Archiv der Kategorie: Communication

Communication consists of perception, thought models and communication behavior.

Tasty bait for the fish

Most of the time we are all customers. Nevertheless, it seems to be hard in business to leave the own view, the provider view, and switch to the client standpoint. As a consequence, the offers are treated from one’s own angle. Unfortunately, customers are only secondarily interested in the suppliers and how they intend to make the customers happy or which customers they already have. First and foremost, the clients use their own vantage points to check the proposal. These glasses not only filter out certain aspects, but they also act like blinders that only allow seeing a limited section of the picture. Suppliers should always keep these views in mind, when preparing their quotation – in the end, the bait must taste to the fish, not the angler.

Let us look at the important customer glasses.

  • What it is all about
    If only the deliverables were offered that have always been available, only a little better, then marketing would still be promoting fist-wedges. The changes that brought Gutenberg, Benz, Jobs or Hopp et al. to the world were not directly understandable to the people. Printing, Automobile, PC and Standard software were disruptive paradigms, which only became visible over time. The customers are occupied since always in favor of their own core business and have little time to invent innovations from outside of their field. This is another reason, why they turn to external suppliers. However, customers need proper explanations of the topics, goals, functions, and the meaning of the solutions for their business to spark their interest. The argument “They know that” increases the probability that others will win the contract.
    Fundamental aspects should never be assumed but be explained in a way that suits the target group.
  • What makes it attractive today, and in the future
    It is possible that an bidding attracts the attention of the public especially through its mystical innovations. Just think of Andreas Pavel, with his patent for a “body bound small system for the high-quality reproduction of audio events”, which liberated the stationary music experience. Who would have asked for a Walkman in a hi-fi store? There are the factual and emotional reasons that irresistibly attract customers – i.e. the functionality offered, the ability to integrate into the existing landscape, the ease of use and support during application, as well as references from existing customers and, above all, the design of the quotation.
    Even if the factual arguments seem to be in the foreground, the gut feeling determines the outcome. The look through the customer’s glasses shows the components that make the customer curious and that should be particularly highlighted in the proposal.
  • Why it is viable or not in the long term
    The long-term viability of the offered deliverable plays a major role in the evaluation by the buyer. The reliable deliverable delivery is the focus, especially under the specific conditions of the customer. If limits to endurance arise, fitting expansions should ensure long-term use. Since most of the building blocks are not set up on a greenfield site, connectivity to the existing building blocks must be ensured. There is no point in advertising connections that are not required by the respective customer. These criteria apply not only for the moment of introduction, but also in the future for operation and final disposal.
    The bid should be tailored to the customer’s particular circumstances. It guarantees the completeness, increases customer confidence and thus long-term customer loyalty.
  • What has to happen to be feasible
    Since not all circumstances are known in advance, the requirements for use should be clearly described. 1) The employees should be able to master the new. Remember the introduction of PCs. At that time, the problems did not start with the business application, but already with the new input device, the X-Y position indicator for a screen system – later called mouse. 2) The infrastructure must be able to accommodate the product – it must be shippable and have sufficient space and connections. 3)Geographical and cultural specifics must be considered – e.g. different languages, and culturally determined controls.
    Customers honor it, when their general conditions are recognized and considered – or at least the premises are clearly described. For this reason, the known guard rails should be mentioned, and requirements should be clearly indicated. If the quote does not fit, sooner or later the missing feasibility will become visible anyway.
  • Which expenditure is necessary in total
    Once you know the proposition, it is worth to take a look at the required effort. What does it cost? What has to be spend for the introduction? How much does the operation cost? And what does the maintenance require? It is all about the necessary finances, the time required, which can lead to delays in daily business, and the necessary personnel (internal/external). The available resources should be determined where possible or at least accepted in order to prepare an adequate tender. A low price with a much lower performance is always worse than a high price with a much higher performance. If the planned effort of the customers is not known, at least the required outlay should be clearly shown. The customers can then decide for themselves. Suppliers, who do not disclose their cards, will lose out in the long run.
  • What speaks for or against it
    Helpful customer glasses convey the expected advantages and disadvantages. These can also be inquired or anticipated in order to adjust the proposal accordingly. The customer-related business case, where all components are listed and evaluated, provides the relevant aspects: e.g. cause of the enquiry/ reasons for the project; action alternatives; expectations concerning benefits, risks, costs, and time frame. Various scenarios ensure that other important solutions are not overseen and excluded from the outset.
    The customer should be enabled to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages not only on the basis of calculations but also from an emotional perspective. The determination of the expected pros and cons helps in understanding the customer.

