Today’s Guest Blogger is Joseph Olewitz .  In addition to being Founder and Principal Consultant at 22nd Story Strategies, Inc., Joseph currently shares experiences derived from years of pitching large professional services deals to major corporate brands on his blog: Intentional Growth.

How precise is your business language? When Shelly Sachs of eti Sales Support asked me to write a guest post, I immediately thought of the lesson I learned from him earlier this year. Even though I always operate as though word choice is critical, in a joint presentation we were making to a client of mine, Shelly pointed out that I had represented a core part of my recommended strategy as promoting the “USP” (Unique Selling Proposition) when it seemed that using “UVP” (Unique Value Proposition) as a title for the same presentation would be more customer-centric and a much better focus on benefits. I have not only used this term with other clients until now, but I also had recently written a blog about using USP to increase revenue.

Mea Culpa: Shelly was right of course and that caused me not only to immediately correct USP to UVP but to realize that I had been using a lot of terms in my vocabulary for a long time and that regular re-examination and consideration of language is imperative.
“Sales” in my universe is a powerful and useful term – but not always! In services sales, when talking about the relationship between my offering and my client’s they want to know how I will help them increase sales or revenues. However, their customer wants to know about the “Value” that’s being brought to market and that’s the term that should be used when describing your unique positioning.

I am now regularly reviewing words chosen for business communications with an additional POV perch – that of asking the question: “How powerful and how appropriate is that term in this specific context?” And I think we all need to do that much more often.

Some thoughts:

• Ask some of your clients to read and comment on existing promotional material – with no sacred cows (include website, one-sheets, signage and more).
• Have someone who was not involved in the writing review the proposal before it’s sent out.
• Carefully look at how the client will respond to the pitch language (is it culturally appropriate?)
• Remember to keep revising as time goes on, things change – and you do, too.

I’m now more attuned to the downfalls of complacency – how about you?

Shortly after my last blog post (“Content may be king; relationships are personal”), I came across the September 19 issue of BtoB Magazine. I noticed some interesting graphics on the Opinion Page that provided poll results for some recent Webcasts.

I actually found these data fascinating. If you’re seeing them for the very first time, you might well share my interest.

In the first chart we discover that more than a third of those who responded to the August Webcast survey were regularly employing marketing automation technology, and that an additional 20% were in an early deployment phase. So more than half of those folks are using marketing automation techniques, and the balance are considering deployment.

It’s hard to know the degree of overlap between the attendees of the August Webcast and those who attended the one in September, but I think it’s safe to assume that the audience was not all that dissimilar. And, if the overlap was significant, then the results of the survey to the September Webcast are quite disconcerting.

That survey asked respondents to assess their level of sophistication in data cleansing. The clear takeaway from their responses is that three quarters of them have real concerns about the integrity of their data and that fewer than 4% are highly confident that their data are sufficiently clean and up to date.

The follow up question, related to the same webcast, drives that point home with a sledgehammer. Nearly three in five respondents feel they are either merely tossing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks, or have significant doubts that they really know the audience to whom they are marketing.

I fully realize that the Webcast was designed to drive home exactly that point, and to encourage people to focus their efforts on data cleansing. Nevertheless, I find that result astonishing. Why in the world would a company use marketing automation tools to send streams of automated messages to people about whom they know virtually nothing? How do you think the recipients feel about the companies who are, at best, sending them material in which they likely have no interest and, at worst, are spamming them?

In my view, this is not a ringing endorsement for the use of marketing automation. I am a firm believer in the notion that every time I touch a customer or prospective customer, I need to bring positive value for them to that encounter. I can’t see how I could do that without first knowing something about them, can you?

There is a tendency by some marketing departments (pushed possibly by some marketing consultancies) to develop a Universal Lead Definition for their organizations.  The idea of course, is to get buy in from Sales to say that if you (Marketing) send me a lead with XY & Z characteristics then this meets our definition of a good lead and that in turn we (Sales) will commit to investing the time and resources in trying to close this opportunity.
From the outset let me say I’ve never been in favor of this approach.  Especially if the definition consists of a tight BANT (Budget, Authority, Need and Timing) definition.  See Sheldon Sach’s detailed blog on this subject.

That said there are some positives.  If Sales accepts and commit to this arrangement and do actually invest time and resources then the alignment of Sales and Marketing is greatly improved and even if the leads are not what they might be then overall result will be more positive.  And from marketing’s standpoint they now have an agreed to formula to perform to.
But there are lots of negatives.

First having worked with both marketing and sales departments for some 24 years I can tell you that in all this time I have yet to see a sales operation that will dance to marketing’s tune – regardless of the upfront commitments.  The one time I’ve seen some success is when management made a huge commitment to implementing a strategy and when the sales force balked – they fired 50% of them.  Are you ready to do this?  Most companies are not.
The fact is a good sales lead involves a lot of subjectivity.  There are inevitably countless nuances that cannot be quantified of scored in any way.

Here is a list of some factors that are beyond the usefulness of a ULD:

• Some sales people are good closers.  Some are not.
• Some sales people feel a lead must be an order taking opportunity while others understand that it’s just a foot in the door.
• The Pareto principle applies as much to Sales – as it does to Marketing
• 80% of sales are brought in by your top 20% salespeople
• Only 20% of leads provided by Marketing closes
• Only 20% of leads provided by Marketing are worthwhile
• And so on.
• Some leads may have long lead times … others will close in the short term.
• Typically the larger more complex sales take longer to close and many sales people cannot be bothered because it will not affect their quota in the short term.
• Yes sales people for the most part do not see the long term.  And even if they do they do not manage a pipeline for the long term.
• More and more there is no one decision maker.  Even in the smallest companies decisions are now being made by (formal or informal) committees.
• If the lead fits the BANT model you’re probably too late for the party.

At eti we’ve opted for a more customized approach.  We prefer to work with individual sales people and deliver tailored leads that work for them.

Can one effectively do this?  Of course and we’ve done so for many years.   Which do you prefer?
Do you prefer pushing a standard lead model (a round peg) down a square (sales force) hole?

Give Shelly Sachs (VP Business Development) a call at 914.747.3030 Ext 3477.  He’ll be happy to discuss this and other needs you may have in more detail.

Since time immemorial selling has been about relationships. From the three martini lunch to immeasurable rounds of golf and scads of tickets to sporting events, salespeople have used every method possible to connect with and cultivate prospects (and clients) at a personal level.

Now we’re being asked to believe that a new, disruptive technology has somehow altered the landscape. We no longer have to connect with people at a personal level to establish a trusted relationship. Now we can do it with content; a powerful, less expensive alternative – marketing automation! Content is king; no handshakes required, thank you very much.

So, how do we know what content to send them? What are they interested in and how do we know that? Exactly how interested are they? Where in the journey toward obtaining a solution are they? Where’s the pain?

If you follow the marketing automation model, and many do, you send out dozens of emails to people each month, each with a content offer. And then you track what they respond to and act accordingly. You send them whitepapers and round them up into webinars. Each time you gather more and more information about them (although, in practice, it always seems as if they ask the same questions each time I respond, no matter how often I respond, almost as if they really don’t know me at all).

Sounds to me like a lot of investment in creating content (although they tell you that you can “repurpose” the content you already have) and not so much invested in asking me the important, simple questions like: Why did I ask for that whitepaper? Why was that webinar topic of interest? What’s keeping me and my colleagues up at night? Where are my priorities and my company’s priorities at the moment?

They don’t bother asking me any of that, but they do send me lots of free content. The problem is that, when I look at the content, I discover that it’s either relatively shallow or, even if it has merit, it generally doesn’t quite apply to me or my specific challenges.

