Capital raising
Sales Assessment Results
52
Needs Improvement
10 questions
Maximum score: 100
Completed in
Let's cut to the chase: your average score of 5.2 is a wake-up call. You’ve shown some potential, but there’s a pattern of missed opportunities and disengagement that can’t be ignored. Your strongest techniques seem to revolve around addressing objections and showcasing credibility, but too often, your responses lack the engagement and specificity needed to connect with the prospect. You’re playing it safe, but safe isn’t going to cut it in a competitive environment.
You’ve got a tendency to be a bit technical and less empathetic, which can feel dismissive to prospects. Remember, it's crucial to acknowledge their feelings and concerns genuinely. Your responses need to be more collaborative; asking more probing questions to uncover pain points could significantly enhance your effectiveness.
I recommend diving deep into Solution Selling and Consultative Selling techniques. These will help you tailor your approach to the specific needs of your prospects and foster stronger relationships.
Here’s your coaching moment: think about every interaction as a conversation, not a transaction. Your job isn’t just to sell; it’s to understand and solve problems. When you shift your mindset from pushing for a sale to genuinely helping your prospects, you’ll see your scores—and your success—skyrocket.
Question Breakdown
1.
6
/ 10Question:
"We're currently committed to another capital raising vendor, and switching could disrupt our timelines."
Answer:
Understandable. Out of curiosity over the course of the last 6 months how has the current vendor handled your timelines you laid out to me previously? It seams to me that part of the reason we are in the call today is because of a lack of confidence in the current vendor.
Feedback:
The response does a decent job of addressing the objection by acknowledging the prospect's commitment to another vendor. However, the salesperson could improve on a few fronts. Firstly, while the curiosity question is a good approach, it could be more effective if it explicitly ties back to the prospect's pain points or any specific issues they've faced. The phrase 'it seems to me' might come off as presumptive; instead, using 'I'm curious if...' would sound more collaborative. Also, the follow-up could benefit from gently suggesting how your solution could potentially alleviate their concerns or improve their timelines. Overall, the tone is appropriate, but there's room for improvement in clarity and engagement.
Score: 6/10 - Good start, but needs more engagement and specificity in addressing the prospect's concerns.
2.
3
/ 10Question:
"How can we justify the ROI to our stakeholders when there's uncertainty in the market right now?"
Answer:
Great question. Is there really any actual stable market? Base on 35 years of experience by Brad raising capital in all markets from bear to bullish, dot com bursts and housing crises. Brad has proven that regardless of the market investors still want to out their money to work. We believe that it is never about the market, it is always about the approach.
Feedback:
The response attempts to address the objection by referencing experience and suggesting that the approach to raising capital is more crucial than the market conditions. However, it lacks a direct engagement with the prospect's concern about justifying ROI to stakeholders. There’s a missed opportunity for curiosity and discovery; asking questions about the specific concerns stakeholders have would have been beneficial. The communication could be clearer and more empathetic, acknowledging the prospect's feelings of uncertainty. Additionally, a stronger closing technique could have been employed to pivot toward a solution-focused discussion. Overall, the response feels somewhat dismissive of the valid concern raised, which is critical in capital raising contexts where stakeholder buy-in is essential.
Score: 3/10 for effort, but the execution falls short in relevance and engagement.
3.
6
/ 10Question:
"Can you show how your solution is more efficient compared to our existing processes?"
Answer:
Yes of course I can. As you can see from Dustin’s case study in raising 100 million in 3 months. Our process simply breaks down who you are trying to raise from. Then ensuring that you are in the position to raise from them while simultaneously putting you in the right environments with them. When it comes to raising capital efficiently it is always about product and placement. That is where we come in.
Feedback:
The response does a fair job of addressing the objection by referencing a specific case study, which adds credibility. However, it could be improved by explicitly comparing the proposed solution to the existing processes the prospect uses. Clear communication is somewhat maintained, but the tone could be more engaging and less technical to better connect with the prospect's perspective. There’s no direct closing technique employed, and the response lacks curiosity and discovery, as it doesn't ask any follow-up questions to better understand the prospect's current processes. Overall, while there’s some value exploration, it could be more collaborative and tailored to the prospect's specific needs.
Score: 6/10
4.
5
/ 10Question:
"We have limited resources this fiscal year; can we afford to allocate budget to this right now?"
Answer:
I would say yes you can absolutely afford this. Besides our 30 day guarantee. Over the first 60 days you are in the fast start program. This is designed to allow you to effectively raise capital within the first 60 days. You might not see it on the balance sheet right now but let’s take a walk to 60 days from now where you have an additional 2 million in raised capital. How does the balance sheet look now? Can we still not afford it?
Feedback:
The response addresses the objection by emphasizing potential future gains, which is a good start. However, it lacks a clear understanding of the prospect's current financial constraints and does not engage in a collaborative discussion about their resources. Instead of directly affirming affordability, it would be more effective to ask probing questions to explore their budget concerns and needs further. This would demonstrate active listening and curiosity. The closing technique is somewhat assumptive, which may not align with the prospect's current position. Overall, the response could benefit from a more solution-focused and consultative approach.
5.
4
/ 10Question:
"I’m worried about the training requirements; our team is already stretched with ongoing projects."
Answer:
As is most team. Tell me can your team as a whole allocate just 3 hours a week to coaching and training?
If they can do this we can get the results in as little as 3 months.
