With next week being “International Networking Week” — the brainchild of my friend, Dr. Ivan Misner, founder of BNI, the world’s largest referral organization, I thought it would be fitting to share just one method of relationship-building.

As usual — and typical of true Networking, it is “other-focused” meaning that we take our eyes off of ourselves and instead focus on how to best add value to others.

Superstar networkers have certain trademarks in common and one of those is that, during business events, parties, get-togethers, etc., they are constantly introducing people to each other. In other words, they “play the host; not the guest.” The benefits of doing this can be big.

Whenever you’re in a situation where you can introduce people to each other, by all means, do so. Someone at an event may be too bashful to go right up and introduce himself or herself to people they don’t know. So do it for them, and with style.

And, even if they’re not bashful, it just might not be something they naturally do. So, do it for them. Go out of your way to introduce people who might be of mutual benefit to each other.

Tell each person what the other does for a living and highlight a couple of their personal interests. Even suggest ways they could do business with each other.

This is a very simple and easy way to begin the process of “adding value” to those new people with whom you’d like to develop a Networking relationship.

After receiving a large referral from someone I met only once, I asked why he thought of me. He replied that he had attended a meeting of an association to which I belong. It was his first time there and while everyone else practically ignored him, I made him feel like part of the crowd, introducing him around and making sure he was always involved in the conversation.

Little things like that get noticed and definitely help you in the sales process, or for that matter, any type of business or social situation.

And, of course, you can do this online, as well. Keep in mind, however, that different people prefer to be introduced different ways. Some are very happy with unannounced mutual email introductions. Others are not, so be sure you find out which they prefer and honor that. Otherwise, though you think you’re adding value to them, you might be doing just the opposite.

In a sense, it comes down to Law #3 of The Go-Giver, The Law of Influence which says, “Your influence is determined by how abundantly you put other people’s interests first.” Please don’t think of this as being self-sacrificial or martyrish; it has nothing to do with that.

It simply means that you focus on adding value to the lives of others, knowing that — as you do this constantly and consistently mdash; you’ll develop an enormous number of quality “know, like and trust” relationships and, as such, your own needs will be well taken care of.

By he way, check out Dr. Misner’s important video with some excellent advice regarding today’s “challenging” economic times and how you can overcome them.

Till next time, my friends.

It probably seems as though every one of your suppliers should do handstands, backflips and somersaults just to make you happy, doesn’t it? After all, aren’t they dependent upon your favor in order to make their living?

Strange as it may seem, it often doesn’t matter. In fact, depending upon the product or service they are providing, they are often invaluable to you and you’ll find it very well worth your while to develop a relationship with them that causes them to desire to make you happy just because you . . . are you.

I received the following question from a reader:

“Bob, I’m always amazed when people who sell to me — my suppliers — don’t totally go out of their way to please me. Don’t they realize who’s paying their salaries? On the other hand, there are other business people I know who get waited on hand and foot and seem to have their suppliers doing ‘backflips’ to make them happy. How does a person elicit this type of customer service from their suppliers?”

Great question. And the answer is actually very, very simple.

Treat your suppliers the same way you treat your customers and clients. Yes, in order to ensure a terrific and productive relationship with your suppliers, one in which you get consistently excellent, and special — even preferential — treatment in those situations where it is badly needed, be sure to build a strong foundation.

Accomplish this easily by treating them with all the respect most people normally reserve only for their paying customers.

Do you pay your suppliers on time?
Do you talk to them instead of at them?
Do you discuss challenges instead of demanding and yelling?
Do you refer others to them, if and when appropriate?

If you answered “Yes” to those questions, you are on your way to earning that special place in their hearts which will elicit consistent efforts on your behalf — especially in those minor emergencies where the average customer may not get that same satisfaction.

That’s the result of treating your suppliers as customers and clients. And the result of treating everyone with respect, whether you need them for something or not.

