The competitor that never sends a proposal
A sale can disappear without another seller winning it. Charlotte Lloyd, a B2B sales strategist who describes 23 years in B2B selling and five years running her own business, sees a less visible rival: the buyer's willingness to stay exactly where they are. Her work with founders and B2B teams makes that distinction practical, not theoretical.
The buyer can understand the offer, acknowledge its potential value, and still decline to change anything. The seller has demonstrated an attractive future. The buyer has not accepted that the present requires intervention.
That is the gap Lloyd examines with Chris Do. Their conversation moves from a broken garage opener to a sales-training role-play built around underfilled retreats, then into a revealing disagreement about when a seller should stop asking questions.
The central issue is not how to make a pitch more persuasive. It is how to establish whether a decision deserves to happen at all.
The cost of inaction must be discovered, not manufactured. Lloyd uses cost of inaction, or COI, to describe the consequences of leaving a problem unresolved. The point is to make those consequences visible alongside the proposed investment, rather than treating the seller's fee as the only cost under consideration.
Return on investment still matters. Lloyd does not reject it. She rejects the assumption that an appealing return, presented before the buyer's situation is understood, will automatically produce commitment.
A seller can promise more revenue while missing the reason a buyer remains unmoved. The buyer does not necessarily want the operational changes required to pursue it. Or the problem simply does not rank high enough to justify attention now.
Those are different situations, and neither becomes clearer through a louder pitch.
Lloyd's approach starts by separating several judgments that sellers often compress into one:
- Whether a problem exists.
- Whether its consequences are substantial enough to address.
- Whether the buyer wants to address it now.
- Whether the proposed service fits the work required.
Acknowledging the first does not settle the others. Someone can recognize an inconvenience and rationally choose to live with it. A founder can want additional revenue without wanting to build a sales process.
This is where the conversation becomes more demanding than a conventional argument for urgency. Lloyd asks sellers to investigate resistance rather than immediately overcome it. The task is to understand the buyer's position well enough that walking away remains a legitimate outcome.
That requires a different relationship to the deal. A seller who needs the agreement too badly has an incentive to interpret every answer as progress. Lloyd instead looks for reasons the engagement will fail before money changes hands.
The discipline is uncomfortable because it challenges the seller's preferred story. Interest is not proof of need. Need is not proof of priority. Priority is not proof that this particular service will solve the problem.
Her argument becomes credible only when it survives a case where the cost of doing nothing is not especially compelling. Do supplies precisely that case, from his own garage.
The broken chain and the honest diagnosis
On his way to the conversation, Do notices that his garage has not fully closed. The chain on the opener broke months earlier. A repair person quoted a price he considered unreasonable, so the repair never happened.
He can lift the door manually. The inconvenience has not become important enough to pay to remove.
Lloyd initially interprets the situation as a missed opportunity to explain future damage. The repair person sold the fix, she suggests, without establishing what leaving the problem alone would cost. She turns to a leaking roof as a clearer illustration of deterioration.
In that hypothetical, a homeowner sees a manageable leak and postpones a repair. A roofer takes the homeowner into the loft, shows the softened timber, and explains the consequences of allowing the damage to continue.
The numbers Lloyd uses are illustrative: a $2,000 repair now versus a potential $6,000 or $8,000 repair later. They are not estimates for Do's garage, nor evidence that every delayed repair becomes more expensive.
The distinction matters because Do challenges the transfer. His garage does not automatically contain a credible escalating loss. If the owner is comfortable with the limitation, the repair person has no obligation to close the sale.
“You can't force somebody to make a decision,” Lloyd agrees.
This is the ethical boundary of the entire method. A genuine consequence can help someone make a better decision. An invented consequence simply gives pressure a financial vocabulary.
Lloyd states the boundary more sharply through the roof analogy: “A good roofer shows you the damp joist.” Then the contrast: “A bad one invents one.”
