Common Sales Myth #1 – A Sales Person’s Job is Just to Sell

Posted on January 6, 2013May 18, 2015 by Jerry Vieira

After many years of both conducting sales training workshops and personally selling, I have come to recognize six popular misconceptions about selling. And, I must say, every time I broach those myths during a sales training session I get push-back, disbelief, the wagging of heads and several audible “No Way!’s”. So I am braced for your blog comments.

I have chosen to address each myth as a separate blog post, to make it more convenient to get through in the smaller and smaller free time chunks we all seem to be experiencing these days. Here’s the first.

Myth 1: A Sales Person’s Job is Just to Sell

We understand that sales people are under a lot of pressure to spend time face-to-face with customers and on the road – rather than behind a desk. But pushing, or allowing, a sales person to only sell is counterproductive. That approach would be the equivalent of saying, “A soldier’s job is just to shoot and kill the enemy.” Good soldiers do a lot more than simply shoot. They are part of a team that sometimes requires them to play different roles and take on different duties. Here are some examples, along with their contrasting business function.

They collect and report field intelligence: Good soldiers are trained, not only to shoot, but also to observe and report on the enemy (competitors), their armaments (competitive advantages and value propositions), their location (markets and customers) and their strong points (where they have impenetrable positions – be it markets or accounts). Soldiers also report on the enemy’s weaknesses and gaps in their lines (under-serviced customers and under-served markets).

Any General, coming onto the battlefield needs, first and foremost, intel – to be able to formulate a strategy. Business managers need intel as well, for the same reason.

They report on the effectiveness of their own, and the enemy’s, weapons: The business equivalent is reporting on customer receptivity to the sales tools in use, the sales approaches, product capabilities, product reliability, product effectiveness, installation problems, quality, training problems and a host of other relevant experiential aspects of selling, delivering and using the product.

They dig in and defend the ground already captured: In business terms they defend their current accounts through disciplined customer service and make sure they are secure.

They exploit a victory, charging after a retreating enemy, or pouring through a breach: When something works in the field they use it again and again, winning repeatedly over weak competitors and landing new customers until the territory is “owned” and they move into a temporary “hold and defend” mode – until the next opportunity for an offensive.

They share techniques and victories: In World War II, shortly after the Normandy invasion, the allies, having driven off the beaches into western France found themselves in bocage country . Bocage country is best described as countryside spotted with crop and grazing fields that are edged on all sides by 6 foot earthen walls entangled with scrub brush, vines and trees. These barriers have been built up over hundreds of years, a result of field-tending by farmers. From the air, bocage resembles a bunch of egg-cartons set side by side as far as the eye can see – each carton with deep, rectangular recesses. (Though at the time of the invasion, aerial observers did not recognize the impenetrable nature and height of the actual barriers.)

Capturing each field required soldiers to climb up one side of the barrier wall, scramble through the brush, trees and tangled vines, enter the field and charge across it to the bocage wall on the opposite side of the field. Tanks could not climb and penetrate these natural walls. The soldiers had no cover when entering the field. Casualties were high. The enemy simply placed machine guns at the opposite side of the field and mowed down any soldiers coming over the opposite wall. Progress in liberating France, ground to a halt.

That was, until some innovative engineer found that welding a fork-like scoop on the front end of a tank allowed it to tear through the walls, enter the fields ahead of the Allied soldiers and place heavy covering fire on the enemy gun emplacements on the opposite bocage wall. The success of that technique quickly spread to other infantry units. The casualty rate dropped. Progress accelerated. Eventually France was liberated.

When a sales person finds, discovers or invents something that succeeds and creates breakthroughs – it must be shared with all.

They train: To think that basic training is all that soldiers go through is a myth. Soldiers constantly repeat their training and hone their skills to a razor’s edge. They train on new techniques, new weapons, new systems and capturing obstacles and enemy positions in different terrains. Then they re-train on what they learned in their first training. Sales people, sadly, might train once a year. New sales people joining the team, may have to wait as long as 11 months before undergoing their basic training. Lack of training puts the team, the company and the product reputation at risk.

One more point: Training has two parts: basic physical conditioning (sales skills and disciplines) and weapons training (product and sales tool training).

Yes, there is more …

We could go on with the “good soldier” analogy, but by now, if you are a salesperson, you’ve probably reached your reading time-limit and need to run to do something else.

