Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Q: What do you do when, despite having a good relationship with a client, you struggle to reach agreement on such things as rate increases, staffing, etc.
A: First, make sure that you're working on the right problem. “If only the client understood me better, I'm sure we'd have a deal.” This frequently-heard lament reflects the odd notion that more explanation or talking would solve everything. Not so.
Whenever a conflict arises with a prospect or client, stop talking and evaluate the nature of the dispute. Determine whether you have a true disagreement or simply a misunderstanding. Don't rely on the Great Myth of Hidden Harmony, which is that there isn't any conflict, only poor understanding, so we all just need to understand each other better. A true disagreement is a failure to agree that would persist despite the most accurate understanding. If you try to keep explaining through a true disagreement, that's a recipe for a turnoff. Misunderstanding or disagreement? Use these key questions to help tell the difference:
A: I call this the “Sand Castle” problem, because you're trying to proceed without a sufficient foundation. You can't extend a relationship to your colleagues that you've not yet established. Sounds obvious, yet many of us try to do just that in the early stages of a sale.
Typically, such opportunities result from someone arranging the meeting with you and a buyer or key influencer. Too many lawyers immediately invite, or succumb to pressure to include, other lawyers from the firm. This is counterproductive. The prospect doesn't know you yet; he or she is meeting you only on the strength of your “guide's” blessing. Your goal for the meeting is to establish trust and credibility (and thereby affirm the wisdom of the Guide's recommendation and the buyer's decision to take the meeting). If you include a colleague, courtesy requires the buyer to split attention between you both. Two people cannot create relationships with a third simultaneously. You won't create two relationships; you'll create none.
Instead, make the first contact alone. Establish yourself and identify the business issues driving service demand. Later, introduce your colleague as a “content specialist” whose expertise will add value to the next meeting or phone conference.
A: Don't merely provide references, but use them properly to create real advantage. When potential buyers ask you for references, use the situation to gain some valuable information. Tell prospects that, naturally, you could give them the names of three people who will be more than happy to say how great your service is. But you would rather customize the request. Ask your prospects for the kinds of things they will be looking for in the service. That way, you can put them in touch with satisfied clients who have similar needs and analogous situations. The reference will be stronger, and you get the chance to uncover or clarify a prospect's needs.
Q: What do you do when, despite having a good relationship with a client, you struggle to reach agreement on such things as rate increases, staffing, etc.
A: First, make sure that you're working on the right problem. “If only the client understood me better, I'm sure we'd have a deal.” This frequently-heard lament reflects the odd notion that more explanation or talking would solve everything. Not so.
Whenever a conflict arises with a prospect or client, stop talking and evaluate the nature of the dispute. Determine whether you have a true disagreement or simply a misunderstanding. Don't rely on the Great Myth of Hidden Harmony, which is that there isn't any conflict, only poor understanding, so we all just need to understand each other better. A true disagreement is a failure to agree that would persist despite the most accurate understanding. If you try to keep explaining through a true disagreement, that's a recipe for a turnoff. Misunderstanding or disagreement? Use these key questions to help tell the difference:
A: I call this the “Sand Castle” problem, because you're trying to proceed without a sufficient foundation. You can't extend a relationship to your colleagues that you've not yet established. Sounds obvious, yet many of us try to do just that in the early stages of a sale.
Typically, such opportunities result from someone arranging the meeting with you and a buyer or key influencer. Too many lawyers immediately invite, or succumb to pressure to include, other lawyers from the firm. This is counterproductive. The prospect doesn't know you yet; he or she is meeting you only on the strength of your “guide's” blessing. Your goal for the meeting is to establish trust and credibility (and thereby affirm the wisdom of the Guide's recommendation and the buyer's decision to take the meeting). If you include a colleague, courtesy requires the buyer to split attention between you both. Two people cannot create relationships with a third simultaneously. You won't create two relationships; you'll create none.
Instead, make the first contact alone. Establish yourself and identify the business issues driving service demand. Later, introduce your colleague as a “content specialist” whose expertise will add value to the next meeting or phone conference.
A: Don't merely provide references, but use them properly to create real advantage. When potential buyers ask you for references, use the situation to gain some valuable information. Tell prospects that, naturally, you could give them the names of three people who will be more than happy to say how great your service is. But you would rather customize the request. Ask your prospects for the kinds of things they will be looking for in the service. That way, you can put them in touch with satisfied clients who have similar needs and analogous situations. The reference will be stronger, and you get the chance to uncover or clarify a prospect's needs.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.