The more you let them spend the time talking, without being flooded with questions, the more you’ll have to evaluate whether it was honest and truthful. Look at this like the 24hourcommunity are VC’s with the money (your discretionary income), and Leupold is coming here to ask you to invest. If they don’t make a sound case with supporting facts, they don’t get their needed investment money (your discretionary income).
I disagree. Strongly at that. They need to be presented with a controllable number of questions that speak to the heart of the issue. If the conversation were mine to launch, I'd launch it as such.
Me to Leupold: "In reading the recent Leupold thread here on the 'fire, the central issue seems to be that customers aren't happy with the results they get when they adjust the dials on their Leupold scopes." Is that what you take away from the discussion?"
Once you establish whether Leupold believes those customers, you can move forward.
If Leupold doesn't see that as the central issue or they don't believe those customer complaints, the conversation stops.
Once you establish that Leupold understands that unpredictable or unreliable adjustments to be the customer's central complaint and believes those customers are really having those issues, the conversation turns to what Leopold is going to do to correct the issue.
This schidt is remarkably simple. The last thing Leupold needs is a barrage of idiotic questions that don't focus like a laser on the real issue.
