I must say the AR reports were comprehensive and they certainly...

I must say the AR reports were comprehensive and they certainly explain a major issue - that is, the length of time to convert a prospect from "Ï know about you" to signing a contract. This suggests prospects are cautious, leery and need convincing.

Traditional selling tactics overcome this by (a) providing a guarantee as in "ÿou risk nothing, at any stage until you are completely satisfied", try before you buy, maybe the first application is a loss leader to get the prospect to try.

Surely LBL must have qualified testimonials and solid case studies with all the technical mumbo jumbo to convince an engineer. And yeah, I know how difficult this will be - the most boring place to be in any conversation is being wedged between an engineer and an undertaker! Talk about riveting!

Is there an overarching recognized group who can provide independent third party evidence that the LBL methodology works and works well? I'm thinking about NATA as in National Association of Testing Authorities Australia. This organization worked wonderfully for a few companies in my career.

But, I will wait and see how LBL perform on this new subset of positive visions.