B2B Sales & Marketing Blog

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.

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?

Part one of a three-part blog

Four commonly accepted parameters are almost universally used to define a qualified lead.  The folks at IBM are widely credited for the development of an acronym for those parameters – BANT (Budget, Authority, Need and Timeframe).

More formally, the acronym is applied as follows:

• Is there a Budget allocated for a solution (and is it sufficient for your solution)?
• Has the Authority for the purchasing process been identified (and are you in touch)?
• Is the Need for a solution well defined (and does it match your capabilities)?
• What is the Timeframe for purchasing and implementing a solution?  Is it in the next six months, 12 months, or over a year?

Many companies use this paradigm as the heart of their lead scoring process.  It helps them decide how and where to focus their resources to bring revenue into the pipeline.  So it’s important to confirm that the BANT approach is both valid and sufficient to meet that need.

I plan on exploring these issues in detail in this three-part blog.  You can think of it as my three-part BANT rant, starting with this segment as an overview.

From my vantage point, there are two obvious problems with BANT.  First and foremost, it is seller-centric.  And, as every successful sales person with experience knows, it’s never about you (the seller), it’s ALWAYS about them (the prospect).

If you fail to look at the relationship from the prospect’s (buyer’s) perspective, the likelihood of making a sale is diminished – unless, of course, your offering is so far superior to the competition that the decision is a no-brainer.  But if that were the case, then your closing ratio would be very close to 100%!  Correct?

The second problem is that this seller vs. prospect perspective pushes BANT off the mark.  You do need money, a decision-making process, a need and (assuming it’s important), a time frame for making a decision and implementing a solution.  But the BANT parameters themselves are only tangential to what’s truly important in selling.  And, as a whole, while these parameters are arguably necessary, by themselves they are not sufficient as qualifying criteria.  They lack essential characteristics that are, perhaps, even more important than those four.

Let me offer one simple example as “food for thought” (sorry in advance for this).

Food is a universal need for all living things.  No argument there, I presume.  We can survive without food for a reasonably long time; maybe even weeks.  But, without food, we will end up just a dead as we would without oxygen.  There’s the “N” in BANT.

So let’s consider this scenario:

You’re walking down a busy city street around lunchtime.  You’re hungry, but you’re also on your way to a very important meeting with a new client or a hot prospect.  You’ve got plenty of money in your pocket and a budget reserved for lunch (there’s the “B”) and you need to make a decision (you are obviously the “A”) as to whether or not to stop to eat before the meeting.  You’ve got 30 minutes until your meeting starts and you’re five minutes away from the location, so time is more than sufficient (“T”).

You pass a multitude of restaurants and street vendors along the way.  How can the owner of a food establishment predict how likely you are to stop and eat?  And, what, if anything, can the proprietor do to get you to eat at his or her establishment?  (By the way, this example would be just a valid if there were only one food source along the route – and it was your favorite.)

If you think about this dilemma from the perspective of the proprietor as well as your own, you’ll begin to understand the case I plan to make over the next two weeks.  I plan to focus more directly on why I think BANT is only part of the story and, specifically, what those shortcomings are.  And then, I’ll explore ways to add value to BANT so that you are more aligned with the buyer’s perspective.

Finally, I’ll offer an alternative viewpoint on how to better define a qualified lead – identifying the factors that are both necessary and sufficient – and one that should enable sales people to focus their energy on opportunities with greater potential for success.

 Sheldon Sachs

What is rarely taken into account in lead generation and lead qualification programs is the ultimate value of developing and building a prospect pipeline.

For example, for every lead that is generated by eti for our clients, we estimate some four to six additional prospects that require nurturing over time and of these a high percentage will develop into valid sales-ready opportunities at some point.

Few companies have the infrastructure (let alone the patience) to effectively undertake the task of nurturing future prospects. However, the rewards for those companies which accomplish this task successfully are potentially immense.

Our statistics reliably indicate that for every 100 or so prospects nurtured in the prospect pipeline, will render some 20-40 more sales-ready opportunities over time.   (Yes 20%+.)

Only you know the average value of each new customer.  And only you know the average number of years new customers will remain active purchasers. But the incremental profits from those extra sales minimize the nurturing costs and maximize the return on your overall marketing investments (ROMI).

Too few companies recognize the inherent future value of this pipeline and therefore the costs of nurturing appear to be disproportionately high.This could be a serious mistake. It is also short sighted because there has already been a substantial investment made in identifying these prospects.  So why waste and discard them?

Let’s take the following simple scenario:

Now if you factor in some average revenues – say $20,000 with a conversion rate of 25% – the total revenues from the Opportunity Pipeline will be some $500,000. And the revenues from the prospect pipeline in the first year will therefore total $250,000.  The sum is $750k.

In the first instance the ROI (cost of sales) is 10%,

Together with the sales from the prospect pipeline, the sum is reduced to only 8%.  i.e. An incremental increase of 20%.

But it probably gets better.  Our experience shows that opportunities coming out of the prospect pipeline that have been nurtured over time enjoy great sales conversion ratios.  So ultimately the ROI may even be substantially better than in the above example.

For more information on how eti can develop an effective and profitable lead nurturing effort and maximize your sales opportunity pipelines please call 1.800.466.4384.

Have you gone to a website … filled in a form to request further information on a product or service?  I have.

In fact yesterday I went to a website that offered a solution I had an interest in purchasing and wanted pricing information.  When I clicked on the link it required me to fill out a detailed form – which I was happy to do.