Bottom line: The different types of customer glasses provide the supplier with the key points on which the proposition is based. The individual customer does not need all these views. If you know the needs, you can adjust to its own point of view. Which perspective is decisive for the customer’s purchase can only be seen afterwards. In summary, the customer should understand the purpose of the offering, it should be attractive, usable in the long term, feasible with the existing conditions and provide more advantages than disadvantages. You do not sell the deliverable that you prefer as a provider, but the one that the customer likes. The bait does not have to taste the angler, but to the fish.

When the best becomes standard

It has always been difficult to form an opinion about companies, products, employers, employees, travel destinations, films, books, authors, and stage plays. The list could go on forever. Due to the fast pace of life, we have no time to familiarize ourselves with something so that we can form our own opinion. Since price no longer provides an indication, specialized valuers have developed offers that make the assessment for you. They regularly produce overviews that offer the rationale for decisions – product tests, employer rankings, technology ratings as well as restaurant and hotel guides and even book, theatre and film reviews. The more established the rating agency, the more standardized the rating scale – e.g. Michelin stars or the Gartner Group hype cycle. An example of these new business models are platforms that classify employers – Kununu, Great Place to Work, Glassdoor or Trendence. We are getting used to delegating assessments to others, knowing that not all stars and likes can be trusted. A bad rating is not in the interest of the rated company and consequently not in the interest of the valuing platform. This distorts reality: fake stars or the use of an external rating as a marketing tool.

The difficulties start with the description of the properties and the process of an evaluation. They end with charts, which are filtered and sorted until the company is placed on the front ranks. This makes everyone the best, the biggest, the most successful, the most effective, etc. This use of top rankings leaves no room at the top for the real leading companies. Not everything is mega-great-super. But what scaling’s are available for evaluation? The language offers at least three levels for grading properties.

  • The simple description
    Starting point are adjectives expressing characteristics and attributes of something or someone, e.g. the sensual description of colors (e.g. red, green, blue) and shapes (e.g. round, square, angular), sounds (e.g. loud, soft, strident), feelings (e.g. soft, rough, hot), smells (e.g. sour, sweet) and tastes (e.g. bitter, umami). We also describe economic, artistic, and moral qualities – the beautiful painting; the innovative smartphone; the trustworthy company. We describe cultures (e.g. pre-Columbian tribes in North America) and express quantities (e.g. many, hundreds). Sometimes we reach the limits of descriptiveness when words have to be invented, e.g. the German sitt for not thirsty; edutaining for educating entertaining.
    The unenhanced form of an adjective makes it easy to label all expressible facts and offers an introduction to an evaluation.
  • The valuing comparison
    It usually does not stop in describing something. We quickly begin to compare with something else. This generates priorities, rankings or super-/sub-ordination, which are unconsciously perceived and create a preference – if the balloon is redder than the other; if something round is described as rounder; if something strident is described as more strident; if a hint makes something sweet smell sweeter; when something bitter tastes even more bitter. An objective evaluation of right or wrong will be difficult after this proposition. These statements reveal a lot about the speaking persons, who use them to externalize their inner evaluation – as long as they don’t do, as if, in order to manipulate others.
    The heightened form of an adjective enables an evaluation in comparison to something similar and sets a standard with it.
  • The confining upper limit
    The ceiling of the evaluation is reached, when there is no further increase possible – the reddest red, the roundest round, the shrillest shriek, the sweetest sweet or the bitterest bitter. The objectification is attempted with appropriate measuring methods – if the wavelength of red (between 630 and 700 nm) is detected or the pungency of a chili is measured with the help of the containing capsaicin. Nevertheless, subjective perception can lead to different results. At the end of the day, everyone’s personal evaluation is valid for all of them – if something is by far the absolute, mega-super-duper Smurfeedurfee.
    This highest level of an adjective forms the upper end of the scale. In order to leave room for truly outstanding qualities to be evaluated, this superlative should be used very rarely.

Bottom line: Characteristics are the basis for our decisions. They always cover a range – from almost not perceptible to the maximum. The evaluations cannot always be measured objectively, but are rather left to the discretion of people, who have their subconscious scales. This goes so far that if the measured values do not correspond with the expectations, further measurements or no measurements at all are taken. This leads to the fact that rankings change as soon as the person making the assessment changes. For this reason, it has become common to say: Never trust any statistics that you have not faked yourself. For the top of the rating scale it is important that it is rarely used. The whole thing recalibrates itself from time to time by shifting these limits. Companies, departments, teams, and individuals have the task to be aware of their own scales again and again, so that everyone involved has a common understanding and that the best does not become a meaningless standard.