Besides that let’s talk real quick about the amount you will be able to raise. With an additional 1.5 million dollars would you be able to potentially hire on a few more team members? If that’s the case is the team still stretched?
Feedback:
The response attempts to address the objection by suggesting a minimal time commitment for training and quickly pivoting to the potential financial benefits. However, it lacks empathy and fails to acknowledge the concern about the team's current workload. Instead of just asking if they can allocate time, it would be more effective to explore their current situation and understand their capacity better. This would show active listening and a more collaborative approach. Additionally, while the mention of raising funds is valid, it could have been framed more positively to highlight how the training would alleviate their current strain rather than potentially adding to it. Overall, the approach feels a bit rushed and doesn't fully engage with the customer's perspective. Score: 4
6.
5
/ 10Question:
"What if your system doesn't integrate well with our current financial management software?"
Answer:
Great question and this is some thing we run into a lot being that there are many different software me out there.
One of the first things we do is an internal assessment of your cutting sop’s.
This will allow us to customize any new products we recommend bringing on.
Secondly our team will be working 1:1 with you directly to ensure that the integration goes smooth.
Feedback:
The response addresses the objection by acknowledging the concern about integration with existing software, which is a great start. However, the communication could be clearer and more structured. The mention of an 'internal assessment of your cutting sop’s' is unclear and seems to contain a typo ('sop’s' should likely be 'ops' or 'operations'). The response could benefit from more detail on how the integration process works, perhaps mentioning past successes with similar clients or specific support tools used. Additionally, some curiosity-driven questions could have been posed to better understand the prospect's current setup and needs. Overall, while the response shows an intention to assist, it lacks the clarity and depth needed to instill confidence in the prospect.
Score: 5
7.
7
/ 10Question:
"Last time we implemented a similar solution, it took much longer than estimated; how can we avoid that this time?"
Answer:
Out of curiosity last time was the entire team bought in on the new process?
Knowing that there will always be those few rouge people that like things the way they are part of our responsibility is to ensure complete buy in from the team. Only when every one is in the same page can we avoid costly time delays.
Now can you tell me a little more on the last solution. What were some of the good things?
And how about the not so good things?
Do you feel like the not so good things were met with resistance that hurt the implementation time line?
Feedback:
The response effectively engages the prospect by asking thoughtful questions aimed at understanding their past experience and the dynamics of team buy-in, which is crucial in capital raising. It demonstrates curiosity and encourages discovery of valuable insights about the previous implementation. However, while the questions are relevant, the initial response misses a chance to directly address the concern about time delays. There could be more emphasis on how your solution specifically addresses the past challenges, which would enhance the solution-focused approach. A closing technique could also be integrated to transition towards discussing next steps or exploring the specifics of your solution. Overall, it's a good effort in building rapport and understanding the prospect's perspective, but it could have been stronger in addressing the concern directly.
Score: 7/10
8.
7
/ 10Question:
"How do you ensure compliance with the latest regulations during the capital raising process?"
Answer:
We have 4 different SEC law firms on retainer. Being that compliance is key in this industry we take it very seriously.
Any issues or concerns you or the team might have we can always run it by the legal team first prior to executing the raise.
In the event we are met with a compliance issue our legal team will step in and work with you to overcome this.
Feedback:
The response effectively addresses the concern about compliance by emphasizing the use of multiple SEC law firms on retainer, indicating a proactive approach to regulatory adherence. However, while it conveys seriousness about compliance, it could benefit from a more engaging tone, possibly by acknowledging the prospect's concerns more empathetically or asking if they have specific compliance worries. The closing could be enhanced by inviting further questions or suggesting a follow-up meeting to discuss compliance in more detail. Overall, it lacks a bit of curiosity and discovery by not probing into the prospect's specific concerns.
Score: 7
9.
4
/ 10Question:
"What makes your firm more credible than your competitors in this space?"
Answer:
35 years in the financial services industry with. I blemishes to start. We have a full open book policy as you can see right here on our web site. We publish everything. I would actually challenge you to try and find something of non credibility on us.
Feedback:
The salesperson's response touches on credibility, mentioning experience and an open book policy, which is a good start. However, the phrasing is somewhat unclear, especially the phrase 'I blemishes to start' which seems to be a typographical error and detracts from professionalism. They also missed an opportunity to provide specific examples or metrics that demonstrate their credibility, which would have been more persuasive. Challenging the prospect to find flaws could be perceived as confrontational rather than collaborative, which may not build rapport effectively. Additionally, the response lacks inquiry about the prospect's specific concerns or needs, which is critical for deeper engagement. Overall, while there are some positive elements, the clarity, tone, and depth of the response need improvement.
10.
5
/ 10Question:
"Given our company's direction is shifting, how do we know this investment will still be relevant in the long term?"
Answer:
The company might be shifting. However the foundations of what we do are rooted in decades of experience. From different markets, products and services. The foundations are key here.
Can you tell me a little more about the upcoming shifts you are planning in making?
Feedback:
The response addresses the concern about the company's shifting direction by emphasizing the stability and experience of the firm, which is a good start. However, it lacks a deeper exploration of how the investment aligns with the prospect's future direction. The mention of foundational experience is vague and could be more explicitly tied to the prospect's specific situation. Additionally, the follow-up question is appropriate as it shows curiosity and encourages dialogue, but it could be more tailored to link the investment's relevance to the prospect's upcoming shifts. Overall, the response could benefit from a stronger emphasis on solution-focused selling and value exploration regarding the investment's long-term relevance.
Score: 5