I then received the following email:

“We have received your email message with the subject:

   “Pricing Plan Information Request

“If you do not receive a response within 48 hours, please send your message again.

“Thank you,”
Company Name

What a turn off.  Can you believe the last sentence?  They want me to get back to them if they could not be bothered to call me or send me the requested information.  Give me a break – their chances of getting my business are zilch, zero.

Here at eti we primarily deliver outsourced lead generation and lead qualification solutions for clients. So we also often get what I call the dreaded ‘Send me more information’ request.  Generally speaking we recognize this is an attempt to get our Business Developer off the phone and we introduce some subtle responses to control the conversation and guide into a more meaningful direction.

However, that being said it is certainly necessary at times to send out information via email and it’s essential to do this professionally to move the prospect closer to the point where he or she may be ready to engage.  It certainly should not be done in a way that turns the prospect off!

Here are some rules we suggest you follow:

1. Use plain text rather than HTML.  
2. Personalize.  Dear Mike or Dear Mr. Falkson is far more effective than impersonal mail that starts out ‘We have received your email message on the subject . . .”
3. To ensure readership use a meaningful subject title which will be instantly recognized as relating to the discussion that motivated your email fulfillment.
4. Be comprehensive.  The tendency to be very brief could be unproductive whereas longer but relevant personalized email (as also in personalized direct mail) is more effective.
5. Add links to relevant content that help make your case.  Don’t include any that are not directly applicable.
6. Maintain interest.  Suggest you’ll follow up with in the next day or so.  Include a direct line for the prospect to call you.
7. The signatory must be a person with a name and a title.  Must be someone the prospect can reach out to via email or phone.

Some further guidelines:

1. You need to track (if possible) email opens.  (Only possible from html email).
2. You do need to track every click through and link it back to your prospect records in the CRM system.  In fact you may want to develop dynamic triggers that alert your Business Developers and other salesforce participants of the prospect’s click throughs and the content accessed.  Furthermore integration into a lead nurturing process can be extremely lucrative.�
   1. Develop metrics to calculate how many people converted into high level or regular sales prospects after receiving your email.
   2. Metrics should also enable tracking click through conversions.
   3. Consider hiring a free lance professional copywriter. Effective copy is at the heart of the matter and should be well worth the investment.

At eti we take care of our client’s email fulfillment emails as part of our service. 

We’ll be happy to talk to you about improving your sales lead generation and qualification programs. Call V.P. Business Developement Shelley Sachs   at 914.747.3030 ext. 3450  for more information.

B2BOnline has just published an article written by me entitles ‘The value of traditional outbound direct marketing’.

Client here to view it.

 Michael Falkson

Having viewed the development of social networking in the past year from the sidelines I think it’s time I had my say.

The main question needing an answer is, does Social Networking as a lead generation medium, work? 

Networking has always been an obvious way to develop business and business opportunities.  What’s more it’s very effective. However, the fact is that this activity is rapidly moving from the club or the golf course, or the local business network to the WEB.  This provides you with the opportunity to expand your contacts substantially, unhampered by geography or company size.

Networking for lead generation reminds me of the insurance sales rep who’s just out of training.  He’s all gung ho and motivated to make it happen.  Yet where does he first turn? To no one’s surprise he turns to his natural environment – his personal network.  First to the family, then to friends and acquaintances. Then to the prospects they recommend.

However, there’s no doubt that as he ventures farther afield to include strangers, his network will yield fewer genuine opportunities. Though he swims manfully against the stream, absent good luck the new recruit may not survive. His only hope for the future is to engage in an effective lead generation effort before his money runs out. Or to hope the company he works for will slip him a few sales ready leads to help him stay afloat.

LinkedIn

I’ve subscribed to a number of groups on LinkedIn these past few years. Frankly it’s been a big disappointment.  There are large numbers of participants out there trying to sell whatever it is they sell. They contribute nothing or very little to the dialogue.  Others are there to recruit.  These groups do seem to constitute fertile ground to find staff – much as happens in regular social networks.�
From time to time I also notice people posting topics for discussion that are on point. But for the most part it’s fairly obvious that the questions posed are self serving – designed more than anything else to promote the reputation of the poster.

Twitter

Twitter is another phenomenon I have struggled with.  I suppose if you admire and respect someone and want to know what he/she is thinking or doing every day, then being a follower is useful.  On the other hand if you’re a thought leader on a particular subject – with many followers – it’s also likely that being a twitterer could be useful. 

I tend to think of myself as a thought leader.  I write, I hold a goodly variety of opinions and I’m capable of communicating thoughts to my clients and prospects via a variety of channels.  So I ask myself – do I want to sit and post tweets day in and day out for my followers?  Fact is I don’t and being a follower or being followed 24×7 is really not my thing.

There could however, be some potential in Twitter in terms of Lead Generation. But this depends how numerous your “follower” network is and how motivated they are to become buyers or recommenders.

How is eti embracing the new networks to improve lead generation results for its clients?

eti’s primary business is focused on B2B (complex) lead generation.  Our ultimate goal is to to maximize client’s sales force productivity. Here then are some of the things we’re doing to exploit the new resources.

Firstly it needs to be appreciated that these networks are often fantastic information resources. That, technically, is the business we’re in.  Because we engage with prospects in consultative dialogues for the purpose of identifying information and characteristics which indicates the prospect’s ability and need to purchase our clients’ solutions.  To achieve that purpose our Business Developers actively participate in the networks to better understand the market places our clients do business in. 

