preferential-lite
shadow

Cold Calls – A New Way to Open – Cold Calling Tips to Create Openings for Real Conversation!

Most of us design our cold calling around scripts and strategies. Isn’t that how we’ve been taught by the sales gurus? Scripts are linear and systematic so you can move calls in the direction you want them to go. Sales strategies do the exact same thing.

That’s why as soon as we make a cold call, the other person knows right away that our agenda is not to have a conversation, but to make a sale. There’s something about scripts and sales strategies — it always shows. We’re not being natural, and other people can sense within the first few seconds that we’re out to make a sale. Once that happens, potential clients are immediately put on the defensive. They don’t want to be maneuvered into a sale. As soon as they recognize that you’re a salesperson with a sales agenda, most of the time they just want you to go away.

I call this "The Wall." It goes something like this: "Uh-oh, another salesperson. I’m about to be sold something. How fast can I get this person off the phone?" In other words, it’s over at "Hello." Hence, the moment you use the old cold calling approach, which is using sales scripts and strategies, you’ve triggered the negative "salesperson" stereotype in the mind of the person you’ve called. That almost always means immediate rejection.

The problem is with how you’re selling, not what you’re selling. The traditional cold calling approach, which has been taught by the sales gurus for years, involves immediately giving a pitch about who you are and what you have to offer. However, this is a one-sided conversation.  In our normal lives, it would seem self-absorbed to start any conversation by talking only about ourselves. Yet, in cold calling we expect ourselves to do exactly that. We begin with a monologue rather than inviting a dialogue.

On top of that, we’ve all been trained to try to push prospects into a "yes" response somewhere within the first call. This creates sales pressure. Pressure from a stranger is never welcome. It feels intrusive to the other person.

The first step to overcoming this is to let go of your script or sales strategy as a crutch. This idea may sound scary at first because you’ve been programmed to think you have to have a script or strategy to make a successful cold call. I assure you that quite the opposite is true.

These old approaches create a "box" that doesn’t allow a conversation to flow. You’re thinking only about your agenda and following "the plan." The person on the other end of the phone senses this, and immediately begins to retreat.

Instead, start thinking about language that will engage people rather than language that will trigger rejection. If you can start a conversation that triggers a "What do you mean?" from the other person, you’ll find you can explain yourself in a natural way. This also creates a two-way dialogue, which lets you flow with the conversation without feeling you’re getting off-track.

Developing a problem statement makes this whole process much easier. Find out what issue or problem your potential client is likely to be experiencing, and build an open-ended conversation around that.

Here are three basic steps to opening up a dialogue and having a real conversation with your cold calls:

1. Begin with the question, "Maybe you can help me out for a moment?" The reply is almost always something like, "Sure, how can I help you?"

2. Continue with something like, "I’m just calling to see if your company is still having issues with unpaid invoices." The response probably will be, "Well, yeah, we are. Who’s this?"

3. You can then respond in a very relaxed tone, "This is John. I’m with XYZ Collection Agency. I’m just calling to see if you’d be open to some new ideas on how to better solve that problem." This makes it easy for the other person to reply, "What do you mean?" or "Tell me more." After that, the possibilities of your conversation are endless. Try these new cold calling ideas. You will be amazed at how much value you receive, both personally and professionally.

Gun Control Is Not Constitutional

On October 18th [2000], a Texas jury found San Angelo physician Timothy Joe Emerson not guilty of aggravated assault and child endangerment. In August 1998 his wife, who became involved in an adulterous affair with another man, had filed for divorce and applied for a temporary restraining order barring Dr. Emerson from, among other things, threatening or attacking her during the divorce proceedings. A few days later at a hearing, Mrs. Emerson claimed that her husband had threatened during a telephone conversation to kill her boyfriend. Largely based on that allegation, a county district court judge, without showing or finding that Dr. Emerson actually posed a threat to his wife or their four-year-old daughter, issued a restraining order enjoining him from threatening or physically harming

either. The judge also neglected to advise Dr. Emerson that he could face federal prosecution if found with a firearm, due to an obscure provision of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act that prohibits possession of a gun by anyone subject to such a restraining order.

