| Course | MT202 Building Customer Sales and Loyalty |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Objection handling script |
| Length | About 830 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT202 Unit 5
Price, Timing and a Vendor Who Never Showed: A Unit 5 Objection Handling Script for a Maintenance Contract
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT202: Building Customer Sales and Loyalty
Unit 5 Objection Handling Script
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Corbel Mechanical, Delancey Metal Works, their staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Setup
Ray Dunbar sells service agreements for Corbel Mechanical, a composite heating and cooling contractor in Akron. Delancey Metal Works employs thirty-eight people in a 30,000-square-foot shop with four rooftop units and two make-up air units that bring in fresh air for the welding bays. In discovery last week, the plant manager, Walt Simms, said two things: a rooftop unit failed during a heat wave last August and the shop sent the second shift home, and his current contractor only comes when something breaks. Ray's proposal is a quarterly maintenance agreement at $7,800 a year. Each block below follows a four-step method common in sales texts: acknowledge the concern, clarify what lies behind it, respond with evidence, and confirm (Kotler & Keller, 2016).
Block One: Price
Walt: I looked at your number. Seventy-eight hundred a year is more than we paid our current guys in the last two years put together, and they only charge when we call them.
Ray: That's a fair comparison to make, and you're right that the agreement costs more than your emergency calls have. Can I ask what last August's failure cost beyond the repair bill?
Walt: The repair was about $3,400. But we sent second shift home for two nights. That's twelve people, and we were late on an order for our biggest customer.
Ray: What would you put on those two nights, roughly?
Walt: Lost production, maybe $14,000. And I spent a week on the phone with that customer.
Ray: So one failure cost around $17,000 plus your week. The agreement includes four visits a year where we replace belts and filters, check refrigerant and test the controls before the season starts, which is when most failures like August's are caught. Does that change how the price looks?
Walt: It looks different when you put August next to it, I'll give you that.
Between blocks: the price objection was real, not a stall, because Walt had compared actual figures.
Block Two: Timing
Walt: Even so, our budget year starts in January. Can we talk again then?
Ray: We can. Is the January date a hard rule from your owner, or is it more that you'd rather not add an expense mid-year?
Walt: Honestly, the owner would approve it if I made the case. I just have a lot on my plate.
Ray: Then here's one option. We can start in January for billing, but do the first spring inspection in March, before the cooling season, at no extra cost. That way you're covered before the next August. Would that work for both you and the owner?
Walt: That might work. I'd need it in writing.
Between blocks: this was mostly a stall. One clarifying question separated it from a real budget rule.
Block Three: Trust
Walt: My bigger worry is that every contractor promises visits. Our last one signed us up for "seasonal checks" six years ago and showed up twice.
Ray: That would make anyone skeptical, and I'd rather you be skeptical than sign and be let down again. What would convince you the visits will actually happen this time?
Walt: Dates. And a person, not a dispatcher.
Ray: The agreement lists the four visit months, and you'll get a calendar invitation two weeks before each. Your technician will be Luis Ortega, who services three other shops in your industrial park. You'll have his cell number. And if we miss a scheduled visit, the next quarter's fee is waived. Would a missed-visit clause and a named technician answer the concern?
Walt: The waiver would. Put Luis's name in the agreement.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that commitment and trust are central to lasting business relationships, and that trust grows from a partner's reliability and integrity. A price can be argued with numbers; trust can only be earned through commitments the buyer can check.
A price can be answered with a number, but a broken promise can only be answered with a promise he can check.
Reflection on the Script
The weakest response is the timing block. Ray's offer of a free March visit solves the immediate problem but gives away part of the first year's value, and a more experienced representative might have asked what the owner would need to see in Walt's case and offered to write it. Spiro and Weitz (1990) described adaptive selling as changing the approach during a conversation based on what the buyer reveals, and the timing block adapted the price but not the argument. A stronger version would have let Walt carry a one-page summary of the August cost to his owner.
References
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700106
The Purdue Global MT202 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth unit typically asks for a scripted sales conversation in which a buyer raises objections and the representative responds. Most prompts specify the number of objections, often three, and expect them to be realistic for the product and buyer. The buyer must speak in full lines, since a script where only the seller talks cannot show an objection being understood. Your section's readings will name a method, such as acknowledge, clarify, respond and confirm, or feel, felt, found, and graders expect it applied and labeled. Many prompts also ask you to judge whether each objection is genuine or a stall. A short reflection afterward, explaining which response is weakest and why, is common. A setup paragraph should state the product, the buyer and what came before. Expect two to four pages, including the reflection, with the method's source cited in APA 7.
