Note:  In honor of our nation’s birthday, and given how in tough times it can be helpful to remember what it is that unites us, this piece breaks the 4-minute rule. 

 

 

The list of How-To sales books is long and distinguished.  Most of them are highly salesperson-oriented.  They’ll of course go into understanding audience profile as part of the process, but few B2B resources make the prospect itself the crux of the content.

 

The Challenger Customer is one.  Released in 2015 as a follow-up to the well-received The Challenger Sale, Customer explores the dynamics of the prospect’s buying process and how to confront the prevailing internal mindset as a means to winning consensus.  This is something I’ve used when helping clients position themselves to answer the question their prospects should be asking.

 

I’m referring here to “commercial insight.”  If this is a fancy new buzzterm for you, then suffice it to say that commercial insight is designed to fundamentally change a prospect’s perception of its situation or problem.  It’s the closest thing in the business world to channeling your inner Yoda—sort of a you must unlearn what you have learned type thing.  Applying commercial insight to the sales process is meant to answer one question:  “What do our customers fail to fully understand about their business, but should?”

 

According to the Challenger team, commercial insight is the “only kind of teaching…that can impact customer buying behavior across all three stages of [the] buying process irrespective of where it’s deployed” (those stages being problem definition, solution identification, and supplier selection).  If you can use this to blow the minds of your prospect’s mobilizers, you’ve tipped the domino.  They’ll then be able to use their energy and influence to help you change the organization’s collective thinking.

 

This covers a lot of ground as you might imagine, and the authors do a good job of connecting the dots throughout the book.  For me, though, there are four practices in particular that stand out when it comes to articulating your commercial insight.

 

• Break down the “A” before building up the “B.” You’re more likely to change buying habits by poking pain points in their existing behavior (A) before pressing the benefits of their desired new behavior (B).  In other words, they may agree that B’s better, but they’re not dumping A unless they’re convinced it’s unsustainable.
• Identify the cost of inaction. Part of this A-to-B sequence is establishing how doing nothing is worse than doing something.  Sure, with change comes risk, but the risk to your business from your present course is far larger (and more likely).
• Offer a vision of the solution. As part of the “frame breaking” process, paint a picture of how great things will be once they change behaviors.  Just be careful not to sell your wares too soon.  They need to agree on the right solution before agreeing that you’re the right one to provide it.
• Use clear, straightforward language. Nothing groundbreaking here whatsoever (hopefully).  But, the greater or more counter-intuitive the commercial insight, the more important this becomes since you’ll need to back up your big claims.  Long or short, your pitch must communicate your message simply yet sufficiently.

 

And now for the practical portion of today’s show.  Rather than reel off a bunch of case studies—plenty of which are in The Challenger Customer—I think I’ll tap the ole history degree once again for some Fourth of July-inspired context around these ideas.

 

Let’s begin.

 

Most Americans would consider the Declaration of Independence to be the game-changing memo coming out of 1776.  And they’d be right, but it’d be closer than you may think.  Before Thomas Jefferson and crew proudly penned our first official act of treason, Thomas Paine published Common Sense.  To say that the 49-pager was an instant hit would be the all-time understatement of American literature.  Believe it or not, Common Sense still reigns as our country’s best-selling book per capita.

 

The enormously influential work struck just the right chord with colonists who by then had been exchanging blows with England for eight months.  Just how influential?  Jefferson’s aforementioned masterpiece borrowed from it heavily for not only its key arguments, but also, apparently, for its title:

“Many strong and striking reasons may be given to show that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence.”

 

Paine’s appeal to the populace for unmitigated separation from the British Crown was a tall order.  Even with Redcoats literally beating down their doors, many were willing to settle for reconciliation.  Only through his expert use of proto-commercial-insight tactics was Paine able to usher the better part of a continent toward his line of thinking and take action.

 

Time to take a look at a master challenger salesman at work.

 

Break Down the A Before Building Up the B

To change the way people act, you must first change the way they think.  Paine does this right out of the gates and doesn’t let up for the first two-thirds of his entire piece.

 

“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.”

This would be page one line one, which roughly translates to “Y’all wrong.”  Paine wastes no time in pointing out a key flaw in the American mindset.  This requires reassessing perceptions of not only their current state of government, but the idea of government in general.  Such a no-holds-barred intro establishes the tone for his setting the record straight.

 

“A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.”

Paine’s amusing summary of England’s modern beginnings stems from his cynical take on the need for government in the first place.  In a perfect world, we’d all be watching each other’s backs.  Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world, which requires “establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.”  Paine points to William the Conqueror’s reign as the perfect example.  To him, this was nothing more than a response to the chaos of the Dark Ages, a shady start to a system of order that’s since become antiquated.

 

“There is [a] great distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the distinction of men into kings and subjects.”

“This is how it’s always been done” doesn’t fly with Paine.  Since the broken logic of royal sovereignty hadn’t ever really occurred to many Americans, he exhausts all arguments to make it painfully obvious.

 

“Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils which when once established is not easily removed.”