Have a good day.

Read the complete set of The 6 Common Sales Myths.

*********

Click to learn more about the QMP Sales Process and Skills Training, call us 503-318-2696 or connect through our Contact Us page

Common Sales Myth #2 – You’ve Lost to an Inferior Offering

Posted on January 3, 2013March 20, 2014 by Jerry Vieira

When we ask salespeople in our workshops to raise their hands if they have ever lost a deal to an inferior competitive offering, they almost universally raise their hands – even though we have told them ahead of time, “It’s a trick question.”

The truth is: No one ever loses to an inferior offering.

“How can that be true?”, you ask. “How,” you may ask, “could anyone consider that crap, superior?”

If you lost, all the evidence indicates it wasn’t really an inferior offering, after all. That truth of it lies in two facts; 1) the decision-maker’s perspective and the values from which the relative superiority and inferiority judgement arose both differed from yours and 2) the outcome satisfied only one person’s needs – and that person wasn’t you. But, ultimately, the outcome is the final proof.

At the moment a customer, and/or the ultimate decision maker, makes a decision to buy another “inferior” offering instead of your “superior” offering, that other offering is being perceived as a superior alternative in the eyes of that decision maker – by a unique, hidden or secret set of evaluation criteria that you simply don’t understand or chose to ignore. Your personal opinion doesn’t, and didn’t matter. Relevant value is only in the eyes of the beholder – not the seller.

There are several reasons we are led to self-deceptively believe this harmful myth.

1. We, in sales, think all value is economic. That’s the reason we put so much emphasis on price competitiveness.

Perceived value can be economic, but it can also be emotional or physical. When my family was young, I remember spending a lot of time analyzing car models and test driving a half dozen or so, narrowing them all down to two finalists. I sequentially drove both of them home for my wife’s final OK. She ran out to the driveway, a new-born in her arms and our other child, a two-year old, clinging to her jeans. She sat in the first car while I held the baby. She didn’t drive it. No excitement.

I returned that car and came back with the other option – a different brand and model from a different dealer. We repeated the drill. While she was sitting in the second car, she reached down, ran her hand across the seat (not leather in those days) and said, “This is it. It feels right.” We bought that car. It had nothing to do with the performance, reliability, handling or any other criteria I was discussing with either sales person. I didn’t have a clue that a “feel” test was going to be the ultimate consideration and the final decision point. I thought, as the salesperson did, that I was acting as the “official” power purchaser and “ultimate” decision maker.

This “feel test” was an obvious physical value – not an economic or emotional one – and it held importance in the criteria by a “hidden” decision maker.

2. We don’t understand the real decision criteria. In the story above, I narrowed down the choices. However, there was another final hurdle that neither the sales person or the purchasing agent (me) knew of.

3. We don’t understand all the decision makers (See my new car story, above)

4. We emphasize the wrong product (or service) strengths. Not all strengths are meaningful to all buyers – or with the same relative importance. There is nothing more irritating and distracting than a salesperson spewing data, stats and features when you are trying to focus on the one, two or three most important things in your personal decision tree.

5. We try to sell to the wrong target customer in the wrong target market. We continually hear, particularly from inventors and entrepreneurs when we ask them who their target customers are, that “everyone” can use their new product, service or invention. This leads to inefficient use of sales time, and significant mismatches in message. Telling the whole story, while missing the relevant customer or market-specific benefits, is common and leads sales people to say things like, “They (the customers) just don’t get it.”

We have witnessed a company that believed so strongly in the universality of their value proposition nearly go out of business as they scattered their message as broadly as possible. Panicked by their rapidly dwindling marketing and sales pocketbook, lack of success and anxiousness to avoid failure, they engaged us. We told them to focus very tightly on markets and customers where the value received was the greatest. They finally agreed and the business began to turn around in less than 3 months. That simple change resulted in a four year run of breakthrough growth.

6. We don’t understand our own value proposition and differentiation: Each of our products or services should have a clearly articulated value proposition and differentiation in all three value areas; economic, emotional and physical. These values must be enhanced by the corporate brand – the ambient light that our products shine in. Johnson & Johnson, 3M, GE and Apple (to a somewhat lesser extent these days) all bask in the glow of that favorable corporate light. The corporate light typically shines an intangible emotional and implied physical light on products and services.

Don’t bail on price as a last desperate attempt to fix your perception mistake.