Secondly, we link directly to these resources from i*collaborator – eti’s CRM/PRM framework. This enables us to search dynamically within LinkedIn, Plaxo and Facebook, to extract third party information that could be leveraged to reveal big fish prospects. Nor are we shy to hook smaller fish which have good growth potential.

Thirdly, we make these facilities directly available to our clients via their Opportunity Dashboards so that their sales persons are motivated to leverage the new opportunities without their having to do the research themselves. 

What else might we do?  Well we’re always open to new ideas and would welcome and appreciate your thoughts.

Conclusion

As a lead generation tool for the most part the networks mentioned remain on the periphery.  In their current incarnations they will probably not become mainstream lead generation tools.

However they do have enormous potential as tools to build influence and credibility. And that’s the best use of a network.  Because with that credibility will come the desired recommendations and referrals that will help you maximize your lead generation efforts.

Recently Shelly Sachs (eti’s VP Business Development) and I hosted a workshop at a recent MIT Sloan School of Business Sales conference. Our contribution was titled “Tough Times Demand Smarter Sales Strategies”. 

Bill McDermott, President, Global Field Operations of SAP gave the keynote address. It was outstanding. His presentation focused on the complex problems and challenges facing a large global company in today’s difficult business climate.

McDermott did not mince his words. He had in fact come face to face with the serious need to maintain and grow sales during these difficult times.  His solution was as simple as it was dramatic:

“Double the number of new sales opportunities  being driven to the field sales force!”

He made it clear of course that he was talking about qualified and sales-ready opportunities. Not simply doubling the number of raw inquiries because that’s just the starting point of the qualifying process. Such inquiries still require to be carefully qualified.

Clearly one can’t double the number of sales-ready opportunities by cutting sales and marketing budgets.  The only way to increase the number of qualified leads is to increase your lead generation investments. Nor can one handle an increased flow of raw leads by cutting the sales force – in fact you may be compelled to hire additional resources.

Well then, here’s a merit worthy offer from eti. Give Shelly Sachs our VP Business Development a call to discuss how your company could double the number of sales-ready leads in your sales opportunity pipelines.

Shelley’s extensive experience in this highly specialized field makes him an ideal sounding board for developing your lead generation strategies moving forward.  He can be reached at at 914.747.3030 Ext.3450.

No doubt as the recession takes hold companies are at risk to lose more customers than new ones coming in. 

The problem:  If you don’t invest in keeping and developing your existing clients – especially in tough times – then it’s more than likely that your business will decline.

You’re no doubt familiar with the mantra that states that it costs about 5 times more to bring in a new customer than to sell to existing customers. 

So the question is what are you doing to communicate with your customers?  Do you have a structured customer development program to up-sell, cross-sell and above all manage your relationships in such a way to make sure these customers – whom you’ve already spent a lot of money acquiring – from walking?

Here are some ideas you may want to focus on:

• Establish a systematic, formal process to cultivate and grow high potential accounts
• Create a schedule to “touch” key accounts regularly
  • Build variable schedule based upon account potential (not current value of the relationship)
• Develop a strategy to manage marginal accounts ( those that cannot be effectively managed by the sales force)
  • Outsource is one way to go
• Raise awareness of new products and services
• Under promise – over deliver

We’re pleased to announce that I will be hosting a workshop entitled Tough Times Demand Smarter Sales Strategies at this year’s MIT Sloan Sales Conference which is to be held on April 17th, 2009 in Cambridge, MA.

Workshop Description:

Keeping your business afloat in tough times requires disciplined sales strategies to prevent being overwhelmed.

Most companies have areas of weakness in their sales and marketing processes.  When times are good, no one wants to upset the applecart so there’s less incentive to be introspective.

Tough times present a good opportunity to examine areas within your company most likely to benefit from introspective examination.   In the current environment, where fewer dollars are chasing fewer prospects in smaller and shrinking marketplaces, some questions virtually ask themselves.

In this session we’ll explore:

• Whether the sales organization is coping with the downturn.

•  Whether the sales opportunity pipeline is filled with genuine sales ready opportunities.

• Whether there is a solution to decreasing New Customer Acquisition (NCA) closing rates.

• Whether the marketing teams are fully aligned to sales’ needs.  

• Whether marketing and sales are ROI accountable.

• Whether there are leaks in the sales opportunity pipelines and, if so, how you can minimize their impact.

We’ll also take a hard look at marketing activity, lead generation, lead qualification and lead nurturing and how they can have a marked impact on maximizing sales productivity. 

To register click here.

You may wonder what the process of acquiring new customers has to do with upholding a client’s brand image.

We first learned to understand the importance of BRAND in the early 90’s when working on assignment for a Fortune listed 500 company.

Their executives made a serious point of informing us their company was much concerned that we should not do anything which might hurt their company’s carefully cultivated image.

On the contrary they went on to explain . . .

• that in speaking with their prospective clients we should speak with esteem for the way their company does business
• that we should convey their company is one which appreciates the customer as king
• that they value the opportunity to pay attention to the needs and values of their customers
• that they can be relied on to carry out their promises and offers
• that they should be admired for their products and respected for their services. 

We immediately realized the essential truth of this client’s definition of their brand, their company image, and the real value of their advice. Before long we decided to make changes in our business that would result in setting us apart from the average telemarketing service vendor of the time.

This decision required us to internalize that client’s priceless advice and to review eti’s company persona. It also affected our hiring objectives. The education and business experience of our phone agents would become one of the most important factors in our hiring decisions.

We would need to look for persons with an executive manner who easily and naturally spoke the language of their prospects. We would need people capable of understanding the need to uphold the client’s brand image whenever they spoke in their name. And scripts were thrown out in favor of Call Guides enabling us to engage in consultative and meaningful conversations with client prospects.

