Friday, September 11, 2009

A Response to Mike Dillard - "Which Company Is Better"

Re: A Response to Mike Dillard - "Which Company Is Better"
by Judith Sherman on Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:14 am

I understand Mike Dillard's point that having less products to choose from makes it easier to make a sale. I agree, but I also disagree and here's why.

I will use my experience in Marketing Amway Products many years ago, to show how I sold a variety of products that people wanted by asking them to replace what they were already using with our products.

I left a sample kit with the customer to try and then went back later to pick it up. By doing it this way, I took the pressure off from selling them on a product they didn't know or trust and allowed them to see the concentration power and quality of the product.

My point is that, although Amway has a huge product line, I presented the customer with limited products to choose from. Plus, the customer didn't feel pressured to buy and I didn't feel pressured to make a sale because the product sold itself.

Two or three days later (no more than that), when I picked up the kit, we discussed the customer's experience. If they were positive, I asked when they would be running out of their product and then asked for the sale; which I almost always got. I did very well using this method of service. So yes, I do agree with David in this situation.

Now why do I agree with Mike Dillard? I learned that, if people have too many choices and can't make a decision, they will shut down and not make any purchase. Therefore, the more products you have the more likely it is that people will become confused like Mike Dillard said.

A way around the scenario that Mike Dillard talks about is to not bombard people with a lot of products at once; this includes leaving a product catalog with them on the first visit. For example, going back to my Amway days, leaving a kit with just a few samples in it allows people to try only a few products at a time. If they liked the products, then I usually got an order. If they didn't, which sometimes happened, then I would leave a different kit with them to try. I had six kits: one was laundry products, one was cleaning products, one was car care products, one was personal care products with shampoo and such, and one was skin care products.

My experience shows that breaking down a customer's exposure to a limited amount of products at a time makes it easier for them to purchase something from us. This practice worked very well for me and my downline and helped us have a booming business.

However, I did make a huge mistake; making Mike Dillard's point even more valid. I started selling Avon products after I became less active with Amway and had moved to another state. When I tried to integrate some targeted Amway products with Avon products, I lost customers.

So why did I lose customers? Isn't it better to offer my Avon customers a wider range of products by introducing products they need that Avon did not provide them? I think part of the answer is what Mike Dillard is pointing to, that people get confused and don't understand why we throw so many products in front of them. They don't understand the differences from one product to another and so they shut down.

One more point that I want to address now is what Dave Green said; that of risking your one or two product line business, which Mike Dillard suggested you have, of being shut down for something adverse going on in the market or with government regulations. This is a valid concern, obviously, and should be included in your plans for doing business.

I have personal knowledge that Tom and Don Ashlock had an energy business turn bad when government changed some of the regulations for energy. After they recovered from that situation and refocused, they had a hostile take over (at gun-point) of their company by share holders. That is why they joined a Network Marketing Business. Tom Ashlock went from having a very successful $7 million dollar business to washing windows when they lost their energy business.

I hope I've given you plenty to think about, so you understand the reasoning behind both Mike Dillard and Dave Green's perspective. I would love to hear from you on this subject.

Judith Sherman

1 comment:

Wealth Tips said...

So while fairness is an ideal I'll always strive for within myself, I choose to let go of the unproductive expectation of fairness from others, or from the broader Universe. Because that letting go has allowed me to wipe away a lot of tears.