As the role of the relationship-based sales person shifts, with buyers collecting more of their information online, both prior to, and during conversations with sales people, we need to pay close attention to the most crucial aspect of a sale. Trust. It is trust that every relationship has as its foundation. However, with the changing dynamic of how the conversation happens, there is also a changing dynamic of how trust is developed.
In classic relationship-based sales, the buyer grew to trust the individual salesperson. Conversations were typically face to face, and the relationship incorporated many “social” elements such as dinner, drinks, golf outings, or sports events. Over time, this built up a level of trust between the buyer and the seller and allowed the deal to move through its challenging parts.
Now, with significantly less face-to-face time being spent, the dynamics of this trust building are changing. Trust now manifests itself in a variety of ways, which together either contribute to, or detract from, a sales opportunity. Replacing, enhancing, or complementing the trust we historically had in the direct sales rep is the trust we place in the following sources:
Peers:
The most powerful and immediate trusted source, of course, are our peers. People we know, have existing relationships with, and respect are the most powerful influencers of our decision making. Both because of shared experiences, and a perception of them being free of bias, we are far more likely to trust recommendations from our peer group.
Online Communities:
In a similar vein, we tend to trust the recommendations of online communities, where individuals may not be known to us, but we share a common thread such as the use of a particular solution, a professional discipline, or a love of travel.
Online Personas:
Within these communities, active individuals often stand out. Through creating great content, intelligent commentary, and frequent presence, they build familiarity in the same way that repeated light encounters with a neighbour or office co-worker begin to build our familiarity with them. As this familiarity builds, a sense of trust builds with it.
Personal Brands:
Taken further, many individuals have become so well known individually within a given space that their views are given significant credence. As buyers, there may be significant trust placed in the views, opinions, and perspectives of these strong individual brands within a space.
Company Online Brands:
The overall reputation and brand of a company is greatly influenced by the transparency of social media. Numerous examples exist of companies who attempted to maintain a difference between what they wanted their reputation to be, and what the reality of their product or service was. Social media has collapsed this difference, and in doing so may have an overall positive effect on buyer trust. If a company brand becomes, through community discussion and reputation, a realistic impression of what that company truly is, it becomes something that can more easily be trusted.
As trust shifts from being mainly in the purview of face to face sales reps, and towards a variety of other sources, marketing organizations need to ensure that buyers trust what is being offered. However, with trust itself being a virtually unmeasurable concept, and the source of trust being even more difficult, this provides marketers with a significant challenge.
Are you measuring how and why prospective buyers build their trust in you?
Showing posts with label Relationship Sales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Relationship Sales. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Trust, Reputation, and Inside Sales
There is a significant shift underway in how we establish and build trust. Craig Newmark (of Craigslist fame) discussed this transition in quite some detail in an article on GigaOm that's worth a read.
The shifting of how trust is built has numerous profound implication for society in general, but more specifically, it is causing significant shifts in the way that people buy. While the general evolution of buyers is causing some challenges for field sales teams, the evolution of trust is opening up new opportunities for inside sales teams.
As the emphasis on face-to-face interaction as a way to build trust decreases in lieu of other ways of building trust, the need to be “in the field” also decreases. It is unlikely that field sales as a discipline will disappear any time soon, the economic bar at which a face-to-face interaction is “necessary” is in the middle of a dramatic shift.
Trust and Economics
The amount of trust we put into a vendor has a strong relationship with the size of a deal we are willing to sign. The economic value must of course be there, but without the element of trust, the deal is unlikely to close. This trust shift therefore has major implications on the size of deals that are likely to be closable through an inside (over the phone/web) sales model.
Whereas historically, inside sales teams would generally close deals with an average selling price (ASP) of below $20,000, these teams are now able to close deals at much larger ASPs. Some organizations are seeing effective use of inside sales up to $100,000 in ASP. This shift towards an inside sales model reduces both the cost and complexity of the sales process, and in doing so opens up a significant economic opportunity.
David Skok of Matrix Partners wrote an excellent piece that looked at sales cycle complexity as a driver of the economics of a business that explores this concept in great detail. His article is well worth a read, but the short story is that any reduction in sales cycle complexity (such as moving from a field sales model to an inside sales model) can remove an order of magnitude from your overall costs (and hence required price points).
Trust and Reputation
Inside sales teams are able to develop the level of effectiveness that is being seen in recent times by building trusted relationships through online interactions and presence in communities, and understanding key players in the buying committee through LinkedIn and other online tools.
