of Loss

The Possibility of Loss close, also known as the pressure close, in which the salesperson points out that failing to close could result in missed opportunity, for example because a product may sell out, or its price rise.

Puppy Dog

The Puppy Dog close, in which the salesperson gives the product to the prospect on a trial basis, to test before a sale is agreed upon.

Sales Contest

The Sales Contest close, in which the salesperson offers the prospect a special incentive to close, disarming suspicion with a credible “selfish” justification. “How about if I throw in free shipping? If I make this sale, I’ll win a trip to Spain.”

Sharp Angle

The Sharp Angle close, in which the salesperson responds to a prospect question with a request to close. “Can you get the system up and running within two weeks?” “If I guarantee it, do we have a deal?“

“Mark your man”

Typing “close the sale” in amazon.com led to 282,687 book titles. That tells us how much Americans in sales focus on that one aspect of a customer-supplier relationship. Typical titles are:

Secrets of Closing the Sale. Sales, The Science of Selling! Changing the Sales Conversation. Sales: How to Master the Art of Selling. Close the Deal! The Art of Closing the Sales!

“how to close the sale” led to 3.67 billion hits in Google. Selling in the U.S. is critical to success. Many Americans work in sales. They all have to know how to “close the sale” (or they go hungry).

Cargo Cult Science

There have been attempts in the U.S. to convince people to stop presenting only the good aspects of products and instead present both the good and bad. In 1974, Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, gave the Caltech commencement address. In his speech, he spoke primarily about something which he called “cargo cult science“, which is something that looks like science, but is lacking scientific integrity. Feynman denounced this form of “science” wholeheartedly.

One of the examples he used to illustrate the point was an advertisement for Wesson cooking oil, which claimed that it doesn’t soak through food. Feynman said that although this was true, the advertisement failed to mention that no oil soaks through food at certain temperatures, and that any cooking oil, including Wesson’s, will soak food at other temperatures.

Another example Feynman used was one of his colleagues, a cosmologist/astronomer, who tried to explain the “everyday” applications of his work. When Feynman heard this, he told his colleague that there weren’t any everyday applications. Although the colleague readily agreed with Feynman, he said that he still had to make it look like there were applications, otherwise he wouldn’t get any more funding.

Feynman was very angry and said “If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing – and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.”

Despite Feynman’s warning in 1974 (and similar warnings from other scientists), cargo cult science has continued in the U.S. One of the more prominent examples of this was the cold fusion debacle. In 1989, at the University of Utah, chemists Stanley Pons (American) and Martin Fleishmann (British) made headlines.

They called a press conference proclaiming that they had produced fusion at room temperature – much colder than the high temperatures that were thought to be required for this process. At the conference, the chemists glossed over most of the details of how they had achieved cold fusion, and stated that their paper would not be available for several weeks.

Because of their conference the two chemists were granted a high amount of extra funding. However, even before their paper became available, several scientists managed to find unauthorized copies of their work. Most of these scientists quickly denounced it as full of errors, and both Pons’ and Fleishmann’s reputations were ruined.

Party conventions

San Diego. 1996. Political advertisements of every kind must pass the objectivity test in Germany. The Germans expect substance and convincing arguments. And although the private and personal is seeping more and more into German politics, due to the influence of American politics, politicians in Germany are still identified directly with the stands they take on specific issues. They represent the political platforms of their respective parties.

Political party conventions in Germany are held once or twice a year. Their purpose is not to nominate candidates before elections, but instead to debate and formulate policy. At the conventions the stage is dominated by the party, with up to three or four rows of ten to fifteen seats per row occupied by the party elite. Until recently the speaker’s podium was to the side. And even though it has been moved to the center, the thirty to fifty colleagues occupying the stage send a clear signal: “Sure, we have different speakers during the convention. But make no mistake, the party comes first, the individuals politicians and office-holders come second!”

In the summer of 1996, while a political adviser to the CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group in Bonn, I – John Magee – attended the Republican National Convention in San Diego. My job was to accompany and assist Peter Hintze (then Secretary General of the CDU), Jürgen Chrobog (then German ambassador to the U.S.) and Ruprecht Polenz (then Member of the Foreign Relations Committee). Bob Dole and Jack Kemp were nominated, then in the general election beaten badly by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Along with meetings with leading Republicans, Peter Hintze was especially interested in observing the details of the convention. Part of his job was organizing and preparing the CDU conventions for Chancellor Helmut Kohl. It is well known that American party conventions serve the primary purpose of presenting to voters a high level of unity, in terms of the ticket and the substance of the party’s platform. Political debate does not take place, and certainly not in full view of the American public. Germany is different. The conventions are televised from start to finish. And the Germans debate, openly, directly, harshly. The German public can follow it blow by blow by television or radio.

The great sensation of that 1996 Republican National Convention was Colin Powell’s speech. Many had hoped that he would be their party’s candidate. Immediately after his 1992 election, Clinton asked Powell to be his Secretary of State, hoping to prevent a Powell-candidacy four years later. Powell had declined respectfully. The arena in San Diego, fifteen thousand strong, exploded in applause when General Powell walked on stage, in civilian clothes, and proceeded to speak directly to the hearts and minds of the American people. From his heart and with great intensity.

Like any and every truly persuasive speaker in the American context Powell used anecdotes, figures of speech and several brief, but very personal stories to convey his message. He wanted to move the people emotionally. Hintze and Chrobog turned to me time and again asking for an explanation of these stories. Was meint er damit? What does he mean? What is he trying to say? The atmosphere in the convention center was electrifying.

Sitting behind the two Germans, and due to the noise level, which had even surprised me, I had to stick my head forward between theirs and literally scream my responses to their questions. It was clear to all three Germans – Hintze, Chrobog, Polenz – that the convention, and General Powell’s speech, were all about emotions.