Having attended a holiday get-together several months ago at the home of a friend of mine, I was reminded of a Positive Persuasion (Winning Without Intimidation)-type situation from a while back. Actually, quite a while back, like about 30 years, when present day, quasi-mature me was but a young lad of 20. (“Quasi Mature?” “Young lad of 20?” . . . I don’t talk like this!)

Actually, this took place over a two-year span, and shows that — while winning someone over who is pre-disposed not to like you can take time, it will typically happen if approached correctly.

Here’s how it began. A friend of mine used to hold an annual holiday get-together. Not being a real partier even then, I didn’t attend many, but did make it a point to regularly attend this one. At one of these events, I was spotted by a woman who had just arrived. We’ll call her “Tina” . . . because that was her name. (Only kidding, using made-up names.)

Tina, whom I never dated, but had known in the past as a good acquaintance, came over and gave me a big hug. That would be fine, but her boyfriend, whom I’ll call “David” (you know the drill), and who didn’t know me, was “none too pleased.”

Now, keep in mind that those of us who are not the jealous type and would not be bothered one bit by our significant other hugging someone we don’t know, might not understand David’s feelings. But, the fact is, everyone works out of their own belief system and “model of the world” and has a right to their feelings. Yes, David was not a “happy camper.”

Noticing this right away, I gave David a warm handshake as I was introduced to him, and tried to engage him in conversation that would make him feel comfortable with me. Although the conversation was a bit strained, the three of us spoke briefly, and I managed to discover that he was very interested in basketball and was in fact a faithful member of a winter men’s basketball league.

Turn the clock ahead one year. Same party, same people. I see David and Tina walking in, and I wave. David is not terribly excited to see me but eventually walks over with Tina (who, fortunately, does not hug me this time). Tina says, “David, Bob, you guys remember each other, right?” I, with enthusiasm, said, “Sure!”  David grunted.

I then said, “David, tell me what’s happening with your basketball team, are you having a good season?” Well, David’s attitude changed completely and, for the next ten minutes, told me all I wanted to know (and, actually, more) about his season and their hopes for a league title.

Turn the clock ahead one more year. Same party, same people. I see David and Tina walking in, and I wave. This time, David comes walking over to me with a great big smile on his face. Two old friends saying hello. Quite a difference from our first encounter.

You might be asking, “But, Bob, isn’t that a long time to win a person over?” Well, sure, but, first, seeing someone just once a year makes it a bit more difficult for it to happen faster.

More importantly, years are going to pass by anyway; we might as well have a positive result instead of a negative one.

Question for you: Who is in your life right now that might take some time to win over, but would be worth the effort and put both of you ahead of the game? Choose one person who fits that description, and then heed the words of the Sages: “Who is mighty? One who can control their emotions and make, of an enemy, a friend.”

In Part 1 we looked at the importance of being able to correctly define the concepts of Capitalism and Socialism and in Part 2 we defined it. We also looked at the key difference between the two; namely that Capitalism is based on cooperation (voluntary trade) and Socialism is based on force.

Most people do not understand the force part of Socialism. They think it is people working in cooperation with one another, gladly and willingly lending a hand in order to provide equal results for all. Remember Karl Marx’ famous dictum: “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need.”

Lovely statement, isn’t it? Can’t you just picture all of these willing people lovingly sacrificing what they’ve produced and gladly handing it over to people they don’t know? Actually, there is a name for it when it is done willingly? It’s called charity. When done by force, it’s called Socialism. And, it doesn’t work. Never has, never will. And, the reason it won’t is based on human principles of action.

It’s like the person who studies hard all semester long while a classmate he doesn’t know sluffs off and parties. Our first student receives an A. The second student receives and F. Would you ever (and, please take this seriously, it is indeed an important question) . . . would you ever dare suggest that the first student take a C so that the second statement could also get a C? After all, everyone should receive equally, right? From everyone according to his ability (which includes effort) to everyone according to their need?

Same thing. People don’t like being forced to give up the fruits of their labor, and Socialism is exactly what we just witnessed in our make-believe classroom in the above example.

