Bob Rucker said,

I think it’s a great concept would like to here more

Mathias said,

I already use this sales tactic. I live in Sweden and this method is foreign for everyone I encounter. So being one of the first guys on my turf doing this seems like Christmas Eve every day (enjoyable).

I have done this for 2 weeks now. And the responses have been mixed, but the general response is “what?”. They can’t grip the idea. They think I am kidding:).

But I totally agree that this method is pure genius.

I have a hugh CEO and Board Member network (friends more or less). So right now there is a guy who want to reach one CEO who can give access to capital (this guy, the potential customer, has just started out as a loan consultant and want to build a little fund) and another CEO who leads a real estate dealmaking firm that would welcome this potential customer of mine as a loangiver to his would-be (and existing) investors.

So he asks me “what do you want me to pay for these two contacts of yours?”. I said “what would you like to pay for them?”. He tells me “well, what do you want for them?”. At this point I start to laugh out loud sitting at my computer. Thinking “Seriously? Are you kidding me? You have this big chance of naming your own price and you continue asking me for a price I obviously will not give to you, because I want you to name it to me”.

I think he will stop bickering with me soon and actually name what he thinks this is worth to him. I have a minimi price already set in my mind and if he say a price less than that number I will say no to the deal.

This method makes selling a hell of a lot easier. In the old days selling was a hassle for a sales person, because the sales guy had to name the damn price and then defend it (which takes a lot of time unless you can quickly say “next”).

With this method the table is turned around and now the potential customer has to tell you why you should sell him your product/service, or rather “your solution to his problem” (because that is what we sales/marketing people are really doing all thay long: “solving problems”).

Mathias said,

Richard, thank you for your kind words:).

I have a diploma in basic telemarketing so I can totally relate to that insane way of selling where you basicly shove your product down the throats of people. Kind of counter productive in a way due to the loss of those customers forever.

I did behave in that way myself when I started out as an entrepreneur 9 years ago and I can´t say I enjoyed any day of using that method. It just made me angry, the potential customers angry and suddenly you got a bad reputation due to your stupid aggressive ways and down the toilet you went:).

Being a salesperson is supposed to be fun, not a hassle. Selling with this new method makes any of those troubles you mentioned, a thing of the past. Because the customer sell you on the deal, on his/her terms. You have the opportunity to say “no thanks” to the deal if you think the deal is of no gain to you.

This is basicly how the free market system should operate (obviously we do not live in a totally free market system). Effortlessly. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and especially of her book Atlas Shrugged. I truly endorse that book to anyone who wants to understand this new sales method. Ayn Rand´s philosophy of true capitalism truly supports this sales method. That is: voluntary/mutual/non-forced agreements.

I will follow this discussion with high interest, thanks for creating this post Richard. And continual high success to you as well=).

Mathias said,

Sweden is a perfect example of a socialistic culture. We have, more or less, grants for almost anything. Which basicly means that working is a dumb idea:). Isn´t that weird and scary? I think so.

This is the problem with socialism and their never ending grant proposals: It takes more tax money to support it.

Basic mathemathics says that if you increase your expenses you also have to increase your income. Which in this case means increase in taxes (or printing more money or borrowing more money with goverment bonds).

Printing more money decreases purchasing power, making it harder to buy food and other necessary items for survival.

Borrowing money requires that you can support it over a long time with tax income (and this is the problem, it can’t be sustained in the long run if all the Goverment does is to propose even more grants all day long).

Sweden could have been, for example, a lot more productive than it is today. We have, over the last couple of years, sold out SAAB (big exporter company for Sweden), VOLVO (also a big exporter company) etc. Many big industry companies have been sold out to China, Russia etc. Why? Why was that a smart move? It wasn´t.

The swedish goverment sold out the best streams of income it had. And in retrospect they will have to compensate för that loss of exporter income by increasing taxes or borrowing more (maybe not now, but when the buffert money from the sale is gone, the tax bill will be sticked to the public). So the future for Sweden is not bright as I see it.

Instead of taxing the people, the goverments should use some of that tax money and purchase companies, use the divident proceeds to pay for new improvements. Like all of us clever businessmen do:). It clearly works, because we already do it. Why wouldn´t that work equally as well for goverments? One reason I guess: they are not clever people. They are like irresponsible teenagers with a credit card without a limit. They only know how to spend, not how to make the numbers balance. Nor do they understand how to increase their means by other ways than taxing, borrowing and printing more money (this goes for all goverments worldwide, not one specific goverment. They are all the same).

Mathias said,

I totally agree, socialism believes you can conquer basic economics by artificial means. Even though economic history, time and time again, has shown it to be the wrong way of going about things.

Socialism goes after capitalism like capitalism is the evil party in the equation. The ironic thing is: socialism cannot survive without the capitalistic support. Remove capitalism (productive input) and the socialistic system will fall just as described in Atlas Shrugged.

We have election year right now in Sweden (a new government shall be chosen on September 19th 2010). And all of the politicians say the same thing “increase tax”, “give tax grants to support ethanol production”, “once again, install the wealth tax” etc.

My thoughts on the arguments above:

-”increase taxes” – what a chock:). Standard argument by now.
-”give tax grants to support ethanol production” – this is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard this year. This will only create artificial demand and as we know artificial demand will create a boom and bust scenario when the tax grant is once again removed.

A new industry has to be based on supply and demand. The biggest liability factor with ethanol, wind and water energy etc is not that oil and coal etc has such a big stake to lose. I would rather say oil and coal is cheaper than the alternatives.

Oil is able to lobby a lot, that obvious fact can’t be removed from the picture, but I also think that is an excuse for other energy alternatives as well (that is why they are proposing this moronic tax grant in the first place. They think it can’t stand on it´s two own feet).

If the ethanol, wind, water energy guys create a cheaper option and a more reliable option (supply wise) than oil and coal, then oil and coal will be less interesting to consumers. Why pay more for oil and coal if you can pay less for ethanol, water or wind energy? Am I wrong?

-”once again, install the wealth tax” – well, this is a good idea only if they want companies and wealthy people to move their wealth offshore:) (i e loss of tax revenue). We did have a wealth tax not that many years ago in Sweden, then we removed it and still do not have any wealth, inheritance or gift taxation. I think installing the wealh tax once again is a very big mistake indeed.

The politicians think they will gain on doing it, but history (once again) has shown us how big of a mistake it was last time they forced that tax down the throat on wealthy people.

The son of the founder behind Hennes & Mauritz (H&M), Stefan Persson (one of the guys on the Forbes 400 list by the way) and Ingvar Kamprad (founder of IKEA also on the Forbes 400 list) actually moved their wealth offshore during the wealth taxation period.

Ingvar Kamprad is still based in Switzerland. Stefan moved his wealth back to Sweden after the wealth tax removal, but I guess he is preparing to once again move his wealth outside Sweden if the tax proposal gains traction.

The wealth tax basicly punishes people for producing anything worthwhile. That is why it is such a bad idea for everyone:).

Long rant here, but this is very interesting to me. The fight between politicians and the market is very dynamic:).

Is it better of for entrepreneurs now when Obama is president than when George W Bush was in charge of the USA?

I have only followed his moves sporadicly when it comes to the betterment of small business and entrepreneurship in the USA.