The roofer's authority comes from evidence. Not the size of the warning. Not the confidence of the presentation. The homeowner can inspect the condition that supports the recommendation.
For a service business, the equivalent is a problem the client recognizes and a consequence the client accepts. That puts diagnosis ahead of prescription, a related subject in The Futur's Can You Charge To Diagnose?.
The consultation must leave room for an answer the seller dislikes. The problem is tolerable. The timing is wrong. The expense of changing exceeds the value of fixing it.
In larger organizations, Lloyd adds, the cost of inaction can differ among decision makers. Agreement that a problem exists does not guarantee agreement about its significance. A seller needs to discover those differences instead of treating the organization as one uniform buyer.
That does not mean searching endlessly for friction. It means testing whether the proposed urgency belongs to the client or only to the person selling.
The garage and roof illustrate opposite outcomes of the same discipline. One supports further investigation into accumulating damage. The other supports accepting that the owner has made a reasonable trade-off.
Both can be successful diagnoses.
If the only acceptable conclusion is a purchase, the conversation was never truly diagnostic. It was a pitch waiting for enough supporting material to sound consultative.
Four empty seats change the conversation
The argument becomes more concrete when Do takes the buyer's role in a sales-training exercise. He supplies an actual business concern: Casa Dojo, a two-day retreat priced at $5,000 per person and capped at ten participants.
The event runs monthly. People respond to calls to action and complete applications, but not enough of them put down deposits. Interest exists. Payment does not reliably follow.
Lloyd's initial assumption is that the business has depended on referrals and networking rather than generating its own pipeline. Do corrects her. The business publishes content, runs advertising, and has an email list exceeding 100,000 people.
That correction is a useful part of the exercise. Discovery has to change the seller's understanding, not merely confirm the opening hypothesis.
The issue is not an absence of marketing activity. It is the distance between expressed interest and an actual purchase. Lloyd redirects the discussion toward individual sales conversations and the people who have already shown intent.
Interest is not the same as paid demand. Applications give the business someone to speak with. They do not establish that every applicant will buy, or that filling every available seat is guaranteed.
Do initially describes an event with four participants. Against a ten-person capacity, that leaves six seats, or $30,000 in potential revenue. He then gives a more useful baseline: twelve participants across the first two events, averaging six per retreat.
That makes the average gap four seats, or $20,000 per month.
- A full retreat represents $50,000 in revenue.
- Six participants represent $30,000 in revenue.
- Four unfilled seats represent a $20,000 gap against capacity.
- An unchanged monthly gap would total $240,000 across twelve months.
The arithmetic gives the discussion scale. It does not prove that a salesperson can recover the entire gap. Nor does it convert potential revenue into lost profit.
The annual figure is an extrapolation from the scenario, not a forecast supported by a full year of results. That limitation should remain visible even when the number becomes useful in a sales conversation.
Lloyd asks why fixing the problem matters now. Do's answer is straightforward: the retreats happen every month. Waiting does not postpone a single isolated opportunity. It leaves the same conversion problem in place for the next event.
Now timing has a business basis. No artificial deadline is required.
She also asks what success would look like beyond filling the remaining seats. Do wants someone to close the sale so he can concentrate on programming the experience.
The desired outcome therefore has two parts: revenue and attention. A working sales process would help the event fill while allowing its creator to focus on the work only he needs to do.
This is the business transition suggested by the title of The Futur's related conversation, Moving from Makers to Entrepreneurs. Here, the operational question is specific: who guides interested applicants from consideration to payment?
Lloyd is no longer selling sales training as an abstract improvement. She is responding to an identifiable gap in a functioning business.
The distinction changes the price conversation before a price has even been named. The buyer now has a concrete problem against which to evaluate a proposed intervention.
The offer becomes smaller, not cheaper
Lloyd recommends training someone already inside the business before hiring an external salesperson. Her proposed approach begins with people whose contact information the business already has, particularly applicants who did not complete a purchase.
