Forensic dissection of a successful cold call

Mea culpa

I'm going on holiday for 9 days next week (Noosa in Queensland where I hope to finally get a decent ocean swim in after a crap summer in Sydney). So this week I'm doing two newsletters and none next week.

For that reason, among others, this one is an outlier.

If you've been following me you'll know I've been talking about targeting and Ideal Customer Profiles (and the pitfalls) and I'll continue that in the next edition.

But this week I'm looking at just the opposite - a cold call approach when you have a list of prospects and you want to qualify or disqualify quickly and set up a meeting with the qualified ones.

Anatomy of a cold call

If you go to YouTube and search for "Benjamin Dennehy live prospecting call" you'll never guess what you'll see. Have a guess.

Give up?

You'll see Benjamin, Dennehy, self-appointed "The UK's most hated sales trainer" doing a cold call live on TV. And doing a pretty damned good job of it too.

If you look at Benjamin, the way he dresses, the way he talks, his provocative posts, his in your face style & his "most hated" title you'd think he's a bit of a maverick wouldn't you? I mean, scrubby beard, check shirt, red braces (or suspenders if you're American), ums and ahs and maybe and probably.

In real life he's not a maverick. He's a performer. A very good performer with a brilliant understanding of psychology, language, positioning and people. As people trained to be barristers, as he was, tend to be.

I'm going to be honest with you (as he starts this pitch). I wouldn't recommend this approach if you're trying to get a meeting with a senior executive in a high value target account that's worth six or seven figures. But there are elements of it I'd use.

And when you have a heap of potential targets and you can afford to burn a few to quickly get a heap of meetings with qualified prospects it's VERY good - assuming you know how to adapt it to whatever it is you sell, not just parrot it.

So I've transcribed the call and analysed it to see why it works & what you can learn from it. Benjamin knows I'm doing this & I'm as curious to know what he thinks of my analysis as he is to see what I have to say.

My friend (I use the term very broadly as he's actually an Oxford United fan so obviously he's a degenerate bum) Martin Stevens uses variations of this approach in his business (he gets his clients executive meetings). He's very successful with it & I get feedback from him on how it works in real life so I'm curious as to his perspective on this as well.

So let's go. Benjamin's pitch in bold, my response and suggestions where I think it can be improved after every paragraph.

(By the way I've just seen the video is also highlighted on Benjamin's LinkedIn profile so you don't need to search YouTube)

The cold call

I’m going to be honest with you, this is actually a cold call, do you want to hang up or can you let me have 30 seconds?

Analysis

The first sentence is a pattern interrupt. It’s pretty effective –short, sharp, to the point and it gives the recipient two simple choices. Either they hang up or you get your thirty seconds. This is the beginning of an ‘upfront contract’ as espoused by Sandler.

It isn’t apologetic or self effacing (no “I hate to admit it” or anything like that) & it effectively sets up the conversation as one between two equals.

In real life Martin Stevens tells me a reasonable percentage of people just say “I don’t take cold calls” and hang up. That’s fine if you have prospects to burn and can afford to lose 30% to 40% off the bat.

It’s much less OK if you really need to have a conversation with that particular person and that particular. In that case I recommend a slightly different approach which I’ll discuss in a future newsletter.

Possible improvement

“Cold call” is sales lingo. I suspect (but haven’t tried it) that “sales call” would be marginally better. I’d also change “can you let me have” to “will you give me” – the former asks for permission, the latter is a bit more directive which is better in this circumstance.

Other pattern interrupts

There are many other pattern interrupts you can use. Martin Stevens uses one with Executive Assistants that's fun & that works pretty well "Hello, we're supposed to be enemies. I'm a dirty salesman and your job is to get rid of me" or words to that effect.

My approach with EAs is simpler. I just say "I want to schedule a meeting with <name> - what do I have to do?" That also works. But whatever you use you need to know how and why it works.

OK so let me have my 30 seconds and if you don’t want to talk to me at the end we can end it there, sound fair?

Analysis

This reiterates the up front contract and the tag question, “sound fair” elicits agreement to the contract. Tag questions like that increase the chance of someone agreeing with you. Most people will agree to 30 seconds when they won't agree to five minutes or (God forbid) half an hour. LinkedIn connect & sell idiots take note.

