Tag Archives: The Route

What 21 Days on LinkedIn Taught Me About the Platform’s Future

Sales Blog, The Navigator News, Uncategorized,

I just saw a LinkedIn post by a contact of mine named Stephen Hopper, and he said it better than I could have: “I miss business posts on LinkedIn. Now most posts are about politics, silly games, tabloid trash, and time wasters.” He’s right. And he’s not alone in noticing it.

Over the past three weeks, I’ve been running a deliberate test on LinkedIn – posting daily, tracking metrics, analyzing what the algorithm rewards and what it punishes. The data I’ve collected concerns me, and might concern you if you need LinkedIn to remain a professional platform. It’s a story about a company that claims to value authenticity while monetizing optimization, that says it wants business content while crushing it, and that may be approaching its own “jump the shark” moment.

I Tested To See What Actually Works on LinkedIn in 2026

I started with a simple hypothesis. Last year, I was crushing it on LinkedIn.  Then, I took a  two-week holiday break over Christmas and New Year’s, and I found out that I had tanked my algorithmic reach from the 20K-50K range down to 22-280 impressions per post. I figured 21 consecutive days of posting would reset the algorithmic trust. What I actually got was data about how fundamentally broken LinkedIn’s incentive structure has become.

Here’s what worked for me: Screenshot callouts. That’s it.

A screenshot callout is straightforward – you take a screenshot of something someone else posted on LinkedIn, share that image in your own post, and then comment on it. You’re calling attention to something someone said (good or bad), using their words and the visual proof to make a point or spark conversation.  If you’re wondering why I didn’t just share the post and add my commentary, it’s because it’s a known fact that sharing and commenting gets throttled badly by the algorithm.  Screenshotting doesn’t.  No, I can’t explain that.

Two posts of mine used this approach. One was a screenshot of Tony Robbins promoting what looked like AI-generated content – I called out the low-quality thinking behind it. Another was a screenshot of a salesperson’s complaint about buyers who don’t want to be called, and I used that to discuss what modern buyers actually prefer. Those two posts generated 33,000 and 38,000 impressions respectively in the first 48 hours. They sparked genuine conversation. People debated, shared perspectives, and added their own examples. The comments were substantive. These posts are still generating engagement weeks later.

Every other format I tried – personal stories, teaching content, business insights, and authentic reflections – bottomed out at 75 to 300 impressions. Even the well-written stuff and the posts that got consistent comments and reactions. The algorithm looked at them and said “no, thanks.”

A post about Kyle Busch’s death and what it teaches us about mortality and work-life balance got crushed with 191 impressions in 24 hours. And there isn’t much more “authentic” than me talking about racing.

A post about losing four hours to a SaaS vendor’s broken support system, connected to real lessons about stress-testing your organization? 271 impressions total. Also dead.

But a screenshot of someone complaining about something controversial? 30,000+ impressions. That’s the trade LinkedIn is making, and it’s not subtle.

LinkedIn’s Core Problem is That It’s Designed for One Thing, Optimized for Another

LinkedIn was built as a professional network. The original mission was to connect with colleagues, share your career journey, find opportunities, and promote your business and expertise.

But LinkedIn’s business model doesn’t actually reward professional content. It rewards engagement. Comments. Reactions. Shares. Time on platform. What drives those metrics now isn’t business advice, or career insights, or the kind of thoughtful, substantive content that actually helps professionals do their jobs better.

What drives engagement is controversy, politics, viral moments, and whatever gets people emotionally activated. The algorithm doesn’t discriminate between a genuine business conversation and a heated political debate – it just sees engagement metrics going up. So it amplifies the debate.

The result is that business posts – the very thing LinkedIn was built for – now get algorithmically punished. Stephen Hopper is lamenting a platform that no longer feels like a professional space because the algorithm actively discourages professional content in favor of engagement-driving noise. It’s not that professionals stopped posting business content. It’s that LinkedIn’s algorithm stopped promoting it.

This isn’t sour grapes.  I still have content that does very well on LinkedIn, and I know how to create content that would work even better.  It’s just a statement of reality that the content that would do the best, and the content that actually moves the professional needle, are two different things. This is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of LinkedIn in 2026.

Let’s Talk Video: LinkedIn Promotes What It Crushes

Here’s where it gets even more absurd. LinkedIn runs paid ads across the platform promoting the value of video content. They have entire training programs about incorporating video into your posts. The message from their marketing team is clear: video is the future on LinkedIn.

And their algorithm crushes it.

During my test, every video I posted – including a 12-minute Navigator’s Log segment that took real time and effort to produce – got severely throttled. We’re talking 56 to 75 impressions. Meanwhile, a screenshot of text got 30,000.

This isn’t accidental; LinkedIn knows exactly what they’re doing. They want creators to invest time in video production because it’s a sunk cost. You spent the time, you’re emotionally invested in the post, you’re more likely to promote it, pay to boost it, or upgrade to a premium feature to get it in front of people. But the algorithm isn’t actually going to give you organic reach for video content.