The purpose is not simply to send more reminders. It is to invite a conversation, understand what prevented the purchase, and create a repeatable way to help suitable buyers decide.
She also raises the possibility of outreach to people not currently entering through the marketing channels. That is an additional opportunity, not the same problem as converting existing applicants. Keeping those two jobs distinct matters when deciding how much work the engagement should include.
The proposed price is $3,000 per month for six months, an $18,000 commitment. Against a stated monthly revenue gap of $20,000, Do finds the economics attractive.
But attractive economics do not settle his concern.
He asks what assurance Lloyd can provide that the system will work. He has dealt with service providers who promise results and fail to deliver. His hesitation is not evidence that he misunderstands the value of four additional sales.
He doubts the reliability of the proposed route to them.
Lloyd initially declines to guarantee an outcome because implementation depends on the person being trained. The team member must be willing and able to do the work. Do proposes an assessment before proceeding, giving Lloyd a chance to judge the person responsible.
That exchange separates the conditions for success from the promise of success. A training offer cannot be evaluated independently of the trainee's commitment.
Then Lloyd adjusts the engagement. Rather than insisting on six months, she proposes a shorter period, ultimately reducing the starting commitment to one month.
Reduce the commitment before reducing the price. The monthly fee remains $3,000. What changes is the amount of uncertainty Do must accept before seeing whether the relationship produces a result.
The original offer asks him to commit $18,000 before testing the service in his business. The revised offer lets him begin with $3,000 and continue if the result supports doing so.
This is not a universal instruction to offer trials. It is a response to the objection actually raised in the role-play. Do has accepted the importance of the problem and the proposed economics; he needs a less exposed way to begin.
The relationship between service and price is also the territory of How To Price YOUR Work. Here, the crucial adjustment concerns commitment, not a cheaper rate.
After the role-play, Do explains that one additional $5,000 customer would exceed the initial $3,000 fee in revenue. He also values the knowledge the trained employee would retain.
Lloyd adds a money-back assurance after he has already agreed. Do notices the timing: the shorter commitment had resolved his hesitation before the refund entered the conversation.
The additional assurance signals confidence, but it was not what earned the initial yes. That distinction prevents a misleading lesson. The deal did not require progressively more generous concessions; it required a response to the buyer's specific fear.
The cost of waiting made action important. A manageable first commitment made action acceptable.
A genuine yes should change the conversation
The role-play contains another friction point that neither participant smooths over. Lloyd repeatedly returns to the $20,000 monthly gap and its consequences. Do says he had already accepted the problem and wanted to hear the offer.
From his side of the table, the additional questioning begins to feel unnecessary. He is not avoiding the decision. He is trying to reach it.
Lloyd defends her caution. Years in B2B sales have trained her to look for the refusal beneath enthusiasm. She wants to know whether the buyer truly wants the change, whether the service fits, and whether the conditions for success exist.
“It's healthy to look for some disagreement,” she says.
Her concern is recognizable within the conversation. A pleasant exchange can leave important objections untouched. A seller can mistake friendliness for conviction and discover the difference only after sending a proposal.
Do accepts that risk but disputes the response when commitment is already clear. Once a buyer has given a genuine yes, he argues, the seller should stop selling and move into next steps.
A request for a proposal is not a purchase decision. On this point, they converge. Do distinguishes a buyer asking to proceed from someone asking for a document as a polite way to end the call.
The words sound encouraging. The behavior they describe is different.
- A buyer ready to proceed wants to understand the offer and the next step.
- A buyer requesting a proposal has not necessarily agreed to purchase.
- A buyer raising an implementation concern is identifying something the offer must address.
- A buyer declining directly provides clarity that polite enthusiasm cannot.
The task is not to rank those responses by how pleasant they feel. It is to respond to the information each one contains.
Lloyd recommends taking buyers through proposals on a call, or arranging another call to review a tailored proposal together. Sending the document without that conversation can leave the seller interpreting silence afterward.
