Please Don’t Judge Me (or your customers!)

The Case for Impartiality in Both the Supreme Court and Your Sales Presentation

The appointment of a new judge to the Supreme Court of the United States is seldom a simple affair, often involving a collision of perspective between opposing political forces. Through the process of confirmation hearings, the inquisitors (Senate Judiciary Committee members) seek to validate amid other concerns, that the appointee will bring uncompromised impartiality to the decisions they render while sitting on the highest court in the land. (Trust me. If it was your case brought before the Supreme Court, the issue of impartiality would be of greatest concern to you too.)

Okay. So what does impartiality have to do with professional selling?

One of the most insidious forms of bigotry in professional selling is economic discrimination. Economic discrimination occurs when a salesperson makes an unfounded personal judgment about how much they think or feel a customer can afford, and then they alter their sales presentation to offer lower-end more moderately priced options.

When it happens (and unfortunately it happens all too often in many sales organizations), “unfounded personal judgment” forms in the mind of the salesperson before any interaction with the customer has taken place. Inappropriate opinions regarding the financial means of the customer are made by interpreting mostly visual things, like, the clothing they are wearing or the car they are driving—or at its unthinkable worst, their gender, age, or ethnicity.

Economic discrimination is widely known as prejudging a customer.

Not only is prejudging morally reprehensible, it is also an extremely costly practice for both the salesperson and the company. The salesperson who prejudges the financial capability of prospects suffers the negative results of lower overall sales averages and reduced earnings over the course of their career. From the company’s perspective, the negative impact of prejudging customers is exponentially multiplied by the number of salespeople engaging in this practice—to which the true costs in lost revenue may never be fully realized.

(Prejudging left unchecked in the organization will cause sales to be lost altogether. As customers figure out what’s going on, they walk out and seek the services of a competitor—someone who is willing to treat them in a more dignified manner. Not to mention the damage this will ultimately do to the reputation of the business!)

Prejudging a customer is not to be confused with tailoring the presentation!

There are times when changing your presentation is appropriate. There is little in common between the negative practice of prejudging a customer and “tailoring” the presentation to fit the established needs and wants of the customer. One takes place without the customer’s knowledge or input, while the other is done under their specific direction.

You ensure the highest ethical standard through top-down selling.

The only way to meet the highest ethical standard objective, and eliminate even the unconscious possibility of prejudging a customer, is to make every presentation using a “top down” selling model. Always introduce your very best products and services first, irrespective of price, to ensure that every customer is provided an impartial opportunity to make their selection. It is simply the right thing to do.

Closing argument:

Whether you have a case sitting before the nine Supreme Court Justices, or one of your customers is sitting through your next sales presentation, the value of uncompromised impartiality should be given equal weight. Wouldn’t you agree?