I regularly ask my training participants, hey, why should I buy from you and your company? And I receive answers like these here: We offer or we have, we look back on the history of 150 years, we offer great products, because we offer products made in Germany, we have a great equity ratio, therefore we are super stable financially and of course those are great arguments speaking for our company and the due course of the brain model, we spoke about the fact that if I would like to activate the brain or the other person, I should focus on added values for the other person and because it is like that, we need to learn to differentiate arguments and added values by definition, it is actually quite easy to differentiate. Arguments are something that describe ourselves and we can check it easily by putting an I or we in front of our arguments. For example, in this case, well, we look back at 150 years of history, we offer products made in Germany, we offer very good quality and we have a tremendous equity ratio. Obviously all these things written here are arguments and therefore added values are by definition something that I can derive from the argument which is in the interest of the client. For example, if I offer a great equity ratio, of course I am financially stable and therefore the client has the security that he will receive his money. We will pay fast or we will pay and he doesn't have any risk of not receiving the money. That's your added value and therefore we need to learn to differentiate arguments and added value. As a matter of fact, what does the client buy, the argument or the added value and it's a typical failure in the DNA of sales organizations that they permanently think in arguments and we would like to change that. By the way, in the English language it is wonderful, because the word argument comes from the same Word family as to argue and we all know what that means and we don't want to argue with our clients. Even more, an argument is not even an argument if I cannot derive an added value from it. I give an example. So when I'm going to a local service provider, let's say in Hamburg, here in Germany, who's only operating in Hamburg and I'm going there and I'm telling him, hey, we offer international trainings, how will he react? Okay and what does that mean for me? Because now this argument doesn't have an added value for this person and therefore now it is not even an argument anymore, it's just useless information, but if I go to a huge globally operating company, I tell them, hey, we offer international trainings and therefore you have major advantages, because you can have all your processes steered out of one hand. That will reduce your costs for administration. You will not have any problems with the quality and the delivery. Now there is an added value for the other person and therefore we strongly recommend to approach this topic argument versus added value in a structured approach and my recommendation is write down all the arguments that speak A for your Company, B for your product service and C for you as a person. If you've done that, think about the question with whom do I actually communicate during my sales process? There's normally different stakeholders in the due course of your sales process, like the managing director, the procurement department, maybe the final user of your service or product in the production, for example and of course they have different interests and needs and the third step is then to really think through the question: which argument has what added value for what person, and to really do that in detail. Plus, if we change this in our mindset, not thinking about arguments, but thinking consequently in added values, I guarantee you that will make you even more successful in your sense approach.