Counterpoint: deals are supposed to create surplus value. For example, if a house is worth $2M to the owner and $3M to the buyer, a sale at $2.5M creates $500K value for the seller and $500K for the buyer. Now, obviously, the harder a deal is to make, the less surplus value it creates. If the salesman is very persuasive, the net value created can even be negative, as I suppose is often the case with door-to-door sales. Is this really a skill to be desired? I like Henry Ford's view much more: "For something people want, if the price is right, there's always a customer."
yeah. I guess I would extend this to all advertising that goes beyond making me aware a product is available. If I know about it, and I need it and can afford it, I'll buy it. If you have to browbeat or manipulate me into buying it, you've created negative value. first it wasn't a good deal for me (or else I would have bought it without the browbeating) and add to that the cost of browbeating or manipulating me.
But then, most people seem to prefer to buy from salesmen, even when buying technical products that the salesmen often don't fully understand. After getting the facts about various products, most companies I've worked for then invite salespeople to pitch (salespeople who are often not technically qualified to even discuss the product) and then make decisions based on how good the salespeople were. This seems irrational to me, but it also seems to be how most businesses work, so maybe I'm wrong.
Well in (large) corporations buying things is a little tricky. Needing the product is not the only requirement. You also need to often convince others that the product is necessary and also cover your ass in the event that things don't turn out well. This usually means having to buy expensive products from big companies with talented salespeople.
yeah, but none of that conflicts with my 'sales subtracts value' theory, it just explains that people working at large corporations are more concerned with what decision looks right than what decision is right.
That aside, I've seen the same thing happen at small companies that just had a lot of money. In one example, the guy making the decision was as technical as I am, and owned a good chunk of the company. I wanted a cheaper homegrown solution. "Dude, that's your Porsche" I said.
I can understand why he went for the expensive solution instead (I was pretty young at the time, and prone to rash decisions and mistakes, and so was the rest of the technical team. The expensive product was expensive, but it worked.) Still, I felt he went with the vendor who looked good over the vendor that actually came out ahead in all our tests (and was cheaper, too... partially because they didn't take us out to lunch at fancy restaurants.)
I never knew that the PriceGrabber.com guy was a hustler. If he raised raised no venture capital (only financing from friends/family) and sold the company for $485 million, I need to become one.