Following a confrontation between the contentious couple at his office on November 16, 1998, Mrs. Emerson claimed that Dr. Emerson had threatened her and their daughter by brandishing a handgun. He was indicted on the state charges of which he was recently acquitted, and was also indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly violating the 1994 statute.

On March 30th of [1999], Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the federal indictment, ruling that it violated Dr. Emerson’s constitutional rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. A key issue was whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, or was intended by the Founders to apply only to a collective entity such as the National Guard. Basing his opinion on cogent historical analysis and copious documentation, Judge Cummings held that "a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms" and that "the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right." After all, the Bill of Rights protects individual rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.,

from government. Why would the Founding Fathers add to such a list a collective right of government to possess arms?

Judge Cummings’ ruling is particularly significant since it is the first time a federal court invalidated a gun control statute on grounds of the Second Amendment. Prosecutors promptly appealed this ruling to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in June. A decision is expected by year’s end, but regardless of the outcome, United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson is likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court. What began as a rather routine divorce squabble has metastasized into what could become the most important Second Amendment case in our nation’s history. [In 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s opinion. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.]

America’s legacy of freedom

The historical record clearly supports Judge Cummings’ analysis and opinion. The "collective" interpretation of the Second Amendment is a 20th century invention conjured up by anti-gun academics and pressure groups determined to disarm ordinary Americans and thereby grant government entities a firearms monopoly (gun control has never been about the elimination of guns, but about who will control them). The reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment is not a reference to the National Guard, which did not even exist at the time, but to the people themselves. As George Mason, the author of Virginia’s Bill of Rights, explained, the militia consists "of the whole people, except a few public officers."

David E. Young, editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792 (1995) has noted, "There were NO comments by ANYONE that any of [James] Madison’s proposals, or those in Congress, related to ‘collective rights.’… In fact, the ‘collective right’ terminology so popular today among advocates of government gun control was never used during the Constitutional Era by anyone." The founding generation, Young continues, "did not interpret the Second Amendment and predecessor Bill of Rights language as related to the militia powers of government or the authority of the states, but rather as related ONLY to private rights to keep and bear arms."

America’s legacy of freedom is heavily predicated on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the Second Amendment is arguably the most important constitutionally protected right of all, since it serves to safeguard all others (free speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, etc.). As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained in his authoritative Commentaries on the Constitution (1833): "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Keeping arms is a duty

The Revolutionary War itself was triggered when the British attempted to confiscate private arms stored by the American colonists in private homes at Concord. Before sunrise on April 18, 1775, scores of colonists armed with loaded muskets gathered on and near the Lexington green. When the British arrived, the officer in charge ordered the rebels to "disperse, you villains-lay down your arms," but they refused. The officer then gave the order to surround the rebels, and in the ensuing confusion shots were fired. Three British soldiers were wounded and eight militiamen were killed.

Following that initial skirmish, the British continued their march to Concord, but when they began tearing off planks of the bridge spanning a strategic river, American militiamen rallied to stop the destruction. Again, shots were fired by both sides, and British officers ordered a retreat during which, as described by historian Donzella Cross Boyle in Quest of a Hemisphere (1970), "the regulars were fired upon from behind walls and trees, houses and barns, by marksmen, who seemed ‘to drop from the clouds.’" Thus began the long, bitter military struggle for American independence that could never have succeeded if the colonists had allowed themselves to be disarmed.

Fortunately, the colonists had refused to do so. In 1671, more than a century before Lexington and Concord, King Charles II imposed legislation to disarm Englishmen, while his royal governor for the colonies did the same to disarm Americans. Attorney Steven Halbrook, an authority on the Second Amendment, writes in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitution Right (1984): "Thus, arms control laws in the English experience served not only to subjugate domestically the poor and middle classes and religious groups, but also to conquer and colonize the Scots, the Irish, the American Indians, and finally the English settlers in America." When the "embattled farmers stood" at Concord Bridge in 1775 and "fired the shot heard round the world," they did so with an unregistered and

unconfiscated gun.