In due course our staff would be defined as Business Developers (no longer telemarketers or phone agents) in keeping with our clients’ objectives. These were, by and large, to acquire new customers via sales lead generation and lead qualification efforts. 

When we work for you, you’ll know that we are conscious of the fact that you too want respect for your company image and admiration for your products or services. You’ll get both.

Here is what clients have said about our approach:

• “You don’t describe yourselves as being in the business of generating leads. You defined your mission as New Customer Acquisition and Retention and maximizing sales/force productivity.”
• “You sold us on the lifetime significance of new customers rather than the value of their first orders.”
• “You have a basic brand image mindset which is very important to us.”
• “Your Business Developers are graduates and have business experience. They adapt and converse freely because they are not bound by scripts.”
• “You’re not the most competitive price wise. But if we wanted low costs we could have gone to any of the commodity type agencies that abound.”
• “What we can’t get from your competitors are people who will be concerned to uphold our brand image.”
• “You appreciated the concern we have for our brand image. You spoke our language.”

eti is concerned to convey the respect we have for our client’s brand image. This concept does not lend itself to a set of rules which can be prioritized and numbered. Brand image is not upheld or maintained or enhanced in this way.

In a recent article in B2Bonline entitled “Study: ‘Inbound’ marketing rates high in lead-gen results” one would be led to believe that this is the case. 

Cambridge, Mass.—Inbound marketing, including techniques such as blogging, social media, search engine optimization and pay-per-click, which pull relevant prospects toward a business and its products, realize lower costs-per lead than outbound marketing efforts, according to a new report by Internet marketing company HubSpot.

The company’s report, “State of Inbound Marketing,” is based on an online survey performed late last year among 167 executives and business owners, 71% of whom work for b-to-b companies.

The survey found that respondents who spent 50% or more of their lead-generation budget on inbound marketing averaged $84 per lead, while businesses spending half or more of their budgets on such outbound marketing techniques as direct mail, telemarketing and trade shows averaged $220 per lead.

Search leads the pack in lead-generation efficiency. Survey respondents said they devoted an average of 12% of their budgets to search but gained 16% of their leads from their search marketing efforts.

So let’s examine the facts. 

Unfortunately HubSpot appears to have made an unfair  comparison.  The Inbound Leads referred to here are not leads at all.  They are mostly “hand raisers”, that is to say they have merely  inquired and we have no way of knowing how genuine each inquiry is.

This is because the ‘so called’ leads have not been qualified to ascertain quality. Their potential is unknown.

No one has established the value of their potential; their decision making processes; their purchasing timeframe; their budgets.  Etc.

All these aspects and more can only be ascertained by someone who has the experience to engage with the prospect and peel away at the onion in order to establish if the lead is worth the investment of a sales person’s expensive selling time.

Leads without qualification have little value to salespersons whose standard of living depends on the volume of their sales. In many instances the most experienced salespersons will not follow through on unqualified leads because it doesn’t pay them. In that event the total cost of the cheap leads would be wasted.  And your actual cost per qualified lead and sale will skyrocket.

eti statistics show that only a very small percentage of these types of  “low cost” inquiries actually convert to highly qualified leads.  Based on thousands of inquiries of this type – over any number of industries -  we can say with certainly that the range of conversion is between 5% and 15%.  If you take the mean of 10% you can then ascertain that the true cost per lead (based on their $84 average) is $840  – or 10 times what they claim.

That’s substantially higher than the cost of qualified leads from the other media mentioned.�

We’ve just posted a great new article (IOHO) on the eti site that offers up 4 Positive Sales Boosting Ideas. 

Do the bean counters have you running for the hills … cutting back on all your marketing expenditures?

Are results from your current marketing and promotional activities falling?

Do you have a tough times strategy in place?

Read more here.

The origin of telemarketing (TM) may be lost in the mists of time. Lots of folk credit Murray Roman for being the father of telemarketing but I don’t believe he ever confirmed parenthood. As an executive for the Ford company however, he was involved in the first mass telephone campaign in 1964.

Vance Packard in his “The Naked Society” wrote about the 20 million phone calls which Ford then made. Packard was not altogether complimentary even though the campaign produced a magnificent result for Ford. Ford’s success quite likely sparked the entry of business into this direct marketing medium. 

The basic concept of TM was much like that of direct mail … deliver a consistent message to a generally uniform audience and the response will be measurable.  If you sent out 10, 000 advertising packages and received 200 responses you could extrapolate that 2% by mailing a million to the same quality list and geography.

This applied equally to outbound telemarketing.  If one called 1000 similar prospects with a similarly consistent message (script) then this too became a measurable marketing medium.  And it worked, sometimes better, sometimes worse depending on the ability of your callers to conduct proficient conversations with decision makers.

The medium was embraced early on by consumer direct marketers who built large phone banks to organize their calls. And it did not take long for the medium to start irritating consumers. Calls were being made during the evenings and weekends.  They were rigorously scripted and for the most part high pressured. There were also many scams. Sure enough everyone who operated a TM service was soon tainted with the bad reputation of the medium. 

Newspapers whipped up a frenzy of fury – partly due to a loss of revenue no doubt. Ironically, many of them were later to become the biggest users in an attempt to build subscriptions, to regain lost subscribers, and even to solicit advertising. In 1996 my company, Effective Telemarketing Inc. changed its name to eti Sales Support simply because it just became pain-in-the-neck embarrassing to be tainted by the consumer side of the medium. Especially as we never operated in the consumer sphere.  Our focus was and has always been in the domain of B2B.