Similar to his previous point, Paine takes on the inanity of hereditary succession.  If you had no inherent right as king to begin with, then that’s certainly not a right one can inherit!  Such an approach is just as likely to end with fools, crooks, and kids on the throne than it is a worthy leader.  Moreover, says Paine, if the first king were chosen back in the day because of his leadership quality, then that is the precedent, not line of succession.  Man’s got a point.

 

“An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice.”

For those who didn’t realize he was deliberately breaking down their proverbial “A” after his very first sentence, this clears up any confusion.  Paine clearly tells readers to drop their preconceptions if they want any shot at understanding why their situation’s lousy.  Having just torn down the very idea of the monarchy, he sets his sights on its everyday shortcomings to bring this painful reality a little closer to home.

 

“The will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament.  For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle—not more just.”

Paine’s smart.  He knows he won’t get anywhere if he just goes off on the Stamp Act, taxation without representation, and all the other grievances everyone’s fed up with.  For one thing, people are already aware of them, so not exactly thought-leadership material.  For another, there are a lot of people out there just looking for a little breathing room from the Crown.  You know, stop goofing around with taxes and everything will be all right.

 

So, Paine instead recasts the issue entirely.  Those are all just symptoms of the “natural disease of monarchy.”  Even if you have your way today, tomorrow the king will do whatever he wants again under the guise of policy-making through England’s puppet Republic.  His knock on British checks and balances is particularly droll in this regard, in essence calling it a bunch of hot air since the king always has the last word (“A mere absurdity!”).

 

Put another way, fellow colonists, “Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for.”

 

Identify the Cost of Inaction

At this point, Paine has made quite an impression.  He’s got people thinking.  Now that they’re reorienting around the real root of the problem, it’s time to explain in no uncertain terms what’ll happen if they choose to blow it off.

 

“Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain…still hoping for the best…Your future connection with Britain…will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first.”

Pretty self-explanatory.  Let this go, and it’ll come back and bite you even harder.  Need proof?  “To say they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year or two undeceived us.”  The king can’t be trusted since monarchy goes hand in hand with authoritarianism, and we’ve known that from the very beginning.  After all, “the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”

 

“The corrupt influence of the Crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons…When Republican virtues fail, slavery ensues.”

This goes back to the illusion of a working government.  Parliament’s a front, and therefore what’s claimed to be a Republic is so in name only.  To continue under the king’s thumb would be, not to put too fine a point on it, “slavery” according to Paine.  With a system set up against you, make all the noise you want but don’t expect anything to change.

 

“He may accomplish by craft and subtility, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one.  Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.”

Paine continues to emphasize indefinite misery (using a measured dose of caps lock, by the way).  Bleak is his picture about the “material injuries which these Colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with and dependent on Great Britain.”  He also keeps his foot on the gas regarding worthless pushback, which at this point has gotten ridiculous.  Petitions don’t work, they only make George III more obstinate, and dialog about each one back and forth across the Atlantic wastes years at a time.  It’s more or less a precursor to Einstein’s definition of insanity.

 

“France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.”

This speaks directly to merchants, soldiers, and politicians.  If status quo wins out, then we’ll be continually pulled into conflicts that have nothing to do with our interests yet harm us in various ways.  Plus, if we don’t declare independence, we’ll never be aided by those countries because they’ll see us as mere rebels engaged in an internal conflict that would lead to war with their nation if they stepped in.  Simply put, we’re up a creek internationally.

 

“The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished.  No nation ought to be without a debt.  A national debt is a national bond.”

To his credit—and the satisfaction of the Challenger team, I’m sure—he compares the literal costs of action with those of inaction.  The guy did his research and prepared well, bringing some hard data to the table.  Yes, independence would bring on debt and should bring on debt as “a glorious memento of our virtue.”  But, many more millions would be paid and lost to the Crown than would be gained by our own commerce.  Amazing what a little cost analysis can do to get people’s attention.

 

“As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity:  And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully.”

Hey, if facts and numbers don’t do the trick, go for the heart strings.  Fine, don’t do anything now, and guess who pays the price of tyranny—our kids.  Knowing this, we all have a duty to act on it rather than “leaving the sword to our children.”  Well played, Thomas.

 

Offer a Vision of the Solution

Paine certainly pounds the nail when it comes to the consequences of acquiescence.  This begs the natural follow-up question, “If good enough isn’t good enough, then what is?”  As any salesman worth his salt would, he anticipates and preempts it.

 

“Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America.  This new World hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.”

Such a truth would have been all too easy to forget in a colonial setting run by the British empire.  Paine’s recall of the past deliberately invokes an ideal for the future.  America is a wide river fed by many tributaries, which is something we should celebrate and take advantage of.  We have to think big because doing otherwise would be “selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.”

 

“What have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.”

This takes his previous point a step further.  He dispels the Loyalist notion of unification with the mother country as maintaining our combined strength against other nations.  To paraphrase Paine, why can’t we all just get along?  Not only do we owe it to ourselves to honor our motley origins, but it’s in everyone’s best interest to cooperate here.  “Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it.”