Eventually, I stop clicking and stop asking because I have actually soured on the relationship. It doesn’t give me what I need. I get no value from my time investment.

Of course, other than having to pay for creating the content (a substantial cost if done right), on the surface it seems as if it hasn’t cost them very much to generate highly qualified leads. I suppose if you are already investing in scads of content creation, then repurposing it will work. But, for most companies, that’s not the case.

No doubt, some people find that strategy hits the spot for them. The content they use is on the mark; it meets the needs of prospects and brings them into the fold through a self identification process. They may even make a purchase and become customers. When you measure the acquisition cost of that sale, it may seem attractively low, especially when compared to the cost of having to engage people personally from day 1 (excluding, of course the substantial investment in content and software/services).

But what about me, my needs and a sale to my company? That’s lost. Who’s measuring lost opportunity cost? Who’s assessing what might have happened if someone had taken the time to engage me directly, asked the salient questions, cultivated me at a personal level and earned my trust and my business? How does that figure into the cost per customer acquisition matrix?

It seems to me that if I’m going to buy into the marketing automation model, I want to do it on the basis of knowing what interests a prospective customer BEFORE I send them content. I always want that content to be relevant to their needs, and I want every single touch to bring value to the relationship – a clear statement that I listened, I heard and I have responded accordingly.

I can’t risk basing my relationship development strategy on inferences – on remote behavior from a distance. I prefer proactive to reactive. I need to speak with them first, understand their needs, concerns and aspirations. I need to establish a detailed profile of who they are, how they go about making decisions, how important to them is finding a solution and, most importantly, what are they trying to accomplish and what have they tried already that has failed. I need to know them – personally.

With knowledge of who they are and what’s important to them in hand, I can build a regimen of delivering exactly the content they need, knowing that it will bring value to them and establish the beginning of a trusted advisor relationship. And to achieve that most effectively, I need to invest in my own resources or hire a company like eti Sales Support that has the people, skills and experience to engage them personally, consultatively and reliably to build a positive brand image, assess the level and quality of the needs they have for the solution we represent.

In today’s tough times we are all trying to do more with less and maximize our assets to the greatest degree possible.

In sales one can only have one conversation with a prospect at one time.  However, if you integrate Live Chat into the equation with a team of well trained Business Developers who can properly interact and communicate to determine need and or pain, you can extend that reach by factors of 200% – 400%.   That’s a meaningful impact!

LiveChat enables the BD to quickly assess the need and get the Prospect into the right process for follow up.  This may include moving the prospect into a more detailed Lead Qualification call, a Sales Lead Pipeline, a nurturing track or  other non sales (technical support) tracks.  Yes, utilizing Live Chat will divert a number of Prospects from the Contact Us forms on your site. The benefit is instant communication with these constituents.

You will also not be in a race with your competition to see who can reach the prospect first.To ensure success the Business Development team needs to be not only well versed in all that you do, but must also be proficient in identifying need/pain and sales opportunity. They need to have a detailed knowledge of the organizations roadmap and access to information to pass to the visitors. Using “Operators” that are reliant on canned messages that shoehorn all visitors to fit or merely have them ask if you want a salesperson to make contact does not make for a good or productive experience. In fact, it could be a huge turnoff.

Here are 4 pointers to keep in mind when using LiveChat to build your prospect pipeline:1.

• Understand that Live Chat is a dialogue just like a phone call.
  • Because this is a dialogue, make sure the Business Developer is smart and can respond quickly and intelligently to each post by the prospect.
  • Canned responses if used must be well written and focused.  Use of canned messages that do not relate to the question can turn the Prospect off quickly.
• Make sure your Business Developers have the tools to move those ‘chatters’ who do not have needs for your products and/or solutions quickly to the right department or information.
• As in any sales call, one should always be moving the relationship toward greater levels of engagement and commitment.
• Your brand is important, make sure the chat helps build it:
  • Be respectful of the prospect
  • React to their needs and interests rather than pushing your agenda.
  • Articulate responses in proper English.  Spelling and grammar does count.
  • Be polite and take no short cuts.

If you’d like to learn more about how this works and how you can leverage your website to generate highly qualified leads call Sheldon Sachs VP Business Development at 914.747.3030 Ext 3450.

When you work in sales, it sometimes feels like rejection is part of the deal. When you call dozens of people every month, you generally can’t expect all of them to be on board with the product or service that you’re selling. But if you feel like you’re striking out more often than you’re closing deals, there might be something you can do turn things around. That’s right – if you thought getting rejected was just a part of the sales profession, it’s time to think again. While you may never be able to sell to everyone you speak to, you can dramatically up your chances of closing a sale by avoiding certain behaviors that turn prospects off of your products and services.

There are two ways to approach sales: by focusing on your product and by focusing on the prospect. The former will turn your prospects off, while the latter will keep them intrigued – and here’s why.

If you focus too hard on convincing someone to buy from you, you begin to sound disingenuous – no matter how pure your actual motives may be. No one likes to pushed into making a purchase, which is why you need to be careful not to get overeager or forget about the prospect’s concerns and questions. Remember: Selling isn’t about moving, it’s about finding a product that’s a suitable match to someone’s needs and desires. When you put prospects first, they’ll be more apt to trust, respect and just flat-out like you – which will put you in their good graces, whether or not they decide to buy from you.

Of course, not every prospect you talk to is going to need the product you’re selling – and that’s all right. If you’re honest with them, they’ll walk away from the interaction knowing that you’re a trustworthy resource to whom they can turn at a later date, should they ever develop a use for what you’re offering. Both of you leave the conversation with your relationship in tact and the possibility of a future meet-up remains open.

After all, closing sales starts with opening relationships. When you create lasting bonds with prospects, you don’t just make a sale today – you create the possibility and opportunity to make more money in the future.

Salespeople who put their prospects ahead of their quotas keep their dignity and integrity intact. Those who focus too hard on pushing a sale, even when it’s not the right fit, are the ones who end up experiencing rejection.

Making a sale starts with a building a relationship – and building a relationship takes effort. A lot of it. That’s not to say it’s hard, of course; building a relationship may not be the easiest thing in the world, but it’s certainly simpler than trying to push or bully a potential client into purchasing from you when your product isn’t a good fit with their mission, goals or company. If you want to start closing sales and creating a fuller professional life, it starts with making yourself available to your prospects as a valuable source of trustworthy, honest and useful information.

If you want to sell something to someone, it’s essential to know what he or she is looking for. Think of it this way: You wouldn’t try to sell a minivan to a childless bachelor, just like you wouldn’t try to sell a Corvette to a mother of four. When you understand your client’s needs, you can work with them show them how valuable the service or product you’re offering can really be to them. To do this, you need to open up a conversation with them – believe it or not, they might surprise you. Don’t try to guess what they’ll want. You never know, sometimes that metaphorical mom really is looking for her own sports car.

A salesperson’s role is to understand the unique challenges that a client faces in its specific market or environment, then discover a solution that will help the client overcome these issues. Rather than simply asking, many inexperienced salespeople try to guess what a client needs – or, if that doesn’t work, start throwing out every possible service or product in hopes that’ll something will stick. This, however, is a waste of not just your client’s time, but yours as well. Instead of taking this amateur approach to making a sale, start by simply asking questions, listening to their answers and working with your prospect to devise a solution.

If you want to start see your sales close, it’s time to stop focusing on yourself and start paying attention to your client. Don’t just sell what you offer -sell what your client needs. To learn what that is, ask questions – What are their key interests and challenges? What do they struggle with in their industry? What are they looking to fix?

