Filters
Sales Assessment Results
35
Needs Improvement
10 questions
Maximum score: 100
Completed in
Let's not sugarcoat it—you've got some serious work to do. Averaging a score of 3.5 is a wake-up call. Your attempts to engage prospects are falling flat, and it's clear that your responses lack depth and the necessary consultative finesse to address their specific concerns. You often miss the mark on exploring implications and fail to foster a genuine dialogue, which is a critical component in building trust and rapport.
Positive notes? You do seem to recognize the importance of addressing concerns like budget and training—which is a start. However, your execution is simplistic and doesn't explore these topics thoroughly enough to resonate. You need to elevate your game by incorporating techniques like Solution Selling and Consultative Selling, which will help you tailor your approach to align with your prospects’ needs on a deeper level. These methods will empower you to ask the right questions and develop a more collaborative relationship.
Here’s your coaching moment: Remember, selling isn't just about pushing a solution; it's about solving problems. Every objection is an opportunity to dig deeper and understand the 'why' behind it. Get curious and engage in conversations that explore the prospect's unique challenges. If you can master this, you'll not only improve your scores but also build lasting relationships that lead to sales success.
Question Breakdown
1.
1
/ 10Question:
"We're on a tight budget this fiscal year and I'm not sure we can allocate funds for this upgrade."
Answer:
The cost of not doing this is substantial in terms of what it will actually cost
Feedback:
The response fails to effectively address the prospect's specific budget concerns. It lacks clarity and does not explore the implications of not upgrading in a way that resonates with their situation. There is no engagement or curiosity shown to understand their constraints better. Additionally, it doesn't provide a solution-focused approach or a clear value exploration that could help justify the investment. Overall, the communication is vague and does not build rapport or offer a compelling reason to reconsider the budgetary decision.
2.
2
/ 10Question:
"Given our prior experience with a similar filter solution that didn't meet our expectations, how can we be sure this will deliver the promised ROI?"
Answer:
I can provide testimony from past customers.
Feedback:
The response does not adequately address the prospect's specific concerns regarding their previous negative experience. Simply offering testimonials lacks depth and fails to build trust or alleviate their doubts. A more effective approach would involve asking probing questions to understand their past issues better and to tailor the conversation towards how this solution addresses those specific pain points. Engaging the prospect in a dialogue about their expectations and concerns would demonstrate active listening and a collaborative approach. Overall, this response seems too simplistic and does not sufficiently explore value or provide a compelling case for this solution.
3.
4
/ 10Question:
"I need to get buy-in from several stakeholders, and I’m concerned about how to align their differing priorities and timelines."
Answer:
Can we schedule meeting for later this Thursday to discuss with the other stakeholders?
Feedback:
The response does initiate a potential next step by suggesting a meeting, which is a positive approach. However, it doesn't address the core concern of aligning differing priorities and timelines among stakeholders. A more effective response would involve asking questions to uncover the specific priorities or concerns of these stakeholders, demonstrating active listening and a consultative approach. This would show empathy and a genuine desire to understand the complexities of the situation. Additionally, providing insights on how your solution can help align these priorities or suggesting strategies to facilitate this alignment could further enhance the response. Overall, while scheduling a meeting is a good start, the lack of depth in addressing the objection limits its effectiveness.
4.
3
/ 10Question:
"With changes to our processes, we're worried about the time it will take to train our staff on a new filter solution."
Answer:
It will provide a safer solution than what you are currently doing. Less chances of something wrong happening when y’all are having to pull the elements out with a truck currently.
Feedback:
The response addresses safety, which is relevant, but it fails to directly tackle the prospect's main concern about training time and process changes. It does not acknowledge their worries or ask questions to understand their specific training needs. A more effective approach would focus on how the training process will work, the resources available to support staff during the transition, and any time-saving benefits of the new solution. This response lacks a collaborative tone and doesn't sufficiently explore the value of the new system or how it will enhance their current processes.
5.
3
/ 10Question:
"There are alternative solutions available that seem to offer similar features at a lower price point. What differentiates yours?"
Answer:
You get what you pay for. There are some import filters that claim to do it. But you will not get my expertise in helping selecting and evaluating the right filter for your application.
