Trust and confidence in the salesperson closes many a sale. Prospects may take your word for something and buy because they believe you are looking out for their best interests. But without trust in the salesperson the best products and services in the world won’t sell. Sometimes you must work at developing trust. Here are are four examples where trust must be developed to make the sale:

1. If you are new to the prospect or there has been a change in your customer’s personnel.

2. If you are dissimilar to the prospect in physical, ethnic or economic characteristics, social status, age, or in some other manner that could be perceived as “strange” or “unusual” by the prospect.

3. If you have not been able to establish a pattern of positive commitment and follow-through action.

4. If you are not familiar with the customer’s product or product line.

To establish trust, begin with the way you are dressed (neatly and professionally), your facial expression (open and disarming), the way you shake hands (firmly and in a businesslike way) and by pronouncing the prospect’s name correctly. Beyond these basics, here are some techniques that have been field tested – both by practical experience and scientific experiment – to prove their effectiveness in cultivating the prospect’s trust and winning sales.

Successful salespeople sometimes develop trust by pointing out a minor disadvantage of their product and then elaborating on the product’s benefits to the prospect. For example, you might say something like, “While the Reece Model 20-C is just a little slower than some other machines on the market, it is the most ruggedly built and it is virtually trouble free. This means considerably less down time and more bottom line profits for your business.” In this example, you are making the slightly slower operating speed into a minor detraction by admitting that your machine is a little slower than some competitive machines. However, you are countering this admitted disadvantage with other overwhelming benefits. Such a tactic helps to build trust in you and confidence in your product.

A salesperson can gain trust by being personally paired with desirable outcomes the prospect expects from your product. For example, make some kind of commitment to the prospect which requires you, the salesperson, to follow-through by taking action. You might answer a question by saying, “That is an excellent question, Mr. Jones, and I wish I had a really good answer, but I don’t at the moment. However, I know where I can find the answer easily back at the office. Let me make a note of it, and I’ll get back to you, say, sometime before noon tomorrow.” Many salespeople make these kinds of verbal commitments and then fail to follow through and get the answer back to the prospect. Or if they do, it isn’t in the time specified. If you get the information back to the prospect exactly as you said, trust and confidence in you skyrockets. However, if you fail to follow through with your commitments, just the opposite happens. If trust in a salesperson is lacking, is there some suitable substitute for trust, or can trust be “transferred” from you to something else acceptable to the prospect? The answer, based upon the results of some interesting empirical (practical experience) research, seems to be “yes.” It is called proof source selling and here’s how it works.

A proof source is a source separate and apart from the salesperson. A proof source is used in the sales presentation to substantiate selling points, benefits and/or claims made by the salesperson. This technique is called trust transference. One study which empirically tested this technique took place in conjunction with a medium sized industrial firm that manufactures and markets a full line of water filtration systems. The firm was especially suited for this experiment since its sales force for the light equipment division used an entirely canned presentation, and, while numerous claims were made in the presentation as to the efficiency, cost, and effectiveness of the firm’s filtration systems, the claims were not supported or substantiated with any proof or evidence. This meant that the prospect had to place all of his or her trust on the word of the salesperson. Since the sales calls were normally made on a one time only basis, the prospects were quite unfamiliar with both the salesperson and the products which they were selling.

The sales force was divided into two groups to test the technique of trust-transference. One group used the original canned presentation. This was the control group. The other, experimental group, used the same presentation except for the inclusion of a trust-transference technique. Let’s see which group sold more water filtration systems.

Trust was to be transferred to a proof source which in this case was a trade report published by the Association of Pure Water Producers. The slightly modified experimental presentation made reference to and actually showed the report which substantiated the salesperson’s claims of product superiority. Below are excerpts taken directly from the two presentations.

Control Group

“Mr. Prospect, our water filtration system yields the highest level of water purity for the dollar invested compared with any competitive filters in their class. This fact is fully supported by tests conducted in the research laboratory of the Association of Pure Water Producers. Our water filtration systems are the most effective and least costly to operate and maintain in their capacity classifications. The APWP rated our filters almost 18 percent more efficient, 27 percent less costly to operate, and 32 percent less costly to maintain. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prospect, that these are pretty important benefits which clearly indicate you could save considerable money both in the short and long run by investing in our water filtration system?”

Experimental Group

“Mr. Prospect, our water filtration system yields the highest level of water purity for the dollar invested compared with any other competitve filters in their class. This fact is fully supported by tests conducted in the research laboratory of the Association of Pure Water Producers as you can see from this report published by them. As you can see from this chart, our water filtration systems are the most effective and least costly to operate and maintain in their capacity classifications. Here you can see the APWP rated our filters 17.33 percent more efficient, nearly 27 percent less costly to operate, and 32 percent less costly to maintain. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prospect, that these are pretty impressive figures which clearly indicate you could save considerable money both in the short and long run by investing in our water filtration system?”

By using the trust transference persuasion technique, sales results substantially improved. Although there were no significant differences in the average order sizes between the two groups, there were differences in closing ratios and total sales. This example clearly points out that even a slight modification in the sales presentation can make a considerable difference in the results. By transferring trust from the salesperson to another source that is perceived as trustworthy, possible objections or reasons for not buying can be removed or at least reduced. In marginal situations trust transference to a proof-source can make enough of a difference to move the prospect to the buying point. Also, as previously pointed out, positive experiences with a salesperson over time help to build a trusting relationship. In contrast, it seems reasonable to assume that for those sales situations which do not ordinarily necessitate or often result in “call backs” or a “multiple presentation sequence,” the trust-transference persuasion technique can be an important tool for gaining a prospect’s confidence.

If both groups made 2,794 sales presentations (approximately the average per month for the groups in this study) with an average order size of $2181.89 (which is also the approximate average for the two groups in this study), the control group would have generated $1,411,880. In comparison, the trust-transference proof-source group would have contributed a gross of $1,817,277 or $405,397 more for the trust-transference proof-source presentation, an increase in sales of 28.7 percent.

A second empirical field study investigated the results of using a different type of proof-source – testimonials from satisfied customers. Salespeople used two groups of testimonials from satisfied clients. Because not all of the satisfied users agreed to have their names used in the study, two questions arose: Will testimonials from satisfied users improve sales results? Will specific names and addresses of satisfied customers (rather than simply initialed statements with a city and state) make a difference in proof selling?

The experiment proved that testimonials fully disclosing the identity of the source lead to larger closing ratios. Better closing results are directly linked to the source disclosure format used. Testimonials without full name and address appeared to have reduced credibility and trust. Testimonials can improve closing ratios when prospects feel they can trust and believe a testimonial. It is absolutely crucial that you do not conclude from these research studies that trust can be shifted from the salesperson to some other source such as a trade report or testimonials from customers or clients. Trust in the salesperson cannot be compromised. The trust-transference technique is simply a method to facilitate trust in your presentation and the claims you make for your products or services. Anything you can do that will facilitate that trust is to your advantage and will help boost your closing ratio.