Even if it doesn’t appear that you have much to offer them immediately, a little extra digging might uncover a way that you can aid them in their mission. And if not, at the very least, you’ve opened up a productive relationship and established yourself as a trustworthy source should they ever need a service or product that you offer.

Invariably we get inquiries from companies that pretty much say … “All we want is appointments”.

And our response … “Are you really sure about that?”

Take for example a call I received this morning from XXXX Bank.  Unfortunately it was obvious from the get go that this person had no clue about myself and our business.  In fact my presumption is he was calling about the business, but even that I’m not sure about.

Needless to say I was not going to provide a half hour to a sales representative to stop by.  Furthermore, why should I? No reason at all was offered to justify me giving them any of my valuable time.   Furthermore, the lack of professionalism left a read bad taste and so inadvertently XXXX Bank has probably tarnished their brand in my eyes irrevocably.

Clearly, he was obviously disingenuous when he said “ … not to sell you something …” .  Really?  It was pretty clear that he was only interested in securing an appointment.  Everything else be damned.

You’ve carefully identified and qualified the prospect, clearly identified a need and even gotten them to speak about their “pain” and the challenges they are facing in retaining their current solution. You’ve made a sterling ROI presentation to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of your solution and the fact that it will return the full cost of the investment in less than a year!

Still, no sale!

The frustration you experience goes something like this. You know the prospect has a need; the prospect has acknowledged they have a need. Budget may be an issue, but you know (and they confirm) if they purchase the payoff will be there, and you’ve demonstrated that. Still there is no action.

The question then is what can you do to get them to move forward? What type of compelling circumstance can be identified that will make the prospect MOVE?

Of course there is no simple answer. You might try offering a pilot (no risk) effort, or informing them of what their biggest competitor is doing, or offering a SaaS model, or somehow reducing the time and investment implementation would require, or offering a migration solution, etc. But the real trick is to identify the internal triggers that impede a decision.

The fact is that when most sales are lost, they are lost to “no decision,” rather than to competitors. Think about your own experiences in selling. Retaining the status quo is probably the outcome in a plurality of situations (perhaps even a majority). And this is true even when the prospect clearly recognizes a need for change and is fully aware of the huge costs to their business of retaining the status quo. The real challenge that you face is inertia.

The role of inertia in buying and selling is well documented. For many years, companies would send consumers unsolicited goods, with the expectation that many will prefer to make the purchase rather than return the goods. That practice is called “inertia selling.”

The obverse practice of “inertia buying” is also well known. It refers to situations in which an end user simply buys the same brand over and over without consideration of alternatives that may even offer far more benefit. You may recall the old IT adage that “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.” Dell was often the beneficiary of the very same tendencies. And, in the grocery arena and with other consumer products, it’s extremely common.

Economists have identified a related concept called “loss aversion” that seems to me to be quite similar to the concept of inertia. So, I looked up the term “loss aversion” on Wikipedia. What I found was a solid, well-referenced article which defines loss aversion as referring to “people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically,” While there are studies on both sides of whether or not it actually exists in practice, it is pretty widely recognized that the phenomenon occurs, whether it’s called loss aversion or inertia.

Whether you are selling to small businesses or large enterprises, inertia plays a key role in the process. You need to attend to it and understand it’s influences if you hope to be successful.

Sales gurus like Ari Galper speak about how the more traditional sales process puts pressure on both the prospect and the sales person. It creates a “chasing game” in which the sales person’s hopes and expectations lead them to pursue relentlessly the prospect who has failed to act on executing an agreement that they have verbally affirmed. “What is holding things up?” they ask. “What can we do to get this deal done?” That pressure is a source of resistance and may actually be a source of inertia. People simply do not like to be pushed into decisions. They want to feel as if they made them openly and willingly. Ari counsels sales people to avoid pressure situations for themselves as well as for their prospects.

From my perspective, it’s vital to understand the pressure dynamic as well as the source of the inertia you will inevitably confront in order to address it effectively.

In large enterprises, in which many people are often involved in making a decision, the process is often as in this cartoon. And the more important the decision, the greater the role inertia plays in the process. In order to have success in these situations, it is vital to understand the basic psyche of the organization – its culture with respect to the dimension of change.

Is this an organization that embraces change with great vigor, always at the leading edge? Or is it more conservative in outlook – a laggard – climbing on board only well after a solution has been proven effective?

Having that level of understanding about your prospect organization will not only provide you with the tools to be more successful in selling, it will also enable you to make choices about how to best allocate your valuable time and effort. You’ll also benefit from knowing who most often plays a leadership role in the organization, promoting change and the adoption of new practices, and who within the organization leads the resistance.

Salespeople often fret about understanding who THE “decision maker” is. Unless they are speaking with that individual, it’s “not worth their time and effort.” What they really ought to be focused on are the key players in the change dynamic. These are the folks who may have the greatest impact on the decision and who need most to be heard and cultivated.

At eti Sales Support, one of the key roles we take on when we work with our clients to develop new business is to help them build precisely this kind of a profile. When we engage consultatively with a contact in a prospect organization, we try to not only probe to understand the ins and outs of their current practices and needs and concerns, but we try to understand their organization’s orientation to change and the key players in that dynamic whom we or the client’s sales rep might encounter along the way.

We want to anticipate the inertia and proactively provide our clients with the tools they need to engage that prospect organization productively. We think understanding the role of inertia (and pressure) in the sales process is vital to our clients’ success in selling effectively, and we believe this is a best practice worthy of wider adoption.

I received an email the other day from Ari Galper.  Ari runs a sales training business called “Unlock the Game” (www.unlockthegame.com) which focuses on shifting the perspective from selling to relationship building.  At the core of his teaching is an understanding that the key to sales success is in reducing stress, not increasing the pressure.

That is, of course, counter intuitive when compared to the traditional ABC sales view (“Always Be Closing”).  In the traditional view, moving the sale forward is the key to success and the goal is to get increasing commitments throughout the process (strings of “yesses,” even in the face of a few no’s).

But as a psychologist by training and as a sales person, I have always been uncomfortable with the traditional view.  I have always felt that building solid relationships is the key to success, both in sales lead generation and in most other areas of human interaction.

People need to feel in control of their choices.  I know I do.  You may be able to pressure some people into agreeing to an appointment, and maybe even into a sale, but that  person will not become a valued client and they will not trust you with the “share of wallet” that you need to sustain a long-term, mutually profitable relationship.

The key here is the word “mutual.”  There needs to be a base of trust and a mutually agreed perception that the deal meets the needs of everyone involved.  When you achieve that status — when there is a match between what you have to offer and what your prospective client needs – that’s the point at which a sale can be closed and a long-term partnership established.

We here at eti Sales Support are active proponents of this philosophy.  Here are the elements of Ari’s recent email that we have adopted to support our clients:

1. Stop the sales pitch. Start a conversation.  When you call someone, never start out with a mini-presentation about yourself, our client’s company, or what you have to offer.

Instead, start with a conversational phrase that focuses on a specific problem that the product, service or solution solves. For example, you might say, “I’m just calling to see if you are open to some different ideas related to preventing downtime across your computer network?”

Notice that you are not pitching a solution with this opening phrase. Instead, you’re addressing a problem that, based on your experience in their field, you believe they might be having.

2. Speak to the level of the contact with whom you are speaking. Don’t speak about details with a C-Level executive; they are interested in the big picture, not in the nitty-gritty minutiae. And don’t speak about more esoteric, lofty things with someone who is responsible for day to day details.  Always consider the person with whom you are speaking and focus your discussion on the kinds of things that are their key concerns — the things that keep them up at night.