Feedback:
The response attempts to differentiate the product based on expertise, which is a positive angle. However, it falls short by not directly addressing the prospect's concern about alternative solutions and their price. Simply stating that 'you get what you pay for' lacks depth and does not engage the prospect in a meaningful dialogue. A stronger approach would involve exploring the specific features and benefits of your solution compared to the alternatives, highlighting unique selling points, and inviting questions to understand the prospect’s needs better. This response could benefit from a more consultative tone, demonstrating how your expertise translates into value for the prospect's specific situation.
6.
4
/ 10Question:
"I'm not convinced that the long-term value justifies the initial investment, especially with our current economic climate."
Answer:
Right now it is costing you $200,000 per year. This system will cost that once.
Feedback:
The response attempts to quantify the costs, which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks depth in addressing the prospect's concern about long-term value versus the initial investment. It could be more effective by discussing how the new system will lead to long-term savings or benefits beyond just the initial cost comparison. Additionally, it should engage the prospect in a dialogue about their specific concerns regarding the economic climate and how the solution can help mitigate those challenges. Overall, the response is somewhat simplistic and fails to explore the value proposition sufficiently.
7.
4
/ 10Question:
"Integrating a new filter system might disrupt our existing workflows. How do you address this concern?"
Answer:
It could. But you guys already have a by-pass line in and have not had any issues so far when using it.
Feedback:
The response acknowledges the prospect's concern about potential disruption, which is a good start. However, it lacks depth and does not provide a clear plan or reassurance on how to manage the integration effectively. Simply stating that there have been no issues with the bypass line does not fully address their fears or provide a comprehensive solution. A more effective approach would involve discussing specific strategies for a smooth transition, including training support, timelines, and how the new system can be integrated with minimal workflow disruption. Engaging the prospect further by asking about their current workflows and how they foresee the integration impacting them could demonstrate curiosity and active listening, enhancing rapport. Overall, the response could be more collaborative and solution-focused.
8.
5
/ 10Question:
"What support do you provide during implementation to ensure a smooth transition without impacting our daily operations?"
Answer:
I will be here during startup. I can recommend some folks that have helped with installations similar to this.
Feedback:
The response acknowledges the prospect's concern about support during implementation, which is a positive start. However, it lacks detail and specificity regarding the actual support provided during the transition. Merely stating that you will be present during startup and recommending others does not fully address how you will ensure minimal disruption to daily operations. A more effective response would include outlining the specific steps you take during implementation, such as training sessions, support resources, or a timeline for the transition. Engaging the prospect with questions about their existing processes and how you can tailor your support to their needs would demonstrate active listening and a stronger collaborative approach. Overall, the response could benefit from more depth and a clearer plan for ensuring a smooth transition.
9.
5
/ 10Question:
"We prefer a vendor that is well-established in the market; can you share your company's market positioning and maturity?"
Answer:
The brand I am recommending is one of the top in the market. They have been in the industry for over 40 years. They were founded by John Clarke how literally wrote the book on coalescing.
Feedback:
The response attempts to establish credibility by highlighting the company's long-standing presence in the market and referencing a notable founder, which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks a direct connection to the prospect's objection about preferring a well-established vendor. A more effective approach would involve providing specific examples of the company's achievements, client success stories, or market share data to reinforce its position as a leader in the industry. Additionally, engaging the prospect with questions about their specific criteria for vendor selection could foster a more collaborative dialogue. Overall, while the response contains valuable information, it could benefit from deeper engagement and clearer relevance to the prospect's concerns.
10.
4
/ 10Question:
"I’m hesitant about the hidden costs associated with maintenance and potential upgrades in the future. Can you clarify this?"
Answer:
Here is the quote for what we are offering. I cannot assure you that prices for the aftermarket filters and seals will not change. But the vessel itself will last decades based on the data sheet provided. There is a 10% safety factor that was used when the engineer sized the vessel. If you believe that you will increase flow rates now is the time to te-evaluate the design otherwise it is as specified.
Feedback:
The response addresses the objection by providing information on the longevity of the vessel and mentioning a safety factor, which is positive. However, it does not clearly tackle the prospect's specific concern about hidden costs associated with maintenance and upgrades. Simply stating you cannot assure price stability for aftermarket filters and seals lacks reassurance and could heighten their anxiety. A more effective approach would involve discussing potential cost scenarios, maintenance recommendations, and ways to mitigate unexpected expenses. Additionally, engaging the prospect by asking about their specific concerns regarding maintenance and upgrades would demonstrate active listening and foster a collaborative dialogue to build trust. Overall, the response could be clearer and more solution-focused in addressing hidden costs.