It’s a bait and switch. Create the content they promote, then pay them to distribute it.

The “Strengthen Post” Tool and What It Says About LinkedIn’s Direction

This is where my concern moves from observation into genuine worry about what’s coming.

LinkedIn just launched a “Strengthen Post” feature for $29.99 a month. It promises to sharpen your posts and get you up to 30% more engagement. On the surface, it sounds like a helpful tool. But the implications are significant.

LinkedIn is simultaneously saying two contradictory things. First: “Our algorithm rewards authenticity and genuine engagement – stop posting AI content.” Second: “Pay us $30 a month to optimize your posts for our algorithm using our AI tool.”

These statements cannot both be true. If the algorithm genuinely rewards authenticity, you shouldn’t need an optimization tool. If you need an optimization tool to get reach, then the algorithm doesn’t reward authenticity – it rewards optimization.

There’s a conflict of interest here that goes beyond just the contradiction. If LinkedIn’s algorithm starts preferring posts created with their AI tool, we’ve crossed into “pay to play” territory. You don’t have to explicitly punish non-strengthened content – you just have to subtly prefer the strengthened content. Users won’t notice the difference. They’ll just notice their reach going down unless they upgrade.

The company is positioning itself as both the platform and the optimization tool. They write the rules of the algorithm, then sell you the tool to game their own rules. That’s a business model that can’t be justified as serving the user’s interests. It can only be justified as serving LinkedIn’s interests.

Is LinkedIn Jumping the Shark?

There’s a concept called “jumping the shark” – the moment when a platform or product makes a decision that fundamentally breaks what made it valuable in the first place. It’s usually not one decision, but a series of incremental choices that eventually reach a tipping point where users wake up and realize they’re no longer on the platform they thought they were.

LinkedIn feels close to that moment.

The platform started as a place for professionals to build their reputation and find opportunities. It evolved into a content platform where thought leaders could share insights and build audiences. That shift required some compromise of the original mission, but you could still find genuinely valuable professional content if you looked for it.

Now, the feed is dominated by politics, personal drama, viral challenges, and clickbait. The algorithm actively suppresses business content. The company is monetizing “authenticity” through optimization tools. Professional content gets throttled, while screenshot callouts of controversy get amplified.

At what point do professionals stop coming to LinkedIn because the noise-to-signal ratio has become unbearable? At what point do they decide that the platform no longer serves their professional development because it’s been optimized entirely for engagement metrics?

That point might not be here yet, and I hope it doesn’t come.

What Actually Happened: The Real Results

Before we talk about what LinkedIn’s algorithm is doing wrong, let’s be honest about what actually worked during these three weeks. I gained over 50 followers. I added 30 newsletter subscribers. The two screenshot callout posts are still generating engagement weeks later. People are saving those posts, coming back to them, sharing them with others.

That’s real value. It’s not 100,000 followers or going viral. But it’s consistent growth from a professional audience that’s actually interested in what I have to say. That compounds over time. That builds credibility with my target audience.

The point isn’t that LinkedIn is completely broken. The point is that it’s broken in specific ways that make it harder for professionals to build authentic presence, and easier for the algorithm to reward whatever generates the most engagement, regardless of whether that engagement is meaningful.

What This Means for Salespeople, Managers, and Business Owners

Here’s what actually worked during my test, and what it teaches us about using LinkedIn effectively in 2026:

Screenshot callouts work. If you want algorithmic reach on LinkedIn, this is your best bet. Find something in your industry that needs calling out – bad advice, misguided sales approaches, leadership decisions that don’t make sense, claims that don’t hold up. Screenshot it, comment on it thoughtfully, and let the debate happen in the comments. This is the format that breaks through the noise.

 

Direct outreach works better than organic posts. I spent time on LinkedIn using Sales Navigator to target specific prospects and have conversations. I should point out that much of that outreach began with me commenting on their content – that builds visibility and initiates a relationship. That generated real business. The posts I made organically got throttled, but the direct conversations didn’t. If you’re a salesperson or business owner trying to build your pipeline, don’t expect LinkedIn posts to do the heavy lifting. Use the platform for targeted outreach – connecting with decision-makers, engaging in their conversations, building relationships one person at a time.

 

Build visibility while you build your platform. Post 2-3 times a week on topics you actually care about. Don’t chase the algorithm – write about what matters to you and your industry. During my test, I gained 50+ followers and 30 newsletter subscribers just by showing up consistently with authentic content, even when individual posts didn’t go viral. That’s not nothing. Over a year, that compounds.

 

Use LinkedIn to complement other activities, not replace them. If you’re speaking at industry events, your LinkedIn visibility helps. If you’re generating referrals, LinkedIn gives you credibility when prospects look you up. If you’re building partnerships, LinkedIn helps maintain those relationships. But LinkedIn alone won’t build your business. It’s the amplifier, not the engine.

