Your quote says 14,500 euros. He reads it and says: "it's a bit much."
You have three seconds to decide what you answer. What do you say?
What most people do
You mention the payback period. You explain what is included. And when he keeps hesitating, you take ten per cent off. Thirteen thousand, and we have a deal.
He says he'll think about it. Then you hear nothing.
And you don't understand it, because you gave him literally what he asked for.
That is exactly the problem. You gave what he asked for, not what he meant.
Because what does that discount teach him? That your price was negotiable. That apparently it can be done for less. That if he waits a bit longer, it might drop again. You buy urgency with trust, and that is always the most expensive trade there is.
An objection is not an attack. It is a report.
It tells you which of the three elements is missing. Not which argument you still have to add.
"It's a bit much" — usually stake
No one finds something expensive when they feel the value. Ask a business owner for 14,500 euros for a machine that earns him 40,000 a year and he signs without looking.
"Too expensive" almost always means: I don't yet see what this gives me. And then a discount is the worst move available, because you are lowering the price of something whose value is still at zero.
What you do instead: "May I ask what you're comparing it with?" That isn't a trick. You want to know the yardstick he is measuring against, because that is where his stake lives.
"I want to discuss it internally" — almost always trust
This sounds procedural. It rarely is. He doesn't dare carry it alone.
Note the mistake here: you send another document so he can explain it well internally. But more information makes doubt bigger, not smaller. You are handing someone who is afraid of falling a longer ladder.
What you do instead: you remove risk. What happens if it disappoints? Can we start small? Shall we do one location first? And if he has to convince someone internally: offer to join that conversation, or write half his story for him.
"I'll come back to you next month" — urgency
Nothing is wrong here. In fact he is right. Waiting is the sensible choice for him right now, because nothing happens if he does nothing.
This is also the only objection where you may say: fine. And then ask the question that matters: what happens in the meantime? Who does the work until then? What does that month cost?
Three objections, three diagnoses
Each element has its own page: stake, trust and urgency.
A list with twenty answers to "too expensive" treats all three the same way. Which is exactly why it never helped you.
The exercise
Take the last five objections you received. Write them down literally, in their words, not in your summary.
Put stake, trust or urgency behind each one.
Then look at what you answered. In how many of those five did you serve the element that was missing — and in how many did you simply give more arguments?
The closing question
And if there is no urgency, can you create it without lying?
That is session 6: real urgency versus invented deadlines.