I have listened to a compliance call where the client had no idea that the card was already charged, didn't know why it was charged, basically didn't even know that this was an investment. Closer focused way too much on SUCCESSS stories and looking for people to be on our next informercial which excited student so much that he didn't hear too much about what the program REALLY entailed. He was told he was going to be partnered with an investor and walked through everything he needed to do to make money through transactions.
Basically, I strongly believe that the salesman need to be CLEAR on what the program is, not just saying proactive and reactive phases. This customer in compliance had no idea there was a limit of coaching sessions because it was heavily relayed to him that an investor would walk him through deals for the next YEAR.
The fact that compliance should have to be the ones to tell the client what he is purchasing, not only speaks for itself by saying that obviously this was not agreed to by client bc he didn't know what he was getting, but also demerits our reputation as an upfront and honest company.
Client felt he had been taken advantage of, and I know why. There needs to be some sort of rule or something that no sale can go through compliance until the outline of products purchasing is fully described.. It only seems fair, to clients, and to our companies reputation.....
This happened Friday afternoon, and it makes me wonder how often this happens. Would it be a good idea to listen to more compliances?? They don't always show up in the VRM under the ext for compliance, Closers will conference them over so it shows as their extension..??
How do you all feel as a team about this situation? Has anyone else had this happen?? How can we be more efficient in catching these sort of compliances?
Thank you
Basically, I strongly believe that the salesman need to be CLEAR on what the program is, not just saying proactive and reactive phases. This customer in compliance had no idea there was a limit of coaching sessions because it was heavily relayed to him that an investor would walk him through deals for the next YEAR.
The fact that compliance should have to be the ones to tell the client what he is purchasing, not only speaks for itself by saying that obviously this was not agreed to by client bc he didn't know what he was getting, but also demerits our reputation as an upfront and honest company.
Client felt he had been taken advantage of, and I know why. There needs to be some sort of rule or something that no sale can go through compliance until the outline of products purchasing is fully described.. It only seems fair, to clients, and to our companies reputation.....
This happened Friday afternoon, and it makes me wonder how often this happens. Would it be a good idea to listen to more compliances?? They don't always show up in the VRM under the ext for compliance, Closers will conference them over so it shows as their extension..??
How do you all feel as a team about this situation? Has anyone else had this happen?? How can we be more efficient in catching these sort of compliances?
Thank you