Good, well-meaning people, can argue between Capitalism and Socialism (any program based on government force). They can share their views, thoughts and opinions regarding how much force by government is needed to make a country work and to help people who cannot help themselves…That’s fine.

However, for the debate itself to be based on a correct premise, it must — it must — be acknowledged that Socialism IS based on force. Even the good that a government program might do better than could charity and the free market; it must be acknowledged and agreed upon that the program itself is based on force since the individual does not have a choice in the matter. Without that acknowledgement, there is not true premise for the discussion.

In a free (Capitalist) Society, you own your own life; you own yourself. In a Socialist Society, the government owns you and your life. Are you seeing the difference? It doesn’t matter that — in some instances, some person in some division of the government may know more than you about might be best in a certain area of your life. The government owns you and they own your children. The decisions are theirs, and you are powerless to resist. And, you are powerless to resist because it is backed by force. They ultimately decide where you can go and what you can do. Any individual rights you may have in such a society are given to you BY that government.

This is the opposite of a free society where you are free to make your own mistakes (and grow as a person) and reap the benefits of the lessons you learn. In this free society, you have all rights that are not expressly forbidden by the Constitution (see Amendment 9 in the Bill of Rights), and any powers that the government has over its citizens are GRANTED (not given) by the people, and can (theoretically) be reclaimed at any time. Freedom and liberty versus force.

Obviously, as a believer in Capitalism and an opponent of Socialism, I’ll suggest that government’s functions should be severely limited. Here is my Libertarian Creed, which can ONLY happen in a Capitalistic society (yes, individual liberty and Capitalism go hand-in-hand. When one of them is not there, neither is the other, despite appearances to the contrary):

“You have the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit,
providing that you don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”

(Okay, since someone is going to ask, “So, Bob, are you saying since I have the right to live my life however I see fit I can go rob someone?” Of course not. Please note the second half of the sentence. One’s rights can never infringe upon anyone else’s rights. On the other hand, in a Socialistic society, where no one actually owns anything, it’s a lot easier to be a thug.)

So, again: “You have the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit, providing that you don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”

Simple, right? Do you agree with this creed? I find that most people (even believers in big government) instinctively agree. And, yet . . . we’ve seen clearly that socialism is based on force. Quite a quandary, isn’t it?

Now, in case one is tempted to ask the questions that most people reflexively ask, such as “but in a truly capitalistic system, what will happen to the poor? . . . what about health care? . . . what about a safety net? . . . why can’t we have both Capitalism and Socialism so as to enjoy the best of both? . . . Please understand, we will get to that. Right now we are simply establishing a premise as to what these two economic systems are. That way, in our future discussions, we can always be sure we stay on point with one another and – when a difficult situation arrives, we can always go back and check our premises, thereby keeping ourselves on the right track.

Capitalism is based on cooperation. Socialism (meaning any government program that forcibly takes from one and redistributes to another) is based on force.

In the next article, we’ll see that not only does force not work nearly as well as cooperation; it is not even necessary, and actually hurts those it is supposedly intended to help.

What does the term, “Yes-Man” (or, “Yes-Woman”) mean to you? Possibly, the person who is so insecure that he says “yes” to any person, thing or idea in order to be liked and accepted.

Well, when it comes to “Positive Persuasion” that kind of Yes-Person is not the kind we mean. Instead, we are talking about the man or woman who can and will step up, work with you and solve the problem or challenge you are having.

For example, you are having difficulty getting the person at the service desk (of course, you could substitute practically anything here, whether in person or on the telephone) to change a “really bad” policy. “Really bad”, in this case, meaning something that doesn’t give you what you want or need.

Despite utilizing your very best Winning Without Intimidation methods, you find you’re just not getting anywhere. That’s okay; it happens sometimes. It’s not necessarily that you are doing anything wrong; it may just be that you are dealing with a “problem person” instead of a “solution person.” A “no-person” instead of a “yes-person.”

