Category Archives: Sales

Accelerating the Market Adoption of an Innovation

Posted on by

 

The Product Development and Management Association Glossary of Terms defines failure rate as the percentage of a firm’s new products that make it to full market commercialization, but which fail to achieve the objectives set for them. By that measure, it is not surprising that a quick internet search on the subject of product failure rate yields studies that claim anywhere between 50% (commercial) and 90% (retail food) of new product or service offerings fail.

iStock_000009333210XSmallFailure can mean some or all of lost time, wasted money, missed opportunity, damaged credibility, tainted brand reputation, enhanced competitive vulnerability, lost jobs, truncated careers and a host of other unpleasant outcomes. So, whether the real failure rate is closer to the lower (50%) or higher (90%) end of the estimate is not as important as recognizing that discovering ways to improve it is essential.

For the past 15 years a good part of our work at QMP has centered around helping business-to-business clients turn around under-performing businesses and products. Many of them were struggling with getting new offerings off the ground or gaining traction in the marketplace. We’d like to share with you a bit about what we have learned, in hopes that it may improve your probability of success and help you avoid the myriad consequences of failure.

 

The Empirical Science Basis of the Adoption of Innovation:

In 1962, Everett M. Rogers wrote a breakthrough work entitled, “The Diffusion of Innovation” (republished in its fourth edition in 1995 by The Free Press). In it he compiled a number of studies documenting adoption successes and failures of all types of innovations over the past 100 years — from sociological to scientific. He included varied research findings, such as the struggles of the Chilean health department with getting Andes mountain villagers to adopt the habit of boiling water for health reasons, Iowa farmers adopting hybrid seed corn and Pittsburg school system principals adopting new math.

While the lessons learned from reading such a remarkable book are many, two items stand out above all others; 1) the adoption or diffusion of an innovation is not a linear phenomenon (meaning it does not gain its energy and momentum just one isolated customer at a time across a wide range of groups), and 2) adoption is significantly accelerated by the dynamics of the intramarket communication network (how buyers in a market or group meet, discuss and communicate ideas).

In fact, one of the most amazing conclusions coming from the research is that communication through the intramarket network is roughly 13 times more effective than mass communication in the adoption of an innovation. This interesting research conclusion predates the emergence of social media, blogging and Tweeting which, by now, are well recognized as an effective internet-powered intramarket communication vehicles.

 

Mass Communication and Struggles with Adoption

One of the most common problems we find with innovations struggling to gain a foothold in the marketplace is the parent firm’s unwillingness to focus. Rather than taking a chance on a focused launch initiative, they believe it’s better to try a broad one and see what sticks. In addition, the management team and product people are typically so convinced of the universal applicability of the innovation, that it leads the firm to believe that “getting our name out there” quickly, to masses of potential buyers, will be all that is required for success. This is rarely the case.

In pursuing such a course of action, it is not uncommon for a firm to find they have spent valuable economic resources on grand branding schemes and exposure initiatives with a minimal real impact on market penetration. Applying for a second round of dilutive funding to finance a second run at that same holy grail is an option—and some select it – with the same results.

 

Fragmenting the market to gain a profitable foothold

Buyers, particularly commercial and business-to-business buyers, invest in an innovation because they believe the economic value they will receive from that innovation will exceed the amount they have to pay for it. The market success of an innovation requires that the market which you’ve targeted has a significant enough proportion of customers with a big enough common problem to create a compelling argument for an investment to solve it. The key is, not all market segments have the same problem to the same degree. Focusing your launch on a particular sub-segment of the market where the economic value proposition of the innovation is compelling, creates a much higher probability of success than a broad approach.

 

If it’s that simple, why don’t more businesses focus?

There are many reasons: First, investors prefer firms that are moving after big markets with big payoffs. The bigger the market envisioned, the bigger the potential payout. Secondly, the inventors have a sincere belief that “everyone” can eventually use their innovation—and eventually they may be correct. Third, innovators and marketers alike get caught in the excitement, glitz and hype of launching a major market initiative launch. It can be a very heady experience. And, fourth, they simply have too much marketing money in the budget and don’t know how to manage it well.

Trying to stand in front of the innovation-launch train as a voice of reason, as it barrels down the track of a well-funded general market launch is fruitless. It’s best to wait till the train burns out its fuel and then catch up to it further down the track when it has stalled.