With the advent of the ‘Do Not Call’ lists initiated early on by the Direct Marketing Association and later endorsed by the Federal Government, this negativity has markedly decreased.

So is the phone a marketing medium?  Especially as it pertains in the B2B marketing space?

The answer is definitely a huge yes.  And an enormously successful one too.

When looking to generate B2B Sales Leads here are some pointers to bear in mind.

• Messaging: – Although in our world (B2B Lead Generation and Lead Qualification) the communication is consultative (i.e. not scripted) in nature it is still consistent from prospect to prospect and market to market.  This allows one to measure results and data accurately.  Furthermore, these results are fully projectable.
• Interactive medium:  No other form of direct communication allows for instantaneous two way communication with a prospect.  All other media facilitate an entirely one sided communication.  Take a moment to consider the power of such personal  interaction:
  • Best way to identify and talk to the decision making authority
    • Only dynamic medium that allows you to navigate within an organization to identify the true decision maker/s.
  • Best way to motivate purchasing interest of the decision maker
  •  Best way to respond to questions or objections
  • Immediate ability to probe for need and pain
  • Immediate ability to confirm
    • Real interest
    • Appointments
    • Orders
    • Webinar/Seminar registrations
    • Etc Etc.
• Brand: You never get a better chance to make a first impression.  (While many may think that brand might be compromised by a phone call, it’s my firm opinion that when handled correctly, brand image can be enhanced by such a communication.)
• Actionable Business Intelligence:  Because the telephone is interactive in gathering business intelligence and data in real time, one can measure the data quickly and effectively. This effectively allows clients to manage follow up processes (by sales or sales lead nurturing systems).
• Flexibility:  With a smart nimble business developement team one realign and modify call guides.  One can also customize the message as it pertains to different market segments and audience types.
• TM will produce about 4-10 times the result of direct mail alone. And as much as 1,000% more than permission based email blasts.
• Testing is possible and desirable.
  • Test various messaging approaches.
  • Testing different market segments can be quick and effective.
    • By vertical (SIC classifications)
    • Company size (employee and or revenue)
    • By product usage.
    • By geography
    • Etc.

So yes … B2B Telemarketing is a marketing highly effective medium and one that should be preferred when the objective is New Customer Acquisition.

In a post to from the Sales Lead management Association John Obermayer makes an interesting and timely point:

While most C-level managers realize that build-and-ship schedules are tied to sales performance, few understand that sales performance ultimately is tied to sales lead performance and the marketing budget.

Reduce your lead generating marketing funds and within 30 days inquiries will slow down in proportion to how much you have cut the budget.   The frightening subsequent sales failure happens within 60-90 days when sales plummet because the pipeline of prospects has slowed to a trickle.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a prime example of cause and effect.

In difficult times many companies make cuts without thinking through the consequences of their actions.  I have seen this time and time again … sometimes with disastrous results.  In difficult times it’s precisely the investments you make in lead generation, lead nurturing and lead qualification efforts that will keep you in the game.

Based on my experience, I have always strongly held the view that the sooner a web submitted inquiry is followed up, the greater the likelihood of converting that inquiry to a new customer.

This is not to overlook all the prior discussions necessary to determine the prospect’s potential as a qualified opportunity.  Then to obtain the buyer’s consent to meet with our client’s sales rep to see his presentation. In other words to show that he is sales ready.

Using data we collected over many years we analyzed the results by ¼ hour segments to see in fact what happened time wise. The graph below is the result.

Here you can see that about 80% of the qualified leads were completed within 1.5 hours – in one or more conversations with the decision maker.

As this analysis makes clear there’s is no doubt that speed of follow up is critical to a positive result.

Does this mean you should not invest time in making a few more follow up calls to qualify the rest? 

Maybe so if you’re selling a product for a handful of dollars.  Even a few hundred dollars. But when you’re marketing big ticket (complex) products or services there can be no doubt that investing in the “long tail” makes sense.

It’s also simplistic to looks at the results on their own. Why?  Because there is an inverse proportion to the sales potential.   i.e.  Short quick commodity type sales happen quickly.  Complex high ticket products and services are usually developed over time and require a well planned thought out lead nurturing effort.�

We strongly believe that the relationship between our Business Developers (BDs) and the sales people who are our ultimate customers is essential to the success of a lead generation / lead qualification effort.  A vital element in this relationship is the need to foster bi-directional communication as a regular discipline.

Remember, the goal of your eti business development team is not to just set appointments and let you battle it out on your own.  We want to be in your corner because we share a collective responsibility to see every sales opportunity through to the close of the first sale and the acquisition of a new customer. 

We know full well that the sales opportunity pipeline (and the prospect pipeline) is a fluid, dynamic process.  That clarifies the essential difference between us and other lead generation companies.  In short, we prefer to be your partner, not your vendor.  Here then is one of the realities that makes eti so markedly different from our competitors.  We have little interest in a hands-off relationship.

Specifically, this is what we want you, as a client, to know:

• If you have a question or concern we want to hear it.  Please call us to discuss as often as you wish.
• If you need more information about any qualified prospect submitted to you, please let us know.  We’ll call the prospect again and probe that topic for you.
• If you feel you’d like a particular individual on the prospect’s side to be in on the appointment, tell us – we’ll do our best to arrange it for you.
• If you have made an initial call and feel it would be better to have eti hold onto the prospect and move them further along or nurture them until ready, that’s what we’ll gladly do for you.

