Objection handling is one of the key elements that separate the great sales people from the mediocre. For most sales people it is in the development of an argument in response to an objection the best sales people understand that there are many approaches. Before I go into the elements of architecting a successful response (or argument) against an objection let me describe the key characteristics of how an objection is formed:

1. Objection on fact: This is where a prospect disputes the facts as you have presented them and seeks out additional evidence of your position. For example: Our software is cheaper than our competitors.

2. Objection of inference: This is where a prospect does not dispute the facts as you have presented but disputes the inference you make from it. For example: Purchasing our software will result in a 20% increase in your sales.

When facing an objection of fact or inference sales people's natural disposition is to present supporting evidence to buttress the claim, for instance in the example above, "Here is a quote from one of our competitors that proves that we are cheaper." The challenge is that objections as we all well know have many claims that are implicit and explicit. Often in the handling of the explicit claim the implicit objections remain silent or unaddressed. The natural tendency to handle objections as they appear serially (ie. one after another) over the course of a sales cycle often disadvantages the sales person.

So what is a more successful method of dealing with objections? To begin the sales person must understand the complete set of objections coming from the customer and their logical basis. Objections like all arguments fall into three large categories: Serial, Convergent, and Parallel:

1. Serial Arguments.
These are arguments that follow the model A then B then C then D. Where all the variables A-D are individually and cumulatively required to support the objection. This model comes from the concept of the Serial Circuit (think old school Christmas lights) where if any point in the circuit failed the whole circuit failed. These kinds of objections are rare but if you are able to reduce your objection to this level by punching out any of the subordinate claims in the objection you can close the sale. For example:

Your software meets our needs and we love it, but it is too expensive (A), and out of our budget {B}. The most common way to tackle this objection is to provide a price concession. But as you can tell this objection has two parts (A) too expensive, {B} out of budget. (A) is a qualitative objection, ie. too expensive is subjective. The natural question is too expensive relative to what? By demonstrating with evidence that your product is not too expensive relative to similar competitors you are able to defeat the argument without necessarily subjecting yourself to the budget objection {B} and thus preserving the price. The other tact is to attack the budget objection which is quantitative. Their budget is a fixed number and as such you have two options: seek to build more value and get more budget, or reduce your price to match the budget. The common error reps make is try to address both objections simultaneously as opposed to attempting to attack the claim that has the weaker position. In doing so leave money on the table or undermine their own position.

Next week I will look at how to handle convergent and parallel objections.

Moment of Zen
"Life without goodness, good thoughts, good actions and good words is like the sky in the night without the moon or stars. It is like a wheel without a hub or spokes! No one can push a boulder away while standing on it; you cannot be free from anxiety while all the entrances through which it sneaks in are open.” -Atharva Vedas