Sales Communication Cheat Sheet
Pre-call reference. 60-second review before any buyer interaction.
Pre-Call Checklist (30 sec)
- Outcome: What must be true at the end of this call?
- Hypothesis: What do I believe about their reality?
- Constraint: What is likely blocking them?
- Labels: What negative perceptions should I name first?
- Calibrated questions: What
what/howquestions open the constraint? - Walk-away: What signal means this is not a fit?
In-Call Rules
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Calm tone, deliberate pace, unhurried silence | Rehearse rebuttal while they speak |
| Follow new information | Force the script |
| Make refusal safe | Manufacture urgency |
| Test claims live | Rely on generic description |
Message Structure (6 Steps)
- Reality — their narrative + artifact + your model → they confirm
- Problem Hypothesis — mismatch + evidence + confirmation question
- Impact Hypothesis — quantified loss, risk, or constraint
- Mechanism — native capability / builder / Logic Pilot
- Proof — live build, demo, benchmark, or reference
- Choice — explicit, low-pressure next step
Capability Labels
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Native | Works out of the box |
| Configured | Built with the builder |
| Integrated | Needs external system |
| Roadmap | Not available; label explicitly |
Rule: If a required capability is not native, disclose before recommending. Explain interim state and delivery dependency.
Tactical Empathy Tools
| Tool | How |
|---|---|
| Label | Tentative observation of emotion / constraint + silence |
| Mirror | Repeat 1–3 critical words + curious tone + pause |
| Accusation Audit | Name likely negative judgments + invite correction |
| Summary | Facts + perspective + emotion + constraints |
Confirmed only when they say "that's right" or correct you.
"You're right" ≠ alignment. Ask for detail.
Question Bank
| Purpose | Question |
|---|---|
| Open safely | "Would it be a bad idea to examine where the current system stops matching the work?" |
| Define objective | "What are we trying to accomplish operationally?" |
| Find constraint | "What is the biggest challenge with changing this process?" |
| Reveal impact | "How does this affect production, cash, quality, or the team?" |
| Test inaction | "What happens if nothing changes?" |
| Surface stakeholders | "How do the people not in this meeting see the change?" |
| Reject infeasible demand | "How could we meet that requirement with the time and evidence currently available?" |
| Plan for failure | "If this breaks during implementation, what should happen next?" |
| Define proof | "What would you need to see to trust the result?" |
Prefer what / how. Use why sparingly and only when non-accusatory.
Bias Response (Top 5)
| Bias | Trigger | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Status quo | Change threatens continuity | Quantify inaction; stage migration; define rollback |
| Loss aversion | Fear of losing ops / data / career | Protect workflows; prove continuity before cutover |
| Ambiguity | Scope or ownership unknown | Make scope, timeline, controls, owners inspectable |
| Confirmation | Prior ERP defines expectation | Invite disconfirmation; test live; expose limits |
| Reactance | Pressure threatens autonomy | Preserve choice, approvals, and the right to say no |
Rule: Bias = need for more safety, clarity, evidence, or control. Never manipulate the trigger.
Agreement Test
A verbal "yes" is not adoption. Real agreement requires:
- Shared summary
- Explicit terms
- Implementation path
- Affected stakeholders
- Named owner
- Date
- Failure response
Verify by asking how it will be done and resolving conflicting signals.
Hard No's
- No unsupported superlatives
- No generic feature dumps
- No manufactured urgency
- No false deadlines
- No hidden tradeoffs
- No pressure on resistance
- No counterfeit agreement
- No shaming buyer responses
Product Positioning (One-Liner)
Fit without rigidity. Adaptation without consultant dependency. AI without surrendering control.
Builder is proof that customer uniqueness is modelable—not an objection.