And more.  Just whatever occurs to you – call us.

Edited transcript of a telephone conversation initiated by Michael Falkson, Pres. eti Sales Support Inc, with Mr. Ostrow 08/02/08.

The Aberdeen group recently undertook a study of the B2B Teleservices Industry - the first of its kind to my knowledge.  I recently had an opportunity to talk with Peter Ostrow, the author, about some of his findings.

Mike:  In your view Peter, what are the critical elements a best in class company should look for when seeking an outsourced business development partner?

Peter: They should look for a partner who offers flexibility around deliverables.

The overall deliverables should be carefully quantified and reevaluated on a regular basis.  They should look for flexibility in compensation methodology, which we’ve ratified through our research, and that too should be reevaluated on a regular basis.  They should look for a company which allows them to micromanage the process. 

Now that may sound counter productive to efficient program execution, but on a personal note when I look at my career, I have been least successful when I did not have the customer fairly closely involved in my day-to-day activity.  Going away with a script and a list and then simply coming back with the results is in my opinion least likely to satisfy the client.

There are some vendors in your space who don’t worry what their clients think of how they work, whose customers don’t get involved or want to know how you produce their results. They’re just concerned with the final outcome. And that there may even be an implication that “we use a special ingredient or a secret sauce.”

To be honest Mike, I think there are some proprietary best practices unique to various providers, though not patent worthy.  I think it’s interesting that some companies try to figure out how you get the job done and I’m ok with that. I also believe it’s wrong to keep the customer from accessing the callers, the messaging, and some of the processes. These are bad signals to clients.

Finally, I think clients should certainly look for domain expertise. That’s very important.

However, it’s not always feasible that the provider of teleservices can say, ” Yes! We have exactly the experience your company needs. We’ve worked for companies with the same demographics and which faced the same challenges. In fact we’ve scored a wonderful success story.”  That would be too tall an order.

But for a small versus large company, for a less or more costly solution, for a situation where the brand was not well known -  or some less specific criteria, I would imagine it’s permissible and acceptable to tell a particular story which provides a little insider domain expertise to indicate we have been there before.

Mike:  How important is longevity, breadth and depth of an outsource partner’s experience in establishing desirability of the vendor?

Peter:  I would say moderately important.  People want to get in bed with someone that they know or heard good things about, but being in the business for 20 years or five years doesn’t really matter that much.

Mike:  What are the vital personnel qualities of a top notch outsource partner?

Peter:  I would say staff who are strong enough to do without the script and speak from the heart about the value proposition, will be preferred,   Callers with advanced degrees,  maybe multilingual, they’re usually very good. Still these qualities are not uniformly essential as you know. 

Probably the most important quality one needs are folks who are comfortable getting on a phone on a regular basis and interacting with the sales force.  That’s probably the #1 criterion that end-users look for. Turnaround is not that big an issue.  If people trust the outsourcing company and trust the process management then it does not matter that the folks who actually make the calls come and go. Clients won’t really fret about that . . . it’s pretty far down the list.

Mike:  How important is it that the outsource partner has access to powerful flexible technology to manage real time reporting and communication?

Peter:  There are two answers to that.  I see no difference between the best in class and other companies, so I can’t say that smarter companies will integrate with the customer’s CRM and other tools.

But I can also tell you that the majority of best in class companies either currently or in the near future definitely plan to deploy exactly that. 

Mike:  Would you say that most teleservices providers rated in that survey were essentially meeting the expectations of their client base?

Peter:  Actually, most were.  Respondents choose whether they are either very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neutral, somewhat satisfied or very satisfied. Everyone came out somewhere between somewhat and very. The respondents were satisfied with the lead quality. They are generally less satisfied with lead quantity.

Quality . . . lead quality . . . lead quantity . . . all count. Clients are most satisfied with messaging accuracy; they are least satisfied with reporting metrics, business intelligence gathering and cost per lead.

Thanks a span, Peter, much appreciate your valuable input.

The tail that wags the dog.

Any military commander will tell you that intelligence is probably the most significantly important tool they have when developing a winning strategy. Good intelligence helps, bad intelligence doesn’t.

Interestingly enough when we look at Marketing and Sales groups it is seldom Sales (the foot soldiers) who understand the value of business intelligence and how it can contribute to successful selling.

As a group Marketing certainly does … but in my experience they rarely make effective use of the valuable information they have at their fingertips.

Too few companies are willing to make a specific, sizeable investment in gathering business intelligence as a strategic tool in their sales and marketing arsenals.

Contrary to that lackadaisical attitude we at eti take the business of intelligence gathering very seriously.  We have long learned that there is always an opportunity to garner something of value during every business conversation.

We have also learned that such business information (intelligence) can be a key element in our success in the initial task of targeting and qualifying sales leads as definite and worthy new customers for clients.

And how our clients’ sales force can use this information in their presentations aimed at converting prospects to new customers. 

Business intelligence is too wide a subject to be classified into a handful of columns/titles in the database.  On the contrary it is the cumulative knowledge of what we know about the prospect and his needs.  Some intelligence is gathered simply by engaging in an interactive discussion. Or through the electronic communication behavior of prospects (.e.g, what links they clicked, or which web pages they visited, and the white papers they requested etc.) 

It’s the ability of a business development solution provider like eti to deliver a 360 degree of data to empower your sales people to know how they should approach each prospect or customer. 

To see a demonstration of how we achieve this result please call Shelley Sachs, eti Global VP of Marketing, at 1.800-466.4384. Select option 1.

Trade Shows are an important marketing tool for many companies.