3. Your goal is always to discover whether our client and their prospect are a good fit.  If you let go of trying to close the sale or get the appointment, you’ll discover that you don’t have to take responsibility for moving the sales process forward.  By simply focusing your conversation on problems that you can help prospects solve, and by not jumping the gun by trying to move the sales process forward, you’ll discover that prospects will give you the direction you need.

4. Never be defensive about our client or what they have to offer. This only creates more sales pressure.  When prospects say, “Why should I choose you over your competition?,” your instinctive reaction is to defend our client’s product or service because you believe that they are the best choice, and you want to convince them of that. But what goes through their minds at that point?

Something like, “This ‘salesperson’ is trying to sell me, and I hate feeling as if I’m being sold.”

Stop being defensive. In fact, come right out and tell them that you aren’t going to try to convince them of anything because that only creates sales pressure. Instead, ask them again about key problems they’re trying to solve.  Then explore how our client’s product or service might solve those problems. Give up trying to persuade. Let prospects feel they can choose you without feeling sold.

The sooner you can let go of the traditional sales beliefs that we’ve all been exposed to, the more quickly you’ll start seeing better results.

5. Hidden sales pressure causes rejection. Eliminate sales pressure, and you’ll rarely experience rejection.  Prospects don’t trigger rejection. You do — when something you say, and it could be very subtle, triggers a defensive reaction from your prospect.

Yes, something you say.

You can eliminate rejection forever simply by giving up the hidden agenda of hoping to make a sale. Instead, be sure that everything you say and do stems from the basic mindset that you’re there to help prospects identify and solve their issues.

6. Never chase prospects. Instead, get to the truth of whether there’s a fit or not.  Chasing prospects has always been considered normal and necessary, but it’s rooted in the macho selling image that “If you don’t keep chasing, you’re giving up, which means you’re a failure.” This is dead wrong.

Instead, ask your prospects if they’d be open to connecting again at a certain time and date so you can both avoid the phone tag game.

The sooner you can let go of the traditional sales beliefs that we’ve all been exposed to, the better you’ll feel about your job, and the more quickly you’ll start seeing better results.

1. Stop the sales pitch. Start a conversation.  When you call someone, never start out with a mini-presentation about yourself, our client’s company, or what you have to offer.

Instead, start with a conversational phrase that focuses on a specific problem that the product, service or solution solves. For example, you might say, “I’m just calling to see if you are open to some different ideas related to preventing downtime across your computer network?”

Notice that you are not pitching a solution with this opening phrase. Instead, you’re addressing a problem that, based on your experience in their field, you believe they might be having.

2. Speak to the level of the contact with whom you are speaking. Don’t speak about details with a C-Level executive; they are interested in the big picture, not in the nitty-gritty minutiae. And don’t speak about more esoteric, lofty things with someone who is responsible for day to day details.  Always consider the person with whom you are speaking and focus your discussion on the kinds of things that are their key concerns — the things that keep them up at night.

3. Your goal is always to discover whether our client and their prospect are a good fit.  If you let go of trying to close the sale or get the appointment, you’ll discover that you don’t have to take responsibility for moving the sales process forward.  By simply focusing your conversation on problems that you can help prospects solve, and by not jumping the gun by trying to move the sales process forward, you’ll discover that prospects will give you the direction you need.

4. Never be defensive about our client or what they have to offer. This only creates more sales pressure.  When prospects say, “Why should I choose you over your competition?,” your instinctive reaction is to defend our client’s product or service because you believe that they are the best choice, and you want to convince them of that. But what goes through their minds at that point?

Something like, “This ‘salesperson’ is trying to sell me, and I hate feeling as if I’m being sold.”

Stop being defensive. In fact, come right out and tell them that you aren’t going to try to convince them of anything because that only creates sales pressure. Instead, ask them again about key problems they’re trying to solve.  Then explore how our client’s product or service might solve those problems. Give up trying to persuade. Let prospects feel they can choose you without feeling sold.

The sooner you can let go of the traditional sales beliefs that we’ve all been exposed to, the more quickly you’ll start seeing better results.

5. Hidden sales pressure causes rejection. Eliminate sales pressure, and you’ll rarely experience rejection.  Prospects don’t trigger rejection. You do — when something you say, and it could be very subtle, triggers a defensive reaction from your prospect.

Yes, something you say.

You can eliminate rejection forever simply by giving up the hidden agenda of hoping to make a sale. Instead, be sure that everything you say and do stems from the basic mindset that you’re there to help prospects identify and solve their issues.

6. Never chase prospects. Instead, get to the truth of whether there’s a fit or not.  Chasing prospects has always been considered normal and necessary, but it’s rooted in the macho selling image that “If you don’t keep chasing, you’re giving up, which means you’re a failure.” This is dead wrong.

Instead, ask your prospects if they’d be open to connecting again at a certain time and date so you can both avoid the phone tag game.

Back in April we first discussed an exciting eti client initiative exploring the effectiveness of fielding B2B Live Chat discussions for the purpose of driving highly qualified sales opportunities into the sale opportunity pipeline.

We’re delighted to report that the pilot campaign was so successful that it is being rolled out to other departments and product groups.

Here are 5 pointers to ensure success of B2B Live Chat for lead generation/lead qualification purposes:

1. Understand that Live Chat is a dialogue just like a phone call.  Pre-set responses can increase productivity only if used properly. It’s important to be sure the response fits the question, rather than just picking the one that comes closest.  When the dialogue is focused on content and understanding the needs and pain of the prospect, then communication is highly effective which will result in more qualified leads.
2. Make sure you screen out those ‘chatters’ who do not have needs for your products and or solutions.  Anyone requiring technical support or customer service should be routed to the correct department quickly and efficiently.  Make sure your team know how to recognize these contacts and that they have a good understanding of the inner workings of your organization.
3. Because this is a dialogue, make sure the Business Developer can respond quickly and efficiently too each post by the prospect.  There is nothing more frustrating for a prospect than posting a question or comment and having to wait several minutes for someone to respond.
4. As in any sales call one should always be moving the relationship toward greater levels of engagement.  In the case of Live Chat, that means moving the chat to a phone conversation.
5. Your brand is important, make sure the chat helps build it:

• Be respectful of the prospect.
• React to their needs and interests rather than pushing your agenda.
• Articulate responses in proper English.  Spelling and grammar does count.
• Be polite and take no short cuts.

To learn more about smart B2B live chat please call Sheldon Sachs, VP Business Development at 800.466.4384 Ext. 3450 to discuss further.

The buzz around Marketing Automation Systems is heating up.  It’s quickly becoming the hot new ‘gotta have’ software just as CRM was earlier in the decade.

There is a significant constituency that advocates “nurturing” via the use of marketing automation tools.  These include advertising agencies, software developers and, increasingly, internal marketing and communications people.

All stand to benefit from implementation of these systems.  On the agency side, a significant new revenue stream has emerged from the need to come up constantly with interesting content to feed the Lead Nurturing / Marketing Automation machine.  The software players benefit significantly from software, maintenance and consulting fees.  All of this requires active management by the internal Marketing team whose jobs (and empires) inevitably will expand to satisfy their company’s marketing automation needs.

Personal one-on-one communication is not considered by this constituency as an acceptable marketing or lead nurturing medium.  As one agency executive recently said to a client, “… you don’t want to talk to a prospect who’s not yet ready to buy.  Such a prospect might well be turned off by such a communication.  In fact they may think it’s strange that you called.  Or they may be reticent in the future to raise their hands because they will get another call from your company.”