The next step is to speak with their supervisor. If you have to go through this person, simply ask with the utmost courtesy, kindness and respect. “I apologize for putting you through all this hassle (I know, you have nothing to apologize about — they do. That’s okay; go with it). “There are rules I know you have to follow. It might be better if I dealt directly with your supervisor. What is his or her name? Great, thank you, may I speak with Ms. Johnson please?”

Or, perhaps you found Ms. Johnson’s name on your own. Regardless, now it’s time to find out if she is the “Yes-Person.”

“Hi Ms. Johnson, I’m Pat Davis. Thank you for taking time to speak with me. I know you’re very busy.” These words will, nine times out of ten, elicit this supervisor to go to whatever ends necessary in order to see that you are satisfied. Mainly because you presented yourself as being different from most others, who only ask (or demand!) to speak with a supervisor in order to complain.

Now, if Ms. Johnson can find a solution and say yes, great! If not, continue up the ladder. Along the way, continue to be polite, patient and persistent. Naturally, you need to decide just how important it is to get this particular “thing” that you want. It may not be worth your effort (as my business partner, Coach Thom Scott says, “Ask yourself if it’s a ‘hill worth dying over’”).

If it is important, though, by all means continue. Eventually, you will more than likely — in fact, let me say, practically always! — find the person who not only wants to see you satisfied, but has a natural tendency to be a problem-solver. That is the solution person, the “Yes-Man” or “Yes-Woman.”

In a recent article written for a Legal Publication on how lawyers can effectively market their practice, I mentioned one of my favorite books, The E-Myth as it pertained to systemizing one’s business operation. In both my writing and live presentations, I often refer to systems, and personally define a system as, “The process of predictably achieving a goal based on a logical and specific set of how-to principles.” As E-Myth author, Michael Gerber says, “Systems permit ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results, predictably.”

The key is predictable results.

The following is a question I received from a reader of that article and below that, my response:

—

“Mr. Burg – In your recent article, you refer to E-Myth principles but then talk about the importance of my referral sources knowing, liking and trusting “Me” and that’s why they refer. As I understand, The E-Myth is all about systems and that the system we develop is what our referral sources need to fall in love with so that the business can succeed and grow without me.

“Now, maybe that system is built around principles that would make a referral source want to refer to me such as trust, competency, etc. but it is the system that must embody those traits and, if it does, it makes the question of “who” is serving the client irrelevant. As I understand The E-Myth idea, it is that the systemization of my law practice frees me up to work more on the business development side of the business or to go fishing.

“We are struggling with this right now as a new firm trying to apply E-myth principles and build a firm the right way. I think a law firm does have special circumstances because, as you point out in your article, the attorney themselves have traditionally been what attracts and retains the clients. However, I still believe E-myth principles can and should be applied to a law firm trying to go somewhere. I am most anxious to hear your thoughts on this matter.

—

My response: My reference to The E-Myth (a book I believe is outstanding) was in terms of pointing out the benefits of having a system. I wasn’t really referring to any of Mr. Gerber’s teachings, aside from that.

In the case of my article, the “System” I’m talking about is, what I call, the Endless Referrals System. And, the Endless Referrals system is — by its very nature — used by individuals. So, to take the “person equation” out of it would be to simply render it unusable.

While I believe that Mr. Gerber is absolutely, positively 100 percent correct in the importance of utilizing a system, I don’t believe that it is any contradiction in terms to say that plugging good people into your system in also important.

I’d go back to, what I call, “The Golden Rule of Networking/Business” which is: “All things being equal, people do business with, and refer business to, those people they know, like and trust.” A person can “go through the motions” of using my system but they — as a person — being good at what they do, being true to their word, being a person who truly adds to the life of others, is what makes the system work.

One challenge (and, this is just my opinion, of course) is that sometimes, when we are exposed to some absolutely tremendous teachings such as those shared in The E-Myth, we are tempted to take certain concepts to an extreme. Again, in my opinion, to leave the “people equation” out of the issue would be absolutely counter-productive. And, that is never suggested by Mr. Gerber.