Aside from the obvious PR need to be seen at notable exhibitions, companies also hope to conclude business deals. The basic objective however, is to gather high quality sales leads resulting from conversations with prospects who’ve stopped by for information.

These leads need to be contacted and qualified for the sales force via a proper lead qualification and intelligence gathering process.

It’s essential to ascertain that all those important trade show leads return a positive ROI.  You need to know whether the result of your investment in trade shows to generate leads are worth it. Because not all sales leads are equal.  That maxim surely holds true for:

• trade show attendees who’ve actually engaged your staff in discussions, and . . .
• those who’ve mostly thrown business their business cards into the bowl for the free prize.

You’ll not be surprised to learn that those who’ve spoken to your sales personnel at the booth turn out to have the best sales potential.  But that does not mean there’s not a whole raft of profitable opportunities in other categories. Pooling some results from some of eti’s major accounts over past years, here’s what we’ve found:

• Prospects who’ve actually talked with sales personnel convert at the highest rate. Our results have fluctuated from 10% to as high as 50%!
• Attendee lists produce a conversion ratio of up to 2-5%.
• Incentive related inquiries (Business Cards in the  bowl for a free prize) produce the lowest result, as may be expected. Their interest is mainly the incentive or prizes on offer … not (necessarily) in the benefits of your products or services. Nevertheless our clients have found 3-5% profitable prospects in this category.  

It’s all a matter of economics.

Much depends on what you’re selling and the value of the average new customer to your company.  (See my related opinion item “What Costs Less Costs More” in this blog.)

Here are 5 suggestions you may want to consider when next exhibiting at a show:

1. Invite your best prospects to a pre-scheduled meeting at the booth.  (Yes an appointment.)
2. Remind prospects and clients that you’ll be exhibiting.  Maybe offer them an incentive to stop by and say hello.  Or create excitement by announcing a new/improved product launch etc.
3. At the booth make sure your sales staff have the ability to quickly scan in prospect names into the computer and be sure to document any important information about their needs.   
   a. Identify and record decision making authority.
   b. Quantify likely purchasing volume.
   c. Budget
4. Speed of follow up is critical because your prospects are visiting competitor booths too. So follow up immediately next day, to qualify and confirm the sales potential.  You can electronically upload these prospects to eti for example for next day qualification and fulfillment.
5. Prospects not yet ‘ready to buy’ need to be held in a formal structure for lead nurturing purposes until their real sales need becomes evident.

Incidentally, we’ve recently started promoting the idea to our trade show clients to have another glass bowl available for business cards from interested attendees who would prefer the exhibitor to send the company’s information, rather than burden them with more stuff to carry. This bowl to be very clearly labeled with a message reading:

” Drop your business card here if you’d prefer us to send you our information. Thank you.”

Similarly you could have a bowl offering to have a sales person contact them.  Not great but a suitable conpromise if you’re short staffed.

For more specific ideas on maximizing your trade show investments call Sheldon Sachs 1.800.466.4384.

Michael Falkson

If you don’t test to verify the results of your advertising the result could be an unnecessary waste of money spent on bad advertising.

Experienced direct marketers wouldn’t dream of big expenditures without testing. It’s integral to their culture. They are very concerned to know the cost per inquiry and the cost per inquiry converted. These results guide their advertising spend.  This discipline also ensures that dollars are spent only on strategies and tactics that produce meaningful cost effective results. They are careful not to waste dollars on projects that don’t work.

The long and short of testing is that you don’t have to spend millions on ads which don’t generate enough profitable inquiries. You can tell as much after the first 2 or 3 ads. So why throw good money after bad?

Same goes for the business we’re in, namely New Customer Acquisition, based on Lead Generation and Sales Conversion.
Moreover testing with eti can provide projectable results in just a few hundred hours.  And at a fraction of the cost of the big spend usually required by advertising agencies.

If the campaign does not produce profitable results you change it and refine your strategy until you come up with a winning combination.  Sometimes when executing a major campaign in a variety of media – using gung-ho agencies – you find yourself spending a lot more before discovering that  results don’t justify expenditure.

It is always worth comparing sales leads costs generated directly by outbound telemarketing. Our own experience in such side by side comparisons is, invariably, that we can deliver far better results at much lower cost.

To illustrate this point we recently had the opportunity of making such direct comparisons for a major technology client. In the first instance the client’s campaign consisted of a series of promotional operations which included WEB based banner advertising, broadcast email, direct mail, PR as well as some events.  The campaign was managed by the client’s campaign management team of 3 people, and carried out by the client’s direct marketing agency.

Here is a concise analysis of results, measured against a later campaign by eti:

A.  Client’s Demand Generation Campaign:

Not a great result especially when you factor in the management overhead.  To be conservative we will add 20% for overhead which brings us to an overall cost of $272,400 or $7,783 per assigned opportunity. (I believe actual overhead was closer to 33%.)

Projected revenue from these leads was only $340,000 (20% conversion rate at an average of $50,000 per sale). ROI was decidedly negative.

B.   eti’s Lead Generation / Business Development project:

A comparative outbound business development effort was undertaken by eti over a 2 year period for the same client.  The program consisted of cold calling into a relatively well defined target markets to identify opportunities and qualify leads.  There was virtually no client overhead.

Now this is clearly a much better result – by a factor of 6 to 1.  However, even though there was virtually no client overhead I will, to be entirely fair, add 20% for overhead.  Total cost is then $216,000, or $1,193 per lead.  That’s still 85% lower on a cost per result basis than the above demand generation example. But that’s not all since projected revenues from these leads is a cool $1,8 million.  That’s an ROI of $8+ for every dollar spent compared to a loss in the example above. WOW!