Yes, some prospects are, indeed, surprised by a call.  But it shouldn’t be a negative experience in any way, especially when handled professionally and effectively.  On the contrary, many prospects are impressed that someone reached out to them personally to engage them in a consultative dialogue related to what they need, how they are achieving their objectives now, what’s working and what’s not working, and the nature of the “pain” that caused them to raise their hand initially.

And of course there is no concrete data that supports the notion that if someone receives a professional one on one phone call from a company that they would be reticent to raise their hands in the future.  This assertion is anecdotal at best.

When done right, a phone call not only enables you to gather very rich information, but brand image is actually enhanced significantly.  The message to the prospect is clear: this company cares about understanding me, and what I need, and they want to earn our business; they want to have a meaningful relationship.  eti has been engaging prospects in this style successfully since 1987 for some of the words top brands and for smaller companies for whom brand image is life critical.  It works!

The marketing automation constituency believes that you should only reach out to prospects personally only when they reach a defined threshold as “ripe,” and have indicated via their remote activities that they have sufficient interest in your offerings.  In marketing automation lingo, “they must have attained a certain lead score that determines [by some formulaic calculation] that they are ready.”

Lead scoring does have a legitimate place in the process, but it’s rarely a panacea.  Especially when one takes into account that not all of your “suspects” and prospects will and do behave a predictable, formulaic manner.  Most, in fact, will never attain the required score unless you reach out to them directly to understand and qualify and quantify their needs and pain.  And the only way to do that is to call and engage in an interactive and consultative dialogue.

Let me back this up with some hard statistics.

The following counts come from a number of eti Sales Support clients over the past few years.  All the records came from campaign (or promotional) generated inquiries (i.e – none were called as part of an outbound lead generation effort or were run of the mill organic web site related inquiries).

Most came from the following general areas:

1. Conference/Trade Show attendees
2. Webinar participants
3. Content download (White papers)
4. Promotional email recipients responding to a variety of offers
5. Microsite inquiries

All received at least one or more phone calls.

As you can see, on average, some 12% (6,941) initially became assignable near term opportunities.  This is, in itself, a successful and cost effective result.  The balance (88%) either were not yet ready to buy or simply didn’t sufficiently qualify for marketing to hand over to sales.

Of the initial cohort, 25,921 received further phone calls resulting in an additional 6,293 assignable opportunities over time.   This represents a lift of almost 100% over the initial conversion result.  And given that this effort is almost never complete, we expect still more will convert over time.  Our estimate is this will rise from 24% to 40% or more overall.

A fair question one could pose then is what subsequent activity or promotion was directed at these prospect companies (other than phone follow up touches)?  The answer is that some were sent multiple (for the most part relevant) promotions and materials (albeit mostly in an uncoordinated unplanned manner) and some were sent nothing.  But, there was one constant: all of these companies received one or more follow up nurturing calls.  Strangely, the overall result from those who did receive vs. those that did not receive promotional content was statistically insignificant.  I have an opinion on this as well, but we’ll save that discussion for a future blog or article.

From what I can gain from the literature put out by the marketing automation proponents, they do not seem to make any claim that their solutions will deliver more assignable opportunities using their systems.  Their claim, for the most part, is they will do so more cost effectively.  The implication of this is that ‘phone nurturing’ is less cost effective.

Yes, surely there is a cost but, in all cases, our clients agreed that it was an investment well worth making.  If nothing else, they knew with absolute certainty what the relative value in terms of ROI was for each of their marketing activities that caused prospects to raise their hand in the first place.  And they were also assured of a greatly limited lost opportunity cost (a real cost that marketing automation can’t address directly).

It’s also important to bear in mind that there are other direct and indirect costs of marketing automation (and they are significant if you want to do it successfully): content creation, software and the internal management overhead.  And then, ultimately, you’ll still need to reach out and connect with them personally in order to move the process forward.

As we suggested during the CRM craze (Your Sales Opportunity Pipeline Still Needs to Be Managed), we strongly suggest that you test carefully, and not simply buy into the marketing automation hype.  Marketing automation systems can have an important role in lead generation and lead nurturing activities, and eti has offered such solutions for a number of years.  But we know from experience that the interactive and relationship building capabilities of personal contact via phone is still, by far, the most effective mechanism available to most B2B marketers to engage directly with their prospects, capture vital business and market intelligence and close sales.  No marketing automation system or, for that matter,  CRM system will (or can) replace engaging directly and positively with your clients and prospects – regardless of the hype.

Experience shows that the relationship between Business Developers (BDs) and the sales people who ultimately are our primary constituents is very important to the success of a business development effort.  A basic element in this relationship is the need to foster bi-directional communication as a regular discipline.

Remember, the goal is not to hand off a qualified lead or set appointments and let you battle it out on your own.  The BD team (at eti) is in your corner because they share a collective responsibility to see that every sales opportunity represents real potential.

The identification of new sales opportunities is not what defines our success; it is the generation of more revenue and an ROI that justifies a long standing partnership. You want to be sure, therefore, that you get everything you need to enable the opportunities that are handed off to your sales team to be as strong as possible.

We know full well that the sales opportunity pipeline (and the prospect pipeline) is a fluid, dynamic process.  At eti, this understanding is what distinguishes us from our competitors.

Therefore  . . .

1. When you have a question or concern, please call us to discuss.
2. When you need more information about an opportunity we have identified, let us know.  We’ll call the prospect again to obtain what you need to move the opportunity forward.
3. If you want anyone else on the prospect side to be in on an appointment, tell us, and we will work to arrange that.
4. If you have had an initial call with a matching prospect not yet ready to engage or buy, and want us to take back the opportunity to nurture and move it further along, our BD team is ready and willing to do so.
5. Our BDs will not be too shy to call you if they need clarification in order to move a prospect forward, or see an opportunity to brain storm prospect-specific next step strategies.
6. Your success is our success and we will do whatever it takes to make us both successful.

We at eti have no desire to be your “vendor.”  We will work much harder and smarter to earn the status of “partner.”

Most companies that inquire about our services have already made a decision to outsource those functions and are seeking to find a partner that offers the best fit for their specific challenges.  Every so often, however, we encounter a company that is actively struggling with the in house vs. outsource dilemma.

Certainly, the ability to develop “inside sales” resources in house offers a great deal of potential, and some companies elect to go in that direction.  Typically, their thinking is based upon assumptions that taking the process in house will give them greater control and communication, greater levels of expertise, a methodology for training new sales resources and, perhaps most importantly, offer significant cost savings.  On the surface, it seems like a simple cost-effective decision, especially when just comparing hourly rates – the most obvious metric.  Unfortunately, the issues are far more complex than that, and those objectives are rarely, if ever, met successfully.

First, most organizations don’t have systems in place that facilitate control and tracking of teleservices activity.  Success in this endeavor is far more complex than simply mandating some number of calls per day and providing a basic database (CRM) into which the results can be reported.  The requirement to actively manage the process is often overlooked.  And that’s not a part-time activity taken on by someone with little or no expertise in the area.  There is a need for ongoing monitoring of calls, to be sure that your brand is being represented with the degree of quality it deserves.  And there is a need for careful review of notes to ensure that potential opportunities are being managed appropriately and are not lost for lack of follow up and tracking.  Analogous to medical records, there is a need to ensure that the notes related to the progress of each opportunity are sufficiently detailed to enable someone else to take over the record should the current business developer be replaced.  As a result, there is far more management time needed than is typically planned.  On top of having to provide systems and dedicated management resources, you’ll need to provide dedicated, isolated space and phone systems that will support phone-intensive activity.  Those costs are typically overlooked and are always present in abundance.