 

Don’t fall for the optimization trap. LinkedIn’s new “Strengthen Post” feature is tempting. So are third-party tools that promise more engagement. The reality is that when you start optimizing for the algorithm, you start sounding like everyone else. The posts that performed best for me were the ones that reflected my actual thinking, not optimized thinking. Your authenticity is your competitive advantage. Protect it.

 

The Bottom Line

Stephen Hopper is right to miss the old LinkedIn. So am I. The platform has drifted so far from its original mission that it barely resembles what it was designed to be.

LinkedIn’s challenge in 2026 isn’t finding the algorithm that works. It’s deciding what platform it actually wants to be. A professional network? A content platform? A paid optimization service? A social media competitor to Facebook? Because right now, it’s trying to be all of them simultaneously – and the result is a platform that serves none of them particularly well.

The data from my 21-day test tells me that LinkedIn’s current trajectory is unsustainable. You can’t build a professional platform on engagement metrics. You can’t claim to reward authenticity while monetizing optimization. You can’t call yourself a business network while crushing business content.

And, I also have to admit a bit of a mea culpa here.  I have actively been hammering that salespeople need to budget at least 20 minutes per day of time on LinkedIn.  I still think that’s true, but for how long? My test results worry me. Eventually, something’s going to give. The question is whether LinkedIn will course-correct before professionals stop bothering to show up.

How to Use an AI Application to Actually Solve a Real – and Huge – Sales Problem

Uncategorized, , , , ,

I got an email this week that made me sit up straight.

A territory manager at a scientific equipment manufacturer read my article on aggressive transparency as a competitive weapon – you know, the one where I argue that publishing your pricing openly makes competitors look like they’re hiding something. He asked a hell of a good question: “How would we show pricing to customers when our equipment can vary by thousands of dollars for small accessories, and we have so many configurations it would be impossible to create a pricing list for every one?” In the past, I would have told him that aggressive transparency has its limits. That some businesses are just too complex for public pricing. But I had a lightbulb moment. This isn’t a limitation of transparency. This is the perfect application for AI – and it could change everything about how complex B2B sales actually work.

The Pricing Problem Most B2B Companies Actually Face

Here’s the thing. A lot of B2B companies – maybe most – have genuinely complex pricing. Not “we want to hide our pricing” complex. Actually complex.

You’ve got custom configurations, variable components, different installation requirements, regional factors, volume considerations, and integration with existing systems. There are a thousand legitimate variables that make “here’s our price” impossible to answer without knowing the specifics of what the customer actually needs.

So what happens? The salesperson says “let me get back to you with a quote.” They go back to the office – or the Batcave, as I like to call it – spend hours building a proposal, send it over, and then wait. Maybe the buyer has follow-up questions. Maybe they want to see what it costs if they change one component. Back to the Batcave.

The whole process takes days or weeks. The buyer can’t comparison shop efficiently. The salesperson can’t adjust on the fly during the conversation. And both sides are frustrated.  I’ve been that salesperson, and I’ve been that frustrated.

The traditional “solution” has been to either simplify your offering (which might kill your competitive advantage), accept that you can’t be transparent (which kills trust), or create massive pricing matrices that nobody can actually use. None of those are good options.

What If AI Could Configure and Quote in Real Time?

Here’s what hit me when I read that email.

What if you built an AI configurator – using Claude, ChatGPT, or whatever tool works best for your business – that had all your pricing variables loaded into it? Not as a replacement for your salespeople, but as a tool for them.

Picture this: The salesperson is on a call with a prospect. The prospect describes what they need. The salesperson opens the AI app on their phone (or laptop, or tablet), inputs the variables as the prospect is talking, and gets an accurate quote right there during the conversation.

“Okay, so you need the Model X with the enhanced sensor package, configured for a high-temperature environment, with installation in your Denver facility. Let me check that for you.” Ten seconds later: “That configuration runs $47,300, and we can have it installed within six weeks.”

No going to the Batcave. No “let me get back to you.” No waiting three days for a proposal that might be obsolete by the time it arrives because the prospect’s requirements changed during a meeting you weren’t in. Quote and propose on the spot.

“How Much?” “This Is How Much.”

I’ve been saying for twenty-two years that when a customer asks “how much?” it’s a buying sign. And the best response is simply: “This is how much.”

Not “Well, let me tell you about all the value you’re getting first.” Not “It depends on several factors, let me explain.” Not “Great question – we should schedule a follow-up call to go over pricing.” Just: “This is how much.”

When salespeople use lots of words in between – attempting to ‘build value’ before quoting price – it tells the customer that the salesperson is afraid of their price. And that fear invites negotiation.

For years, the objection I’ve heard is: “But Troy, we can’t quote price on the spot. It’s too complex.”

Now it doesn’t have to be.

An AI configurator doesn’t just solve the complexity problem. It actually discourages negotiation in a way that benefits both sides. When you quote on the spot, the customer sees that you’re not sitting down with your boss trying to figure out “how much we can get them to pay.” It feels cut and dried. Transparent. Fair.