Today’s anti-gun hysteria is in sharp contrast to the attitude of early American colonists regarding firearms. A 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recalled, for instance: In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well armed"; in 1631, it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces [sic] to church." In 1658, it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and, in 1644, it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

Writing in the Michigan Law Review for November 1983, attorney Don B. Kates further noted that "the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus, the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies. In at least one colony a 1770 law actually required men to carry a rifle or pistol every time they attended church; church officials were empowered to search each parishioner no less than fourteen times per year to assure compliance."

The intent of the Founders

Our country’s Founders, though at odds with each other about many other matters, were united in their belief that private citizens, armed with their own firearms, were vital to a free nation. Anti-Federalist icon Patrick Henry, in his famous "give me liberty or give me death" address to Virginia’s Second Revolutionary Convention on March 23, 1775, underscored the importance of an armed citizenry when he declared: "They tell us … that we are weak-unable to cope with so formidable an adversary [as the British]. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in he holy cause of liberty … are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." The Census Bureau estimates that the population of the colonies in 1700 was 2.1 million, and that by 1780 it reached 2.9 million. Henry’s reference in 1775 to "three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty" clearly encompassed all competent citizens, not merely those qualified by age and gender for militia service.

Years later, when the Constitution was considered, Henry further expressed his unequivocal support of the individual right to keep and bear arms. During Virginia’s ratification convention he objected to the omission of a clause in the proposed Constitution that would forbid the disarming of individual citizens (the Second Amendment was adopted to solve that problem). "The great object," he declared, "is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Paine, who voiced the colonists’ demands for freedom in his famous pamphlet Common Sense (1776), wrote in an earlier essay entitled "Thoughts on Defensive War" (1775): "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." And in The Federalist, No. 28, Alexander Hamilton stated: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." In essay 29 of The Federalist, Hamilton further observed that "little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped," since "this will not only lessen the calls for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army an never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to hem in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."

In a similar spirit, James Madison pointed out in The Federalist, No. 46, that "notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," since, were the people armed and organized into militia, "the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

On June 18, 1789, 10 days after James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Tench Coxe, a Federalist and friend of Madison, published in Philadelphia’s Federal Gazette (under the pen name "A Pennsylvanian") what Steven Halbrook describes as "probably the most complete exposition of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period." Coxe’s analysis included this comment: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed

by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." "In short," Halbrook states, "what is now the Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the right of the people to have ‘their private arms’ to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia [such as today’s National Guard]."

It is worth noting that Coxe sent a copy of his article, with a cover letter, to Madison, and that the father of the Constitution expressed no objection to his comments. Rather than disagreeing that the proposed amendment protected the possession and use of "private arms," Madison stated in his reply that ratification of the entire package of amendments "will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." Halbrook points out that a "search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected

A fundamental right

Federalist Noah Webster (of dictionary fame), in a pamphlet aimed at convincing Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution, warned that "before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." But he believed that the "supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Thomas Jefferson also favored individual gun ownership. In the model state constitution he drafted for Virginia in 1776, he included the guarantee that "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms in his own hands." He had earlier copied into his Commonplace Book (the source for his ideas on government) these sentiments from On Crimes and Punishments (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed

man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

According to a nephew, Jefferson was given a gun at age 10 and believed that every boy should receive one at that age. In a letter to another nephew, Jefferson wrote: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Throughout our history, young Americans have used firearms responsibly for recreation, hunting, and defense of their homes, families, and nation. For examples, see "Young Patriots at Arms" in the July 31, 2000 issue of The New American.

