Why did Samsung, despite making products that were even better than Apple’s, struggle to compete with Steve Jobs until his death, at least in terms of consumer affinity and loyalty? It was easy to imagine an Apple fan, but completely impossible to envision a Samsung fan.
Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the company was rapidly losing its market position. In an effort to stay afloat and somehow manage the burden of costs for software and hardware development, it tried to do what others were doing—license the production of its computers and components. But that didn’t help, and the licenses were revoked. Then Apple began using off-the-shelf hardware instead of custom-made components for its computers and adopted an operating system based on standard Unix, making it much easier to write programs for both Mac and Unix/Linux simultaneously, and even to run Mac OS on a regular PC or install Windows and Linux on a Mac.
With the release of the first Mac OS X, the issue of non-copyability became irrelevant. Attempts to stand out through device design still did not justify the high prices of computers, for which 100% functional compatibility could be achieved for less money.
This was a turning point for the company. Mac OS X, warmly welcomed by the company’s fans, was essentially a swan song for the world of Apple. Something had to be done, as the battle in the personal computer arena had been lost. Yes, there are still Mac OS and Apple computers, but they are practically compatible with the rest of the PC world, and choosing a platform is no longer a “life choice,” but rather a matter of fashion. If you don’t like Mac OS, you can always install Windows. And vice versa. Therefore, the company decided to enter new markets while there was still time.
The first player was the iPod. An unremarkable gadget that allowed users to listen to digital music. The key point is that this idea could be copied. From the outside, it might have seemed like a desperate move. However, it marked the beginning of a new success. The success of Apple, or rather, the turnaround from decline to rise, is attributed to Steve Jobs, who had just returned to the company at that time. But upon closer inspection, it turns out that Steve Jobs’ influence on technology or business was minimal. This is mentioned in his biography, and the dry information from patents shows that all the inventions implemented by Apple, if they mentioned Jobs’ name at all, did so only as a co-author. Everyone understands what it means when a leader is listed as a co-author…
Why did Apple need Steve Jobs? It’s unclear whether it was intentional or accidental, but Apple used him as a key element of its uniqueness. Everything can be copied, except for a person. The mass propaganda techniques honed in the mid-20th century were employed to create the image of a guru, a genius, a prophet. This is something that cannot be replicated. All Apple needed was to create and maintain the image of a prophet. Who would take on that role? Naturally, a legendary figure. How do you find one? Dig through the archives. There he is—the legendary founder of the company. His role was public presentations and maintaining the image. That’s it. As a result, people who bought an iPod or an Apple computer were essentially buying the confidence that they would possess technological perfection handed down to them directly from the hands of a genius and a prophet.
With all else being equal, the choice of buyers was predetermined. Therefore, it was no longer scary to start investing in innovations again: the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Air were born. Yes, ultrabooks with specifications far superior to those of the MacBook Air appeared on the market. But who would pay attention to them when it comes to prestige or confidence in quality? After all, other devices don’t carry a piece of Jobs.
Why has no one yet replicated Apple’s success? After all, a similar tactic has long been used by booksellers who create the image of a legendary fake author with a complex and intriguing biography, promoting this persona under whose name books are sold, actually written by hired writers. These books are quickly adapted into second-rate but commercially successful films. Fashion houses and, even more so, politicians use the same trick. You can write better books, create better clothing, and pour the best perfumes into designer bottles, but you can’t replicate a name.
As we can see, the idea of embedding a brand in a person is by no means new. It was just that Apple was the first to try it in the information technology market. And once again, it’s unclear whether this was intentional or accidental. Shareholders may have simply noticed a rise in sales when Steve Jobs returned to the company and supported his continued presence there. If it was done intentionally, it was at a time when the company had nothing to lose—either it would succeed or fail. By choosing a new strategy for a tech company, its owners made a smart move.
The same can be said about sales. Salespeople who copy the techniques and methods of their colleagues automatically become second-rate. They doom themselves to failure by trying to apply magical “formulas,” “tricks,” and “tactics” to their work. Brilliant and convincing techniques that motivate customers to buy become clichéd, and “sales techniques” turn into well-known and ineffective nonsense, as customers eventually develop immunity to any “technique.” The more appealing a particular tactic seems, the more actively it is used, leading customers to encounter typical behavior patterns more frequently, and the faster they reject such sales models—they feel that the product is simply being pushed on them.
The only successful tactic a seller can have is to incorporate themselves and their personality into the sales process. You are the one thing in this world that cannot be copied. And you should take advantage of that. Find those who are particularly drawn to you, those who need you specifically, and offer them yourself.
So, the slogan “sell yourself first” is indeed correct? Yes. But now it’s clear why and how it can be used. You need to first understand who needs you, and only then try to “sell yourself” to those people. After all, selling something unnecessary is not just pointless, but also harmful to the company.