And here’s what most salespeople don’t realize: most people don’t like to negotiate. Millennials and Gen Z – who now represent 71% of B2B buyers – like it even less. They want clear, upfront pricing. They want to make informed decisions without playing games.

When you can say “this is how much” immediately, you’re giving them exactly what they want. And you’re differentiating yourself from every competitor who’s still making them wait.

This Changes the Sales Conversation

Think about what this does for the sales conversation.

For the buyer, they can actually explore options in real time. “What if we went with the standard sensor package instead of enhanced?” “What if we delayed installation until next quarter?” “What about if we ordered two units instead of one?” Each question gets answered immediately, which means they can actually make an informed decision during the conversation instead of playing email tag for two weeks.

For the salesperson, you’re not leaving the conversation to build a proposal. You’re having an actual consultative conversation where you can test different configurations, show value trade-offs, and help the buyer understand what they actually need – all while the buyer is engaged and focused. You’re solving problems together instead of throwing proposals over the wall.  And you’re setting a standard that your competitors can’t match while truly earning your spot in the Buyer’s Journey.

For aggressive transparency, you can actually put this configurator on your website. Public-facing. “Configure your solution and see pricing instantly.” That’s aggressive transparency for complex B2B products. Nobody else in your market is doing that. And if your competitors complain that “our pricing is too complex for that,” you can just point to your website and say “ours is too – and we figured it out.”

Yes, But What About…

I know what you’re thinking.

“Troy, that sounds great, but what about all the variables we can’t predict?”

Fair question. And the answer is: you build in ranges for the things you can’t quote precisely, and you make those contingencies explicit.

“The equipment itself is $47,300. Installation will depend on your facility’s electrical configuration, which we’ll need to assess on-site. Based on typical installations, that runs between $8,000 and $12,000. If there are any unusual requirements, we’ll quote those separately before we start work.”

See? Still transparent. Still immediate. Still way better than “we’ll get back to you with a full proposal in a week.”

“But what if the AI makes a mistake?”

Then you test it. Extensively. Before you let salespeople use it with customers, and definitely before you put it on your website. You run hundreds of scenarios. You compare the AI quotes to what your pricing team would build manually. You refine the prompts and the data until it’s reliable. This isn’t “throw AI at the problem and hope.” This is “use AI to solve a specific business problem that humans are currently solving slowly and expensively.”

“Won’t this replace our salespeople?”

No. It replaces the part of their job that sucks – going back to the office to build proposals that the buyer isn’t even sure they want yet. It gives them back time to actually sell. To ask better questions. To understand what the buyer actually needs. To build relationships.

The salespeople who are afraid this will replace them are the same ones who think their job is being the gatekeeper of information. They’re already being replaced – by buyers who would rather research online than talk to someone who won’t give them straight answers. The salespeople who see this as a tool to make them more effective? They’re going to dominate their markets.

This Is New Ground for Everyone, Including Me

This is genuinely new territory. Not just for that equipment manufacturer who emailed me, but for most B2B companies with complex pricing. For me. For the companies I work with. But that’s what makes it exciting.

The companies that figure this out first – that build AI configurators that actually work, that train their salespeople to use them effectively, that maybe even put them on their websites for prospects to use – those companies are going to have a massive competitive advantage. Not because they have better AI, but because they’ve solved the tension between complexity and transparency that their competitors are still using as an excuse to hide pricing.

Start Out By Thinking About Your Variables

If you sell anything with complex, variable pricing, start thinking about this now.

What are all the variables that go into your pricing? Can you list them? Can you define how they interact with each other? Can you build decision trees that handle the most common scenarios?

If you can answer those questions, you can build an AI configurator. Maybe not today. Maybe not next month. But sooner than you think.

And when you do, you’re not just implementing a cool AI tool. You’re changing how your entire market thinks about transparency, speed, and what buyers should expect from salespeople. The competitors who are still making buyers wait three days for a quote are going to look like they’re operating in a different century. Because they are.

Navigating the AI Future in Sales – It’s Not Easy

I’ve written before that AI isn’t everything, and ignoring it is just as dumb. This is what I mean.

AI doesn’t replace sales fundamentals. It doesn’t replace genuine discovery. It doesn’t replace relationship-building or consultative selling. But it can absolutely replace the parts of the sales process that are slow, manual, and frustrating for everyone involved.

Complex pricing configuration is one of those parts. If you’re in a business where “let me get back to you with a quote” is a regular part of your sales vocabulary, you should be thinking about this.

Because somewhere, one of your competitors is. And when they launch their configurator – whether it’s internal for their sales team or public-facing on their website – every conversation you have afterward is going to start with “Well, your competitor showed me pricing immediately…”

You can either be the company that figures this out first, or the company that’s scrambling to catch up.

I know which one I’d rather be.

AI Isn’t Everything – And Ignoring It Is Just as Dumb

Sales Blog, The Navigator News, , ,

I had a presentation last week that didn’t go like I wanted it to. Not because the content was bad – the concepts are solid and the program works and usually helps a lot of people in the room. But because I was in a room where people had decided that if I wasn’t talking about AI in every sentence, I wasn’t worth listening to.

