effisk a écrit :
Vincent, je suis assez d'accord avec tes remarques, il y a juste un truc qui me chiffonne (pas mal).
MOTTE a écrit :
L'intérêt d'un commercial (d'un bon commercial) est d'arriver à vendre un produit dont le client n'a pas forcément besoin
hum. Je n'appelle pas ça un bon commercial. Je trouve ça un peu malhonnête.
IMO un bon commercial est un mec qui sait détecter le besoin (latent ou pas), éveiller l'intérêt, trouver les bons contacts, être au bon endroit au bon moment. C'est un travail de préparation, de prospection, de négociation, de flair aussi.
......Les australiens (comme beaucoup de gens) aiment savoir à qui ils parlent. Le networking marche bien également.
Effisk, you're right, finding a need and filling that is important, but from my perspective, I agree more with Vincent.
Working in advertising for 10 years, after a few advertising seminars, training sessions and other such things, we learned in the industry an important lesson: = 'nobody wants to advertise'
- they don't want to put their ad in the paper, they don't want to spend the money - they don't want to do it.
But as we were in the business of advertising, what to do?
All that was necessary was to change the angle of the approach: we then sold benefits (all the 'what's in it for me' stuff), rather than advertising. Money spent on those ads to attract customers, benefiting the company, weren't 'costs' but 'investments' and all language was modified accordingly, to the point where the word 'cost' was never ever used again.
If, for example somebody selling a car really wanted to know how much their ad would 'cost', we'd be more inclined to point out how much profit they'd make after they successfully sold it, taking into consideration the small proportion of their advertising that went into that.
Such 'cost cushioning' worked really well on 'little advertisers' who really didn't want to spend the money at all but still wanted to sell something.
It really was so often a case of 'selling somebody something they didn't really need' - and it didn't feel dishonest, because notice here that the word is 'need' - what we then had to appeal to was 'wants'. It's wasn't even necessary to convince somebody that they WANT something - with the right timing and especially not too much pressure, you could paint a picture with words and sometimes people would discover something they wanted (that they didn't previously realize they wanted or needed - ie a want lying dormant waiting for somebody or some-thing to activate it.)
That's one reason why print advertising still works so well. People don't realize they want something till they see it (though it still has to be a good ad, with benefits and attractive features)
And a lot of people became convinced their materialistic wants were actual needs anyway and didn't see the difference between the two.
It was my policy (but not everybody's) that if a customer said they were busy, didn't want to talk, or wasn't interested, no pressure was ever put on them.
I consider that we were being paid to offer the OPPORTUNITY, rather than to try and convince people to buy something. Some customers who got pushed a little too hard, later decided they didn't want it once they got it, and then later asked for refunds, so it really isn't worth it from a financial perspective either.
Kate