One final point: To think that price is the only variable available to trigger a buy is flat wrong. But that is the topic of another myth. Suffice it to say, if that were true we’d all be driving the cheapest cars on the road.

Watch our QMP Insights blog for Sales Myth #3: “It’s relationship business”

*****

Click to learn more about the QMP Sales Process and Skills workshops or call us at 503-318-2696 or through our Contact Us page .

Common Sales Myth #3 – Sales is all about Relationships

Posted on January 2, 2013April 29, 2014 by Jerry Vieira

It’s a Relationship Business!

That four-word phrase is probably the most common statement we hear when we talk to sales people about their business. It is even more common than the statement, “It’s a Price-Driven Market” – though more often than not those two statements travel closely together.

Do You Have Brothers and/or Sisters? The Limits of the Relationship

To challenge the assumption that businesses are primarily relationship-driven we ask salespeople the following questions. Here they are, with the typical answers.

Q. “Do you have a brother and / or a sister?” A. “Yes.”

Q. “Do you have a good relationship with your brother or sister?” A. “Yes”

Q. “If your brother or sister tried to sell you something that would be detrimental to your business, would you buy it?” A. “No (expletive deleted) Way”

Q. “What if they threatened to would tell your Mom that you refused to buy from them, would it change your mind?” A. Laughter. “No”

Here’s the point: All relationships, even good ones, have their limits

Relationships are based on trust.

Any activity that violates trust, violates and detracts from the relationship.

Let’s look at the Trust Equation, developed by David Maister, Charles Green and Robert Galford in their wonderful book “The Trusted Advisor“. According to Maister et al, Trust equals the sum of= (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy) divided by (Self Interest).

T = (C + R + I) / SI

Anything a sales person or their company does to lower Credibility, Reliability or Intimacy, lowers Trust and damages the business Relationship. As you can also see from the equation, anything that blatantly demonstrates your, or your firm’s, Self-Interest also damages Trust and thereby the Relationship.

Nothing in the equation can affect Trust more than the amount of your self-interest perceived by the customer. The higher the Self-Interest perceived, the lower the Trust.

Here’s the point. Depending on the Relationship alone can be perceived by the customer as inherently demonstrative of high Self-Interest. In Relationship terms, “They want me only for my money.”

What Relationships Can and Can’t Do

Relationships can:

Get you an audience to make your case
Buy you some time and patience when you or your company screw up
Get you early, but not necessarily exclusive, notice of a new opportunity at an account

Relationships can’t:

Make up for a significant competitive shortcoming in your product or service offering
Repeatedly cover for your operational team’s inability to deliver
Make up for poor product or service quality
Find and win completely new accounts
Provide you more than a few percent price premiums
Make up for poor market targeting
Make up for fundamentally slow market momentum
Fix functional short-comings in your products

Here’s the Point: Don’t get complacent because you have good relationships.

Don’t Shoot Yourself in the Foot

Believing that your relationships give you enormous power is, for the most part, fallacious thinking, and can actually ill-inform you on what you and your company need to do. Here are some examples:

If it’s all about relationships, what impetus will your engineering team have to design better products?
If it’s all about relationships, why should your firm ever reduce prices or negotiate terms?
If it’s about relationships, why should operations need to worry about quality? Or delivery?

Here’s the point: Bragging about the customer relationships you have can simply provide unjustifiable cover for others in the organization to not execute their job as effectively as they should. Remember, it’s still a very competitive world out there.

One More Point: The Fallacy of the Rolodex of Relationships

More often than is advisable, a client will enthusiastically recruit a sales person based on the contacts that sales candidate has amassed during their illustrious sales career. Sales people treasure and protect to the death, their sales contacts and consider that list as a strategic personal asset. It becomes a key feature in the personal selling proposition they use in seeking a new job.

Rolodex provides a great tool for managing those. However, even the best list of Rolodex or CRM-managed contacts, can rarely, for the long term make up for business shortcomings in product, service, delivery, quality, competitiveness and value.

Let me illustrate. In 1970, General Motors had roughly a 50% share of the US auto market. That market share was supported by an incredibly, well-established national network of dealers and sales people. Everyone knew everyone.

Since 2000 General Motors had lost roughly 50% of that 50% share.

Here’s the Point: Relationships aren’t everything.

Recommendations:

As much as has been written in this blog about the fallacies and dangers of dependence on customer relationships, let me make a final few points.