Not withstanding the previous explanations, there is a more fundamental reason why people don’t focus for success, they simply don’t know how to select the best markets to focus on.

 

Criteria for Target Market Attractiveness:

Over the years of working the challenge of assessing and selecting the target market segment that will yield the highest probability of success for an innovation, we have developed a series of criteria that seem to work effectively.

Market Momentum: Different market segments have different economic, demographic and regulatory factors which affect its basic momentum. When selecting a market, we want our investments to be lifted and propelled downstream as much as possible by inherent momentum factors in our favor.

Compelling Need: This factor refers to the extent the problem the innovation is designed to resolve is compelling from an economic, safety or regulatory standpoint. Take the Segway for example, the innovative two-wheeled, gyroscopically-balanced personal transport scooter. It’s general market launch, after much early hype, has been less than hoped for by investors and its inventors alike. It is, however, finding its way to higher success rates in mobile security markets, on campuses, malls, large commercial complexes, inner city tourism, and in a slightly modified version, golf courses.

Match: The extent to which the innovation matches and completely resolves the compelling need it was designed to fix. A perfect match will increase customer satisfaction and improve the ability of potential customers to rapidly make the innovation-to-problem-fix mental link.

In the early days of flat panel monitors, when they were expensive compared to bulky CRTs, one of our clients attempted to penetrate the general desktop market with this own version of a flat panel monitor. At a $1,000 selling price, compared to a $249 monitor price, the effort failed. However, when the effort was refocused on hospital rooms (a much smaller segment of the market but with a more compelling set of needs), the monitor was wildly successful. In hospital rooms, space is constrained, electromagnetic interference from CRTs cannot be tolerated around sensitive medical monitoring equipment and sparks from high static CRTs can’t be permitted in oxygen rich environments. The client’s initial adoption failure was turned to success simply by redirecting the market focus—and there were no changes required to either the average selling price or inherent product features. In fact, the selling price increased as, over time, hospitals requested additional features to increase the basic capabilities of an already good solution.

Socket Count: A socket is a potential place where the innovation can be installed. For example, a first estimate of the potential sockets for the microwave oven at its inception would have been the number of households without one. Today, the number of sockets available for new microwave oven innovations is going to be limited to those sockets that either don’t have a microwave already installed (very few) or those for which the innovation solves a compelling need or significant shortcoming with their existing solution.We want to find a market to target our innovation at that not only has a compelling need and positive momentum factors , but also a lot of unfilled or under-satisfied sockets.

Value Quotient: Closely related to the magnitude of the compelling need is the balance of the value quotient from the customer’s perspective. This relates to the value of the benefit to the customer of solving their problem with your innovation, divided by the cost of acquiring, installing, learning and using it. There may be a significant compelling need, but if the cost of the innovation needed to repair the compelling need is prohibitive, adoption will be slow. A rule of thumb is that within three years of purchase the innovation should pay back at least 5 to 1 in bottom line cash flow for the customer. A further note on this point: Value received is not completely economic. Value comprises the complete suite of benefits encompassed in the Economic, Emotional, Political and Physical realms of what your product/service delivers.

RPQL Position Availability: RPQL stands for Relative Perceived Quality Leadership. Forty plus years of research in the Strategic Planning Institute PIMS data base (Profit Impact of Market Strategy) indicates that the single most important factor affecting a business unit’s success is the market’s perception of the relative perceived quality of its goods and services compared to its competitors. One important point to remember—perceived quality is related to the segment of the market. Not all segments perceive quality in the same way. Charging after a market that already has an RPQL leader is equivalent of a military frontal assault on an entrenched position. Not a wise decision.

IntraMarket Network: As mentioned earlier, innovations diffuse more rapidly if there is a strong intra-market network through which the value proposition of the innovation can be communicated—person-to-person, customer-to-customer. The intra-market network comprises two parts a) its venues (events, forums) and vehicles (journals, publications, websites) and b) its intra-market opinion leaders.

Opinion leaders are the real geometric multipliers of the value proposition message. For opinion leaders to be most effective they need to have four important characteristics. First, they need to be rabid believers in the innovation and its value proposition. Secondly, they need to be well-networked. Third, they need to be highly credible in the network of interest and finally, they need to be natural sales people—anxious and completely un-shy about communicating new ideas to friends and colleagues alike.