A company decided to test the idea of mass recruiting sales agents. It was assumed that an army of sales agents, who would receive only commissions instead of a fixed salary, could offer a product that households need, and that sales would not require extensive advertising support. This is a tried-and-true tactic used by many companies operating on a multi-level marketing model.
As part of the project, I, as an invited consultant, wrote scripts for the phone conversations between the company’s contact center employees and potential agents. The goal of this communication was to recruit them for a job that offers no salary and no physical workplace. Moreover, the role of a salesperson is not perceived by society as requiring serious qualifications or skills. This was clearly not an attractive offer. Therefore, the scripts were designed with carefully crafted phrases and questions to filter out individuals who might be interested in these conditions right from the start. I anticipated a significant, yet manageable, number of rejections from unemployed individuals who did not have an active approach to life. We were interested in every tenth person in whom it made sense to invest time and resources for training, support, and tracking their activities.
However, just a week later, the client came back with the information that the scripts, which initially produced the expected effect, were not working at all, and people were refusing to come for interviews. From my experience, I knew that the issue was likely not with the scripts, so I arranged to visit the contact center and listen to how its employees interacted with potential agents. After just two calls, it became clear what the problem was. My expectations were confirmed: the women were communicating with clients in a very formal manner, completely devoid of emotion, automatically reciting prepared lines, and responding coldly to the questions posed by the callers.
Then I took the call script, picked up the phone, and called the first number I found. After a brief conversation with the candidate, a meeting was scheduled. The stunned contact center manager began to object, claiming that the conversation hadn’t followed the script, and therefore the meeting shouldn’t have been set. However, after analyzing the recording of the conversation, it became clear that she was mistaken. The script was followed down to the smallest details.
The difference was that, in addition to the text itself, I conveyed much more information over the phone. It is known that words convey only 7% of the information. Another 38% is received by the listener from the speaker’s tone, intonations, and accents. The rest is communicated through facial expressions, gestures, and physiological reactions. When we rely solely on words and intonations without the use of gestures, those 38% turn into 84%, and the 7% into 16%. It is possible to convey those notorious 84% over the phone, but they cannot simply be written down on paper. The intonations I added changed the essence of what was said so dramatically that witnesses of the situation refused to believe that the same script was used in the conversation.
To understand how my speech differed from that of the contact center employees, one must first grasp what people, who are potentially open to such a job offer, need. These individuals, who found themselves unemployed, were in need of attention, recognition, and love. Sales agents are often viewed as “disposable resources,” participants in an unfair deal where the employer wins, indifferent to the agent’s personality and fate. For such an employer, it is important that the agent sells a product for a certain period, but they are neither willing nor planning to provide the agent with any guarantees—such as a job, salary, or benefits.
At first, the girls in the contact center understood the intonations they were supposed to use while working with the script. For example, the question “Are you still looking for a job?” should be asked with a caring tone. However, after receiving numerous rejections (it was expected that 90% of all conversations would end this way), the employees became detached from the people they were calling. They started communicating not as individuals, but on behalf of the company. It was easier this way—rejections weren’t personal; they were directed at the company. They braced themselves for the refusals and stopped infusing their responses with the right emotions. The intonational component of such calls, those same 84% of the information, conveys: “Nothing personal, it’s just business. Today, I need to call 200 people, and the sooner we finish this conversation, the better. Yes, my call is being recorded, so I have to stick to the script. But if you hang up early, it will benefit everyone.”
What did I do? I simply added myself to the script. I added love. Those 84% were made up of the confidence that the person we were communicating with was dear to us. We cared about their fate, and we were ready to accompany and support their difficult but right choice—to work for themselves rather than for a salary. There are many successful and independent people in the world who don’t even understand what a salary is: dentists, plumbers, lawyers, tilers, plasterers, foremen, taxi drivers, electricians, consultants, writers, and movie stars. All these people work for themselves and do not suffer from the lack of regular fixed rewards from an employer—a salary. What’s even more important is that they do not suffer from the lack of attention and recognition. It was these two components that made up the 84% of the information I conveyed through my intonations while talking to people on the phone. And they believed me!
It may seem surprising, but there are many stories where calls made using scripts I wrote fail unless a lot of love is added. In most cases, when calls didn’t work for employees who had memorized the script, I was able to schedule a meeting or achieve another necessary result on the first try. This always left a lasting impression on clients. Simply adding love, a genuine belief that you are bringing good and benefit to the person, and understanding the needs of the conversation partner can increase the success rate of cold calls from 1-5% to 70%. However, there is one small caveat: you shouldn’t call without realizing how you can be of help to the recipient. Once that understanding is in place, such calls can no longer be considered “cold.”