You must continue to develop your business relationships
You must continue to nurture those relationships based on paying close attention to each of the key elements of the trust equation
You must not, for a moment, let the rest of your business team off the hook by bragging and convincing them they only need to depend on your ability to develop and maintain good customer relationships

*****

Click to learn more about standard and tailored QMP Sales Skills and Process Workshops or Contact Us at 503-318-2696 to discuss your sales and sales management challenges.

Common Sales Myth #6 – The Biggest Accounts are the Best

Posted on December 31, 2012March 20, 2014 by Jerry Vieira

Here is the last in the series of Six Common Sales Myths.

For small to mid-size businesses, the decision to commit resources to target a large account should considered carefully. The primary considerations are: “What are the implications of winning?” and “How, should we go about it?”

So let me provide you both sides of the story.

Why the Largest Accounts are NOT the Best Sales Targets

The Competition is the Highest: Sales managers and sales people almost universally drool over the thought of landing the big account. Some folks call them “Whales”. With these whales come visions of top line revenue waves carrying on their crests big commission checks and bonus trips to Bermuda for exceeding sales production quotas. The bad news is that every competitor’s salesperson is striving for that same, beach-front room in Bermuda.

It Reduces Your Negotiating Power: Have you ever been presented with 90-day or 120-day payment terms by your large customers? Have you been confronted by corporate edicts from your large customers to buy overseas, or forced to share your product cost models or had to make a pledge of cost-downs (targeted and contracted cost reductions delivered directly to the customer). All of these can be relentless.

You May Become Too Dependent on Them: Bankers, these days, have tightened their requirements for business loans. One of the things they look closely at is the vulnerability associated with one customer presenting too large a proportion of a firm’s business. Having a hefty chunk of business from one large customer may also make one complacent.

Under What Circumstances Can Large Clients be Good?

When You Are Selling a Unique Value Proposition That Is IP Protected: This greatly relieves the pricing pressure and competitive threats – but it is likely short-lived.

When you are adding desperately needed capacity to overheated market demand for your product/service commodity: When there are overall industry shortages of the product or service commodity you deliver, because of very high market demand for your customer’s products, those large “whales” swim a lot farther to find the krill they need to survive. They also become a lot less demanding. Again, this somewhat relieves the discomfort associated with working with large customer accounts – but heated up industry demand does not last forever.

When Your Large Customer is Enlightened: Enlightened means they have embraced the concept of true partnership – recognizing the need for mutual investment, mutual trust, mutual innovation and mutual ROI.

When Decision Making is De-centralized: De-centralized decision making increases the probability that you will find either: a) an enlightened decision maker in one or more of the myriad divisions of the “whale” or, b) divisions and circumstances to which you can deliver significant value from your company’s specific combination of value proposition and differentiation.

When They Spur You on to Innovation or Breakthroughs: The promise of a big payoff, with lots of business from a large customer, can spur creativity and product innovation. What it should not encourage is gambling. By gambling, I mean taking a long-shot that requires stretching beyond reason the laws of physics or the organization’s overall capabilities. Such gambling can quickly destabilize the financial safety net of the firm.

How to Eat a Whale

Yes, yes. No surprise. The answer is one bite at a time. But where you bite first is the real question. Here are some guidelines on selecting where your bite will be most productive, profitable and nourishing.

There are 6 basic strategies in war and business – 3 F’s and 3 D’s, and no, these F’s and D’s in no way reflect my 6^th grade report card. Here are the strategies, by name:

– Frontal

– Fragment

– Flank

– Defend

– Depart

– Develop

The subject of strategy is simply too large to cover in this blog post, so suffice it to say that 5,000 years of military history and 75 years of marketing science have demonstrated, unequivocally, that the most productive strategic combination from the list above is the combination of Fragmentation (segmenting) & Flanking (differentiation). History and research have also demonstrated that frontal assaults can lead to disaster even in the case of great initial success. Remember Napoleon in Russia, Lee at Gettysburg, the English at Gallipoli, the German army in Russia and the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. Or, in business terms, think Texas Instruments’ frontal assault on the watch market, Raychem in fiber optics and IBM in PCs. All were frontal assaults by large, highly confident organizations with huge assets behind them. All failed miserably.