Possible improvement

This doesn’t really need changing. You could say “give me” rather than “let me have” and “stop there” rather than “end it there” because I don’t like two “ends” in one sentence but that’s being particularly pedantic.

So I typically get invited in by managing directors of successful and ambitious companies but they have the honesty to recognise perhaps sales is a bottleneck to growth.

Analysis

“Typically” is what’s known as an “-ly adverb” – an adverb ending in -ly (Duh). Adverbs that end in ‘ly (e.g. obviously, clearly, unfortunately, typically) imply a judgement and because they are followed by a statement they tend to slip under our radar so they aren’t questioned the way a bald statement is. We are more likely to accept something that follows an -ly adverb as true. Strange but true.

So in this case, typically implies that this happens a lot i.e. “I get invited in by….”and obviously this will be accepted at face value, validating the rest of the sentence (see what I did there?).

The entire first sentence establishes authority (I’m someone who talks to Managing Directors like you all the time – and they invite me in, I don’t even have to go to them).

It also subconsciously implies that if you’re successful & ambitious you’re going to want to keep listening and if you don’t listen you aren’t either. A variation of Robert Cialdini's social proof. If other successful & ambitious MDs talk to him they I probably should too.

When we hear “successful and ambitious companies” we translate that to mean “successful and ambitious MDs” (if we're an MD. Companies themselves aren’t ambitious (this is an example of anthropomorphism – attributing human characteristics to a thing), the people in companies are ambitious - particularly the MD.

“but they have the honesty to recognise” is also quite masterful – the normal phrasing is “the honesty to admit”. Changing this does a couple of things – it creates a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance & confusion - and any hypnotist will tell you that you’re more suggestible when you’re confused. It also makes them more likely to be honest when listening because the don’t have to admit anything, just recognise it.

So they’re probably frustrated that their salespeople maybe are not motivated or reluctant to pick up the phone; others are worried that perhaps that’s not an issue but when they do and they listen to them they sound a bit cringeworthy and they think to themselves “you know I probably wouldn’t want to meet with that person.” Or that may not be the case it could be the fact that you’re a little concerned they don’t qualify hard enough and as a result you’re running around kissing frogs, meeting the wrong sort of person and it’s having a knock-on effect.

So the next part is all about recognition. We’ve set them up to be predisposed to listen, to be honest with themselves and to recognise concerns that other people – not them but other people – have.

We aren’t saying “do you have these problems?” We’re saying “other people have these problems, do you recognise any of them in your company?” It’s much easier for people to relate to a problem someone else has than to baldly admit they have the problem.

So we give them a list – and a list of three items is the ideal number. Don’t ask me why, it just is.

There’s a lot to see here. First of all the entire sentence is coached in tentative language – possibly, perhaps, a bit, maybe that’s the case, all the words in italics. So you’re inviting recognition & agreement without being dogmatic

It also uses emotional mindreading – “probably frustrated”, “worried” "concerned" – all the words I've underlined. This hits a nerve if they share any of those same feelings.

And they'll ignore anything that don’t apply to them because we’ve only said “perhaps” they apply. We only have to hit one out of three to have them thinking “hey, this person understands my issues”.

It uses colloquial language – “cringeworthy”, “kissing frogs” “knock-on effect” which builds rapport. Formal, business language and sales terminology turn people off in these situations. Natural human language works much better.

And as I’ve said it doesn’t say they’re the ones having those problems. It uses third party language – “they’re probably frustrated” “others are worried” so it’s other people – those MDs that called me in – that are having one or more problems. So they don’t have to admit they have problems. They just have to recognise that other people have problems which they may or may not share.

Possible improvements

I’m not going to suggest any possible improvements. There’s a bit of tweaking I could do here and there but I’m not sure it would make much different & this is so well constructed that I’d hate to mess it up by being picky.

I get the feeling you’re probably going to tell me that none of that applies in your world.

Analysis

Brilliant. It’s a negative statement that pre-empts objections and gives them permission to admit (or recognise) that yes, they have at least one of those issues.

“I get the feeling you’re probably..” solicits pushback – again with the tentative “probably”.