The next five target market attractiveness assessment criteria are important as well, but if the market isn’t attractive after an analysis of the first seven the second five are not worth working through.

Profitability: Selling the innovation must be inherently profitable. If you feel you have to reduce price to gain traction, it may simply be that you have a questionable value proposition or your perception of the customer’s compelling need is misunderstood. It certainly should bring into question your thoughts about the economic equation factor. Sometimes simply changing the target market can change the profitability by allowing pricing in proportion to unique benefit—as in the flat panel terminal example stated earlier.

Competitive Turmoil: The higher the competitive turmoil the more expensive it will be to create a successful presence. The exercise of focusing down to a smaller, less competitive market segment, will provide a higher probability of surviving any inevitable market shakeout.

Brand Leverage: It’s easier to gain market attention for your innovation if your brand speaks innovation. Apple will easily get media and intra-market opinion leader attention for a new consumer, music or creative computing idea. Volvo will get attention for an innovative auto safety related product—like a car seat or anti-roll stabilizer for an SUV. Neither will get brand traction if they introduce a pillow or dinner ware.

Accessibility: Sometimes markets may be attractive but relatively inaccessible because of sales channel limitations, aggressive competition for limited shelf-space, import/export restrictions, licensing requirements or other considerations.

Perceived Value of Differentiators: This last factor comes into play when the competitive turmoil factor is less than optimum. It assesses the degree to which your differentiated position for the innovation, compared with your competitors’ approaches, has meaning and economic value in the target segment under assessment.

 

Conclusions:

What we have learned in years of helping our clients with the market introduction of their innovations is this: Focusing on those markets that exhibit the best composite results on the listed assessment factors results in:

  • More rapid adoption
  • Higher average selling prices
  • Higher profitability
  • Higher degree of customer satisfaction
  • Lower market launch expenses
  • More defensible positions
  • Higher probability of surviving shakeout
  • Learning how to do it consistently in the future
  • Less ownership dilution

 *****

Copyright 2006 The QMP Group, Inc.   All Rights Reserved

 

For more information about how to accelerate the market adoption of your innovative product, contact QMP at qmp1@qmpassociates.com or 503-318-2696

 

The Biggest Sales Myth

Posted on by

 

A sure bet on what sales people believe…

One of the first topics commonly included in sales training programs and books is a discussion of “Sales Myths”.  Over the years I have heard a number Pulling Out Hair of these myths and have my own favorite set of a half-dozen or so that we use in our sales training program.

The myth that is particularly revealing is implied in this question we ask to sales people:

How many of you have ever lost to an inferior offering?

When I ask this, I always accompany it with a warning that it’s a trick question. In spite of the warning, a nearly unanimous show of hands is the response.

That’s when the trap closes.

It’s all about perspective

The truth is that you never lose to an inferior offering.  It may appear inferior in your eyes, and from your perspective.  You may even be able to show the specification inferiority in absolute provable, numerical or physical terms.  But, it’s not your eyes and perspectives that matter.  The only eyes and perspectives that matter are those of the customer.

So, what is the real story?

Losing to an offering that is inferior in your eyes really means some, or all, of the following:

  1. You didn’t truly understand the criteria the customer used to make the decision until it was too late.
  2. You didn’t ask what the criteria were.
  3. You didn’t develop enough trust with the customer for them to share the criteria with you.
  4. You didn’t understand the circumstances that influenced the customer.
  5. You didn’t understand, or were unable to advise the customer to re-consider the decision criteria.
  6. You were selling into a poorly qualified opportunity, one that didn’t match the strength of your offering.

Test yourselves:

If you are a sales person, or someone who has access to the sales pipeline of your firm, select the top six opportunities in the pipeline.  For each of these opportunities list the top four to six criteria, in decreasing order of importance, that the customer will use to decide what to buy – or even if to buy at all.

When we use this exercise in our training programs, the stunned and embarrassed faces in the crowd are something to see.

Not too long ago, we were working with a client sales person on his pipeline.  He was proudly sharing page after page of opportunity strategy worksheets.  On every sheet the decision criteria, a section we strongly encourage sales people to document and use in formulating strategies and action plans, were exactly the same.