By Fragmentation we mean, finding a business segment or Division of the “whale” to which your value proposition provides disproportionate economic value compared to its cost. By Flank we mean identifying, matching, communicating and demonstrating your differentiated value to the fragmented business segment that gets the most value from it, in effect, multiplying your overall value proposition.

A Case in Point:

Long before I was a market strategy and sales consultant, I was involved in a business that sold factory automation software. The division was attempting to sell this software solution to some of the largest, multi-site, multi-divisional manufacturers in the United States. We were spurred on by the knowledge that every large manufacturer we spoke with had active, funded corporate programs to find solutions to the common manufacturing challenge extant in all their manufacturing business units.

Talking with these corporate types, our software team energetically began to design and add capabilities to our system to assure we could handle all of the needs they had identified.

Unbeknownst to us, a competitor had been making inroads with what we perceived as a vastly inferior, inconsequential, less complete offering. They were selling low level, simple solutions into the divisions where decisions did not require corporate “influence”. They were, in effect, fragmenting the account -taking lots of little bites of the whale. By the time we had developed our comprehensive solution, the low level competitive solution had penetrated so expansively, in so many fragments of the business, that retrofitting was out of the question.

This is just one example of how subversive fragmentation can be used to penetrate a large account – one small bite at a time.

The Take-Away:

Large accounts are not inherently good or bad sales targets. They are good or bad sales targets depending on:

the strategy used to penetrate them,
the “enlightened partnership nature” of their corporate procurement,
the centralized or decentralized nature of their decision making,
the strength of your IP and the economic value proposition it delivers, and
whether or not you are adding industry capacity to overheated market demand

That’s the long and short of it.

For more information regarding QMP’s Sales Process and Skills Improvement Workshop or Sales Improvement Consulting Services, call to 503.318.2696 or connect through our Contact Us page.

*****

Don’t Give Up on the Top Line (no matter how tough things get)

Posted on August 8, 2011August 25, 2014 by Jerry Vieira

The Most Common Reaction to Economic Turmoil: Expense Reduction

There’s a line in the Willie Nelson tune “Nothing I can do about it now” that goes like this:

I’ve survived every situation
Knowin’ when to freeze and when to run.

Two years into the current economic downturn, there is plenty of evidence that companies are trying to do both. Firms continue to take aggressive steps in reaction to reduced demand. Cisco just announced layoffs of 6,500 employees. Other big name firms such as Merck, Lockheed and Boston Scientific also announced staff reductions. Borders finally threw in the towel, closing its last 400+ stores. It once had 1,200 outlets, employing more than 35,000. And most recently, HSBC indicated it will let go between 25,000 and 30,000 employees.

Small to mid-sized company layoffs typically don’t make a lot of news. But a quick informal survey at the other end of the corporate spectrum, showed that smaller firms, particularly those without an international earnings contribution to their performance, have experienced a down-turn in revenues of anywhere from 25% to 40% from their peaks in 2007 and 2008. They’ve aggressively cut expenses and conducted layoffs as well.

Of course, there are exceptions. Companies with specialized innovations targeted at niche market problems are doing much better than firms depending only on their traditional products and markets. But by-and-large, corporate “economic adjustment” initiatives focus on operational expense reductions.

Instability in Europe continues, the DOW is down more than 1,500 points since July 1, unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. remain high, Asian demand for US exports will decline as a reflection of reduced US demand for their imports, and the US Congress is mired in finger-pointing politics vis-à-vis problem solving. Under these economic conditions, can you blame anyone for immediately reaching in the first aid kit for the expense reduction tourniquet?

Taking a Second Look at Revenue Upside Options:

Stemming the bleeding is crucial under these economic conditions. However, in the frenzy to cut expenses, the potential for revenue upsides gets short shrift. Why? Expense reductions can be swift and easily seen in reduced cash outlays. Revenue upside strategies, on the other hand, even in good times, carry with them risk. Financial executives and conservative CEOs will opt, almost every time, for the less risky, faster impact, sure thing. Revenue-upside options fall to the side of the road.

Nonetheless, there are a handful of strategies for realizing revenue upside in a down economy. Due diligence and responsible managerial behavior should compel managers in serious economic times like these to, at least consider the revenue-upside options that follow. An impulsive, headlong rush into any one of them would simply be unwise. Rather, we suggest a serious vetting exercise, followed by execution of the best.

