『The Sales Japan Series』のカバーアート

The Sales Japan Series

The Sales Japan Series

著者： Dale Carnegie Japan
無料で聴く

The vast majority of salespeople are just pitching the features of their solutions and doing it the hard way. They are throwing mud up against the wall and hoping it will stick. Hope by the way is not much of a strategy. They do it this way because they are untrained. Even if their company won't invest in training for them, this podcast provides hundreds of episodes with information, insights and techniques all based on solid real world experience selling in Japan. Trying to work it out by yourself is possible but why take the slow and difficult route to sales success? Tap into the structure, methodologies, tips and techniques needed to be successful in sales in Japan. In addition to the podcast the best selling book Japan Sales Mastery and its Japanese translation Za Eigyo are also available as well.Copyright 2022 マネジメント マネジメント・リーダーシップ 経済学
エピソード
  • What About The Deals We Lost

    What About The Deals We Lost
    2026/09/08
    Salespeople spend enormous amounts of time thinking about the deals they won and the deals they lost to competitors. But there is another, potentially much larger category we often ignore: the buyers who didn't buy from anybody. That group should be fascinating to us. If the client didn't choose us but also didn't choose a rival, perhaps our problem wasn't the competition at all. Maybe the real competitor was doing nothing. That changes how we should think about selling. Why do so many sales opportunities end with no decision? The biggest competitor in many sales situations may not be another supplier. It may be the client's decision to do absolutely nothing. I am a big fan of American sales coach Victor Antonio and his Sales Influence Podcast. In one episode, he discussed research suggesting salespeople close around 40% of the deals they pursue. That leaves 60% which don't close. The interesting part was his breakdown of that 60%. Only around 20% of the total opportunities were reportedly lost to competitors. Another 10% stalled because the price frightened the buyer into doing nothing. That still leaves a substantial group who didn't buy from us, didn't buy from the competition and didn't stop purely because of price. So what happened? For salespeople, this is an important distinction. We tend to conduct win-loss reviews based around, "Why did they choose the competitor?" Maybe we need another question: Why did the buyer decide that changing anything wasn't worth the trouble? Do now: When reviewing lost opportunities, separate competitive losses from genuine "no decision" outcomes. They are different sales problems and require different solutions. Is a lost sale really a price problem? Price matters, but price and value are not the same thing. A buyer can afford your solution and still decide the gain isn't sufficiently attractive to justify taking action. Victor Antonio's argument was that some stalled buyers simply didn't see enough value. That makes sense. Value depends entirely on what the client considers important. The gain might involve reducing costs, increasing revenue, accelerating delivery, saving employee time, improving integration with existing systems, reducing risk or making the client's own offer more attractive to its customers. Unfortunately, salespeople often decide for themselves what the client should value. We become enormously excited about our solution's features and benefits. We explain what it can do. We show the data. We provide evidence. Meanwhile, the buyer is quietly thinking, "So what?" The question isn't whether our solution has value. The question is whether the client perceives enough value according to their own criteria to justify changing their current situation. Do now: Ask clients explicitly, "When you assess a solution like this, what would represent significant value for you?" Why do salespeople struggle to discover what clients really value? Many salespeople don't discover value because their questioning is too shallow. They collect information without uncovering what really matters to the buyer. I see this regularly when we teach salespeople from Japanese companies. When we reach the question-design portion of the training, the idea of deliberately constructing questions to uncover needs, motivations and value can be surprisingly new. The traditional approach is often to get quickly into specifications, data and product features. That is basically throwing mud against the wall and hoping something sticks. Professional sales training is still not as deeply established in Japan as it is in some other markets. A lot of development happens through OJT — On-the-Job Training. The danger is obvious: inexperienced salespeople can inherit the habits of other salespeople who were never formally taught consultative selling themselves. Even salespeople who ask questions often miss opportunities to go deeper. The buyer gives them a hint. A flag appears saying DIG HERE. They ignore it and move mechanically to their next prepared question. That is where enormous amounts of useful information disappear. Do now: When a buyer reveals an important issue, temporarily abandon your question list. Probe it with "Why is that important?" and "What impact is that having?" Can implementation effort kill an otherwise attractive sale? Yes. Buyers don't evaluate only the potential gain from a solution; they also evaluate how difficult achieving that gain will be. I have experienced this myself. I teach in the Japan Market Expansion Competition, or JMEC, a non-profit programme where teams of young businesspeople work with companies and develop business plans for them. I have also been a paying JMEC client. In our case, I received the team's finished business plan — and threw it away. Why? Not because the ideas were necessarily bad. The problem was the amount of effort required to implement the recommendations. When I compared that effort with the likely gain, the equation ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • Trust Is Everything In Sales