Perhaps the most challenging issues relate to personnel (as is usually the case).  You’ll need a systematic methodology for recruiting, hiring and training qualified people.  The more complex your subject matter and value proposition, the more difficult it will be to find the “right” people.  Complex products and services need to be handled in a consultative dialogue, not with a script.  That means you’ll need people who can think and probe and listen and “peel the onion.” Personnel management is an ongoing process because there will inevitably be turnover.  And, with turnover, comes more efforts at recruiting, hiring and training (with lost opportunity cost during the ramp up period).  And that’s true even if a career path is established, because you’ll need to replace them when and if a promotion occurs.  These rather substantial indirect costs are also rarely considered when a company considers going down the in house path.

To further complicate matters, because these dedicated people are likely to be doing the same thing day in and day out, all day long, they will be significantly less productive later in the day than earlier.  The smarter and more sophisticated the people are that you hire, the greater the likelihood that boredom will soon set in (repetition is not stimulating to these folks).  This inevitably leads to shorter tenure and higher turnover rates.  And then there’s vacation and sick leave with lost opportunity costs associated with those periods as well.  We always project our productivity as double that of a dedicated in house effort, and I’ve never been wrong about that estimate.  If anything, double is a generous view of in house productivity.

So, while hourly direct cost is significantly lower using in house resources, the total direct + indirect costs are often 50-70% higher than the rates we charge.  In fact, the most common outcome is to scrap the in house resources and go back to the old (extremely costly) plan of the “same old way.”

So, if you have success in managing all of that and end up with a winning program, please let me know.  Because, as you can see, it will be unusual.

The B2B Magazine’s Lead Generation guide is out.

Some interesting articles that may be of interest includes …

• Finding new ways to maximize your list
• Telemarketing can still ring up sales
• What’s a marketing customer vs. a sales customer?

~mf

LiveChat has been used primarily as a support tool on consumer-related sites.

Recently, however, B2B companies have begun using chat as a tool to enhance users’ experience on their websites.  There are many people who are skeptical of the value of this tool and some even view it as detracting from the users’ experience.

eti Sales Support has been engaged in a new client initiative in which we are utilizing “proactive” chat to engage prospects early on In their discovery process – depending on their behavior and time on certain pages– to explore and see if LiveChat is able to  increase the number of qualified leads being generated.

Does it work?

The short answer is “yes,” but only when it’s done right.   LiveChat can and does enable you to engage with prospects intelligently and proactively to identify qualified sales-ready opportunities.

Effective B2B LiveChat , requires the deployment of intelligent  well trained “people” to communicate and smartly engage with your prospects.  There is nothing more frustrating to a prospect than having to deal with canned, non-meaningful responses from poorly trained agents who are asking scripted questions as opposed to engaging in a consultative dialogue with highly qualified and trained Business Developers.

If your brand is important to you, then you must tread very carefully if you intend to embark on any strategy that short changes your customers and prospects and harms their experience while visiting  your websites.

We’re also finding that highly focused well executed live chat can markedly help a prospect move into and down the funnel, thereby decreasing the average time it takes to move the prospect from “suspect” to “sales-ready.”  And because it is a proactive approach, we’re engaging prospects much earlier on and directly – before they may possibly leave the website in favor of a competitor’s site.

There are, however, a number of caveats.

Being a relatively new way of business to prospect communication only a fraction of the prospects offered the chat option accept and participate in a livechat.  It’s difficult to know if this has some negative impact on the overall user’s experience.  My feeling is that it is relatively harmless and will be less so as the communication medium becomes more frequently used.

Of those who engaged in a live chat (in our current sales support program’s case to date), 20% represent some real sales potential.  Others fall into the following buckets:

• Technical Support
• Customer service requests
• Foreign inquiries
• Miscellaneous/ non-sales related

Of the 20% who had some sales potential, roughly 50% were sufficiently qualified in a follow up phone qualification process to meet our client’s specifications for a qualified sales-ready opportunity.

So yes we’ve demonstrated that it can and does work if handled and managed properly.

Stay tuned.  I will update this blog periodically as eti develops a set of best practices and processes to maximize the lead generating capabilities of these activities.

What are the primary differences between Appointment Setting and Lead Generation efforts?

• It’s relatively easy to get appointments.  Even with top decision makers in large companies.
• It’s generally much harder to identify genuine purchase potential in addition to setting an appointment with the key  individuals who would ultimately be involved in making a purchasing decision.

Why?

Appointment Setting:

Assuming the solutions you offer and your brand is well positioned in the marketplace, then many executives may be at least willing to “learn” more about what you might be able to do for them.

If you’re brand is not well known, then it’s certainly much harder.

However, when little or no commitment is involved, it’s an easier row to hoe.

This does not, however, signal that they have real buying interest.  They may have a need.  They may even have some pain.  But that’s not what’s being asked of them.  They’re simply being asked to say yes to “learning more.”  Most of all, it doen’t mean that their organization has the capacity to implement the required change in the near term.

Yes, a good sales person who is worth his or her salt might take this opportunity and, over time, develop it to the point that a sale can take place.  However, rarely do appointment setting programs generate near-term sales.  And rarely are sales persons efficient and patient enough to nurture leads over time to ensure their long-term success.

Of course, you can always get lucky.  But luck is not a strategy.
It’s always useful to remember in this context that in any given sales force the 80/20 rule generally applies.  80% of the sales force is comprised of order takers (or farmers) and only 20% are real hunters.  Moreover, generally speaking, 80% of the sales force generates 20% of the sales revenue.

So is an appointment with a decision maker in and of itself a “bad” result?  No.  It’s just not an efficient or productive one, because the productivity of the sales person is not maximized and the cost per sale, ultimately, is more expensive   even if your cost per appointment is lower.

Lead Generation:
Consider on the other hand a lead generation effort that is focused on maximizing sales productivity.  It emphasizes identifying real “ready to engage “opportunities, enabling the sales person to spend more time selling to the right prospects at the right time.  In other words, lead generation effort should not just open the door,they should open a door only where real potential to purchase exists.

Why it comes down to sales productivity.

Sales productivity has been addressed many times in this blog.  In fact, for the past 20 years it has consistently been eti Sales Support’s motto.  (You may find the 3 part blog entitled  Rethinking BANT by Sheldon Sachs, eti’s VP of Business Development, of interest.)

Table 1:

So even though the cost per opportunity is higher ($1,000 vs. $600) via a Lead Generation effort, the number of “sales” over the equivalent period is double and the actual cost per sale is $455 less than the result of an Appointment Setting effort.

Lastly, let’s also not forget the Lost Opportunity factor.  If your sales people are not calling on those prospects that have real buying potential and the competition is, then your poor investments in Appointment Setting are just that much more costly because they are spinning their wheels talking to the wrong people and the wrong prospect companies.

So think twice about wasting precious selling time on plain old appointments.  A better choice would be to invest in a highly effective and sustained lead generation effort that will result in real sales sooner.

The term ‘call guide’ is often mistakenly considered synonymous with the term ‘script.’  Perhaps in some circles, that is, indeed the case, but not at eti.  Since our inception in 1987, we have never used scripts.

Scripts are intended to be delivered verbatim by Telephone Sales Representatives (TSR’s) as they conduct their interactions with prospects.  Most times these scripts are TELL-type documents that essentially require the TSR to deliver/read the exact canned message regardless of the responses or needs of the person they are calling.  The key skills for the caller are outwardly focused on reading a message as opposed to engaging in a dialog, probing and listening for need, pain and interest and being able to adjust accordingly.

Why a script?  Because TSR’s working in such environments usually cannot be trusted to engage in a meaningful discussion with their prospects.  Neither their educational background nor their business experience gives them the ability to undertake the essential consultative dialog that is required.