Upside Potential #1: Market Focus

Focus is typically rejected, out of hand in tough times. When the business is hurting why would anyone in their right mind “narrow” their focus? Shouldn’t we be casting the net further?

Not necessarily.

Spending time to reconsider the market segmentation of your customer base and the unique conditions extant in each of those segments helps you identify areas that might benefit from additional focus and re-deployed resources.

Not all the market segments served by your business are affected equally by the economic winds. Not all market segments have adopted your products and services to the same degree. Not all market segments are afflicted with the same competitive infestation. And most importantly, not all segments of the market receive the same economic value from your product offering.

For example: Let’s say that, in general, customers in a particular market segment garner a 10X economic benefit from your product in a relatively short time frame. That is, the economic return on what they buy from you is 10 times more than they paid. In other segments, the return may be less. It is more likely that focusing additional effort in the market for which your product yields the highest return to the customer would have a higher probability of success than expenditures in other areas where that return is less.

In contrast, broad-brush marketing initiatives intended to expand a firm’s reach are less efficient because they: a) dilute resources, b) dilute the economic return differentiation of your brand, c) begin to encompass more competition in each new segment and d) don’t adequately leverage your greatest successes. Focus is likely to be more effective and profitable.

Upside Potential #2: Pricing

This alternative has two options: 1) holding prices and 2) increasing prices

Holding Prices: The competitive nature of tough economic times inevitably presents opportunities for price cutting, particularly as a means to close hotly-contested deals. The reasons for this are many. First, weak, undifferentiated competitors are starting price wars. Secondly it’s the easiest option for the sales person and requires the least amount of sales effort. Third, it typically doesn’t make much of an impact on sales commissions, unless the commission is tied directly to the profit margin of a deal. Fourth, sales people are not trained or disciplined enough to sell on value. Fifth, in tough times customers (particularly purchasing managers) know they can request price concessions and “work” one vendor against another. Finally, owners and managers frequently don’t have enough good first-hand information or a well-enough established relationship with the key customer decision-makers to mitigate price discussions.

The truth is, allowing price cutting, even in tough economic times, is really an admission of several foundational weaknesses. The product is may not be providing a differentiated economic value to the customer (wrong target customer). Management may be out of touch with customer decision makers. The strategic market segment focus is one that has too much competition. Or managers don’t understand how to direct their sales team on how to avoid price-based competition.

In a mini-workshop, I asked CEOs of small to mid-sized B2B firms to imagine their best product being purchased and used by their best customer. I then asked them to pencil out what they thought the 3 year economic impact would be on their customer – that impact being the amount of profit their product would drop to the customer’s bottom line. For example, if their product was of very high quality, what would the economic impact be to the customer for purchasing the high quality product vs. a lower quality product from one of their competitors?

In this 15-minute exercise, not one CEO was able to arrive at an answer. If the CEO can’t describe it, how can they expect their sales people to? If the sales people can’t explain it, how can price-based competition be avoided?

Raising Prices: A number of years ago we were working with a client whose new product adoption was stalled, gaining virtually no traction in the marketplace no matter their continuing effort to increase distribution agreements. It was priced 3X higher than the most popular competitive approach. Of course, the sales people thought their job was futile and continually pleaded for significant price reductions.

A brief assessment showed that a certain portion of the tiny installed base went to a segment of the market whose needs were unique. Only this product could meet those needs, for a myriad of reasons. (Interestingly, initially the market had found my client, not the other way around.)

Rather than reduce prices we suggested the business refocus their efforts to this one segment, highlighting to potential customers the unique fit and match of the product to their unique needs. After focus and redeployment of time, money and energy (no increases), adoption took off, with no accompanying price reduction.

Now some people would call this just another version of Revenue-Upside, Option #1 – Market Focus. That’s largely true. However, the rest of the story is that while focused and penetrating this particular segment, customers began to request additional features and functions – which in turn led to increased selling prices. In the end, the average price point rose to 4X its original. (Remember, the original was 3X the competitive approach).

At no time was there a need for a price reduction and the business turned completely around, growing much faster than anyone had anticipated. By focusing on market segments where the economic value and unique characteristics of your products are understood, the opportunity exists for improved performance products at increased prices.

Upside Potential #3: Fragmenting Offerings

Sometimes fragmenting your offering into more affordable pieces makes it more digestible for clients. Increased revenue accrues when decisions that otherwise would have been delayed can be made with smaller financial commitment by the customer. This provides your firm at least a small amount of revenue vs. none. It also sets the groundwork for follow-on purchases.