I had to ask how that could be – and if that was truly what the customers were telling him.  If it were so, it would have been the most incredibly homogeneous market I had ever seen.

He replied, “No, the customers didn’t tell me those criteria.  I know how my customers make their decisions.  I don’t have to ask.”

Was this response arrogance?  Laziness?  Fear of asking? Lack of belief that decision criteria expressed by the customer is relevant?  Whatever the reason, this poor sales person embarrassed himself in front of his peers and management?

Phrasing the question effectively

Much of the value that sales people receive from sales training is in learning key phrases and techniques for asking tough questions.  These questions might be about funding availability, decision-making power, the competitive situation, gaining access to other folks involved in the decision, or, in this case the decision criteria.

One of the common traps sales people fall into with respect to understanding decision criteria is assuming that while they are talking with the customer, decision criteria are naturally being revealed in the normal course of conversation.  Sometimes they are.  Sometimes they aren’t.

The safe stance is to assume that they aren’t revealed.  So, here are some questions to assist in revealing the real decision criteria:

Assuming you are not the exclusive decision maker, would you feel comfortable sharing what you believe other members of the committee are concerned about and would use in selecting the final solution?

If you feel uncomfortable speaking for them, what benefit do you think there might be in gathering the decision makers and influencers to work through and collect all the decision criteria and perspectives?

Have they compiled their concerns, needs and preferences in any sort of document?

Is there a vendor’s guide that would help assure that we will meet or exceed all your criteria?

Of course, there is always the option of asking directly, “What are the decision criteria”?

In reality, based on the responses of the hosts of sales people attending our training programs, that last question is rarely used.  The more common scenario is that sales people believe that they know everything about the customer’s decision process simply by having had a discussion.

A final check…

Even if you haven’t broached the subject of decision criteria directly, and believe you know enough from the conversation, it is helpful to run through the following routine to review what you understand the criteria to be.

“Thanks for taking the time with me, Paul.  Before we break up here, would you mind if I spent just a moment to confirm that I understand the criteria you will be using to make your decision.  Here’s what I inferred from the conversation. (Re-cap here).

When you finish, ask, “Is there anything I missed?  Is there anyone else that we need to speak with who might have additional criteria?”.

Explicit, Implicit and Hidden Criteria

If you follow that dialogue you get only explicit criteria.  It’s certainly better than not knowing anything – but it’s incomplete.

Implicit and hidden criteria are best revealed through keen observation.  While much is said in sales literature about listening skills, keen observation skills are equally, if not more important.

Observing and noting the physical surroundings, the personalities of the buyers, the organizational and political situation in the customer’s firm, the personal ambitions of the buyers and body language can reveal approaches which meet implicit and hidden criteria.  If the office is highly organized and neat, so should be your proposal, your meetings, your presentations and your communications.  If the customer works in teams, package your offering as a team effort.  Implicit and hidden criteria / requirements can be met at the sub-conscious, as well as the conscious behavioral level.

Keep in mind what Yogi Berra is purported to have said,

“You can see an awful lot just by observing”

A final point:

In the hands of the skilled sales person, dialogue and observation must work closely together to identify customer buying criteria.  The more the criteria are understood the higher the probability of winning and the lower the risk of losing to an apparently inferior offering.  .

*****

Learn more about the QMP process for understanding customer decision making and creating winning sales strategies.

 

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

Posted on by

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.

BocageBuster

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 by

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.

iStock_000010460151XSmall

“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”

*****

Copyright  The QMP Group, Inc. 2013 All Rights Reserved

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 by

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.

Relationship

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

*****

Copyright 2013 The QMP Group, Inc.   All Rights Reserved

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 #4 – It’s a Price-Driven Market

Posted on by

I truly sympathize with sales people who are dealing with commodity managers in large corporate purchasing organizations.  Those procurement specialists can be brutal in negotiation.  More and more they are driven by corporate edicts to “source overseas” or “reduce commodity purchase costs by 3% per year” or to “reduce the number of suppliers by 20%”. 

The truth is, classifying what they do as “Negotiation” is not fair to Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word – or to anyone for that matter.