The Second Amendment is absolute

It is important to note that the Second Amendment is absolute in its wording. While some inherent rights are protected by the Bill of Rights in rather vague, general terms (such as the Fourth Amendment’s ban of only "unreasonable" searches and seizures), the Second Amendment unambiguously prohibits any interference (the right to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed). Halbrook suggests that since the Second Amendment "is written in a universal form," it "provides protection against both federal and state infringement. In contrast to the language of the

First Amendment, which states only that ‘Congress shall make no law,’ the Second Amendment provides generally that the right ‘shall not be infringed.’… Thus, there is strong support for the proposition that the absolute and universal language of the Second Amendment precludes any federal or state infringement whatever."

Adding further weight to that conclusion, Attorney Don B. Kates points out in his Michigan Law Review article that "a state would directly infringe the congressional prerogative [to call forth an armed citizenry when necessary to execute the laws, suppress rebellion, or repel invasion] if it prohibits firearms possession by the constitutional militia, i.e., the military-age male populace." And in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that "it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general power, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [i.e., the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource

for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Steven Halbrook perceptively points out that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the modern anti-gun view that the Second Amendment’s reference to "the people" means only a select militia such as the National Guard, and that its reference to "arms" means only militia-type arms, then "the Ninth amendment’s guarantee of all preexisting unenumerated rights would encompass the natural and common-law rights of the individual to keep and carry arms for such purposes as self-defense and hunting." In other words, either the inherent right of peaceful individuals to keep and bear arms is secured by the Second Amendment, or it falls under purview of the Ninth Amendment, which

reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yet make no mistake about it, Halbrook maintains, "the intent of the state conventions that requested adoption of a bill of rights and of the framers in Congress … was that the Second Amendment recognized the absolute individual right to keep arms in the home and to carry them in public."

The lessons of history

History is replete with examples of would-be tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, in his account of the Gallic wars, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people, as indicated by such observations as "all arms were collected from the town" and "there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms," and his claim that he had "cut off the hands of all who had borne arms" and had slain "a great number of them and stripped all of their arms."

During the 20th century, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have used gun registration records and other means to confiscate firearms from those who might otherwise jeopardize their rule. Stringent gun laws established by the anti-Communist Cuban government of Fulgencio Batista, for instance, enabled Communist despot Fidel Castro to solidify his control after toppling Batista. Under Batista, gun owners had to register their firearms with the police, which made it a simple matter for Castro’s agents to locate and collect the guns.

In Nazi Germany, as documented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny by Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman (1992), a pre-Nazi law of 1928 required the registration of anyone having anything to do with firearms or ammunition. When the Nazis assumed power, they simply declined to renew the relevant permits, thereby justifying the confiscation of firearms and ammunition and clearly demonstrating how registration paves the way for confiscation. In 1938, the Nazis’ own draconian gun control legislation further deterred effective opposition to their increasingly oppressive rule. It included a provision under which Jews were "prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons."

And in his early years as Italy’s Fascist ruler, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, in a speech delivered at the Italian Senate on June 8, 1923, asserted: "The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all the elimination of the so-called subversive elements…. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."

Government oppression thrives when a people are disarmed. But when the people are armed, exactly the opposite is the case. Which is why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

7 Ways to Stop "Selling" & Start Building Relationships

Sometimes we can all use a friendly reminder to keep us from backsliding into old ways of thinking about selling that lead us down the wrong path with potential clients.

New Thinking = New Results

Maybe it’s time to take a different approach. Maybe we need to seriously analyze our sales thinking so we can identify why we’re not making more sales. Take a look at the table below and thinkabout your current selling mindset. How would your selling behaviors change if you changed your sales thinking?

Traditional Sales Mindset Vs Unlock The Game™ Mindset

1.     Always deliver a strong sales pitch. Vs Stop the sales pitch — and start a conversation.

2.     Your central objective is always to close the sale. Vs Your central goal is always to discover whether you and your potential client are a good fit.

3.     When you lose a sale, it’s usually at the end of the sales process. Vs When you lose a sale, it’s usually right at the beginning of the sales process.

4.     Rejection is a normal part of selling. Vs Sales pressure is the only cause of rejection. Rejection should never happen.

