Art
Siegel

Learn About Selling From Court TV

In a courtroom trial, two teams compete to "close" the judge or jury on a decision that favors their point of view. Courtroom TV gives us a rare view of some of the best legal salespeople plying their trade. And there is much that we, as sales professionals, can Learn About Selling From Court TV.

Televised courtroom proceedings, especially major events like the O.J. Simpson trial, give us a view of some of the best sales people in America, using time-proven techniques to win their points. We see two highly skilled teams, each trying to sell a jury on the idea that their theory is the right one. Let's take a look at a few things that happened in the O.J. Simpson trial and what we, as sales professionals, can learn from them.

Build A Story Step By Step

Before the trial even began, we were exposed to televised coverage of the preliminary hearings. One of the early witnesses was an employee of the gun shop where O.J. purportedly purchased the mystery knife. I didn't make a transcript of the prosecution's interview with that man, but it went something like this:

Prosecution: Where were you on June 13?

 

Witness: At the place where I work.

 

Prosecution: And where do you work?

 

Witness: At the Jones gun shop.

 

Prosecution: And where is that located?

 

Witness: At 23 Maple Street in Los Angeles.

 

Prosecution: You are employed by the Jones Gun shop on 23 Maple Street, and you were there on June 13th. Is that correct?

 

Witness: Yes.

 

Prosecution: Was there anything going on in the street outside the gun shop that day?

 

Witness: Yes.

 

Prosecution: What was going on outside the gun shop that day?

 

Witness: They were shooting a movie in the street.

 

Prosecution: Did you recognize any of the actors in the movie?

 

Witness: Yes.

 

Prosecution: Whom did your recognize?

 

Witness: Mr. O.J. Simpson.

 

Prosecution: You say Mr. O. J. Simpson, the defendant, was on the street in front of the gun shop where you work, where a movie was being shot on June 13. Is that correct?

(. . . and so on and so on, etc. over the next year or so.)

The prosecuting attorney could have asked the gun store employee: "Tell us in your own words what happened on June 13 of this year." But he didn't do this for two reasons. One is that the courts of California require "foundation" for most questions. You can't ask: "What did you see?" before asking: "Did you see anything?" More importantly, if you ask witnesses to tell a story in their own words, you lose control. The witness may say something you don't want heard. And the witness may skip something that you do want heard.

What we observed time and again throughout the trial is the pattern, whether on direct examination or cross examination, of using a succession of baby step questions leading up to a payoff question. Since the goal of each attorney was to present a compelling point to the jury, they knew that simply stating the point in argument or delivering it in one quick question and answer would not be enough. Attorneys know that a statement has more impact on a jury when there is a lengthy build-up to the main point.

You've seen this same phenomenon in many of your selling situations. The prospect expresses an important need. You say: "Great. We just happen to have a product that was built precisely to fulfill that need." You expect the customer to jump out of her chair and buy on the spot, but she doesn't. What's the problem? You delivered the payoff without the build-up.

However, if you got the prospect talking about that need for a while - how it was such a big problem, and how she has searched all over for a solution - and then offered your solution, it would have far more impact. You could even precede your presentation with: "If I could show you a product that costs no more that what you are using right now, that addresses the A, B, C and D issues we just discussed, would you agree to place a trial order today?"

Never Ask A Question To Which You Do Not Know The Answer

This principle, which has been attributed to F. Lee Bailey, applies to cross examination. You know what your own witnesses will say, because you have rehearsed their testimony. Since the other side's witnesses are your adversaries, you have more limited access to knowledge about them: what you learn through discovery procedures or through skillful examination. Since these witnesses are unlikely to offer you information you want the jury to hear, you only ask them questions for which the known answers are favorable to your case.

For example, if you were cross-examining an eye witness who claims to have seen your client at the scene of the crime, you would never ask about the witness's eyesight unless you had prior knowledge that she is blind as a bat.

This principle also holds true for demonstrations. In the O.J. trial, the prosecution staged a test to prove that the bloody gloves fit the defendant. The demonstration blew up in their faces when the gloves did not fit. Rather than a positive for the prosecution, that single moment became one of the biggest negatives for their case.

Here is how you apply this principle in your selling. First, do the best job you can of research on the company. Read their annual report and every article, brochure or anything you can lay your hands on. Talk to people in levels below the decision maker to learn as much as you can about what makes the company tick. Then meet with the decision maker. Now you are prepared to ask questions for which you know the decision-maker's responses will be favorable to your planned pitch.