Twenty minutes into a two-hour program, two people literally told me they were tuning me out because I wasn’t incorporating AI into everything I was discussing. Never mind that the program was about fundamental sales principles, sales organization methodology, and sales strategy. Never mind that they’d booked me knowing exactly what I was teaching. Never mind that their own self-analysis scores showed they had serious fundamental problems to address.

They wanted AI. Everything AI. AI as the answer to every question, the solution to every problem, the future of every business function.

And here’s what made it even crazier: Last year, I worked with a different group where the leader banned me from talking about AI at all. AI was the boogeyman. The thing that was going to destroy jobs, eliminate human connection, and ruin everything good about business.

Both approaches are wrong. And if you’re in either camp, you’re losing real money and real competitive advantage.

The AI-Is-Everything Crowd

By now, you probably know how I think. AI is a powerful tool. I use it constantly. Claude and Perplexity have revolutionized how I do research, prepare for client meetings, and develop content. I’ve written about how salespeople should use AI to research prospects, competitors, and their own companies. I’m not anti-AI.  I think AI is a productivity tool, a force multiplier, and a field-leveler between small companies and big ones.

But AI isn’t magic. And it’s not a substitute for knowing what you’re doing.

The group I presented to last week had fundamental sales problems. I’d opened the session with a diagnostic assessment – a simple 9-question health check that scores companies on their sales fundamentals out of 45 points. The best score in the room was 29. The worst was 16. To put that in perspective, anything below 30 indicates significant gaps in sales process, accountability, training, pipeline management, and basic business development discipline.

These companies needed to fix fundamentals. But they didn’t want to hear about fundamentals. They wanted to hear about AI.

No amount of AI is going to fix those problems. AI can make a good sales process more efficient. It can’t create a sales process where none exists. It can help salespeople research faster. It can’t teach them how to ask good questions or conduct thorough Investigation. It can automate follow-up sequences. It can’t build genuine customer relationships.

But they didn’t want to hear that, because AI is hip and trendy. Because talking about AI makes them feel like they’re on the cutting edge. Because it’s more comfortable to focus on shiny new tools than to confront the reality that their basics are broken. And because talking about the basics meant they would have had to make themselves vulnerable.

Here’s the truth – if your sales fundamentals are weak, AI will just help you fail faster and at greater scale. You’ll send more bad emails. You’ll research more prospects you’re not equipped to serve. You’ll automate more processes that don’t work.

Unless your business is actually building AI, developing AI-driven technology, or constructing data centers for AI infrastructure (one guy in the room was building data centers – and he was one of the most engaged participants), AI should not be everything. It should be a tool that enhances what you’re already doing well.

The AI-Is-The-Boogeyman Crowd

On the other end of the spectrum are the leaders who won’t let anyone mention AI. Who think it’s a fad. Who believe that “real salespeople” don’t need technology. Who are convinced that AI is going to eliminate the human element from business relationships.

This is just as wrong, and just as costly.

AI has already changed how buyers research vendors, how they make decisions, and what they expect from salespeople. Your prospects are using AI to research you before they ever take your call. They’re using it to compare alternatives, analyze reviews, and pull together information from multiple sources.

If your salespeople aren’t using the same tools, they’re operating at an information disadvantage. They’re going into calls less prepared than their buyers. They’re competing against salespeople who are leveraging AI to research more thoroughly, prepare more effectively, and operate more efficiently.

Ignoring AI because you’re philosophically opposed to it or scared of it is like refusing to use email in 2005 because you preferred phone calls. The technology isn’t going away. Your competitors are using it. Your buyers are using it. Refusing to engage with it doesn’t make you principled – it makes you obsolete.

There’s a Middle Ground, But Navigating It is Hard

Both extremes miss the real issue. AI is a tool. Not a strategy. Not a replacement for fundamentals. Not optional.

A tool.  Just like my favorite 3/8” drive ratchet in my garage.  I reach for it all the time, but it’s my knowledge and hands that guide it.

The right question isn’t “How do we make everything about AI?” or “How do we avoid AI entirely?” The right question is “Where does AI genuinely enhance what we’re already doing well?”

For sales, that means:

  • Using AI to research prospects before calls so salespeople show up informed and relevant
  • Using AI to track competitors and market trends so salespeople understand the landscape
  • Using AI to analyze your own company’s online presence so you know what buyers are seeing
  • Using AI to draft initial outreach that salespeople then customize and personalize
  • Using AI to help salespeople prepare better questions based on what they’ve learned about a prospect

What it doesn’t mean:

  • Replacing genuine discovery conversations with AI-generated scripts
  • Automating relationship-building
  • Using AI to blast out generic messages at scale
  • Letting AI make strategic decisions about which accounts to pursue
  • Assuming AI can fix fundamental problems with sales process, training, or accountability

The fundamentals still matter. Probably more than ever, because AI has raised the bar for what “adequate” looks like. A salesperson using AI poorly is competing against a salesperson using AI well. The one using it well has better research, better preparation, more relevant outreach, and more efficient processes.