 

“In almost every article of defence we abound…Our knowledge hourly is improving.  Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us.  Wherefore, what is it that we want?”

Guys, we can do this.  Everything we need to survive and flourish we already have in terms of resources and ability.  Paine realizes confidence in taking the leap is often what holds people back.  His inspiring inventory reassures the fence sitters and reinvigorates the idea of American possibility.

 

“In America the law is King.  For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

For those who fear trading one tyrant for another, Paine has an answer.  Our society would be based on an agreed-upon rule of law, not the whims of one man.  If this idea were a little murky for people, he expands on it with the next one.

 

“Frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.”

Helping to ensure that “the law is King” would be a basic system of elections in which leaders from the people are elected by the people and later return to the people.  Sound familiar?  Well, it didn’t then.  In that time and place, not to get cute with puns, this concept was revolutionary.  It opened people’s eyes to another option, even if it were untested.

 

“I only presume to offer hints, not plans.”

Paine spends the majority of his pamphlet reframing the American mindset toward king-subject rule (A) in favor of a far better life through self-governance (B).  He sells in ideas backed by real-life examples, logic, and objective figures.  Importantly, his approach is solution-agnostic rather than steering people toward his own theories of exactly how a country should be run.  His first goal is to get readers to agree that independence is the only course of action and ask how to achieve it.  Only then does he offer his opinion on concrete steps as the culmination of that journey.

 

That’s commercial insight in action.

 

Use Clear, Straightforward Language

Just as important as what Paine says is how he says it.  Put aside the obvious fact that we no longer write, speak, or otherwise string together any sort of coherent thought using this old-fashioned language.  The fact is, Common Sense was written for the common man.  Dripping with allusion, analogy, and sarcasm, it was conversational copywriting before conversational copywriting became a thing.

 

“In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest.”

Basic is beautiful.  An isolated little village representing the seeds of society and government—anyone can envision that.  There’s no inscrutable Latin, ruminations on Greek philosophy, or other pretentious blah you find in other “learned” works of the day.  Then or now, if you want to communicate complex ideas, simple imagery goes a long way.

 

“The exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be…defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by Kings.”

As horrifyingly taboo as religious references would be in political discourse today (*gasp*), this was perfectly PC at the time.  Look no further than “In God We Trust” to remember that the foundation of America going all the way back to Plymouth Rock emerged from Christian principles (right, wrong, or otherwise).  Paine’s audience is intimately familiar with the Bible, and he knows this.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent pages referencing it or used barbs like “Pharaoh of England” to potshot his royal highness.

 

“Though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.”

Paine is unashamedly bold, openly challenging detractors and Loyalists to prove him wrong.  What better way to land an important point than by clever metaphor?  He caps off his point about the myth of the English constitution with rapier wit.  Catchy and relatable is always a solid one-two combo.

 

“As few or no records were extant in those days, the traditionary history stuff’d with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale conveniently timed…to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar.”

And his brashness continues.  Paine’s rant on line of succession is LOL-worthy for contemporary readers.  His kicker about next-of-kin nepotism resulting from blind acceptance to someone’s imagination is nothing short of a blatant indictment of the monarchy.  It’s also just great stuff.

 

“To say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.”

Paine constructs a rational argument for each of his points.  In this case, he opposes the idea of reconciliation being the duty of colonists on the basis of pure hypocrisy.  Do you have any plans to submit to France as your “rightful” ruler?  Then we have none to submit to you.  As such, “If they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.”

 

“In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature.” 

Paine’s used imagery, religion, and logic to support his case.  Now he lobs another grenade at English authority based on simple science.  Why should a continent be subject to an island?  “A government of our own is our natural right.”  Makes (common) sense to me.

 

“The present time…never happens to a nation but once…, the time of forming itself into a government.  Most nations…have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves…let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity—to begin government at the right end.”

Perhaps most poignant of all is Paine’s clear explanation of the underlying value prop:  to create a nation on our own terms.  This opportunity may never present itself again.  His sense of urgency is key, urging readers to decide right then and there at the height of their emotions whether they’re in or out.  That’s quite the power move.

 

 

Common Sense is a sales pitch, plain and simple.  It’s one of the most powerful examples of persuasion certainly in our short history.  One can argue this even extends to global history considering the impact those who took it to heart had on the last 250 years.

 

Paine influenced the mass mindset by upending the idea of what government should be, detailing the risk of inaction, laying out a vision for greener pastures, and doing it all in ways that resonated with politicians and plowmen alike.  He opened the door for the mobilizers of his time—from guerillas like the Sons of Liberty to formal unions like the Continental Congress—to overcome the inertia holding America back.  Seven months later the Declaration was signed.  Seven years later the Revolution was over.

 

The rest, as they say, is history.

 

 

As someone who once briefly called London home, I enjoy the banter that comes along with this topic whenever it involves my English mates.  Ironically, one of my fondest 4^ths took place on the Thames.  If you want to hear about what it’s like to celebrate your country’s independence at the scene of the crime, or talk actual business, I’ll be around.