We all have a “push back” tendency, especially when talking with salespeople – in this case pushing back and saying the opposite means they are saying “well, actually it does apply in my world”.

And “applies in your world” softens it and makes it much better than “you don’t have those problems”. Together the entire sentence all makes it very easy for them to say “well, actually…”

If they genuinely have one of those concerns this approach makes it much more likely they will admit it (or recognise it) and we can take it from there.

If they don’t have any of these concerns – well, they aren’t a genuine prospect, we say thank you and move on. And because we’ve been respectful we haven’t pissed them off and we can always go back in the future with a different list of concerns.

So can I just ask a quick question? Of those three things not picking up the phone, perhaps not engaging decision makers or perhaps not sounding like they belong, if you had a magic wand and could fix one in your business which would it be?

Analysis

I love the “magic wand” question. It gets them to imagine an ideal future state when their biggest concern is magically fixed. So we’ve gotten them to focus on their biggest concern (from our list of three); we’ve gotten them to experience the feelings – frustration, worry, cringing – it causes and now we’re showing them the wonderful feeling they’ll get when it goes away.

Possible improvement

None needed.

Listen, reinforce.

The next bit depends on the answer to the previous question so I haven't transcribet it verbatim. Art all, in fact. This is where you listen to what they say, reinforce their perspective and build up the effect of the problem and the relief from fixing it. Then..

OK, I’ve had my 30 seconds, do you mind if we talk for maybe one more minute?

Analysis

This is fulfilling the up front contract – thereby establishing that I’m trustworthy. If you’ve grabbed them they will keep talking, if not – well that happens. But you’ve shown yourself to be a person of your word and haven’t left a bad taste in their mouth.

Possible improvement

I’d say “do you want to keep talking?” which sound like it’s more to their benefit, while “do you mind” suggests they’re doing us a favour. I wouldn’t ask for one more minute – at this stage they’re either interested, in which case the time is irrelevant, or they aren’t in which case we say thank you and move on.

Well if I told you I help fix those problems and I’ve helped companies in your sector eliminate some of those forever what would you say? Would you say that’s something you’d like to explore further?

Analysis

Again the first sentence is excellent partly because it’s tentative and solicits their opinion without being too pushy. Rather than a statement “I can help you” you’re asking a question “what would you say if I told you…?”

The great thing about questions is that we are programmed to answer them while we can ignore (or object to) statements.

(It’s a bit like the riddle of two gates, each with a guards. You know one of the guards always tells the truth and the other always lies – but you don’t know which is which. If you choose the right gate you live, if you don’t you die. If you ask one guard “which is the gate that won't kill me?” you don’t know if he’s lying or not. But if you say “If I were to ask if that gate <pointing> is the one that will kill me, what would you say” you’ll always get the right answer. Work it out).

The second sentence gives them direction as to what they should say.

Possible improvement

In real life I wouldn't say "in your sector" - I'd mention what they do specifically - e.g "other consumer electroncis distributors" or better still relevant companies.

I’d also be inclined to cut the second sentence. I think it’s a bit obvious. But I could be wrong. I wonder what Benjamin thinks here.

OK, so let me ask you a question. Let’s pretend I could help your guys to ..... and you believed I could do that is there any reason you wouldn’t invite me in for half an hour or 45 minutes?

Analysis

Again, brilliant.

I use “OK, so let me ask you a question” a lot. Even this is not as simple as it seems. “OK” implies agreement – we’re on the same page, while “so” means “therefore”. In other words – we agree on this and therefore it’s right and proper that I as you a question, ok?

You'll notice Benjamin uses "so" and other connecting words a lot. This makes the conversation flow and implies that because the former sentences have been accpeted the following ones should be as well.

“OK, so let me ask you a question” also flags there’s a question coming and gets them to listen more closely (we're hard wired listen to questions more carefully than we do to statements because there’s an expectation we’ll have to answer them).

The next sentence “Let’s pretend I could help your guys to ..... and you believed I could do that is there any reason you wouldn’t invite me in for half an hour or 45 minutes?” is very carefully constructed.

“Let’s pretend” invites them to treat the statement as if it were real – and our subconscious mind doesn’t distinguish between pretence and reality. So unconsciously it predisposes us to believe it.