5.     Keep chasing every potential client until you get a yes or a no. Vs Never chase a potential client — you’ll only trigger more sales pressure.

6.     When a prospect offers objections, challenge and/or counter them. Vs When a potential client offers objections, uncover the truth behind them.

7.     If a potential client challenges the value of your product or service, you must defend yourself and explain the value. Vs Never defend yourself or what you have to offer — it only creates more sales pressure.

Let’s take a closer look at these central Unlock The Game™ concepts so you can begin to open up your current sales thinking and become more effective in your selling activities:

1) Stop the sales pitch — and start a conversation.

When you call someone, avoid making a mini-presentation about yourself, your company, and what you have to offer. Start with an opening conversational phrase that focuses on a specific problem that your product or service solves. If you don’t know what this is, ask your current customers why they purchased your solution. One example of an opening phrase might be, "I’m just calling to see if you’d be open to some different ideas related to lowering the risk of any computer downtime you may be having in your company?" Notice that you are not pitching your solution with this opening phrase.

2) Your central goal is always to discover whether you and your potential client are a good fit.

Let go of trying to "close the sale" or "get the appointment"– and you will discover that you don’t have to take responsibility for moving the sales process forward. If you simply focus your conversation on problems that you can help potential clients solve, and if you don’t jump the gun by trying to move the sales process forward, you will find that potential clients will actually bring you into their buying process.

3) When you lose a sale, it’s usually right at the beginning of the sales process.

If you believe that you lose sales because you make a mistake at the end of the process, take a look back at how you began the relationship. Did you start with a presentation? Did you use traditional sales language like, "We have a solution that I believe you really need" or "Others in your industry have bought our solution, so you should consider it as well"?

When you use traditional sales language, potential clients can’t help but label you with the negative stereotype of "salesperson." This makes it almost impossible for them to relate to you from a position of trust. And if trust isn’t established at the outset, honest communication about the problems they’re trying to solve, and how you might be able to help them, becomes impossible too.

4) Sales pressure is the only cause of rejection. Rejection should never happen.

Rejection happens for only one reason: Something you said, as subtle as it might have been, triggered a defensive reaction from your potential client. Yes, something you said. To eliminate rejection, simply shift your mindset so that you give up the hidden agenda of hoping to make a sale. Instead, everything you say and do should stem from the basic mindset that you are there to help potential clients. This makes you able to ask, "Would you be open to talking about issues you might be having affecting your business?"

5) Never chase a potential client–you’ll only trigger more sales pressure.

"Chasing" potential clients has always been considered normal and necessary, but it’s rooted in the macho selling image that, "If you don’t keep chasing, it means you’re giving up — and that means you’re a failure." This is dead wrong! Instead of chasing potential clients, tell them that you would like to avoid anything that resembles the old cat-and-mouse chasing game by scheduling a time for your next chat.

6) When a potential client offers objections, uncover the truth behind them.

Most traditional sales programs spend a lot of time focusing on "overcoming objections." These tactics only put more sales pressure on potential clients and also fail to explore or understand the truth behind what the potential client is saying. When you hear, "We don’t have the budget," "Send me information," or "Call me in a few months," do you think you’re hearing the truth, or do you suspect that these are polite evasions designed to end the conversation?

Rather than trying to counter objections, you can uncover the truth by replying, "That’s not a problem" — no matter what clients are "objecting" to — and then using gentle, dignified language that invites them to reveal the truth about their situation.

7) Never defend yourself or what you have to offer — it only creates more sales pressure.

When a potential client says, "Why should I choose you over your competition?," your first, instinctive reaction is probably to start defending your product or service because you want to convince them to buy. But what do you think goes through your potential client’s mind at that point?

Something like, "This ‘salesperson’ is trying to sell me on why what they have to offer is better, but I hate feeling as if I’m being sold." Rather than defending yourself, try suggesting that you aren’t going to try to convince them of anything because that would only create sales pressure. Instead, ask them about the key problems that they are trying to solve, and then explore how your product or service might solve those problems –without ever trying to persuade.. Let potential clients feel that they can choose you without feeling "sold."