Can it get any tougher for manufacturers? The RockiStock_000011042796XSmall

These days, sales people and their parent manufacturing companies commonly find themselves confronting a series of “non-negotiable” buyer requirements that would be laughable, if they weren’t so real and becoming more common:

–          90 day payment terms

–          Guaranteed cost-downs

–          The lowest cost – period!

–          The highest possible on-time delivery

–          Impeccable quality

–          Unlimited time frame on returns

–          “No-questions asked” returns

–          No-charge, collaborative up-front engineering and/or marketing cost sharing

–          Transparent margin calculations

–          And the requirement to keep a buffer inventory of finished parts in the factory – owned, of course, by the supplier

 The not-too-thinly veiled threat hidden among those requirements is, “If you can’t meet these terms, we can always find someone else to supply that part/service in Mexico, Asia, Brazil, India” or even, “We’ll build those parts here – ourselves, inside”.

We talked about the Rock above.   Here’s the Hard Place.  

 In the banker’s office the CEO and CFO of the small manufacturing firm are hearing:

–          Your cash flow is slowing

–          Your margins are slipping

–          Your credit line needs to be reduced and renegotiated

–          We need to see your financials, monthly

–          We need to tighten up our loan portfolio because of the lending debacle of 2008

–          and… “No, you can’t have any more leeway”.

So, between the banks pushing for higher prices and margins on your products to improve cash flow (or you lose your financing), and your big customers pushing for lower and lower prices, what’s a small manufacturing firm to do?  And, how does a sales person make a living if he isn’t price competitive.  Isn’t some margin, albeit low margin, better than losing a customer?

What Price Competition Really Means

Price-driven competition means that one or more of the following statements are true:

  1. The buyers in your target market perceive no meaningful performance or value differences between products from different suppliers – including yours
  2. Your product offering actually has no real and meaningful differentiation compared to your competition for those customers in that target market segment
  3. You, as a sales person, or your marketing team, are doing a very poor job of communicating your meaningful, market-specific differentiation to customers in that market
  4. You are unable to economically quantify the value your product can deliver to customers in that market
  5. You are aimed at the wrong market and customers – a market for which your differentiation does not actually deliver meaningful, economic, emotional or physical value

We have seen all of these situations in our client engagements – typically disguised and drowned out by the sales person’s pleading and cries to “drop the price”.

So What Can Be Done About This Kind of Situation?

The simple, yet most effective answer is: Decide which of the five statements above are true – then set about fixing them.

It is actually easier than you might imagine.

A Case in Point 1: Wrong Market Targeting

A client of ours had a new product that wasn’t selling well.  It was price disadvantaged by a factor of 3 over competitive offerings in the general market!!  In spite of this, the new business development team was hustling to set up general distributors across the country.  They were counting on a major price reduction they were politicking for with corporate to spur sales – when in fact corporate was quietly considering shutting the product line down.

We were asked to determine whether the product line was worth saving.

What little sales there were, were focused in two very narrow markets.  Simply by asking customers that bought the few units that were sold in each of these markets why they bought this “over-priced” alternative, a set of inherent, here-to-fore un-promoted competitive advantages were revealed.

Then simply by pivoting the sales team to focus on the market in which the most compelling benefits were revealed the following results were realized:

–          Not only did the price not have to be reduced, the market’s desire for added features quickly brought the average selling price of the top model to 4X the original price!

–          The single largest order for this product had been $20,000 – now with focus and a re-promoted and re-emphasized set of market-specific benefits the largest order from a customer exceeded $1,000,000

–          The number of new customers buying this product quickly rose from 2 to over 150

–          Price reductions were no longer discussed

–          The effort to saturate the market with distribution outlets was no longer considered necessary and saved a ton of money

Case in Point 2: Poor Economic Benefits Communication

In another instance a client was puzzled by the slowness with which their new product, designed specifically to help customers save substantial amounts of money, was not selling better.  The root cause was discovered to be the distributor sales manager who simply “.. did not believe the economic argument” and refused to promote it – in spite of the customer testimonials to the effect of the savings realized.

A rapid individual re-education was required, followed by a re-training of the distribution sales force, and the product’s sales turned up shortly afterwards.

Case in Point 3: The CEO Gap

I once asked a group of 12 B2B CEOs to take out a blank sheet of paper and write down what they perceived as their best product offering, the product that they thought customers should appreciate the most. I also asked them to identify an ideal customer for that product.

