The Mind Of The Buyer: A Psychology Of Selling ((FREE))
Industry leaders today are focusing on a more psychological approach to boosting their sales. Read on to learn more about sales psychology and find out how you can use it to change the mindset of any buyer.
The Mind of the Buyer: A Psychology of Selling
A to-do list can be a foolproof way to tap into your subconscious, which is an important part of selling. Just think of the way that your mind knows just what to do when a customer sends signals through body language.
Recommendations from family and friends are one of the most powerful selling factors out there. This is closely tied to human psychology, in which we have an innate need to like the same things as our peers.
The key factor to bear in mind us when it comes to homes, we buy with our hearts, not our heads. We may have a list of essential requirements i.e. size, price, location etc which we will be guided by but when it comes to choosing which home to buy, our emotions take over. Here are a few insights into the psychology of home buying that can help you get into the head of your prospective buyer and ahead of the game.
Therefore, using sales psychology as a technique is not the right thing to do. Psychology selling techniques are the kinds of things that make the customer feel manipulated and give them an overall negative buying experience.
Science-based selling is as a sales technique that includes social psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics. This new approach to sales is based on tried-and-tested scientific methods to help boost your performance as a sales person in every part of the buying process.
In this book, Leonard Moore gives you the most practical tips on the process of selling and how it relies on psychology and the understanding human behavior. If you want to learn all about the psychology-based techniques to close more deals, this book is for you.
If you want to crack the code of how to increase online sales, you need to tap into the minds of your customers. Human psychology, and particularly the psychology of selling, can and should play a key role as you develop strategies to increase your sales.
The psychology of selling has changed completely in the last decade and most companies are applying different sales strategies such as: consultative sales, SPIN sales, Cross Seling, etc.
Finally, the last trick to selling your house is to take advantage of the psychology of colors. According to a survey by Zillow, bathrooms that are painted pale blue can sell for $4,700 more than those painted in other colors. Meanwhile, homes with brown walls sold for less. As for the exterior, homes painted in yellow sold for more than expected.
We need not call the shape of plaintiff's bottle unique but when plaintiff adopted it and marketed its merchandise in it in 1933 the shape was novel in the cosmetic trade and not a stock bottle of any manufacturer. It has spent large sums of money in popularizing the bottle as a vehicle for the sale of its cologne and did so even in 1933 and the evidence clearly shows that from that year on the bottle's contents were identified as the plaintiff's manufacture by the bottle which was the container. The defendant said that his firm had discussed use of its bottle in 1933 and started selling toilet water in it early in 1934. But it was unable to supply any corroborating evidence whatever a light task we think and we find as a fact that it was not until some time in 1937 that it used its present bottle. The field of defendant's operations is largely ten cent stores and chain drug stores but in the last two or three years it has been spreading to a better class of shop. It has never advertised its bottle in any trade paper. Defendant ventures no criticism of the plaintiff's witnesses' testimony of their buying habits but contents itself with criticizing their ignorance of the output of other manufacturers who use bottles with globular bases. We regard this criticism merely as a distraction and not as a successful attack on the weight of the witnesses' testimony. Defendant questioned all of the witnesses about their reactions to an exhibit which was a photograph of several of the defendant's bottles whose ordinary spherical stoppers have been supplanted by flat caps, on the long necks of which were printed by the defendant, in large letters one above the other, the names of cosmetic manufacturers who are at least as well known and possibly better known than the plaintiff. This exhibit was a composition of the defendant and makes no approach to the actual facts involved here. We regard it rather a test of vision than of marketing intelligence or psychology. Each bottle in the photograph is a combination of two contradictory marks the bottle and the imaginary name and no one could reach a reasonable conclusion about the contents of the containers in the picture. The witnesses, almost without exception, stated that they would not know what to think about such a bottle so marked and we share their confusion. But that confusion conclusively demonstrated *710 that in vending cosmetic fluids the bottle's form, where its use is well established and advertised, is the predominating, if not the single, mark of origin. We find that the plaintiff's bottle in suit has been so fixed in the minds of the patrons of the cosmetic market as the distinctive sign of plaintiff's manufacture of its content that only a sign equally distinctive and attractive might make the use of defendant's bottle in that market honest. We do not find as a fact that any sign might secure that honesty but observe that no tag could do it and since cologne bottles are used for the bedroom and not the pantry shelf, any requirement for labelling that would fit this case would make the bottle as a container of cologne unsalable. The problem was well put by the plaintiff's attorney on the trial when he said that the form of the bottle constituted ninety-five percent of the plaintiff's case.
In 1934 the president of the plaintiff acquired a design patent of the bottle it has used since and defendant argues that this deprives plaintiff of the right to complain now of the defendant's mode of competition and cites Corning Glass Works v. Pasmentier, D.C., 30 F. Supp. 477; Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S. Ct. 109, 83 L. Ed. 73; and Cohan v. Robbins Music Corp., 244 App.Div. 697, 280 N.Y.S. 571. The Cohan case involved a copyright and is irrelevant. In the other two cases the defendants had practiced the methods of expired process patents in manufacture. The form in the Kellogg case was the form of the article and associated with it, not with the manufacturer. The plaintiff here is not complaining of the defendant's making or selling a bottle but of its using a bottle in the cosmetic trade to gull the public and to injure the plaintiff. Plaintiff's bottle appears to have intrinsic value and its design gives it decorative competence as defendant suggested on the trial. The merits of the bottle may well have been an inducement to condition the buyers' minds more readily to adopt the bottles' shape as a mark of origin but there is no evidence that any purchaser was buying the bottle. A shopper may well have in mind a second use for wrapping paper and twine while a bundle is being wrapped. In Cook & Bernheimer v. Ross, supra, the design of the bottle was patented and the court paid no attention to that feature of the case.
As leaders approach the sales challenge ahead, there is a clear choice: organizations will default to the traditional, inwardly focused mindset, or they will choose to step into a more powerful model of selling. When leaders decide that their noble purpose is to improve the lives of customers, they transform their organizations. 041b061a72