You too can improve your sales effectiveness if you are open minded and willing to try a new and more natural selling approach.

Discover Financial Freedom with an E-book Home Business

Financial freedom can only be recognized with hard work, innovation, and a popular – but reliable – product or service. But with an Internet business, these three often get clouded with having almost too many opportunities. You can easily get discouraged when researching the overwhelming number of business venues that are available online. But with e-books, many small business owners are discovering financial freedom while offering long-lasting products of value.

E-books are electronic books that might contain graphics, photos, sound, and content relating to any subject. They can also contain links to various web pages for promotions or illustrations. It’s very inexpensive to create an e-book, but yet people enjoy reading them every day. E-books are popular online because they are usually inexpensive or free and offer advice and tips on a variety of subjects. The subjects can be anything from "how to earn money online" to "how to start a home business." E-books may also cover more specific subjects such as "how to make money with a crafts business" or "cross-stitching tips for the beginner." The possibilities for e-book subjects are unlimited.

E-book Home Business Facts

Starting an e-book business means you are offering e-books for sale online to a specific target audience. You might sell only one or a few e-books, or you might even sell hundreds of them. The choice is yours, but of course, the more e-books you offer, the more chances you’ll have to earn a lucrative income.

Here’s how it works. You’ll promote your e-books using various techniques such as an e-mail newsletter (e-zine), search engine promotions, paid ads, and other methods. Customers will visit your website to read your presentation. When they purchase one of your e-books, they will download it directly from your website or from an e-mail. You can even automate the entire process to make things easier on you and the customer.

The reason e-books are so successful for gaining financial freedom is because once they’re created, you don’t have to do anything except promote them. You can create an automated cash system that works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. E-books can be sold and downloaded by your customers while you sleep!

Resell E-books to Earn Money

If you don’t want to write your own e-books, you can also create a cash system and enjoy financial freedom by reselling e-books that others have written. With this type of home business, you will purchase rights to various e-books, sometimes hundreds of them, and resell them as your own products. Keep in mind that other companies will likely be selling these titles as well. But the Internet is so big, there’s plenty of room for everyone!

Some companies provide business opportunities in which you’ll receive a number of benefits along with hundreds of e-books to resell. These opportunities may cost a little up front, but are definitely worth the investment for starting your own home business. The e-book products alone can generate a very healthy cash system for years to come.

As with any home business, selling e-books will take some time to build and promote. But once the ball’s rolling, you’ll enjoy financial freedom and success like never before!

Land and Real Estate in Arizona

Purchasing land in Arizona

Moving to Arizona has the ultimate choices from purchasing raw land to purchasing land in a more rural area to add a manufactured home to building a luxury custom home.  Finding land is easy; Finding land that is worth purchasing is a totally different story.

I can specifically tell you about Arizona although this might be prevalent in other areas also.  What to watch out for are Land fissures, Drinking water (how far you have to drill to install a pump), natural washes, and natural washes that become re-routed from other building and area growth, and most importantly flood plains.

If you purchase land on a hill or close to a mountain expect to have above average ground movement and more costs for the foundations. Also high speed internet may become an issue unless you can get used to using a high speed cell card.

If you are dreaming of a home with land to have horses and other friendly domestic animals you might check with city ordinances first.  For example if you purchase land that was recently annexed by Surprise AZ. You might be surprised by the no farm animal ordinances.  Even if homeowners nearby already have this type of animal living on the land they have owned for many years this can be a huge issue if that is what you were planning for your land.

Keep in mind that Arizona water is a very big topic here, being in a desert water conservation is very important.  Wells that are functioning now might have to be dug deeper in the future as the land around is developed.  Large subdivisions moving in around you can lower a water table pretty fast and cause you to have to make modifications to your well, the storage tank and also how deep your well is.

