Consequence Isnโt the Move You Think It Is
Alright boys โ this is one I need to clean up because I keep seeing people either: 1. never touch consequence because they think itโs โpushyโ OR 2. go full fear-mode and try scare someone into buying Both are wrong. And whatโs funny isโฆ most of you donโt even need consequence if your discovery is actually solid. Gap confirmation is the bridge. Thatโs the soft entry into consequence. All youโre really doing is helping them clearly see the difference between where they are now and where they want to be. When thatโs done properly, the gravity is already there. Why consequence usually kills the close Hereโs the mistake I see over and over: You go through current situation. You uncover the problem. You timeline it. You build the goal. They acknowledge the gap. Theyโre in a buying pocket. Then right before you present the solutionโฆ you dump them into fear. Thatโs a terrible move. People donโt buy well in fear. They freeze, get defensive, or say yes and regret it once the emotion drops. This is why some deals feel โso inโ on the call and then fall apart after. You didnโt lose the sale later โ you poisoned the buying state before the pitch. When consequence actually belongs on a call Consequence is not a default tool. Itโs a corrective tool. You use it when the prospect is being: - vague - passive - unserious - stuck in the same loop for years - clearly not feeling the weight of their situation If someone gives you a real problem and a real goal, why would you pile fear on top of that? They already know the gravity. But if theyโre downplaying it, brushing it off, or intellectually agreeing without emotional buy-in โ thatโs when consequence earns its place. If you go consequence, it must be specific This is where most reps mess it up. Generic consequence does not land. Especially with strong, Type A prospects. Cheesy questions like: โWhere will you be in six months if nothing changes?โ Do basically nothing. What lands is specificity tied to their life.