The practical issue is not the existence of a PDF. It is whether the proposal follows an understood decision process or substitutes for one.
Do's objection to excessive discovery introduces a useful limit. Thoroughness can become another kind of failure to listen when the buyer has already supplied the answer. Repeating the stakes does not automatically improve the diagnosis.
Lloyd's caution introduces the opposite limit. Moving too quickly can leave a seller celebrating a commitment that was never made.
Both positions demand sensitivity to the person in front of the seller, a subject reflected in The Futur's related conversation on the power of attunement in sales. A fixed sequence of questions cannot settle the tension on its own.
Their disagreement remains useful precisely because it remains a disagreement. Lloyd prioritizes exposing hidden resistance; Do prioritizes recognizing when resistance has already been resolved.
The practical distinction is between checking for an unresolved issue and refusing to accept a resolved one. The first protects the engagement. The second risks making the buyer work to convince the seller that the sale is already there.
Discovery should produce a decision, not become a reason to delay one.
The promise has to survive delivery
There is a harder problem beneath all this sales technique. Do argues that many service providers cannot clearly describe the result they are promising, let alone explain how confidently they can produce it.
In that situation, better discovery only exposes the weakness more precisely. The buyer's need becomes clearer while the seller's ability to meet it remains vague.
Lloyd agrees that a tangible outcome has to be understood. Even when the desired result includes an emotional benefit, the seller needs clarity about what the service changes and why that change matters to the client.
In the retreat scenario, the outcome is not simply a trained employee. It is an employee capable of holding conversations that help suitable prospects decide, supporting the business's effort to convert interest into paid attendance.
The training is the intervention. The business result is the reason to consider it.
That distinction also explains why Lloyd wants to assess commitment before accepting payment. If the person responsible will not implement the process, the existence of a revenue gap does not make the engagement sound.
The practical sequence demonstrated in the exchange is less theatrical than a closing script. It is a set of checks that keep the recommendation connected to reality:
- Establish the buyer's actual problem. Correct the opening assumption when the buyer supplies different information.
- Use the buyer's own baseline. Separate the latest retreat's attendance from the average across the events described.
- Test the conditions for delivery. Assess the person who will implement the sales process before treating training as the answer.
- Address the remaining decision risk. Match the initial commitment to the buyer's concern instead of repeating an already accepted revenue argument.
These are not substitutes for judgment. They are the work that makes judgment possible. Each check can change the recommendation, narrow the engagement, or end the opportunity.
Lloyd's insistence on permission to decline belongs here. Buyers should be able to say that the problem is not urgent, the offer is not right, or the proposed change is more than they want to undertake.
Without that permission, the seller receives politeness instead of usable information. The resulting proposal can look like progress while merely carrying uncertainty into another stage.
The same standard applies to the seller's promises. A potential $240,000 annual revenue gap does not authorize a $240,000 outcome claim. The scenario establishes the stakes, not proof of recoverability.
Likewise, one successful month would support continuing the engagement; it would not retrospectively make every forecast certain. The confidence Lloyd expresses has to remain connected to execution, the trainee's participation, and the results actually produced.
The final challenge is therefore not to find a more dramatic way to describe inaction. It is to establish a consequence worth addressing, propose a credible intervention, and recognize the point at which the buyer has enough information to decide.
The garage owner can decline. The retreat operator can start with one month. The enthusiastic prospect can reveal a hidden objection. The committed buyer can move forward without another round of persuasion.
A useful sales process has room for all four outcomes because its purpose is clarity, not inevitability.
The cost of doing nothing can justify a decision. It cannot justify a promise the seller cannot keep.
TRANSCRIPT
Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.
Get insights on selling creative work without feeling salesy.
You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.
“You don't have a sales problem you have a delivery problem right now.”
— Chris Do
Key Takeaways
Subscribe
Details
- Topic
- SALES