Now, with that said, I believe you are totally correct that E-myth principles can and should be applied to a law firm trying to go somewhere. And, that the systemization of your law practice will free you up to work more on the business development side of the business or spend more time doing those non-work activities you might prefer doing, such as fishing or being with family.

All that is true. And so you’ll work with the different people/positions in the firm to make that happen. Remember, however, he also says that, early on, you might have to do a lot of those things yourself. Possibly (and, of course I don’t know your particular situation) you need to begin at first being the rainmaker; perhaps the Endless Referrals System being one method for doing that.

As you see great results, you can teach the system to the new associates you eventually bring on, and they’ll be doing that more and more themselves (and you’ll begin to go fishing more and more). Of course, the other aspects of running your firm will need to be systematized, as well.

I hope that helps, and I wish you the very best of success.

So, friends, let me ask you for your feedback. How do you see the relationship between the system and the people within the system? Do you agree with my thoughts? Disagree? Let me know.

In Part 1 we discussed how important it is to be able to define a term. This is really for two reasons:

1. So you truly understand it yourself. You’d be surprised how many people tell me they are absolutely, totally and undeniably against Socialism . . . and then in the next sentence tell me their socialistic program that is going to fix our country.
2. So you can logically discuss an issue with another person. If the two of you are discussing a certain concept — such as the one in this article — which you both define in different ways (without each other knowing it) than there is simply no way you can ever come to a legitimate agreement.

Remember the phrase, “Even the most logical argument — if based on a false premise — can never lead to a correct conclusion.”

And a correct premise begins with a correct definition.

So, let’s define Capitalism and Socialism:

Capitalism: An economic system in which land, labor, capital and other resources are owned, operated and traded by private individuals as opposed to through government control and/or central economic planning. Property is privately owned and goods are privately produced. Also referred as the Free Enterprise System. The individual has all rights to his/her possessions.

Socialism: An economic system in which labor, capital and other resources are owned, operated and traded by a central government and/or central economic planning as opposed to private individuals. Property is publicly owned (italics Burg’s) and goods are publicly produced. The individual has no rights to any possessions because he/she doesn’t actually own anything.

The italic is because “publicly owned” means the government actually owns and controls it 100 percent. The “public” (individuals who supposedly are the owners) have no say in the matter in any way, shape or form.

*Before we go on, please recall the fact from Part One of this series that the U.S., while at one time relatively close to being a pure capitalist society, is no longer such.

Let’s now look at the defining characteristics of each of these terms:

Capitalism:

1. Voluntary trade as opposed to force. Business can only take place through cooperation since, in a truly capitalistic society, one person cannot be forced to buy from another.
2. Value rules. If the seller does not provide an equal or greater amount of value than the financial cost of whatever he or she is selling, the prospect probably will not buy.
3. Businesses will be rewarded (by the consumer) for doing things right and punished (by the consumer) for doing things wrong.
4. Government’s only legitimate functions are to protect the citizenry against force and fraud.

Socialism:

1. Force as opposed to cooperation. Since the government controls everything, they decide who buys from whom, what they buy, what they pay, etc.
2. Value is . . . well, not valued. It’s not important for a producer to focus on providing value when it’s not up to the consumer as to what they can or cannot consume.
3. Business will typically not be rewarded or punished by consumers; they will be dealt with by bureaucrats and politicians however they see fit. Good for the consumer and good for bureaucrats/politicians are not necessarily the same thing.
4. Government’s legitimate function is . . . everything. This, of course, probably means they are good at very little . . . except using force to keep the people in line.

Results:

1. In truly capitalistic societies the standard of living is far better for the masses. The poorest in a capitalistic society is considerably better off than their counterparts in socialistic societies.
2. There is a much larger middle class in a capitalistic society than in socialistic societies, where there tends to be, percentage-wise, a tiny amount of extremely wealthy people, a larger but still small middle class, and a huge amount of poor and desperately poor. (Unfortunately, this is exactly where our increasingly socialist society appears to be taking us.)