I then asked them to identify the factors and calculate what economic benefit that ideal customer was likely to receive from that product. They stumbled. None of them could do it in the 15 minutes allotted.

If they can’t do it – can their sales people? 

The Point:

Price-driven markets and situations are often a symptom of; a) misdirected market targeting or b) a lack of understanding of, and poor ability to communicate, market-specific economic, emotional or physical benefits of your product offerings to potential customers. 

Customers buy for their own reasons, not yours. No matter what you have convinced yourselves about the value customers should see, they saw what they were looking for when they decided to buy.  Sometimes it’s not what you want them to see, but if it worked it is delivering real value.

So, if your sales people are screaming for price reductions and you have customers buying when you are not the cheapest price – those customers are seeing something you are not. You need to find out what that is and why. And if they are not buying when the economic case is real, independent of the price, your communication is broken somewhere along the line.

Oh yeah, one final point. If price was truly the ultimate deciding point for decisions, we’d all be driving Versas.  If it helps, here’s a link to Car and Drivers article on the 10 Cheapest Cars

*****

If you’d like to learn more about dealing with price-based competition call Jerry Vieira, CMC at 503.318.2696 or email to jgv@qmpassocites.com. The QMP Website is at www.TheQMPGroup.com and more insights can be found at The QMP Insights Blog

Common Sales Myth #5 – Closing Techniques are Effective

Posted on by

Let’s start this discussion with a stipulation that all successful sales have to go through some sort of closing stage.  Nothing happens until a customer or client agrees to pay your company for the delivery of a service or a product.  So, in the strictest sense, I guess we can call that a “close”.  We can also imagine that all commerce in the world would come to a screeching halt unless some kind of transaction closing happened. Sales Person

So, good closing techniques are essential – right?  And if that’s so why am I targeting closing techniques as a myth?

A Closing Process is Different than a Closing Technique

A “Closing Process” is likely to be mechanistic.  Get the quantity and delivery dates correct, get the PO issued and confirm with the customer your ability to meet the delivery schedule.  These days that process may be enabled by all sorts of mobile systems, and field inventory accessibility tools.  That’s mechanistic closing.

“Closing Techniques” are something different all-together.   Closing Techniques are many times designed to manipulate the emotions of the buyer, or to create a sense of urgency, guilt or fear, toward the end of triggering a commitment to buy.  At one level, an example might be a car salesman saying something like, “Well, these models are going fast.  In fact, there was a guy in here earlier that test drove and liked the exact car you just expressed an interest in.  He said he was bringing his wife back this evening for a final decision.”  Or, in a business-to-business environment, “We are just about at capacity and if you really need delivery in July, we need to get your order committed and on the schedule no later than end of this week.”

Well before you assume that closing techniques are cool, perhaps even having been indoctrinated by the training your own sales management required, consider the following information – then decide for yourself.

The Impact of being “Closed” by a “Closing Technique” 

Neil Rackham in his book “SPIN Selling” reveals the results of 10 years of research done by the Huthwaite Center into high $-value sales success, analyzing 10,000 sales people and 35,000 sales calls in 27 countries.  They studied 116 factors that might contribute to sales success.  

The results of that study concluded that customers with which “Closing Techniques” were used (emotional, urgency or fear) were:

  1. Less likely to buy
  2. Less likely to re-buy
  3. Less likely to be satisfied after the buy

Admittedly that is an extremely brief description of his work and its conclusions.  But it is compelling – and I strongly recommend all sales managers read “SPIN Selling“.  It may alter, for the better and forever, your thoughts about training your sales people to use “Assumptive” closes, the “Standing Room Only” close, the “Alternative” close, or any other trick closing technique.

The Huthwaite SPIN model offers an excellent, and more effective, sales process alternative.  SPIN is an achronym, and stands for Situation, Problem, Implication and Need-Payoff.  The SPIN selling process trains people how to use questions of each type to win a sale.

So, Why is So Much Emphasis Still Placed on the Training and Use of “Closing Techniques”?

Today, the pressure on Sales Managers to produce sales results is higher than it has been in years.  Foreign and price-based competition, combined with a still iffy and sluggish economy is resulting in significant pressure on small-to-mid-sized firms.  The result is that CEOs, Owners and Sales Managers believe that closing techniques will somehow move a sale forward more quickly.  But, in my experience I find that they are, for the most part, ignorant of what the data from the Huthwaite study reveal – and ignorant of other more effective sales techniques.  And, they may be pressed to find the time or money to embark upon such a change of direction and approach in mid-stride.