Furthermore, we knew what the ultimate result would be after a test which only required an investment of only $20,000+. 

So what are the takeaways?

• Don’t get caught up in the hype, fancy presentations and pretty pictures.
• Test the various approaches and only rollout the winner.  
• Always test with the best:
  • The best target markets
  • The best products
  • The best sales people
  • The best business development agency
  • The best management team
• Etc.

Conclusions:

• If the best does not succeed – anything less can only lose.
• Reassign ineffective campaign management incapable of effecting high quality customer acquisition at profitable ROI.

Can eti do as much for you? Yes I believe we can. Call Shelly Sachs VP Global Business Development at1.800.466.4384 to start a purposeful conversation about how eti can increase your sales revenue while reducing your ad costs.

Michael Falkson

Aberdeen consulting has released a ground breaking study into the B2B Teleservices Industry.

Readers of this blog can obtain a free copy by clicking here.

The following press release provides some background.

B2B TELESERVICES: THE 2008 BUYER’S GUIDE

BOSTON, MA – May 28, 2008 – In a first-time, comprehensive research study of the B2B TeleServices industry, Aberdeen, a Harte-Hanks Company (NYSE: HHS) examines the lead discovery and qualification pressures faced by marketing and sales practitioners, the actions they consider to drive peak performance in their marketing investments, and how Best-in-Class performers utilize outsourced teleservices methodologies to drive maximum pipeline content and bid-to-win performance ratios. As an end-user’s “buyer’s guide” to a sector rarely covered by objective research methodologies, this April 2008 study reveals leading practices in lead lifecycle management deployed by teleservices customers, as well as exploring blended human / technology solutions they have managed to ROMI success.

Data acquired from over 200 enterprises reveals a number of impactful data points, according to Peter Ostrow, VP/Group Director, Customer Management at Aberdeen, the study’s author.  “Best-in-Class companies place a premium on lead quality, whereas Laggards reveal an interest in utilizing services to help address an out-of-control lead generation process — too many leads to handle — at a pace more than five times as high as that of top-performing organizations,” he explains.  “This reflects a lack of organizational and vendor management capabilities among Laggards, who benefit the least from their efforts to drive actionable intelligence to the sales team.” 

In addition to the quality/quantity balance necessary to achieve Marketing/Sales harmony, the Best-in-Class companies in Aberdeen’s research demonstrate a preference for the well-defined deliverables provided by appointment-setting methodologies.  “Top performers clearly wish to tee-up ready-booked appointments or conference calls for their sales team,” Ostrow says, “ but only if the meetings are highly substantiated by relevant account intelligence, identification of appropriate business pressures and the involvement of powerful influencers or decision-makers in the conversation.”  He also cautions against an over-reliance on appointment-setting as a sole methodology, pointing out that survey respondents who do so actually experience losses in year-over-year metrics such as sales performance against quota, and average deal size.  “Best-in-Class companies who remain flexible about their execution, compensation and delivery model from B2B teleservices providers,” concludes Ostrow, “realize 15 to 20% increases in these crucial performance metrics.”

The required actions for companies seeking to gain the most benefit from external tele-provider services, according to Ostrow, include adopting a high degree of collaboration between outsourced calling staff and the customer’s marketing and even sales personnel, preferably building 1-1 relationships that maximize their potential to improve on account penetration strategies, messaging quality and overall program ROI.

To obtain a complimentary copy, visit:

http://www.aberdeen.com/link/sponsor.asp?spid=30411182&cid=4883

 

Michael Falkson

On April 25, I was honored to serve as the moderator of a stimulating panel discussion at the 2008 MIT Sloan School of Management Sales Conference entitled Enterprise Sales: Winning Complex Large Accounts.  The panel consisted of some industry heavyweights including:

• David Chan, Chief Operating Officer, Rainbow Semiconductor

• Lee Levitt, Program Director Sales Advisory Service, IDC 

• Michael Lock, Director, Enterprise Sales, Google

• Steven Meyers, Director, Sales, Pega Systems

It turned into a spirited discussion.  After I kicked things off with the first question, the audience took over asking question after question until our time was exhausted.  In the end, we covered as best we could, three areas of interest to attendees:

1. Identifying and managing diverse stakeholders

2. Techniques for winning large and complex accounts

3. How to turn those sales into long-term relationships

Some brief observations from the panelists:

• The sales process has changed.  Customers know more about your product and or service than they ever will.  

• Sales cycles are longer.

• More decision makers are involved in decision making than ever before.

• It’s still personal.

• Speed of business has increased.  Large companies are not built for speed and have trouble keeping up.  Yet they have a desire to be fast.

• Google trying to make sales less complex.  Smaller transactions and grow the accounts.

• Always formulate ROI.  Why should they buy?  What’s the USE case?

• Maximize existing relationships … opportunity management.

• Walk away if it is not a fit.

• After the sale, handholding is an essential component.

• In Government sales, secrecy is a problem.  Develop an ally and feed them all the information so that they can help you make the sale.

• Foreign companies selling into large US enterprises don’t face the same hurdles as US companies selling internationally.

• If you don’t ask the question, you won’t get the sale.

• Prioritize sales opportunities.  Focus on high probability prospects.  Get rid of those that have a low probability of closing.

• If there is no pain, there is no opportunity.

The session can be heard here.

The entire conference can be heard at http://www.sloansalesconference.com/media/media_player.htm.

Sheldon Sachs