When fragmenting your offering, selling prices of the fragmented pieces need to be set so that the sum of all the pieces of the fragmented offering sum up to more than what would be charged were the product/service sold all at once. Is this “sum-of-the-parts pricing” gouging? No. The costs of doing business associated with the planning, coordination, administrative management and handling of multiple orders justifies the increased pricing – and you can be honest with customers about that price penalty. They understand that it costs more to do business that way and might even be encouraged to buy larger chunks to avoid paying that premium.

Depending on the type of product or service, fragments or phases might be identified as any on the following list: planning, design, testing, tooling, manufacturing, test, integration, set-up, training, service and/or recycling. The bottom line is that fragmenting your offerings should make it easier for customers to buy something rather than not buying a more costly nothing.

Upside Potential #4: Adding Services to Product Lines

Have you noticed that, these days, nearly every durable-good purchase comes with an offer to buy a replacement or service contract? Last week I bought a 16GB PC thumb-drive for $27.99. The checkout clerk asked if I wanted to buy the replacement warranty. I declined, but certain types of renewable service warranties can be very profitable add-ons.

Upside Potential #5: Acquisition or Licensing

Opportunity to acquire businesses and intellectual property during major economic downturns increase as companies struggle and values are depressed. However, as with any acquisition at any time, there is reason to be cautious.

Buying a competitor’s business to capture their customer base (barring SEC denial) is not necessarily a coup, even at a bargain price. Your competitor’s customers may be receiving a technologically obsolete, poor quality or functionally inferior solution. In such a circumstance, you would be wiser to boost investment in your own product development effort vis-à-vis buying your competitor.

Opportunities for acquiring intellectual property may arise more frequently in tough economic times as well, as challenged companies look to find sources of cash. Turning IP (purchased or licensed) into products and then into cash, however, doesn’t typically happen quickly. A better way to ensure a speedy IP-to-cash transition is to acquire IP that can be integrated quickly into your current product offerings, increasing their functionality, their value to the customer and their selling price.

Just Don’t Do Something, Sit There! Think!

In most businesses the ratio of execution-driven people to strategic-thinking people is low. Of the two roads to survival in a downturn, expense reduction and top-line, the expense reduction road is best travelled by the tactically driven, the top-line by the strategy-minded.

The strategy-minded are often those at the top of the organizational pyramid. So, it’s only self-discipline and personal values that will compel people at the top to consider revenue upside.

George C Scott in the movie Patton said this to his troops.

“I don’t ever want to hear we’re holding anything. We are advancing all the time.”

Be brave. Seriously consider the revenue-upside options in the face of adversity.

*****

Learn more about the QMP Marketing and Sales Engine and how it can revitalize both top and bottom-line growth

The Big Deal: Sorting Fact from Fiction in the Sales Pipeline

Posted on August 4, 2011August 25, 2014 by Jerry Vieira

The Big Deal

Every sales manager, business owner, general manager and CFO, at some point in their careers, have been entertained by the overly-enthusiastic sales person describing the “Big Deal” that was about to close. And unless those managers were completely naïve and inexperienced, a twinge of skepticism should have arisen. Was what they were hearing, in fact, real?

When hearing about a “Big Deal”, managers must confront the challenge of what to do about it – ignore it, or prepare. Preparation may comprise some or all of capacity planning, inventory commitment, equipment capacity increases, cash planning and workforce planning. Failure to anticipate these factors can result in an inability to deliver to the customer what they want, on time, should the deal actually break. On the other hand, a knee-jerk financial commitment based on the potential of the deal, can leave the firm with a lot of unusable inventory should the deal fail to materialize.

So, how does a manager judge the reality of the “Big Deal”?

Here’s an old joke that serves as a guideline for the most skeptical.

Question: How do you know when a sales person is exaggerating?

Answer: His lips are moving.

While this approach may appear easy, it is not dependable. There is a better way to sort through the reality of the “Big Deal”.

Ask Six Basic Questions:

The likelihood of closing a “Big Deal’ can be assessed by answering six basic questions. As you answer these questions, keep in mind is that the answers to the first five are only valid from the customer’s perspective.

Question 1: Compelling Need

To what degree is the prospective customer confronted with a real, compelling problem or challenge that needs to be addressed quickly or can the customer do nothing?