But you still need to know how to sell. You still need to understand the Buyer’s Journey. You still need to conduct thorough Investigation. You still need to build genuine relationships.

AI amplifies what you’re already doing. If you’re doing the right things, AI makes you more effective. If you’re doing the wrong things, AI makes you more efficiently wrong.

Why the Middle Ground Is Hard

I think both extremes exist because the middle ground is uncomfortable. It requires nuance. It requires actually understanding both the fundamentals and the tools. It requires making judgment calls about where AI adds value and where it doesn’t.

It’s easier to declare “AI is everything!” and outsource your thinking to the shiny new tool. It’s easier to declare “AI is nothing!” and dismiss the whole thing as a fad.

What’s harder – but necessary – is saying: “AI is a powerful tool that we need to incorporate thoughtfully into solid fundamentals that we’re already executing well.”

That requires admitting you may have fundamentals to fix. It requires learning new tools. It requires constant evaluation of what’s working and what isn’t. It requires intellectual humility about both traditional approaches and new technologies.

Most people don’t want to do that work. They want simple answers. “Use AI for everything” is simple. “Ignore AI completely” is simple.

“Use AI strategically to enhance solid fundamentals” is complicated. But it’s the only approach that actually works.

What This Means for You

If you’re in the “AI is everything” camp, step back. Ask yourself: Are my fundamentals solid? Do my salespeople know how to conduct discovery? Do we have a real sales process? Do we hold people accountable? Do we train consistently?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, fix that first. Then use AI to make those solid fundamentals more efficient.

If you’re in the “AI is the boogeyman” camp, wake up. Your competitors are using these tools. Your buyers are using these tools. You’re operating at a disadvantage, and that disadvantage is growing every day.

Start small. Have your salespeople use AI to research prospects before calls. Use it to monitor competitors. Use it to understand your own online reputation. Learn what it can do well and what it can’t.

And if you’re trying to navigate the middle ground, keep going. It’s hard. It’s nuanced. It requires constant adjustment. But it’s the only sustainable approach to operating in a market where AI exists and fundamentals still matter.

That’s not sexy. That’s not simple. That’s not a soundbite that fits on a LinkedIn post.

But it’s what actually works.

You Can’t Create Urgency – But You Can Discover It

Sales Blog, The Navigator News, , ,

“Troy, how do I get my prospect to move faster? My proposal’s been sitting on their desk for three weeks.” I hear some version of this question constantly. The deal looks good. The buyer likes you. Everything seems aligned. And then… nothing. Radio silence. The whole process stalls out.

So the salesperson tries to go back and “create urgency.” They start pushing. Offering discounts for quick decisions. Talking about how much money the prospect is losing every day they don’t act. Trying to manufacture pressure. The problem is that you can’t create urgency that doesn’t exist. And by the time you’re trying to, it’s already too late.

The Sale Was Lost in Investigation

Remember my principle: 80% of your chance to win or lose the sale is determined by the time you ask your last question. That happens in the Investigation phase of the Buyer’s Journey – not at Decision, where you’re trying to create urgency.

If your proposal is sitting on someone’s desk gathering dust, the problem isn’t that you failed to create urgency at the end. The problem is that you failed to discover and understand their actual timeline and priorities during Investigation. The buyer has already made a decision, and that decision is: this doesn’t warrant action right now. Maybe it never will. And all the fancy objection-handling techniques in the world won’t change that. You can’t close your way out of a problem you questioned (or more appropriately, didn’t question) your way into.

Where Urgency Actually Comes From

Urgency exists – or it doesn’t – in the Motivation and Investigation phases.

At Motivation, something creates dissatisfaction with the status quo. A problem is costing money. A competitor is gaining ground. An opportunity is slipping away. Employees are complaining. Customers are threatening to leave. That dissatisfaction creates energy that drives the rest of the buying process. No dissatisfaction, no energy. No energy, no urgency.

At Investigation, the buyer is trying to understand the problem more clearly – what’s actually wrong, what’s causing it, what the implications are, what needs to change. This is where genuine urgency gets defined and prioritized – or where it dissipates because the problem isn’t as significant as initially thought.  Rushing through this step (which all too many salespeople do) is ignoring 80% of your ability to win the sale.

If you’re presenting solutions before you’ve thoroughly investigated the problem and its urgency, you’re gambling that urgency exists. And if it doesn’t, your proposal will sit there.

The Questions That Uncover Urgency

Here’s what you need to discover during Investigation – and notice, these are all questions for the customer to answer, not statements for you to make:

Does it genuinely benefit them to act sooner? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. We’re always in love with the benefits of our products, and we always think sooner is better. But does the prospect feel that way? Is there a genuine advantage to acting now versus later?  This is one of those moments where it helps immensely to think like the customer; would you act if you were the customer?

