Three Common Sales Objections Revisited

Last week, in "Your Best Response to Three Common Objections," I gave Tom Hopkin's responses to three very common sales objections. That post spawned a detailed criticism of Tom's responses, with alternative responses, from a sales professional with the handle Susiepoohbie.

In a follow-on post, "A Reader Dings My Advice... You Vote," I gave both Tom's and Susiepoobhie's responses and asked for a vote. While voting will continue (I'm not closing the poll), the consensus that's developed up to this point is that Susiepoohbie's responses are superior.

The consensus is wrong.

Before explaining why, I feel it's important to recognize that there's room for a variety of opinions on this subject. Several readers whose opinions I deeply respect have provided strong reasons why Susiepoohbie's responses are preferable. Nevertheless, I believe that Tom's responses, antiquated though they seem at first glance, are actually more useful.

To explain why, I'll go over each objection, repeat both responses, and then comment on the difference.

• Objection: "I can get it cheaper elsewhere."
• Tom's Response: "In today's world we can almost always get something cheaper. I've found that when smart people invest their money they look for three things: the finest quality, the best service and lowest price. However, I've also noticed that no company can consistently offer all three-the finest quality and the best service at the lowest price. Which two of the three are most important to you in the long term?"
• Suziepoohbie's Response: "I'm sure you probably can. For example, (XYZ competitor) sells this product for $_. However, they do not offer the lifetime guarantee that we give absolutely free. In the long run you save by buying our Product... Wouldn't you agree that this would better serve you needs?"
• Why Tom's Reponse is Better: There are major problems with Susiepoohbie's response. First, it assumes that the product that she's selling is actually a better deal, on a feature/function basis than the competitive product, which might not be the case. What if your product isn't objectively better? Do you give up and go home? Second, she is making assumptions about what is important to the prospect, assumptions that could be incorrect. (The prospect might not care at all about a guarantee, for instance.) Third, the "wouldn't you agree" question is far more "salesy" than anything in Tom's responses. Prospects hate leading questions. By contrast, Tom's response points out an essential truth that only a crazy person would deny and then asks a question that might elicit a useful answer, allowing the rep to reposition the product around whatever turns out to be the real objection.

• Objection: "I have a friend in the business"
• Tom's Response: "There's an old saying - I don't know how true it is - that sometimes friendship and business don't mix. If you bought from a friend you might not say anything if you weren't happy with the purchase, but with me you can just get on my case until you get what you want."
• Suziepoobie's Response: "Oh, that's great. Who does he/she work for? Has he/she quoted you a price? What benefits do they offer in your package?" etc.
• Why Tom's Reponse is Better: Susiepoohbie's response will alienate the prospect. She's suggesting to the prospect that the prospect's friend is either disloyal (by offering a lousy deal) or stupid (for not knowing it). If she's wrong, the prospect is going to dislike her for unfairly criticizing the friend, and if she's right, the prospect is going to dislike her for damaging the friendship. This point is best understood by considering the other variation of this objection, which is "I have a relative in the business." Here's a rule for life in general: Never, ever criticize somebody's friends or family. By contrast, Tom's response assumes that the friend/relative has the prospect's best interest at heart, but that the PROSPECT might feel uncomfortable making demands. It says that the friend is a good guy and prospect is a good guy, and that's they might not want to do business together because it might strain the friendship. By contrast, Tom's response deeply respects the friendship, and turns the respect into a reason to buy from him. Note: Tom's approach is culturally specific to the U.S., where business relationships between friends and family are considered troublesome. That's not the case in other regions, like China, where such relationships are much preferred. In China, you can probably assume that "I have a friend in the business" means "you aren't going to make this sale."

• Objection: "I did business with your company in the past and they were unprofessional."
• Tom's Response: "I can really appreciate that. I really hate it when that kind of thing happens to me. You know, though, suppose the shoe were on the other foot and it was your company that had acted unprofessionally. You'd probably fire the person responsible. That's probably what we had to do, and now it's my job to make certain that you're treated right."
• Suziepoobie's Response: "I'm so sorry to hear that you had an unpleasant experience with us. Can you tell me about it? When did this take place? etc."
• Why Tom's Reponse is Better: Attempting to convince a prospect that he or she was at fault in the past (a point brought up in Susiepoohbie's explanation) is guaranteed to irritate, whether that's the case or not. When you're trying to make a sale, the last thing that you want is a detailed conversation about lots of bad stuff that happened in the past, if it has no direct bearing on the current sales situation. And if the prior situation DOES have a direct bearing on the current sale (e.g. your sales effort is triage), you should walk into the situation knowing what happened, and have a good reason why they should do business with you now. Tom's response, by contrast, puts the emphasis back into the here-and-now. He's saying: "I'm your sales rep and I'm going to take care of you." And that's actually what the customer needs to believe if the deal is going to go through.

And they're certainly going to pay off better than diving down the ratholes that Susiepoohbie's responses are likely to open.

Any questions?