Now we just need to sell. Imagine a manufacturer of printed boxes: the company has reduced its minimum order size, the new price list has gone out, and the salespeople know the terms. The head of sales is waiting for enquiries about small orders. Yet among the closed deals are enquiries from buyers who were previously turned down precisely because the quantity was too small.
Suppose the sales team has not overlooked anything in its work with current enquiries. Nobody disputes the new terms. The past refusals simply did not make it into today's work: the conversations with those buyers were already over.
The business owner asks where the sales are that the terms were changed to generate. I would first ask the head of sales to show me: who was held back by the minimum order size, and what is now known about those buyers' needs? Until that is clear, it is too early to decide that nobody needs the new offer.
The salesperson was right to refuse at the time
Open the correspondence with one of those buyers. They stated the quantity they needed. The salesperson checked it against the minimum that applied at the time and offered a larger batch, which the buyer did not agree to. The deal was closed with a clear reason. There is nothing to correct retrospectively here: the salesperson followed the company's terms.
Now compare that enquiry with the new offer. If the required quantity is now allowed, the original reason for refusal has disappeared. The refusal itself remains a fact — it describes what the company could offer at the time.
For the buyer, the last answer is still: we do not accept orders like that. They are under no obligation to follow your price list and check whether anything has changed. Even good product knowledge among salespeople will not help if only new enquirers hear the new answer.
This is where the head of sales' work stopped: they changed the terms for future conversations but did not identify which finished conversations now made sense to continue.
Reducing the minimum does not affect everyone you turned down
Pulling up the entire list of lost deals and sending out the latest price list is too broad a response to a narrow change. The same list may include cases involving unsuitable materials, deadlines that cannot be met or a different box shape. The minimum order size was not an obstacle for those buyers.
First, the head of sales needs to clarify the limits of the new terms with the production team: which boxes qualify for a smaller batch, what price applies and what timescale can be given. A general message about small orders must not become a promise to fulfil any previous request.
Then the salespeople check refusals against the correspondence. The record may say only “quantity”, even though the timescale did not suit the buyer either. Removing one of two reasons does not create a ready opportunity to sell.
The review leads to different actions:
- The previous enquiry fits the new terms, and no other obstacles came up in the conversation — there is a reason to find out whether the buyer still needs to make that purchase.
- The quantity now fits, but the material is still unavailable or the deadline still cannot be met — first find out whether that requirement has changed. You cannot promise that you have a solution yet.
- The reason was recorded in general terms and is not backed up by the correspondence — establish what the buyer asked for. Do not treat missing information as a sign that the enquiry fits.
This gives you a list for a specific conversation. Each name comes with an explanation of which change at the company could help them.
The old enquiry has not been sitting there waiting for you
Even if the offer now fits, the previous need may be gone. The buyer may have ordered boxes elsewhere, decided against producing the product or changed the packaging. You need to find out, rather than choose a convenient version from the record.
That is why I would not ask the salesperson to push the old order through. Their first task is to explain that the restriction has been removed and check whether there is still anything to discuss. When they get in touch, they must therefore state the original reason for refusal and the specific new term that changes it.
From there, the conversation can go in different directions. The one-off purchase has already happened — there is nobody to sell it to a second time. The buyer needs batches like these from time to time — you can ask about the next order and the terms they will use to compare suppliers. What they need has changed — the old quote no longer works; first, you need the new requirements.
An unwelcome answer is also possible: they are happy with the current supplier and do not want to change anything. That does not make the check pointless. The sales team now knows what stands in the way of the next purchase. Reducing the minimum order size removed your restriction, but it did not create an obligation for the buyer to return.
Contacting them again also has a limit: a new price or batch size does not override a direct request not to be contacted again.
Do not rewrite a past refusal as a current deal
There is a temptation to reopen suitable records straight away. The sales funnel will then grow before buyers have even replied, and the business owner will see what appear to be orders the team has found.
But so far, the company has learnt only one thing: its previous restriction has changed. Neither what the buyer currently needs nor their intention to consider the offer has been confirmed.
I would keep the old deal closed, with its date and reason. A task to make contact can be set separately. If the buyer confirms a new purchase and agrees to discuss the offer, there will be a new opportunity linked to the earlier enquiry. If not, the history will retain the result of the check, rather than revenue the sales team has decided to expect.
This is also needed for the business owner's next decision. If past refusals are erased, it will be hard to understand what the change in terms achieved: which buyers were actually excluded by the minimum before, who you managed to interest now and where the obstacle remains. A new conversation must not make an old report look better retrospectively.
Return to the same buyers a week later
To start, the head of sales chooses one change in terms and the related refusals from a period the team will have time to review. They save the list before any contact begins: otherwise, at the end it is easy to show only those who replied and lose track of everyone else.
For each selected buyer, the salesperson records the previous obstacle, exactly what has changed, what action has been assigned and by when. A week later, the head of sales checks this list against the correspondence:
- Does the new term really remove the previous obstacle, or did the apparent match exist only in the brief CRM system entry?
- Did the salesperson explain the change that matters to the buyer, or just send the price list?
- Is there a reply about the current need, an agreed next step or a confirmed refusal?
- Who could not be reached with the news? These contacts remain unanswered, rather than becoming evidence of a lack of demand.
If buyers reply but the previous need has already disappeared, the selection period needs to be reconsidered. If the enquiries are still relevant, but the small batch cannot be made to the required specifications, the limits of the offer need to be clarified. If the buyer's needs fit, the buyer is waiting for a quote and the salesperson has not sent it, the head of sales is now looking at a specific promise that has not been kept.
A week is the deadline for checking the work here. A good outcome from the review may also be that there are no new opportunities in the selected group. The head of sales can then show how that was established, instead of making a general statement that small batches do not sell.
The next change must come with a list of affected buyers
The one-off work on past refusals will end. But the next time a timescale, configuration or minimum quantity changes, the same question will arise again. So, alongside the new terms, the head of sales must identify which previous restrictions they remove, who will check the relevant enquiries and when they will return with answers.
At RENTROP, this is part of our “turnkey sales management” service. The head of sales turns a change in the offer into tasks for salespeople and checks the outcomes of the conversations. The business development director reviews the head of sales' own decisions: why those buyers were chosen, on what basis a new deal appeared, and whether another obstacle was hidden behind general wording. We cannot change the product range, prices or production capabilities on the owner's behalf; showing what the sales team did with a decision already made is our job.
You can start with the latest change in terms: ask the head of sales to bring one past refusal affected by it and show what happened to that enquiry afterwards.
If the company now accepts orders it used to turn down, the people it turned down must hear about it too.