Research has shown that between 30% to 50% of all opportunities in a sales person’s pipeline never actually close. The customer simply never buys anything. These are called “No-Decision” outcomes. The sales person seems to be the only one convinced that there is a customer compelling need that will result in a buy. No matter how convinced your sales person may be that the customer has a need, the only opinion that counts is the customer’s.

To further pursue this line of inquiry, you might continue by asking: Is there a deadline by which the customer problem must be fixed? Is there a significant economic penalty, safety consideration or other obvious consequence if the customer problem isn’t fixed? Another revealing question is, “Can the customer do nothing?” Or, “What is the economic or other consequence to the customer of doing nothing?”

The lack of a compelling need, leads to the large number of “no Decisions” in a sales persons pipeline.

Question 2: Economic Benefit

To what degree is there a significant economic benefit to the customer if the problem / challenge is resolved or the need filled?

Businesses, too often evaluate the economic value of a sales opportunity only from their own perspective. How much revenue or commissions will it bring to us? While this is a good way to evaluate attractiveness in terms of the bottom line, how much money your firm can make is completely irrelevant to the likelihood of the deal closing. In most business-to-business environments, decisions to buy are made by customers based only on the degree to which “they” believe that “they” will make money. In other words, there must be a significant economic benefit in their favor, well beyond the cost of purchasing your product or service, for the deal to close. The economic balance must be disproportionate in favor of the customer. This is the basis or all ROI.

Question 3: Match

To what degree do your capabilities (products and services), precisely and completely meet the needs of the customer?

As convinced as you may be that you have a significantly well matched solution which solves every dimension of their challenge, you only score closing points if the customer believes it.

Question 4: Competitive Position

To what degree does the customer believe your solution is the best of all the alternatives available?

While a number of competitors may provide a reasonable match to the problem or need, all alternatives are rarely equal. Let me repeat for emphasis. Convinced as you may be that you have a significantly advantaged solution, you only score points if the customer believes it with the same conviction. And unless you can translate that differentiated position into a differentiated economic benefit to the customer, you miss a great opportunity to solidify your advantage in the customer’s eyes.

Question 5: Champion

To what degree do you have a high-level, influential and authoritative decision maker believing your solution is best?

A “Champion” is a person in the customer organization that likes your solution, believes it is in the best interest of their company to select it, wants it to win and is working toward that end. All Champions are not equal. The only Champions that really count are those with the highest composite score on three dimensions: Influence, Power and Affinity.

Influence is the degree to which they can influence a decision. The degree of influence may arise from technical expertise, seniority, family influence, organizational rank or some other source. Authority is the degree to which they can unilaterally make the decision and Affinity is the degree to which they are attracted to your solution.

Champions that are likeable, who like you, and are always willing to have lunch with you, are not “real” Champions unless they score high on the Influence-Power-Affinity scales.

Question 6: Leverage:

To what degree does winning this opportunity bring additional benefit to your company?

This is the only one of the six criteria that; a) doesn’t increase (or decrease) the credibility of the opportunity and b) is only important from your perspective, not the customer’s.

Leverage may exist in several forms: straight out earnings, a new first-time market capability, a first-win at a new account or a technological breakthrough that can be leveraged to other customers.

Even though it’s not customer-centric this factor is good to evaluate, so you can assess the benefit of concentrating and/or redeploying assets to winning this “Big Deal”

Getting to Reality:

The word confrontation can have a bad connotation, but for purposes of analyzing the “Big Deal”, let’s agree that confrontation simply means getting to the reality of it in a respectful, yet determined, way.

Some managers find it difficult to confront a sales person about the reality of a “Big Deal”, particularly when others are in the room. Presumably this is out of respect, to avoid the embarrassment of seeming confrontational, or to avoid appearing not to trust an employee. One way or another, these emotional barriers to assessing reality need to be overcome.

A highly respected local CEO was participating in panel on Performance Management recently. He was asked how he avoided hesitating and how he handled the discomfort associated with confronting these and other kinds of important issues. His response, “I was always more afraid of the consequences of not confronting the issues.”

There’s typically a lot riding on a “Big Deal”. The six areas of inquiry listed above will help you and your organization stay focused, concentrate where the opportunity is truly best and allocate scarce resources appropriately.

*****

Learn more about the QMP sales process for accurately qualifying and closing sales opportunities.