What’s the cost of inaction? Does your prospect have a goal to reach, and what you’re selling is essential to reaching it? Is something happening right now that’s costing money each day it continues? Is the problem creating regular complaints from employees or customers?

Are there barriers to implementation? Do departments need reorganization? Facilities renovated? New staff hired? If your prospect genuinely can’t use – or can’t maximize the use of – your solution yet, you serve them better by helping them plan the staged implementation rather than pushing for a premature decision.

What are the overall corporate priorities? Even if there’s urgency within a department, there might be other priorities the company wants to address first. Maybe they’re revamping their production plant to handle elevated sales, and your financial software – however valuable – isn’t the most urgent priority right now.

Understanding the overall context of the sale is one of the greatest weaknesses I see in salespeople. It’s hard to recognize that your solution lives within the scope of your customer’s entire business, not at the center of it.

The Customer Has to Articulate It

This is critical: The customer has to articulate the consequences of not acting and the benefits of acting sooner. Not you. If you’re telling them they need to act now, it won’t work. If they’re telling you why they need to act now, you have a shot. Contentions only become fact in the sales process when the customer either states them or agrees that your contentions are statements of fact.

A good friend refers to this as “their window being open.” The customer can have needs. You can have the perfect solution. But if their window – their timing – isn’t open, you’re throwing rocks at a closed window. Sure, sometimes you can break the window. But have you ever seen a window owner be delighted that you broke it?

The Tired Tactics Don’t Work Anymore

“If you buy today, it’s at this price, but if you buy next week, the price goes up.”

I tried this crap when I was a brand new car salesman – and customers shoved it down my throat.  “So, if I call back Monday and want to buy this car at that price, you won’t sell it to me for that?” they asked, knowing full well that I would.  It only took two instances of that happening for me to banish that technique from my repertoire forever.  And yet, I still see it being used.

Modern buyers see through this garbage. They know you’re manufacturing pressure. And it makes them uncomfortable. Remember: comfortable customers buy. Pressured customers delay, ghost, or buy from someone who doesn’t make them feel manipulated. What you can do is discover, channel, and accentuate urgency that already exists. You cannot create it from nothing.

The Equation for a Sale to Happen

Need (articulated by customer) + Solution (articulated by salesperson and agreed to by customer) + Timing = Sale

All three elements have to be present. Two out of three doesn’t close deals. If the timing isn’t right – if their window isn’t open – the sale won’t happen. Not because you failed at closing. Because you didn’t discover during Investigation that the timing wasn’t aligned.

When the Sale Still Doesn’t Happen

Even if you do everything right – conduct thorough Investigation, discover genuine urgency, align your solution with their timeline – the sale still sometimes won’t happen.

Because we sell to human beings. Priorities shift. Budgets get redirected. Decision makers leave. Unforeseen circumstances arise. But this approach gives you the best shot. It surfaces timing issues early, when you can still qualify out or adjust your approach. It prevents you from wasting weeks on proposals that were never going to move forward. And it positions you as a consultant who understands their business rather than a salesperson trying to manufacture pressure.

Navigating Urgency

Stop trying to create urgency at the Decision phase. Start discovering it at the Investigation phase.

Ask questions designed to understand their actual timeline and priorities. Surface the real consequences of inaction. Understand the barriers to implementation. Get clarity on where your solution fits within their overall business priorities. And let the customer articulate why acting matters – or doesn’t.

If urgency genuinely exists, your thorough Investigation will uncover it and your proposal will align with it. If urgency doesn’t exist, you’ll discover that too – and you can decide whether to invest more time or move on to opportunities where the window is actually open.

You can’t create urgency. But you can discover it, understand it, and build your entire sales approach around it.

That’s not manipulation. That’s professional selling.

Confused Customers Don’t Buy – And Comfortable Customers Do

Sales Blog, The Navigator News, , ,

I’ve always said that much of my inspiration for these articles comes from my clients, and this one is an example.  A client said something to me last week that grabbed my attention: “Confused customers don’t buy.”

He was explaining why some salespeople in his industry are losing business. Salespeople do a great presentation – feature-rich, technically thorough, professionally delivered. The prospects nod through the whole thing, ask a few questions, and then say they need time to think it over. Three weeks later, they buy from a competitor.

The salespeople can’t figure out why this happens, but here’s the real reason: “The other company made it clearer what we were actually getting.” Many deals aren’t lost on price. They aren’t lost on features. Not lost on relationship.

They’re lost on clarity.

Your Jargon is Your Enemy

I see it all the time.  Salespeople live in their products every day. They know the terminology, the acronyms, the technical specifications. They talk to colleagues who speak the same language. They read industry publications that use the same shorthand.

And then they walk into a sales call and forget that their customer doesn’t live in that world. API integration. SaaS deployment. ROI modeling. Multi-tenant architecture. Agile methodology. Whatever the jargon is in your industry, you know it cold. Your customer might not.  Worse, they might think they know it – nod along because they don’t want to appear uninformed – and then walk away with a completely incorrect understanding of what you’re proposing.