    Trust Is Everything In Sales
    2026/09/01
    Trust is not one element of a successful sale. Trust is the foundation supporting every other part of the sales process. A customer may like your product, appreciate your expertise and even agree that your price is reasonable. However, when they begin to doubt your reliability, judgement or integrity, the opportunity can disappear very quickly. This is particularly important when selling financial services, consulting, technology or any solution where the customer must accept uncertainty and place something valuable in the salesperson's hands. A small error can create a much larger question: "If they cannot manage this simple detail, can I trust them with the important work?" Salespeople make mistakes. The decisive issue is whether they recognise the damage, adapt their approach and deliberately rebuild the buyer's confidence. Why is trust so important in sales? Trust allows the customer to believe that the salesperson will keep promises, protect their interests and respond responsibly when something goes wrong. Without it, even a strong proposal becomes difficult to accept. Most purchases involve some degree of risk. The buyer cannot know with absolute certainty whether the product will perform, the project will finish on time or the promised support will actually appear. The salesperson therefore becomes part of the product. Their accuracy, preparation, consistency and behaviour give the buyer clues about what working with the company will be like after the contract is signed. This is especially true in professional services, financial advice and business-to-business sales. The customer may be placing money, confidential information, organisational credibility or career reputation at risk. A minor mistake does not always destroy the opportunity. However, an unexplained mistake can cause the customer to question everything else the salesperson says. Do now: Treat every meeting detail, follow-up promise and factual claim as evidence the buyer will use to judge your overall reliability. How can a small sales mistake damage credibility? A seemingly minor error can damage credibility when it contradicts the image of competence and attention to detail that the salesperson is trying to create. Imagine inviting a potential client to your office and then sending them the wrong building address. The client arrives, discovers that your company is not located there and must search for the correct location. The practical inconvenience may only involve ten or fifteen minutes. The psychological damage can be much larger. If the conversation involves investing the client's money, managing a critical project or advising senior management, the customer may reasonably wonder whether the same carelessness could affect something more significant. This is how buyers think. They rarely judge an error in isolation. They use the visible mistake to predict future behaviour. A salesperson may think, "It was only a typo." The buyer may think, "What else will they get wrong?" Do now: When an error conflicts with the competence you are selling, address the larger concern—not merely the inconvenience it caused. Is an apology enough to restore trust? An apology is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient when the mistake has caused the customer to question the salesperson's competence or judgement. Saying "I'm sorry" acknowledges the problem. It does not explain why it happened, whether it reflects a wider pattern or why the customer should continue believing in you. The salesperson must close that credibility gap. A useful recovery contains four elements: A clear acknowledgement of the errorA credible explanation without making excusesEvidence that the problem is unusual rather than normalA practical reason the customer can still trust the salesperson and the company The explanation should be concise and authentic. A long, defensive speech can make the situation worse. However, trying to brush past the incident and continue with the standard presentation can leave the customer mentally stuck on the unresolved doubt. The buyer needs help making sense of the mistake before they can properly listen to the rest of the proposal. Do now: Apologise, explain, reassure and provide evidence. Do not expect the word "sorry" to perform all four jobs. How should a salesperson rebuild trust during the meeting? After a credibility-damaging mistake, the salesperson should adapt the meeting and deliberately front-load evidence of reliability, experience and organisational strength. This is not the moment to deliver the same canned sales presentation used in every other meeting. The salesperson should briefly explain the mistake and then transition into the strongest reasons the customer should trust the company. These might include its history, regulatory standing, client base, specialised expertise, service standards, financial stability or documented results. A corporate brochure should not simply be handed over at the end with the suggestion ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • The Japanese Business Glass Permanently Half-Empty