And if the nature of your product calls for demonstrations as a way to prove their suitability for the prospect, make absolutely sure beforehand that the demo will, in fact, make the point you are trying to deliver.

Never Antagonize Anyone

While we are on F. Lee Bailey, he taught us another important point about interviewing witnesses: Learn to be tough when you must without being nasty. Early in the trial, Bailey led the charge with many cross-examinations of police officers. And he was tough. What follows, again, is a rough recollection of part of the trial:

Bailey: How did you get to the scene of the crime?

 

Witness: I drove my police car.

 

Bailey: So, it's your testimony, Mr. Fuhrman, that you arrived on the scene by car. Is that right?

 

Witness: Yes, that's what I said.

 

Bailey: And you're sticking with that assertion. Is that correct?

 

Witness: Yes, I am.

 

Bailey: And you expect this jury to believe that you arrived by car???

 

Witness: Yes, I do.

Very quickly, everyone -- the TV viewers, the media commentators, the witnesses and the jury -- caught on that there was no point to these challenging questions by Mr. Bailey. He was just baiting the witness in the hope he would break down, Perry Mason style, and admit something. Soon afterwards, Mr. Bailey became a mere fixture at the defense table and stopped being assigned cross-examinations.

Many sales people fall into a Bailey-like stance when facing a prospect who is dug in on a position that the sales person believes to be wrong. The sales person asks challenging statements in the hope that the prospect will break down and change his mind. For these sales people, argumentative challenges don't work any better than they do with witnesses. They harden the other person's position, and they make the sales person look like a bully.

Consider, instead, the cross examination approach of most of the other attorneys. They seldom challenged trivial points; and when they felt the mood of the witness, the judge and the jury hardening, they backed down on their attack.

Dress For Success

How many of you noticed that Marsha Clarke switched to a softer hair style and bought new clothes early in the trial? Did that make her a better attorney? No. Do you think she made the changes just to look better on television? A lot of people say yes to this, but I don't think so. I think she took a look at attorneys Shapiro and Bailey, in their recently-slept-in-looking rumpled suits and realized that juries, like most of us, often judge a book by its cover.

Ms. Clarke couldn't improve on the evidence she was handed, but she could work on the quality of her presentation. I think that although, as prosecutor, she was the bad guy, she decided to alter her look to be more of a good guy to the jury. About the same time, she began to smile more and injected a little humor now and then, even when she was talking about grisly subjects.

All other things being equal (or at least close), most people would rather buy from people they feel good about. And most people feel better about sales people who are neatly dressed, but who also project human warmth. As Marsha Clarke did, check your wardrobe and hairstyle from time to time. Are you neat and professional, without appearing too stiff? Are you serious about business, but still able to smile? Can you carry on the important work of meeting the prospect's needs, and still take a few moments to relax over coffee?

It Ain't Over Till It's Over

Yogi Berra coined this popular phrase after participating in thousands of baseball games where anything could and did happen before the last out. And during the O.J. trial, we were certainly taken on a roller coaster ride of conflicting evidence. Was the glove planted? How did O.J. cut his hand? Was the DNA evidence valid or not? Was the mystery knife in the envelope? Who cares about Kato Kalin, anyway?

Even after the trial ended and the jury was deliberating, the legal pundits continued to disagree on the likely outcome. That's why a near record number of people were glued to their radios and TVs to hear the answer. At 1:00PM Eastern time, when the verdict was announced, AT&T reported at 60% drop in long distance traffic nationwide. Ratings for the TV coverage of the verdict were exceeded only by those for the first day of the Gulf War.

In most selling situations, you never know the outcome until it is over. And stories abound of deals that were closed and contracts signed, only to be reversed later. During every sale, there are times when you are sure you lost the deal, and there are times when you are sure you won it. But you may be wrong either way. The prospect's needs can change at any time, your competitor can make a misstep, or a new player may become involved in the buying process.

The deal is never over until it is 100% over. And it's never 100% over until the customer accepts delivery, and his check clears. Until that time, you need to keep on selling, and keep on reading all the signals, and keep on positioning yourself and your company as the best possible solution to your prospect's needs.

SeaBird Associates Inc
3011 NE 7th Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 561-750-9233
E-mail: Art Siegel

About Art Siegel