The key point — THE premise: Capitalism is based on cooperation while Socialism is based on force.

Sub-point — Any program (via legislation) that results in one person being forced to give up what he or she has earned in order to hand it to a centralized government which then re-distributes it to another is a socialistic program. Let’s not discuss here whether that is good or bad; let’s just agree that that is what it is, according to what you have read above.

In Part 3 we’ll look a bit deeper into this and see where some dangerous misunderstandings about these two concepts come into play.

One of the best things about co-authoring a book entitled The Go-Giver is that John David Mann and I constantly receive stories from people about Go-Givers they either know personally or have learned about. Such is the case with our friend and “Personal Walking Ambassador” Becci Hall, who sent us a link to a great story written by reporter Jared Strong that appeared in the Des Moines, IA newspaper, The Register. (Unfortunately the link to the story can only be accessed through membership to their site.)

Apparently, the Anderson family, which includes a Father and two sons, bought a dry-cleaning store so they could do something together as a family. Looking for ways to promote their new enterprise, Crown Cleaners, they asked themselves how they could provide immense value above and beyond simply doing a good job . . . dry-cleaning clothes.

Here’s what they came up with:

They randomly refunded dry cleaning bills for customers who promised to do an act of kindness with the money for those less fortunate within their community.

Yep. Simple as that. And, some of the patrons have done some very creative things, adding significant value to the lives of others greatly in need.

While it was promotion, it was also something totally in alignment with the Anderson Family values.

Business is great for the Family Anderson. Even in today’s business climate, they are expanding their operation with more stores.

What creative ways can you find to add value to your clientele that will also help you and your business to thrive? As the Anderson’s taught us, that value can even be helping your clients add value to others.

Share with us your thoughts.

I was recently asked, “Why do you and so many other authors on sales put so much emphasis on our using testimonial letters?”

Tell me; which will more effectively persuade you to buy my “widget” – If I, the salesperson, tell you how great it is? . . . or if your neighbor, or friend, or co-worker or anyone else you respect (personally or their position), tells you how great it is?

Exactly! (Well, “Exactly!” assuming you answered the way I wanted you to)

So, make it a point to obtain testimonial letters from every one of your ecstatic customers or clients. Then, during the presentation, volunteer to allow your prospect to read whichever letters you feel would be most appropriate.

Hint: Highlight certain key phrases to make it easier for your prospect to find the relevant phrases or information. Also, if you’ve been in your business for more than a week, you’ve
most likely heard every objection you’ll ever receive regarding your particular product or service. Let your testimonial letters help you overcome whatever objections you are given.

Example: When the prospect questions your company’s ability to deliver on the appointed date, gently show your prospect a testimonial letter expressing how delighted your client was at the expediency of the delivery process. Utilize this tool in order to handle all of your regular objections.

Keep in mind, with technology as it is, you can place video, audio and written testimonials right on your website.

Example: I do a limited number of engagements open to the pubic (as opposed to my presentations at corporate conventions) and, for these, where the audience is not “captive” and we are trying to persuade potential attendees who are not familiar with my work to attend, we have testimonial endorsements for them to see as soon as they arrive at the main page of the site. Notice the immediate audio testimonial, as well as the written ones. And, yes, they extend throughout the page, combining audio, written, and photos.

I encourage you (if I may) to find ways to use testimonials, testimonials and more testimonials in various forms to help you more effectively communicate the excellent value you can provide to your prospects, customers and clients.

It’s been said you can never have “too many” other people selling for you. Well, maybe at a certain point, but it would reeeeally have to border on the obnoxious for that to happen.

Remember what the great copywriter, Joe Polish says, “What others say about you {or your product/service} is infinitely more believable than what you say about you {or your product or service} . . . so let them say it.”

What are your thoughts on the value of utlizing testimonial letters? Feel free to share with us.