Typically, the script structure has a fixed blurb about the product / service / charity / politician being sold or promoted and then some responses are provided for the most frequent questions and or objections.  Scripts are generally used in low-cost consumer and fund raising environments or in commodity Business-to-Business (B2B) applications where brand and market positioning are not as important as breadth of coverage.  They are also often used in high-pressure boiler rooms where ‘dialing for dollars is the name of the game.

Call Guides, on the other hand, are used to engage a prospect in a focused discussion (a consultative dialog) between a Business Developer (BD) and a prospect.  Call Guides do not dictate in any way exactly what must be said, how or in what sequence.  Instead, they set a framework for the prospective conversation.  In our world, a call guide is comprised of probing questions that are designed to stimulate a discussion about the product, service or solution about which we are calling and how it might benefit their organization.  The idea is to seek and develop a “mutual perception of need” between our clients’ offerings and the needs of the prospect organization.  Ultimately, it is there to provide a road map for the BD to navigate the prospecting waters in order for both parties to assess the potential for a mutually valuable business relationship.

Generally, Call Guides are used in sophisticated B2B environments for more complex lead generation and qualification programs.  Using call guides requires BD’s with solid education, intelligence, relationship development skills, business acumen, aptitude and comfort engaging in a consultative relationship with someone who typically knows far more than they do about the topics being discussed.  These are precisely the characteristics that we seek when evaluating people to work as BDs at eti Sales Support.

The Aberdeen group is out with their 2009 buyers guide.  This study focuses on the Best Practices of Best-in-class companies who deploy outsourced B2B Teleservices.

Some highlights …

Best-in-Class companies have sales teams with an average of 90% achievement of the overall sales team quota

Best-in-Class companies increased their average revenue per sales rep by 10% on a year-over-year basis

Best-in-Class companies experienced an average 7% year-over-year improvement of their bid-to-win ratio

Here is the press release:

SOURCE: Aberdeen Group

  

Dec 10, 2009 10:00 ET

B2B TeleServices: The 2009 Buyer’s Guide

Going Beyond the Simple Acquisition of Flat Data or Sales Appointments

BOSTON, MA–(Marketwire – December 10, 2009) – Top performing sales organizations are meeting the challenges of increasing the quality of incoming leads, as well as the overall size of their pipeline, by turning to external providers of business-to-business (B2B) teleservices for a wide variety of deliverables, according to a new research study published by Aberdeen Group, a Harte-Hanks Company (NYSE: HHS).

“B2B TeleServices: The 2009 Buyer’s Guide,” which examined 206 organizations deploying outsourced B2B teleservices, found that the sales teams of Best-in-Class companies achieved an average of 90% of the overall sales team quota.

“When organizations deploy an outsourced B2B teleservices provider to acquire and deliver some form of sales opportunities, they are essentially seeking to fill the selling pipeline with as many qualified leads as possible,” says Peter Ostrow, Research Director, Sales Effectiveness, Aberdeen Group, the report’s author. “Leading companies are building substantial, multi-faceted relationships with solution providers that go far beyond the simple acquisition of flat data or sales appointments.”

The report reveals what leading companies have been able to achieve through deployment of outsourced B2B teleservices, such as:

 

--  7% yearly increase on average in bid-to-win ratio

--  Average annual revenue per sales rep has increased 11% year-over-year

Click here to obtain your copy.

Final part of a three-part blog

Part 1 | Part 2

In Part 1 of my three-part “BANT rant,” I expressed doubts about BANT being sufficient as the determinant of qualified sales opportunities.  First and foremost, BANT takes a seller-centric perspective that doesn’t consider the ways in which buyers think, at least not with respect to purchases that are not commodities.  Second, I suggested that while the BANT elements might be necessary for a buying decision, by themselves they are not sufficient to ensure that a purchase decision will ever be made, or if that purchase decision will be favorable to you.

In the second part, I reviewed each of the BANT elements, exploring in sequence why I felt that the BANT model is overly simplistic and fails to consider the buyer’s perspective.  I argued that requiring a Budget, for example, was less relevant than having adequate Resources (to acquire your solution), and might even work against you if that budget was determined without your input.

Then, I suggested that Need was also seller-oriented; the buyer is focused more on having a reason to act…now if the problems are imperative.  We have a multitude of needs that often remain unfulfilled for lack of impetus.  And, depending on how vital it is to obtain an adequate solution, the resources will flow accordingly.  Finally, I argued that decisions (perhaps for anything other than commodities) are virtually never made by a single individual, especially in the enterprise.

In all, I thought the following questions were far more buyer-oriented and relevant to how and when a decision would be made:

• Is there a compelling reason to do something?
• Are the stakeholders who would feel the impact included in decision-making?
• Is there a solution out there that can resolve the problem using the resources available?
• And, are there substantial consequences for failure to act timely?

Perhaps the very best place to start is by taking a hard look at the sales process and analyzing the critical stages.  First, a statement that may seem, on the surface to be overly simplistic, but when you consider it carefully, you may find yourself in full agreement.

The biggest impediment to closing a sale is inertia.  And, overcoming inertia is the primary challenge.
Look at some of the language of selling: “value is more important than cost,” “it’s vital to provide clear ROI,” “establish mutual perception of need,” “where’s the pain?” and so on.  These are all perfectly legitimate perspectives, and I have made similar statements like that many times in coaching sales people.

But, the fact is, you can definitively establish value and pain and need and ROI and yet the prospective buyer simply doesn’t buy.  They continue the status quo with all of its inherent costs and pain (all of which they have openly acknowledged).

I can’t help believing that the reason for inaction is that the perceived cost of changing the way in which they currently operate – financially, emotionally (more likely) or both – exceeds the cost of maintaining the status quo, even to the point where status quo leads to the failure of the company.  It may not be rational, but it is quite human.

So, if inertia is the critical factor that a sales person needs to overcome in order to successfully conclude a sale, then it is vital for them to have an understanding of the prospect company’s orientation to change.  Wouldn’t it be important for them to know if a company is risk averse or, alternatively, is an early adopter, or somewhere else along the continuum?  And wouldn’t that be a valuable element to capture and rate relative to the qualifying characteristics?

This is clearly the missing element in the traditional BANT paradigm because, regardless of whether you view the sales process from a buyer or seller’s perspective, an opportunity can’t be seen as fully sales qualified unless there is a legitimate possibility that the prospect company will make the necessary changes.
So what we do have?  I suggest “I CARE”:

• Imperative – a compelling reason to consider a new solution
• Consequences of inaction
• Agreement among stakeholders
• Resources to obtain a solution
• Environment conducive to change (overcoming inertia)

This acronym represents a more practical and accurate method for defining a qualified sales opportunity and it is equally applicable to both seller and buyer.

First, it’s important to uncover a compelling reason for a company to take an action to meet a need or resolve a challenge.  Next, the consequences of inaction need to be sufficient to warrant a search for a solution.  Is there consensus for taking action among all the key constituents (stakeholders) who are feeling the impact of the need/challenge as well as those responsible for resolving it?  Then, a solution needs to available and the capacity to obtain the resources needed for a solution needs to exist (remember, if it’s important enough, the resources can be found, regardless of budgetary considerations).  And, last and most important, how amenable is the organization to effecting change?

Before I end this, I don’t want to forget the promise I made at the end of the first part.  Here is the setting:

You are walking down the street on your way to an important meeting.  It is lunchtime and you are hungry, you have the resources and sufficient time to eat.  There are a multitude of restaurants and street vendors, including some of your favorites.  Although you are hungry, eating is not your highest priority.

