Conversation Vs. Presentation
- Dan Greenberg
- Aug 21, 2024
- 5 min read
In previous posts I have written about what I call “The Switch Points”. These are the points in time in sales interactions where we switch from a more social interaction to a more business focused one, or from introductions and greetings to the more formal part of the meeting, or really any switch from less structure to more structure. What happens during The Switch Points is that the meeting resets to a certain extent, and no matter how well the seller has done retaining control up until that point, the buyer is afforded an opportunity to reclaim control. This is because, when the meeting shifts to more structure or formality, the buyer can reframe the situation with the seller presenting solutions as a vendor, like all other vendors, and reframe themself as the all-knowing judge who gets to evaluate that presentation.
Switch Points will happen in meetings, no matter what lengths we go to in an attempt to avoid them. This does not mean they will happen in every meeting, but they will happen; so it is a good idea to prepare to deal with them. However, what I want to focus on in this post is deciding what type of meeting your interaction should be, given the understanding that switching presents challenges.
One of the ways to avoid the perils of a Switch Point is simply to not have one. If a meeting is conversational, it can remain conversational throughout, and if a meeting is a presentation, it can start as a presentation from the beginning. This won’t always be the case, sometimes you will decide strategically that a meeting should have both components, but oftentimes there is no need for a meeting to contain both components, especially in more strategic longer deal cycle sales processes. More often, transactional, high volume selling will require both components in single meetings due to the shorter sales cycle and need to accomplish more in one interaction.
The problem, as I see it, is that sales people rarely think about the difference between these types of interactions, and even more rarely think about which one they should execute relative to the goals they are trying to accomplish. If you need to do heavy discovery, learn about the clients business, get to know the client, or their business, or their company, or their process, it makes sense to plan for a conversational interaction. However, if your goals are more transactional, or the need is to position your solutions, commercially teach the client, demo your product, or to instigate a negotiation, it will make sense to plan for a presentation or similar type of interaction.
The issue you will have with a conversation-only interaction is that buyers often push for a presentation. I have discussed this in past posts, specifically ones called “You Are Being Judged” and “The Uncanny Value Add Conundrum”. Asking a seller to present, helps the buyer impose the frame that they feel most comfortable with; you as the vendor, and the they as the judge. In order to pull off a conversation-only interaction, you will need to telegraph the plan well in advance and get buy-in from the client before the meeting is scheduled, otherwise they will expect you to present, and their expectation will likely cause your plan to feel forced and awkward if you insist on it. Otherwise, you will have the option to abort it, and present, but that will not be likely to accomplish your goals for the interaction.
If you noticed above, many of the goals mentioned that call for a conversational type meeting are goals that generally need to be accomplished early in a sales cycle. On the other hand, many of the goals that call for a presentation, are generally goals that need to be accomplished later in the sales cycle. In order for a seller to gather the information they need and to build relationships and credibility with the buyer that would make for successful presentations, conversational interactions are vital. However, earning the right to propose and execute conversational meetings early in a sales cycle is hard to do. This is the conundrum that all good sellers find themselves in early in a sales cycle. We need conversations, but we have not yet earned the right to have them, and buyers want presentations because they feel more comfortable in those settings.
There are essentially three ways to combat this conundrum:
Be really charming: Use social settings, and relationship dynamics to convince the client that they really want to spend time with you. Work commercially viable conversations into the social conversations so that you can establish credibility and gather the information you need for successful presentations later on in the sales cycle. This is only possible sometimes, because even the most charming of us just don’t click with everyone right off the bat.
Commercial insight teaching: Instead of presenting your solutions, present your insights. Lean into the client request for a presentation, and allow yourself to go out of order in terms of what is most needed for you, but use those presentations about insights to help instigate conversations and more importantly to help you earn the right to set up and execute conversation-only interactions where you can gather information and build credibility for future presentations. This is easier to pull off, and the presentations themselves are credibility earners if done correctly.
Invert the order: This is my favorite because it is rarely used, but can be very powerful. Almost all meetings that have both conversational components and presentation components start with the conversation and discovery, and then move to the presentation. Why follow that pattern? Just switch the order. Lean into what the client wants and just give them a 5–10 minute presentation. Put that on the agenda and tell them what’s going to happen. But then, make The Switch Point your friend by switching away from the vendor / judge frame and into a conversational one where you can talk about insights and engage them on their problems and ideal outcomes. Tell them ahead of time that the presentation will only be 5 or 10 minutes and then stick to whatever you say. Once you switch to conversation, as scheduled, you will have more license to focus on insights and questions as you have already satisfied their process oriented asks, and the agenda, as laid out.
None of these strategies are fool proof, but if executed well, all three can give you, the seller, the opportunity to spend time on insights, problems, and desired outcomes for the buyer early in the sales cycle. This will help you accomplish the goals that you need to in order to be able to prepare and gather information for the later stages of the sales process where the focus will be on more transactional interactions, solutions positioning, commercially viable teaching, more in depth and targeted demos and working sessions, and detailed negotiations.
All of this said, one reality still remains; most interactions in long-sales-cycle processes should be only conversational, or only presentation based, not both. Selecting a specific goal for each interaction and then matching the type of meeting to that goal will help to avoid the fraught social dynamics of switching, as well as the sometimes awkward agenda gymnastics that go along with it.
Comments