Why?
    
Because it's not enough to just be the best.

Winning the job is about what I call "marginal advantage".

Marginal advantage is the advantage a manager gets if they give the job to you rather than the next best candidate. In other words, it's the difference in perceived value between you and the person who's next in line.

Here's how many hiring managers see things:

"Yes, Judy is the best, and she has sixteen years of additional experience over Alicia -- however, chances are we'll need to pay her almost twice what Alicia would cost. Even though Judy is better, we're better off hiring Alicia."

Or:

"Judy's credentials are slightly stronger than Alicia's, but then, Alicia and I clicked better. I'd feel slightly better having her on my team."
    
Do you see what I'm getting at with this?

It's not enough to show interviewers that you're the best. You need to give them a sense that your "marginal advantage" -- i.e. the perceived difference between you and the next best candidate -- is so wide that any other factors outside your control don't matter.
    
Because, believe me: if the marginal advantage of hiring you is large enough, your salary won't be a big deal, and neither will many other things.

This is the philosophy behind Interview Success Formula.

It's not about showing them that you're the best. It's about showing them that you're the best by such a wide margin, it'd be unthinkable for them to not hire you and instead hire the next best candidate.

Yes, there's a formula for this.

There's a proven method for demonstrating this "marginal advantage" and creating an extraordinarily high sense of perceived value.