The idea that a would-be customer’s objections can be overcome by a clever sales person is built upon an entirely false assumption:
That the would-be customer is playing “hard to get” or is “going through the motions” of objecting in order to (a) try and wring some additional concessions or discount out of the salesperson and/or (b) to make life bloody difficult for the salesperson! … but (the false assumption goes) with some cunning negotiation, the would-be customer can be brought back to the purchase by a wily salesperson.
BUT isn’t it a would-be customer’s right to try and get the best deal possible? Isn’t it to be expected? Wouldn’t you, if the roles were reversed?
There’s no genuine objections here, just a would-be customer trying to get the best deal. So what’s the point in trying to overcome their objections when THERE ARE NO REAL OBJECTIONS TO OVERCOME?
All the salesperson has to do, surely, is give the would-be customer the best deal possible … and make sure the would-be customer recognises that it’s the best deal possible… and the “objection” will be overcome. Hey presto, the sale is made! The would-be customer gets what they want and progresses to becoming a customer and the salesperson gets their sale. Everyone’s a winner.
Wily salespeople and cunning negotiations are not needed because there is no real objection to overcome.