Keep Scott Schulte at www.scottschulte.com in mind when your looking for Arizona real state

Custom Web Design and Online Promotion Go Hand-in-Hand

Many new online business owners have misconceptions about custom web design. It’s not only about getting your website up and running. It’s about designing every aspect of your website – every "nook and cranny" – to lead your visitors to the ultimate end, a sale. Whether you plan to build a service-oriented website or offer many products, your site’s design must have all the ingredients for success from the very start. Be sure the web designer you choose has an understanding of promotion as well as custom web design. Here are some features your site must have to survive among the Internet masses.

An Easily Recognized USP (Unique Selling Proposition)

When a visitor arrives at any of your web pages (not only the homepage), he/she should understand what your site is all about immediately. You only have a split second to grab their attention. Make sure each web page has a powerful keyword-rich headline that will keep the visitor reading.

Graphics that Complement without Dominating the Web Pages

Every website needs a few graphics here and there to make the web design pleasing to the eye, but be sure your graphic design and logo design do not dominate your pages. You want visitors to read your page, not look at your graphics. So, keep graphics to a minimum, and use them only when they help to create an even reading flow on the page. Many sites use a pleasant "newsletter" style when there is much to read on a page, sprinkling graphics or photos throughout the text in a wrap-around sense. For logo design, keep it small and simple. There’s nothing more annoying than waiting on a page to load because its logo is too big!

Keyword Rich Content for SEO (Search Engine Optimization)

Be sure your designer understands about SEO and keywords. Every page of your site should be designed with search engine promotion in mind. This means gearing your meta tags, link text for pages or in menus, headlines, image "alt text" contents, etc. to attract search engine traffic for the long haul.

Easy-to-Use Navigation

Be sure the navigation on your web pages is easy to use. Many visitors will not take the time to "search" for hidden links or to browse through a confusing menu. If ordering custom web design from a professional, write out on paper how you would like your link system to flow from page to page. If you have content, place visible, colored links within the text to give visitors a chance to click while reading. Have menu bars or links in the usual places – sidebars and top/bottom of the web page.

Promote your Website

Some design firms will offer promotion bonuses with a custom web design package. This benefits you because it helps you to get a head start on building traffic. You can take advantage of the design firm’s skills and knowledge about Web promotion and search engine optimization. Don’t forget to promote your website in every way possible. Print your site address on business cards, newspaper ads, letterhead, etc. Also, promote your site online using only targeted advertising.

Custom web design techniques and promotion are so tightly knit together that it’s impossible to separate the two. Be sure to include both in your custom web design plans so you can see positive results from the start!

Get Paid For Free

Everybody would love to make lots of money quickly, working from home, and only doing a few hours of work per week. I’ve spent the past two years trying to find a great way of doing this. Only over the course of the past few months have I found any "get rich quick" programs worth buying. I’ve been trying to make money online for a long time. I had a few small websites, but they never made much more than a few hundred per month. It was easy money and didn’t require much work on my part, but I knew there were people out there doing better than I was and I knew I could do as well as them.

Now, I’ve seen a lot of "get rich quick" programs. Most of these people make claims about earning $2000/day with Google or something similarly insane. Almost all of these people are complete liars. Even if they were making $2000/day with Google AdSense, it’d be because they had high – traffic websites with a lot of quality content. I’d know, because in one whole month, I never even made half of what they promised I’d make daily with their programs. Maybe you’ve already been scammed by one of these fraudsters. Anyway, I finally got sick of what was being offered.

I decided I’d look through the all of the "get rich quick" programs I could find and see if there were any that were actually legitimate. I found that there were owners selling their programs for well over $100, but the information in them could be found almost anywhere online for free. Additionally, they all contained out-of-date information, had no e-mail support, no money back guarantees, and broken links in the downloads section.

In conclusion, almost all of the programs I found were completely useless. The owners knew it, but they couldn’t care less about their customers since they didn’t offer refund policies! Amazingly, while looking through all of the programs, I actually did find a few legitimate programs. They were run by ordinary people like you and me, and they had found some great methods of making money from their home by doing very little work.