Curling

Customer and Client Collaboration Works Much Better

So rather than disenfranchising your sales prospects with slick closing techniques, consider a sales approach more like the Winter Olympics sport of curling.  A good sales person is like the “sweeper” who, through patient and detailed questioning, problem solving and collaboration leads the customer to the best answer to help them achieve their goal.  

*****

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

Posted on by

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 TargetsWhale

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 6th 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:

  1. the strategy used to penetrate them,
  2. the “enlightened partnership nature” of their corporate procurement,
  3. the centralized or decentralized nature of their decision making,
  4. the strength of your IP and the economic value proposition it delivers, and
  5. 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.

*****

Revitalizing Stalled Sales

Posted on by

 

As the economy continues to bounce along, (some say showing signs of a small movement off its bottom while others disagree), business owners and managers are getting impatient to find ways to boost revenue.  Not only are we seeing evidence of this within our own client base, but also our “Insights” blog post on “Diagnosing Stalled Sales”, published in June of 2011, has re-surfaced recently as the top-read posting on the all time QMP blog popularity-list.  The second most popular blog on that list is “The Marketing and Sales Audit”.  Business leaders are looking for revenue answers.  Standing idly by and waiting for the economic recovery is no longer a reasonable option.

As I re-read that “Diagnosing Stalled Sales” post, I realized that it was too diagnostic and not prescriptive enough.  After all, what good is a diagnosis without a treatment? Apologies to those readers who came away from that post less than satisfied. This post makes up for that shortcoming. 

Deciding What to Do

The first thing to recognize is that all revenue increases must come from one or more of the following four sources: 1) introducing new products, 2) stealing market share from competitors (new account wins in your current markets), 3) the natural momentum of your current markets or 4) penetrating new markets.

New Products:

If you have a new product-development initiative in the works, good for you.  But pursuing this option for increased revenue typically takes time and money.  Both are in short supply these days for small to mid-size businesses, exacerbated as our clients currently relate, by the challenge of tightened banking requirements.

New product development initiatives typically fall into one of three categories: a) improving what you already offer, b) meeting some new customer requirement or c) launching a breakthrough.

Meaningful overnight revenue upsides are rare from new products as it takes time to develop, tool, test and introduce a new product.  It then takes time for the market to become aware of it, understand it, change their old ways of doing things (and who they may be buying from) and begin to adopt your new product.  There are ways of accelerating this adoption rate, but only if the product is a breakthrough – something that fundamentally turns the market on its ear.  Even in that case, time is the challenge.  Twenty-five years into its existence, I still meet educated people who don’t own a personal computer, and it took 50 years for the automobile to be completely adopted by consumers.

Don’t get me wrong, new products are strategically important for a firm. I strongly encourage new product development, particularly if the product fills some need the customer didn’t even know they had – a real breakthrough.  Breakthrough products typically bring sustainable growth, give customers a meaningful reason to change and provide higher margins.  (More on this subject in a future blog post on the subject of Innovation).

So, keep developing; keep considering new ideas; just don’t expect the heavens to open and revenue to come raining down quickly.

Stealing Market Share from Competitors:

One of the fundamental principles of military strategy is, “The hardest ground to capture is the ground that is occupied. It typically takes anywhere from 3 to 6 times superior resources to take over a position from an occupier.  Interestingly, most of the initiatives that small to mid-size companies attempt (unwisely) to increase sales fall into this, the most challenging category.

These days, there are a number of popular marketing initiatives that are all the rage – search engine optimization, the use of AdWords, re-branding, social media and database marketing – to name a few.  These are not inherently bad or good.  However, the key to achieving significant growth with any of them is to assure their use in a focused way combined with growth options #1 (Introducing New Products) or #4 (Penetrating New Markets).  Using them in a focused way assures maximum return for minimum investment.

