Hi, Justin

Ah, more assumptions. We know why they haven't yet said yes. The guy
with the purse strings doesn't come back to town till next week. The
managers are sitting on a multi-hundred million dollar per year
throughput opportuntiy, and can't make a $100k decision without him.

The money guy seems to be something of a Howard Hughes (in more ways
than one relative to this). He may not have billions of dollars, but
he certainly has hundreds of millions of personal net worth. When he
comes to town, they eat at the cheap fast-food steak place...because
it has "good value".

=|JRM: So, if he appreciates value, he will likely appreciate a 70,000% ROI,
yes?! I seem to remember reading that Sam Walton spent squillions on
information technology while refusing to replace the plastic chairs in the
corporate HQ. It's uncommon for entrepreneurs to make hundreds of millions of
dollars while simultaneously making dumb decisions. Sounds to me like the guys
you are dealing with lack the business owners' gumption. I'd suggest presenting
your proposal to him as a possibly flawed proposal: "Your team -- under our
guidance -- has modelled the likely outcome from this initiative and we're
consistently getting a 70,000% result. Can you help us find the flaw in our
reasoning?"|=

Nonetheless, you provide a good example of unwillingness to accept
reality, and wanting to go down the wrong path. So what if we made an
order of magnitude mistake, and it was "only" 7,000 percent? (PS: We
didn't: after I helped Bill fix his math. And, the customer agrees
fully with the order of magnitude...just wants to put more detail
into it before presenting to the guy with the purse strings.)

Actually, the managers "own" the much greater risk of what they are
doing not working. They know it intuitively, which may be the driver
of the cognitive dissonance. It may be hard for them to admit to
themselves that they are where they are: in danger of screwing up the
most fabulous opportunity of their lives, because of their own (in)
actions.

=|JRM: Your diagnosis of 'cognitive dissonance' assumes a conflict. What --
other than not saying yes -- are the patient's symptoms? (I'm assuming, because
you haven't given us the cloud, you don't know the nature of the conflict.)|=

Anyhow, we proposed taking all that detail out of the proposal,
instead of adding more, and our key contact said "OK, we agree with
it anyway". The problem was that any detail caused them to fall off a
cliff of detailitus, wanting to discuss those details vs. the key
point. IMHO, most people are very bad at this kind of subordination.

=|JRM: I'm no fan of the Socratic method early in the engagement -- when people
want direction -- but I believe, in a major-sales environment, that prospects
should be made to build their ROI model and design their own project outline
(with you guys facilitating, of course). I hope the critical analytics were
done by them and not by you. This feeds into my point above.|=

If I were they, I'd be saying to myself, "Ah-ha...we are really
screwing the pooch on this one. I need to get right on this. I better
get one or two others with what these guys are offering, and see if I
can get a better deal". Or, maybe I'd be calling one of the big-time
consulting houses to bail me out.

BTW, we are in this enviable position because one of their customers,
a former customer of mine, wants to buy many millions of dollars
worth of their product...and he wants them NOW! He went to see them,
drooled all over their product, but then had indigestion over their
plans to get there. He told them, "You REALLY need to talk to these
guys..."

I'll let you know what happens in a couple of weeks.

=|JRM: I suspect you've got us all on the edge of our seats now!|=

Larry

(PS: The numbers are actually conservative. This is a KILLER product,
at the right time...if they can pull it off.)