I spent some time working with those programs, and my income is now ten times what it used to be. These programs provided a large amount of great information on how to make extra money on your computer doing very little work. Numerous customers had provided great feedback and reviews for their products. Many of them have started to make money just days after buying!

Their programs have excellent prices, and the authors have a group of paid staff who are dedicating to helping you or providing assistance if you need any. I must say I was amazed! If you do decide to purchase any of the programs listed below, I recommend you join quickly. Most of the owners tell me they are getting an overwhelming number of sales and plan on raising prices in the near future, so order while prices are still low!

To Your Online Success,

Louis Vuitton and Chanel Come to Panama

Introduction – Multiplaza Mall in Panama City is now host to a Louis Vuitton Shop and a Chanel Store. Multiplaza Mall has always been the high-end mall of Panama. It is now possible to buy high-end Swiss watches like Breitling and Omega along with Montblanc pens and now we have these two high-end boutique stores as well.

Discussion – Can Panama support these high-end stores? We have had Nautica and Hilfiger for some time down here and they seem to do well but they are hardly high end stores, high middle class products would be more descriptive of them. Do we have enough people willing to spend $900 on a purse or sunglasses, which is thrice what the average worker makes in Panama in a month? We have had Cartier and Rolex stores in Panama City for some time. There is also a Maserati, Ferrari and Porsche dealership as of recent in Panama City. We do see a fair amount of Porsche Cayenne SUV’s running around but precious few Porsche cars. It is very rare to see a Maserati or Ferrari but if you go to the causeway on a Sunday afternoon you will see the car collectors do their drive by just for an excuse to drive the car. We do not have a Bentley or Rolls Royce Dealership. Maybe I should say – yet.

High End Goods and Crime – Panama has no car jackings, or if there are any no one ever hears about it. There is no place to go with all the traffic the thief would surely be caught within blocks. People would see the crime, get on their cell phones and the police would soon show up on motorcycles and that would be the end of it. Now what happens if women start to carry $1900 Vuitton purses? Will kids make a running grab for them hoping to sell them for $50 in the local neighborhood? Will the kid be able to tell what is an expensive purse and what is not? Will the kids need a Fagan type guy to train them and to fence the goods? Of course the contents of a $1900 purse would be of interest to the thief as well. Panama City has had a number of enterprising vendors who managed to get Vuitton franchises without even having a storefront (just kidding) and they have placed a lot of Vuitton, Chanel looking products into the country, which may confuse the thieves. What if people take to wearing $20,000 gold and platinum wristwatches in Panama? How will the thieves react to that? One can make a temptation readily for some thief by wearing a $20,000 watch in a country where the average wage is $300 a month.

What Next – Well if Vuitton and Chanel are here we can expect the rest of the high-end designer labels to start opening up? They generally do not like to want to miss out on a market that brands like Vuitton and Chanel are in. Are we going to see Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Neiman Marcus opening up here? I would think you could safely bet on it. I would think antique dealers and art galleries will soon follow. Then we will see ultra high end branded restaurants charging outrageous prices for small portions of food like Emerils. We already have rumors that the Hilton Hotel people are going to open up in Panama City and more high end branded hotels can be expected.

Implications – It could be that Panama real estate is just on the way up and the peak prices are far from what they are now. All these high-end retailers have site location analysts that are good or else no one would use them. If they are giving the green light to Panama this is significant information. Panama real estate may be selling for $5,000 a sq. meter or more before you know it. One of the arguments against the high prices has always been the lack of an infrastructure. The city is cleaning the bay, which will actually create something like a useable waterfront. They have plans to manage the traffic. The houses are going up. The hotels are coming in. The airport is being expanded at this time. A cruise terminal is being built. The Canal is being expanded. The Causeway is already developed and looks as good as any Causeway anywhere in the world. This could be it, put on your seats and take the ride the might just get off the ride a lot richer than when you got on.