How the MT 202 Unit 5 example is put together
A setup paragraph names the contractor, the shop, its four rooftop units and two make-up air units, and the August failure from discovery. The price block lets the plant manager compare the agreement with two years of emergency calls, then has the representative ask what the failure cost beyond the repair. The manager supplies the $14,000 in lost production himself, which a margin note marks as the turning point. A line between blocks judges the objection genuine. The timing block uses one clarifying question to find that the January rule is flexible and offers a March inspection. The trust block draws on Morgan and Hunt for why reliability builds commitment, and the highlighted line contrasts answering a price with answering a broken promise. The reflection admits the timing reply gave away value and cites Spiro and Weitz on adapting the argument, not only the price.
Reading the MT202 Unit 5 grading rubric
An objection script usually earns most of its marks for realism and method. Buyer lines that push back and supply information make the script believable, while a buyer who folds after one reply makes it look staged. The method should be visible in each block, either through labels or margin notes, so the grader can see acknowledge, clarify, respond and confirm applied rather than claimed. Judging whether each objection is real or a stall shows the analytical skill the unit is built around. Responses earn more when they use the buyer's own figures or concerns instead of general claims about value. The reflection is often where the top range is decided, since evaluating one's own weakest reply takes more judgment than writing a good one. Kotler and Keller, Morgan and Hunt, and Spiro and Weitz should be cited in APA 7.
Common MT202 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Scripts are commonly marked down when the buyer has one short line per objection and then agrees. Another frequent issue is a representative who argues with the buyer or answers before clarifying what the concern really is. Some writers handle every objection the same way regardless of whether it is a stall. Others never confirm that the concern is resolved, so the conversation simply moves on. Watch for price responses that only repeat the product's features, since the buyer has already heard them. Many drafts also end the script without any reflection, or with one line claiming every reply worked. If the product truly does not suit the buyer, a script that says so can earn strong marks. Bring your product, buyer and method to our writers, and they can draft dialogue with real resistance and a reflection that judges the weakest reply.
Get an MT202 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Name the product, the buyer and the three objections the prompt specifies, or the ones this buyer would most likely raise, and send the Unit 5 instructions with the rubric. The script is written in two columns with annotated method and full buyer lines. It comes back within 24-48h, and the first sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT202 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT202 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT202 Unit 2: Buyer Profile
- MT202 Unit 3: Needs Analysis
- MT202 Unit 4: Sales Call Plan
- MT202 Unit 6: Sales Presentation
- MT202 Unit 7: Closing Analysis
- MT202 Unit 8: Account Follow-up Plan
- MT202 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT202 Unit 10: Customer Loyalty Plan
- MT140 Unit 5: Staffing Case Analysis
- MT106 Unit 5: Career Research Summary
- MT102 Unit 5: Pricing Exercise
- LI410 Unit 5: Conflict Case Reflection
MT202 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which objection-handling method should the script follow?
The one your section's readings teach. Common versions include acknowledge, clarify, respond and confirm, or the feel, felt, found pattern. Whatever you use, label it in the margin or in brackets so the grader can see each step. A method named in the introduction but invisible in the dialogue tends to lose the method row.
Do I need to include the buyer's lines?
Yes, in nearly every section. A script where only the representative speaks cannot show that the objection was understood, clarified or resolved. Write the buyer as someone with real concerns who does not surrender after one reply. At least one exchange should include a follow-up objection, since real buyers rarely accept the first answer.
What if the product genuinely does not suit the buyer?
Then the script can say so, and many graders reward it. Walking away from a poor fit protects the relationship, which is a central idea in this course. If your prompt requires a successful close, show the representative confirming the fit carefully before closing, rather than overpowering an objection that was actually valid.
Where can I find a free MT202 Unit 5 sample paper?
A complete MT202 Unit 5 objection handling script appears on this page. A plant manager raises price, timing and trust objections to a maintenance agreement, each answered with a four-step method, followed by a short reflection and margin notes.
Why does the sample call the timing objection a stall?
Because one clarifying question showed the January budget rule was not firm. The plant manager admitted his owner would approve the agreement if he made the case, so the real issue was his workload, not the budget calendar.