MT202 Unit 7 Closing Analysis Example

Signed on Thursday, Canceled Nine Days Later: A Unit 7 Closing Analysis of a University Print Order

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT202: Building Customer Sales and Loyalty

Unit 7 Closing Analysis

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Ridgeway Press, the university, its staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

Case Summary

Ridgeway Press is a composite regional commercial printer in Indiana. Its representative, Neil Barrow, had a quarterly target due at the end of the month. The buyer was Dr. Anita Kowal, director of marketing for a composite state university's admissions office, who was planning a year of recruitment mailings: a viewbook, three postcard waves and an acceptance packet, worth about $118,000 in printing. The university had used the same printer for six years and was reviewing that relationship because of rising prices. Anita had met Neil twice before this meeting.

Timeline of the Final Meeting

The exchanges that matter, in order, ran as follows.

First, Neil presented a quote about 8 percent below the incumbent's for the full year.

Second, Anita asked how long proofs took and whether her team could see a press check for the viewbook.

Third, Neil answered briefly and said the quote included a 5 percent discount that expired Friday, because the press schedule for the fall filled quickly.

Fourth, Anita said she was still comparing paper stocks and wanted to see samples of the uncoated stock she preferred.

Fifth, Neil took out the order form and began filling it in, saying he would note the uncoated stock as her preference.

Sixth, he asked, "Where should I send the contract for signature?"

Seventh, Anita gave him an email address and signed electronically the next day, a Thursday.

Nine days later she emailed to cancel, writing that the decision "had moved faster than our process allows" and that she needed to see the paper samples before committing.

The Techniques Used

Two closing techniques appear in the meeting. Exchange three is an urgency close, sometimes called a scarcity or limited-time close: the representative creates a deadline to make delay costly. Exchanges five and six are an assumptive close, in which the seller acts as if the buyer has already decided and asks about details of the purchase rather than whether to make it. Kotler and Keller (2016) list closing among the steps of personal selling and note that representatives must recognize closing signals from the buyer, including physical actions, statements and questions.

Both techniques can work, but each rests on an assumption. The urgency close assumes the buyer is ready and is only delaying out of habit. The assumptive close assumes the buyer has already made up her mind. Neither assumption held. Anita had said in exchange four that she was still comparing paper stocks, which is a direct statement that the decision was not finished.

The Buying Signals He Passed Over

Anita gave two signals of genuine interest. Her question in exchange two about proof times and a press check is a buying signal in the classic sense: a buyer who asks how a product will be delivered or used is imagining owning it. A representative who heard it could have answered in detail, offered a press check date and asked whether proof timing was a concern with her current printer. That would have deepened the conversation and possibly uncovered why the university was reviewing its vendor.

Her statement in exchange four was also a signal, of a different kind. It told Neil what stood between her and a decision: paper samples. Rackham (1988), in his study of thousands of sales calls, found that closing techniques were associated with success in small, low-priced sales but with failure in larger ones, where buyers resent pressure and need to feel that the decision is theirs. An order of $118,000 that commits a university for a year is a large sale in Rackham's terms. Neil treated it like a small one.

Where Trust Began to Drain

The turning point is exchange five, the moment Neil began filling in the form while Anita was still talking about paper. Up to that point he had made an aggressive offer, which a buyer can weigh. After it, he was acting on a decision she had not made. Brehm (1966) described psychological reactance, the motivation people feel to restore a freedom they believe is threatened, and a buyer who feels her choice has been taken from her is likely to push back once the pressure lifts. Anita signed under the deadline, but the cancellation email names exactly what she lost: the chance to follow her own process.

Neil filled in the form at the moment Anita told him she had not decided.

The deadline itself added to the damage. A five percent discount on $118,000 is about $5,900, which is real money for an admissions office. But the reason given, that fall press time fills quickly, may have been true, and Neil never explained it. A buyer who cannot verify a deadline tends to see it as a tactic, and once she sees one tactic she starts to look for others.

A Better Ending

A summary close and a trial close would have fit this buyer better. After exchange four, the conversation could have gone like this.

Neil: "So, to check my notes: you want proofs within three business days, a press check for the viewbook, and the uncoated stock if it holds color the way you need. Is that the whole list?"

Anita: "That and the price staying where it is."

Neil: "I can get you samples of the uncoated stock printed with your viewbook cover by Wednesday. If they look right, would you be ready to move ahead?"

The first exchange is a summary close: it restates the buyer's conditions and invites her to confirm or add to them. The second is a trial close: it tests readiness by asking what would happen if one condition were met. Neither assumes the decision. Both move the sale forward. On the discount, Neil could have offered to hold the price until the following Friday, after the samples arrived, explaining the press schedule honestly.

Consequences for the Account

The university still needs printing. Anita's cancellation email was polite, and she did not rule out Ridgeway. What Neil needs now is not a new offer but a repaired relationship. He should send the uncoated samples without being asked, acknowledge in a short note that he moved faster than her process allowed, and ask when the review will conclude. If Ridgeway wins the work later, it will be because Anita trusts that the next decision will be hers.

The case also has a lesson for Ridgeway's sales management. A quarterly target that ends on a Friday creates pressure for exactly this kind of close. A representative rewarded for signed contracts, with no penalty for cancellations, has every reason to push. Tracking cancellations alongside signatures would show the cost of pressure that this case makes visible.

References

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson.

Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN selling. McGraw-Hill.