Some of you may decide that this option, stealing share from competitors, is the only one available to you and that you don’t have time and money for new product development or to try to penetrate a completely new market.  If you do, the road will be difficult and certainly take more resources and time than you anticipated.  If you can’t be dissuaded, here are some tips to make it easier:

a) Try to fragment your competitor’s market: Find and target sub-sets of customers that have a common dissatisfaction with the competitors’ offerings.  The Japanese didn’t attack the US auto market all at once on all fronts.  They focused first on the most vulnerable and receptive set of customers with a quality small car offering.  After establishing this foothold they expanded based on their proven quality reputation.

b) Tailor a market-specific benefits story to the customers in the specific target market fragment you wish to penetrate.  You may even wish to set up a separate website for that specific market. At minimum you will need a focused sales presentation.

c) Focus your sales team on that segment and train them to tell that market-specific story.  Make a concentrated effort for 90 days with frequent feedback from the sales team to see if the story is gaining traction.  The test of traction is a growing sales pipeline.

d) Never lead the penetration effort with pricing reductions.  You’ll hurt yourself.

The Natural Momentum of Your Markets:

This is the primary problem most small-to-midsized businesses are dealing with. It is true that all boats rise and fall with the tide.  That doesn’t mean that some boats don’t move around the bay faster than others, whatever the tide situation.  There are always segments of a market that trend opposite, or move faster than, the overall economy.  If the economic momentum of your primary target market has slowed, and doesn’t look like it will return quickly, then it’s time to consider growth option #4 – penetrating new markets.

Penetrating New Markets

The requirements for a successful penetration of a new market are: a) a good set of target market attractiveness assessment criteria, b) a high degree of focus in your attack on the market and c) rapid feedback and re-targeting process to use as required. You need not make a big, costly production of launching an initiative at a new target market.  Assessing attractiveness, focusing and gathering intelligence about receptivity (basically validating the market’s attractiveness) is not a big deal.

For each of the following questions, start with the phrase, “To what degree..” and score on a scale of 1 to 10.

… does this market exhibit sustainable economic, demographic or regulatory momentum?

… do customers in this market have a compelling problem that can be solved by our product?

… does our product offer a clear competitive advantage in solving that problem for the customer?

… does solving that problem reap a meaningful reward for the customer – economically, emotionally or physically

… is there a competitive leadership position available in the market?

… can we easily reach customers in this market?

… is there strong intra-market communication between peers in this market?

… can we sell into this market profitably?

These criteria will provide a starting point for a relative attractiveness assessment. You may wish to use more, or different, criteria.

Doing it:

It is common in slow economic times for sales teams to increase their activity in trying to sell to a wider range of prospects, try to penetrate large accounts that competitors own, campaign for price concessions to win new business and chase opportunities that are a marginal match for the firm’s capabilities.  As driven by the survival instinct as these activities may be and as resourceful as they may appear on the surface, they are typically non-productive.  In fact, they can be hugely counter-productive.  The results of such efforts are typically depressed profitability, unsustainable success and trapping the firm into businesses and/or products it cannot maintain.  Such activities can also dilute customer support resources, jerk around product development and operations resources, damage the firm’s quality reputation, start price-wars and cause a distraction of the business from what it does best.  It can take many years to recover from the negative consequences of impulsive sales actions taken in the fever and panic of an economic crisis.

I state the case in a dire scenario because the real key to success is focus and feedback.  Focus means staying focused on the target market you decided upon using the criteria above.  Feedback means monitoring progress, receptivity and success frequently and adjusting quickly.

The discipline of a limited number (one or two) highly focused initiatives targeted at specific new markets, followed by rapid sales feedback, has consistently produced good results.  When followed-through with discipline the results have been significant.  Our subject firms have won new clients, avoided price competition, found new ways to provide additional value to customers, increased selling prices, reduced the hysteria associated with trying to respond to every quote that comes within 100 yards of the door, achieved double-digit increases in win rates and made rapid strategic adjustments that saved them from economic disasters.

The approach we suggest requires the adoption of three basic process disciplines: 1) rapid market assessment, 2) rapid and focused launch initiatives and 3) disciplined and frequent field sales feedback.  While these disciplines may be different than what your organization has used in the past, they are easy to learn, cost-effective to deploy and yield a higher probability of success – in both challenging and healthy economic times.

***

We invite you to read our related blog posts “Diagnosing Stalled Sales” and “Finding New Markets“

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

Posted on by

 

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.iStock_000009708062XSmall

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