    The Japanese Business Glass Permanently Half-Empty
    2026/08/25
    Japanese companies are often described as slow, conservative or resistant to change. That description misses the deeper point. In many Japanese business settings, the central question is not, "How exciting is this opportunity?" It is, "What could go wrong, and what will happen to us if it does?" This risk-sensitive mindset can frustrate overseas companies accustomed to selling through enthusiasm, innovation and ambitious promises. Yet once you understand how Japanese buyers assess reliability, reputation and organisational exposure, their caution becomes much easier to navigate. The lesson is straightforward: in Japan, reducing perceived risk is often more persuasive than promoting potential upside. Why are Australian and Japanese business attitudes so different? Australian business culture traditionally rewards optimism, improvisation and a belief that problems can be solved as they arise. Japanese corporate culture generally places greater emphasis on caution, preparation and avoiding preventable failure. Australia's early European settlers operated across an enormous continent with limited infrastructure and long supply lines. When equipment broke, a replacement might take months to arrive from Britain. People had to repair, adapt or invent something locally. Over time, this helped reinforce the Australian "can-do" attitude. Japan also developed amid earthquakes, typhoons, floods, landslides, volcanic activity and fires. However, Japan's response was often to value preparedness, durability and collective stability. In a densely populated society, one failure can affect customers, suppliers, colleagues and the organisation's reputation. These are broad cultural tendencies rather than rules applying to every individual. Nevertheless, they help explain why an enthusiastic Australian seller and a cautious Japanese buyer can view the same proposal very differently. Do now: Do not assume that your customer shares your excitement. First determine what risks, disruptions and internal consequences they are considering. Why do Japanese buyers appear pessimistic about new proposals? Japanese buyers are not necessarily pessimistic; they are frequently conducting a more defensive assessment of the proposal than overseas sellers expect. An optimistic salesperson may concentrate on revenue growth, innovation, speed and competitive advantage. The Japanese buyer may simultaneously be thinking about implementation failures, customer complaints, operational disruption, internal criticism and damage to the company's reputation. This is why a presentation filled with superlatives may have limited impact. Claims such as "revolutionary", "game-changing" or "market-leading" do not remove the buyer's exposure. In some cases, aggressive enthusiasm can increase suspicion because it appears that the seller is concentrating on the upside while avoiding difficult questions. Japanese executives often need enough evidence to explain and defend a decision internally. They may need to satisfy procurement, legal, compliance, information technology, finance, operational teams and senior management before proceeding. Do now: Balance every benefit claim with evidence, safeguards, implementation details and a credible response plan for foreseeable problems. Why is Japan difficult for minimum viable products? Japan can be a challenging market for a minimum viable product because many corporate customers expect a solution to be highly reliable before they adopt it. The startup concept of launching an early version, collecting feedback and repairing problems through repeated iterations is accepted in many technology ecosystems. In Japanese business-to-business markets, however, customers may view an unfinished product as an unnecessary operational risk. Early adopters exist in Japan, particularly in technology, digital services and innovation-focused divisions. Nevertheless, the number of corporate buyers prepared to expose their organisations to an unproven supplier can be relatively small. The seller may say, "Help us improve the product." The buyer may hear, "Accept the risk of our product failing inside your organisation." That is not an attractive offer when the buyer's own customers, employees or reputation could be affected. A successful pilot therefore needs clear boundaries, strong support and measurable success criteria. It cannot simply be an experiment conducted at the customer's expense. Do now: Present a pilot as a controlled proof of reliability, with limited exposure, defined responsibilities, rapid support and agreed evaluation measures. Why do Japanese companies avoid being the first customer? Many Japanese organisations prefer to see evidence that a product has already worked successfully for comparable customers before adopting it themselves. Becoming the first customer can create personal and organisational exposure. When an innovation succeeds, the decision-maker may receive some recognition. When it fails, the same...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません