Mercury Energy - Do You Have the WORST (or No?) Training for Your Frontline Salespeople
Jordan Kelly • 2 March 2024

What the Hell Does Your 'Sales Training' Comprise, Mercury Management?

This afternoon I was subjected to the WORST door-to-door salesmanship I've ever experienced.


A very polite and softly-spoken 30-something man came to my door, and - while I could barely understand a thing he said because of the thickness of his accent and the incredible speed at which he spoke - I perceived (from his livery) that he was endeavoring to get me to switch power companies.


Now, I have a soft spot for salespeople who carve out their living by selling on commission. Probably because I detest laziness in all its forms - and I can barely comprehend the degree of courage, tenacity, energy and sheer hard yakka it must take to perform such a role, let alone to succeed at it.


But the problem with door-to-door selling is this:


Good salesmanship starts at identifying the objective of the buyer. Even if they don't yet know they're a buyer, and they don't yet know, therefore, that they even have an objective.


BUT . . . with door-to-door selling, the visiting salesperson essentially has to push a narrow, pre-determined offering on the buyer - at best, convincing the buyer that the salesperson's objective should also be the buyer's objective.


Thus, it makes the process of handling objections (a Sales 101 process) extra challenging, because - generally - the offering can't be customised or even tweaked to suit any specifics relating to the customer's own circumstances.


However, the fact remains that buyer objections will always - naturally - exist in almost any situation in which the buyer is approached in a cold-call manner with an offer. Maybe they can be surmounted within the narrow, pre-determined mass-market offer . . . or maybe they can't.


BUT . . . the one thing NO salesperson should EVER do is refuse to listen to, completely disregard, cut off, or have a customer feel silly, unreasonable, or unintelligent, for their objection/s.


The only circumstances in which a salesperson will be successful with a potential customer, if he or she does that, are those in which the target is:


(a) just a total pushover;


(b) just wants rid of the salesperson and for the sake of achieving that, will buy, and/or


(c)  through completely coincidental timing, is experiencing a motivating moment of dissatisfaction with their current supplier or service provider.


Of course, there is a (d), and that's where the company that the roving salesperson is representing, is dropping their pants on price. Really dropping their pants on price. But householders are increasingly waking up to the fact that the dropped-pants-pricing will escalate significantly at some point after they've got you stitched up and transferred (and that they'll get you somehow, even if the sales pitch includes promising that you'll "lock in this special pricing" for two years . . . or whatever).


Anyway. Back to the story.


So I'm giving this door-to-door salesman for Mercury Energy the time of day for two reasons: 


The first, as mentioned, is my soft-heartedness (believe it or not) - and his uber-politeness certainly helped in that regard. 


Secondly, because when he started rolling a phone service into his breakneck-speed verbal data download, he did get me at a potentially opportune moment.


In terms of the power supplier part of whatever his deal was, I have a distinct loyalty to Nova Energy. That is because they are the only company that didn't treat me like an infected wart when I was trying to get a "smart" meter changed out for something that wouldn't irradiate me when I bought a new property that had one of these radiation devices strapped to the porch. 


And I did (past tense) have a totally unjustified loyalty to the small, Hastings-based landline and broadband provider, Now Broadband. But after more than a year of attempting to draw the attention of anyone there who cares, to the incredible contempt to which I've been increasingly subjected regarding a completely bullshit critical supplementary subscription service that was actually the sole reason I switched from Spark . . . well, I'm ripe for the discussion.


But again, back to the story.


So, I needed to convey to the Mercury Energy salesperson, certain aspects of the above reasons that I'm currently with those two service providers.


But he didn't want to know. I mean, he was not in the least impolite . . . he continued his soft-spoken pitch in his unbroken smile, but here were the problems. . . . and they were numerous:


1)  I absolutely couldn't understand him. His accent was simply too thick and his rate of speech way too rapid. And I couldn't get this across to him.


2)  I also couldn't understand the content of his attempted communication. He was firing bits, bytes, data, fibre somethings, plans, and all manner of even more techie terms at me. I tried to get him to understand that I couldn't understand, but he seemed not to want to understand that I didn't understand.


3)  Some way into the download, I interrupted him to tell him that I was having real difficulty trying to absorb such an unrelenting torrent of information. Let alone such a lot of technical information. And let alone delivered at such speed. But it didn't change anything. It's like he thought if he started all over again, I'd somehow get it.


4)  Notwithstanding that I couldn't understand a thing he was saying and that I couldn't get him to understand that I couldn't understand a thing he was saying, I decided to try to tell him the reasons I didn't really want to replace my current supplier situation.


In doing so (or attempting to do so), I wasn't actually closing off the possibility that I would do business with him. (I even followed his request to supply him with my current electricity bill and went inside, printed it out, and brought it back to him. I also gave him my Chief Reviewer card for The Customer NZ.)


Thus, if he'd have recognised it, we had just entered into the "objection" part of the sales process. (Which is sort of, if it's not a 'No', it's a 'Yes' . . . but you've still got to work out what the customer needs to have happen for you to turn the 'still no at this point' into an 'almost yes' and then - finally - into an actual "yes". Of course, you can experience drop out all the way along this transmission line - but that's just sales.)


But this guy hadn't been schooled in handling objections. So he decided - yet again - to take his presentation from the top. He began, all over again, downloading his data at me, maintaining his breakneck verbal speed.


At that point, my patience finally did run out. 


Here is what I told him:


"I cannot do business with you. You are not in the least interested in what I, as the customer, want.


"Yet that is what a good and professional salesperson does:  they LISTEN to the CUSTOMER'S objective, and then they see if they, as the salesperson, can marry THEIR objective, with the CUSTOMER'S objective.


"But you don't give a STUFF about my objective. You just want to push YOUR objective on me.


"So we can't do business."  (Which is a shame, because I actually would have liked the thought of him adding another commission to his day's tally, because of me.)


And I went inside - marveling at how professionally NEGLIGENT and IRRESPONSIBLE Mercury Energy's sales management is, to have let this polite but completely cloth-eared, unseasoned "salesman" loose on householders.



Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More