“and you believed I could do it” is also subtle. “Believed” is in the past tense. So we’re asking the prospect to pretend they already have believed we could help them in the past. So we should believe them now.

Then using a negative question we ask them to think of a reason why they wouldn’t want to meet with us, bearing in mind they had previously believed we could help them.

Logically if we have previously  believed someone could help us with a problem we’ve admitted causes us emotional distress, why wouldn’t we want to meet with them? So the mind struggles to come up with logical reasons not to meet.

Obviously none of this works every time but (assuming the prospect genuinely believes they have an issue you can help with) it maximises your chances of getting a meeting.

OK, do you have your diary? Get email, etc.

Like I said I don’t know if I can help you, so if by the end of the meeting you don’t feel comfortable with me or you don’t think I’m someone you’d want to do business with would you feel ok telling me no?

Analysis

This sets expectations and is counterintuitive for most prospects. They expect salespeople to assert they can do things they can’t or push them into doing things they don’t want to do. Many people are quite uncomfortable saying “no” and avoid situations where they may have to (hence ghosting).

Here we’re inviting them to say ‘no” if they don’t think we can help them which makes them much more comfortable agreeing to see us.

And likewise if I don’t feel I can like help you I’ll be honest and say “xxxxx I can’t help you. You wouldn’t be upset if I said I couldn’t help you despite the fact you’re agreeing to meet with me?”

Analysis

Ditto. This confounds their expectations of what a salesperson would do and positions you as an honest broker rather than a pushy salesperson. It also establishes you as an equal. If you can help them great but if you can't no worries.

It displays honesty and (as Benjamin says) lack of attachment to the outcome, which is the opposite of most salespeople who are desperate for the outcome.

Oh and one last thing, if we don’t say no to each other do you mind spending a few minutes to figure out a clear next step on how we’d move forwards? If we get that far.

Analysis

This is thinking ahead and beginning a new upfront contract by getting agreement to progress to the next stage if there’s a meeting of minds.

Oh, one last question. Can you think of any reason you might want to cancel? You’re not going to hang up and think Oh my goodness, what have I just done? I’ve just agreed to meet a salesman.

Analysis

As you know, people do schedule appointments with the intention of cancelling, just to get rid of the salesperson. This anticipates that and gets a commitment that they will indeed honour their commitment.

It won’t eliminate cancellations but it will reduce them because most people like to honour specific commitments, especially when they’ve been asked directly.

Summary

Overall there are minor things I'd change and as I said I'd vary the approach if I couldn't afford to have the target hang up in the first 10 seconds. But it's a very good approach.

However, beware. You can't just learn this, or anything like it, as a script. You need to understand how it works, why it works and how to vary it because in real life all kinds of things will come up. The problem with scripts is that the other person - the prospect - doesn't know their lines and tends to go off script.

It also needs to be natural. You'll see (if you watch the video) how relaxed and natural Benjamin is and you can't fake that (unless you're a performer like he is)

The other thing to notice is that not once does Benjamin talk about himself, his company or even what he does. All he talks about is the prospect, his possible concerns and how the prospect feels about them. He doesn't even say what his name is.

You'll see he doesn't qualify in the traditional BANT sense. He does qualify if there's a need - if there wasn't he wouldn't get the meeting. But if you call the MD you know they have authority and if you get a meeting you know there's a pretty good chance they will find the budget if the need is great enough.

The very fact they're willing to meet you face to face (or on Zoom) and give you a chunk of their valuable time is all you need.

Final observations

There's an awful lot of garbage written about cold calls vs social selling vs other approaches. There are certainly problems with cold calling - the biggest being people who don't answer the phone - but there will also be a place for it.

In fact the fewer people who don't do telephone sales calls the easier it will be for those who do.

But as it's controversial I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this. I promise to answer every question and comment and who knows, maybe Benjamin and/or Martin will too.

PPS

What does the picture have to do with the article?

As usual, nothing. It was taken in 2008 outside the building that houses the Bayeaux Tapestry, which commemorates the story of the dastardly Normans sneakily beating the brave Saxons in 1066.

It was during my "awfully fat because I'm living in France" phase (as opposed to my current "still too fat because I'm old and slow" phase).