Your decision to stop and eat is reasonably complex.  There are competing needs, at varying levels of urgency.  You are hungry (a function of an early breakfast), abetted by a regular ritual of eating lunch at the prescribed time.  So your internal debate will take a multitude of factors into account.  For example:

• I’m hungry
• This meeting is very important
• I always eat at this time of the day
• I have sufficient time to eat before my meeting
• I would love a few moments to check my email and voice messages before my meeting, (but I could do that without eating)
• If I don’t eat, my growing hunger may become a distraction during the meeting
• I have more than enough money in my pocket and, besides, my bill for lunch will be covered as a reimbursable expense

While considering your options, these and other questions will arise until you make a decision.  And, of course, making no decision is equally a decision.  In complex businesses, making no decision is what happens all too frequently – because the cost of doing something has ripple effects throughout the organization.  Inertia – maintaining the status quo (sometimes even in the face of all rationality such as unquestionable ROI) – is too often the easiest course of action.

How would this decision-making process be represented in the I CARE model?

• Imperative: hunger, time of day (lunchtime)
• Consequences of inaction: poor meeting performance, distraction
• Agreement among stakeholders: You (and your growling stomach)
• Resources: money is not an issue, and it’s a reimbursable expense
• Environment conducive to change:  it boils down to inertia, doesn’t it?

How can a proprietor get you to stop and eat?  What can they do to raise the threshold high enough to overcome inertia?

You experience the answer all the time in those situations, don’t you?  Some vendors and restaurants pump out tantalizing smells of their luscious offerings and tease you with them.  Others do something with their display; maybe they toss the pizza in the front window, or display the desserts or even offer you a complimentary taste in front of their establishment.  Maybe they offer free Wi-Fi that enables you to easily and quickly check your messages.

All of those actions and offerings are designed to entice you to into their establishment and overcome inertia.  When they hit the right hot buttons for you, you’re sold.  But even having decided where you may eat, unless all the other factors are aligned you still may not physically go in (inertia).  It’s only at the point that you decide to CHANGE the course you’re on right now that the sale may actually get consummated.

To conclude what we’ve been exploring over the past few weeks, BANT has been a useful and important early model for focusing the qualification process.  But it needs some rethinking because it fails to consider the prospective buyer’s viewpoint and is inadequate in identifying the elements that are the key determinants for concluding a sale.

When a seller has a clear understanding of how a prospective buyer makes their decisions, and solid insight into how the prospect views the issues and their proclivity to change the way in which they behave, they have more chance of success.  This more closely aligns their goals with those of the prospect and provides them with far better insight as to the hot buttons that will serve to overcome inertia (which is, after all, the heart of the sales challenge).

And isn’t the purpose of defining a qualified lead all about providing sales people with opportunities that offer them a better chance of closing more sales in less time?  Success in that endeavor is the basis for enhancing sales productivity, maximizing ROI and increasing sales revenue.

BANT, however time tested, does not necessarily increase the chance of sales success.  I CARE does it better.

Part two of a three-part blog:

(See first part.)

In Part 1 of our three-part “BANT rant,” I began by raising some doubts about the efficacy of the BANT approach being the defining factor in determining a qualified sales opportunity.  I offered two main reasons why I felt that BANT wasn’t sufficient as a definition.

First and foremost, BANT offers a seller-centric perspective.  Budget, Authority, Need and Timing are not the ways in which buyers think, at least not with respect to purchases that are not commodities.  They think about business challenges, resources, relationships and the potential (and actual) consequences of action and inaction.  And organizational politics come into play, as tends to happen all too frequently with real people in real life, even when there is alignment within an organization as to goals and objectives.

Second, I suggested that while the BANT elements might be necessary for a buying decision, by themselves they are not sufficient to ensure that a decision will ever be made to purchase, or if that purchase decisions will be favorable to you.

Let’s look at each of the elements independently:

B (Budget)
Plainly, if a prospect already has a defined budget, then you are probably too late to the party.  They may have already been in discussion with one or more of your competitors, and that’s how they came up with that budget..  Or they may have established a budget based upon some other basis (research), but it is not likely to be the budget you would preferably craft for them, nor does it consider the value of your solution (remember, it’s rarely about price and generally about value).

It’s akin to the RFP dilemma.  If a company has issued an RFP, and you were not involved in setting those standards, then it was established based upon a vision that did not include your solution.  And, unless your solution matches the requirements to a tee, you may not want to get involved.  RFP’s, for the most part, create commoditized procurement decisions, not value-based decisions.  If you are not selling a commodity, and if you don’t want a decision made essentially on the basis of price, then you need an opportunity to demonstrate your value.

The bottom line is that it may be preferable for them not to have a budget (just as you’d prefer them not to have an RFP).  Yet you do want them to have the resources needed to fund a solution to the needs they have and the challenges they are facing, preferably at a level that makes your solution affordable.

Ideally, however, you want to help them craft both a solution and a budget and you should want to be there before that process is initiated.  So, the very best time to get involved is before they have a budget and before they have envisioned a solution.

Given all of that, is Budget truly a qualifying criterion?  Now we’re left with ANT or, if we substitute Resources for Budget, we have RANT.

A (Authority)
Most people assume that this means that you have identified or (preferably) are engaged with the decision-maker.  This is way too simplistic for the real world.  The problem is that, in virtually every situation imaginable (especially in a complex B2B setting), there is no single decision-maker.  Decisions are never made by a single person and, perhaps, never even by a single department.  The truth is that most enterprises have matrix relationships in which anyone, at virtually any level, can raise their hands and put the brakes on a decision or a shift in direction.

Even in small “mom and pop” businesses, decisions are rarely made by a single person, even the owner.  In almost every situation, there are trusted advisors, spouses, key staff and even business colleagues outside of the company who can influence a buying decision significantly.

What is vital is to gain an understanding of how decisions in areas related to your solution are made within organizations.  You need to know who is typically involved in that process and gain an understanding of the relationships (from both a personal and business perspective) among the key people involved.

Finally, you also want to understand another critical element:  the company’s orientation to change.  Is this a company that takes risks, or are they risk averse?  Are they somewhere in the middle?  Their orientation toward change will tell you a great deal more than you can imagine about the strategies you should employ to move them toward adopting your solution.

N (Need)
Of all of the BANT elements, this is the most seller-centric of all.  I can’t begin to count all the times that a sales representative has come to me and said, “It’s a slam dunk … they NEED our solution.”  In the story I related at the end of the first segment about walking down the street at lunchtime on the way to a meeting, the need for food is clear.  We need it to live and we need it to satisfy and resolve pangs of hunger.  But, do we need it NOW?  It may be lunchtime, but there are competing needs and demands that have greater urgency at present and render that need less vital.

So, it’s not about need, it’s about some compelling event or reason that raises the urgency of that need to an “act now” level.  Absent that level of motivation, there is no credible impetus for change and no substantive reason for the resources to be expended, even if the money is available and someone is willing to spend it.

T (Time frame)
This is also a seller-centric view.  What is really meant here is, “is this opportunity going to come to fruition in the near-term so it becomes worthwhile for me, as a salesperson, to spend my time on it?”  And, the truth is, in and of itself, it is meaningless.  Time is only important in the context of all of the other elements.

Do we have a compelling event?  Is everyone who is feeling the impact of this event involved in the decision making process?  Is there a solution out there that can resolve our problem using the resources we have available?  And, what is the consequence to us (as a company) if we fail to act timely?

Those are the more important determinants of the relative value of a potential sales opportunity.

In the third and last segment of this discussion, we’ll focus in on putting this all together into a practical framework.  And then, perhaps, we can begin to consider an answer to the question I raised at the end of my walk in the city at lunchtime story:  what can a proprietor do to get you to eat at his or her establishment?