I watched this happen on a call recently. The salesperson was selling manufacturing software and kept talking about “MES integration” and “real-time data visibility at the cell level.” The prospect – a plant manager who’d been in manufacturing for twenty years – was nodding along. After the call, I had a moment alone with the plant manager, and I asked him what he thought. “I think it sounds good,” he said, “but I’m honestly not sure what half of that means for my operation.”

You might be thinking that I could step in and save the deal at this point – grab the salesperson, pull him back in, give a quick whispered instruction, and re-set the call.  Nope.  We’d been there for an hour and that’s all the time we were allotted.  And the truth of it is that, part of the time, I didn’t know what the hell the salesperson was talking about either! The salesperson thought he’d nailed the presentation. The customer was confused. And confused customers don’t buy.

Are You Talking to a Decision Maker, or an Implementer?

The situation gets worse when the decision maker and the implementer are two different people – and never mistake, they often are. Your IT contact understands “cloud-native microservices architecture” and “containerized deployment.” Great. Talk to them in those terms during discovery.

But when you’re presenting to the CFO who controls the budget, that CFO doesn’t care about microservices. They care about whether this investment will reduce operating costs, improve efficiency, or enable growth. And you’d better know and understand those big-picture advantages as well as you do your jargon.

Too many salespeople present to decision makers the same way they talk to implementers – focusing on technical terminology when they should be focusing on big-picture business advantages. The CFO doesn’t need to understand how the technology works. They need to understand what it does for the business.

“This solution provides real-time visibility into production metrics through our cloud-based MES platform” means nothing to them.

“You’ll know within two hours instead of two days when a production line is running behind schedule, which means you can make decisions that prevent late deliveries to customers” – that they understand.

You see, you’re talking about the same capability in a different language. One creates clarity. The other creates confusion.

Yep, I’ll Say it Again For Those in the Back – Comfortable Customers Buy

I’ve written before about my mantra: comfortable customers buy.

A comfortable customer is one who understands what they’re buying, trusts that it will solve their problem, and feels confident making the decision. Comfort and confusion are opposites. You cannot have both.

When a customer is confused about what you’re proposing – whether it’s because of technical jargon, unclear explanations, or a mismatch between what they care about and what you’re emphasizing – they become uncomfortable.  If they’re pretending to comprehend what you’re saying because they don’t want to look dumb, they get even less comfortable.  And they can’t wait to get you out of the office, because you’re making them feel dumb.

Uncomfortable customers don’t buy. Or they delay. Or they buy from someone who made them feel more comfortable, even if that competitor’s solution is objectively inferior to yours.  Your job is to create comfort through clarity.

How to Create Clarity

Translate, don’t educate. Your job isn’t to teach customers your industry’s terminology. Your job is to translate what you do into terms that match what they care about. If you find yourself using an acronym or technical term, stop and ask yourself: “Would my customer’s CEO understand this?” If not, rephrase it.

Match language to audience. When talking to implementers, use the technical language they expect. When talking to decision makers, use business language. “Reduced latency” for the IT team becomes “faster response times for customers” for the executive. Same thing. Different audience. Different language.

Check for understanding. Don’t assume nodding means comprehension. Periodically check: “Does that make sense in the context of how you’re operating today?” or “How would you explain this to your team?” These questions surface confusion before it kills the deal.  I used to say that “nodding along is a buying sign.”  Now, I’m not so sure.  When in doubt – ask checking questions.

Use analogies and examples. Abstract concepts become clear when you ground them in familiar terms. “Think of it like…” is one of the most powerful phrases in selling. I watched a salesperson explain cloud storage to a non-technical buyer by comparing it to a safety deposit box – you don’t keep it in your building, but you can access it whenever you need it, and it’s more secure than keeping it on-site. The buyer got it immediately.

Focus on outcomes and advantages, not features. Technical features create confusion. Business outcomes create clarity. “Machine learning algorithms” confuses. “The system gets smarter over time and makes better recommendations the longer you use it” clarifies.

How to Test Your Clarity

Here’s a simple test for your next presentation: Could your customer explain what you’re proposing to someone else in their organization? If they can’t, you haven’t created clarity. And if you haven’t created clarity, you haven’t created comfort.

Confused customers don’t buy. They stall. They delay. They ask for more information. They shop your proposal to competitors hoping someone will make it clearer. Or they just go with the vendor who made the decision feel less risky – even if that vendor isn’t offering the best solution.  Ever lost a sale that way?  I have.  It sucks.

Your technical knowledge is valuable. Your industry expertise matters. Your product’s capabilities are important. But none of that creates value for the customer if they don’t understand it.

Be Clear.

Stop assuming your customers speak your language. They don’t. And expecting them to learn it is arrogant and ineffective. Translate technical terms into business outcomes. Match your language to your audience. Check for understanding. Use analogies and examples.

Make clarity your competitive advantage. Because at the end of the day, confused customers don’t buy. Comfortable customers do. And the fastest way to create comfort is to create clarity.