11–20 of 61 posts
This blogpost describes sales strategy as obvious as it is annoying, just like described seller-push. Written in a fashion of trying to sell me something.
Just stop manipulating for a second, ok? But I guess the profession would not exist then.
I hate sales people. This blogpost describes sales strategy as obvious as it is annoying, just like described seller-push. Written in a fashion of trying to sell me something. Just stop manipulating for a second, ok? But I guess the profession would not exist then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a more representative title, so let's use it instead. Thanks!
I’ve seen a few submissions have their titles changed in the last few months. I was led to believe that submissions should not deviate from the original title under any circumstance other than those described on the guidelines. > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. Has this policy been relaxed recently? I never liked it as I find a lot of submissions can b…
I hate sales people. This blogpost describes sales strategy as obvious as it is annoying, just like described seller-push. Written in a fashion of trying to sell me something. Just stop manipulating for a second, ok? But I guess the profession would not exist then.
And bonus: you get to keep a job sheltered away from the grotty truth of how the money is made that funds your salary.
Not them disqualifying you, but you actively saying, "Hey, not sure we are the right solution for you. Seems like you're trying to achieve X, but we're really better fit if you're trying to achieve Y."
This is in lieu of trying to convince them that you're a good fit for X, or that they should actually really be wanting to achieve Y.
Quick disqualification is sort of a counter-intuitive idea for a lot of throughput maximizing engineers. Shouldn't we want to optimize every lead?
Perhaps, but I think the better frame is optimizing productive seller-minutes. And time spent on deals that should die (and probably will die, eventually) is definitely not optimized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen a few submissions have their titles changed in the last few months. I was led to believe that submissions should not deviate from the original title under any circumstance other than those described on the guidelines. > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. Has this policy been relaxed recently? I never liked it as I find a lot of submissions can b…
In this case the title is misleading so the policy still applies
- Close-rate differences between push vs. pull strategies.
- Win rates for deals where urgency was “created” vs. “aligned with existing urgency.”
It’d be nice if you could just build something useful and have people beat a path to your door, and most of us would probably prefer that, but it’s not reality.
Is there any data that you can share beyond anecdotal claims? For starters would love to see following - Close-rate differences between push vs. pull strategies. - Win rates for deals where urgency was “created” vs. “aligned with existing urgency.”
What data would or could exist in this case beyond the hundreds of calls the author is apparently basing their observations on? That seems like a reasonable qualitative data set to me.
On the other hand, what you're asking for doesn't make much sense. Any push/pull strategy difference is going to change who takes a call in the first place. You're not doing a RCT on a random sampling of the population.
The point is simply that you're going to have a better time doing sales if your supply matches some pre-existing demand. You don't need a quantitative study to understand why that may well be the case.
It's the same reason that, despite being bombarded with advertisements, we don't all go out and buy 16 meals a day or 10 cars a year simply because someone tried to sell those things to us. We act when we have a need, and founders need to understand that as a physical reality when trying to sell their products.