These teams also relying on their company's reputation to a large amount. That company reputation, if built on a foundation of corporate openness and transparency, can contribute greatly to the amount of trust prospective buyers are willing to give to the salesperson they are dealing with.
Although face-to-face interactions remain immensely valuable in building trust, and will remain necessary for very large transactions, the efficiencies of the inside sales model give it a significant advantage in smaller transactions. This efficiency win, combined with the new ability to build trust through means other than eye contact, are moving inside sales in many organizations from small transactions to much larger transactions. This trend is likely to continue as the communication tools and trust-building approaches continue to tip the balance in favour of the inside sales model.
The shifting of how trust is built has numerous profound implication for society in general, but more specifically, it is causing significant shifts in the way that people buy. While the general evolution of buyers is causing some challenges for field sales teams, the evolution of trust is opening up new opportunities for inside sales teams.
As the emphasis on face-to-face interaction as a way to build trust decreases in lieu of other ways of building trust, the need to be “in the field” also decreases. It is unlikely that field sales as a discipline will disappear any time soon, the economic bar at which a face-to-face interaction is “necessary” is in the middle of a dramatic shift.Trust and Economics
The amount of trust we put into a vendor has a strong relationship with the size of a deal we are willing to sign. The economic value must of course be there, but without the element of trust, the deal is unlikely to close. This trust shift therefore has major implications on the size of deals that are likely to be closable through an inside (over the phone/web) sales model.
Whereas historically, inside sales teams would generally close deals with an average selling price (ASP) of below $20,000, these teams are now able to close deals at much larger ASPs. Some organizations are seeing effective use of inside sales up to $100,000 in ASP. This shift towards an inside sales model reduces both the cost and complexity of the sales process, and in doing so opens up a significant economic opportunity.
David Skok of Matrix Partners wrote an excellent piece that looked at sales cycle complexity as a driver of the economics of a business that explores this concept in great detail. His article is well worth a read, but the short story is that any reduction in sales cycle complexity (such as moving from a field sales model to an inside sales model) can remove an order of magnitude from your overall costs (and hence required price points).
Trust and Reputation
Inside sales teams are able to develop the level of effectiveness that is being seen in recent times by building trusted relationships through online interactions and presence in communities, and understanding key players in the buying committee through LinkedIn and other online tools.
These teams also relying on their company's reputation to a large amount. That company reputation, if built on a foundation of corporate openness and transparency, can contribute greatly to the amount of trust prospective buyers are willing to give to the salesperson they are dealing with.
Although face-to-face interactions remain immensely valuable in building trust, and will remain necessary for very large transactions, the efficiencies of the inside sales model give it a significant advantage in smaller transactions. This efficiency win, combined with the new ability to build trust through means other than eye contact, are moving inside sales in many organizations from small transactions to much larger transactions. This trend is likely to continue as the communication tools and trust-building approaches continue to tip the balance in favour of the inside sales model.
 |
 |
||||||
|
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Cash Flow Statement as a Metaphor: Sources and Uses of Leads
Earlier, we introduced the financial metaphors for balance sheet and income statement when looking at B2B marketing analysis. Following on the same financial metaphor, a “cash flow” statement can show valuable insights into the sources and uses of leads, allowing you to dashboard the lead flow within your organization in order to understand which territories, product lines, or business segments are seeing more lead flow than others, and whether the leads are being successfully converted into opportunities.
Understanding which sales teams are seeing the best sourcing of leads gives a good sense of whether there is any imbalance in the lead flows. For example, in the following data, you can see that although the West is generally getting more leads, they are of significantly lower quality. Similarly, while there are lots of leads for Widget B being generated, there is a significant imbalance in lead flow to reps in the East.
With this understanding of which territories, product lines, and salespeople are provided with leads, the next step is to provide insight into the outcome of those leads once they have been handed off to sales. Done properly, the disposition of leads by a sales team after they attempt to connect with them should not only trigger a marketing process to correctly handle the leads, but also provide clear insights into the quality of the leads. If the leads were unreachable, lacked interest, were not the right role, or only had early stage interest, this insight allows marketing to see whether there are potential quality issues with their leads.
Likewise, if certain sales reps are doing a poor job in following up with the leads they are given, this will also show up in the analytics of lead disposition. In the following lead disposition chart, for example, you can see that both Bob Clark and Jane Chen received a large number of leads, but failed to convert many of them to opportunities, instead resorting to voicemails or calling back in 90 days. This may be an indication of a performance or training challenge with these two sales reps.
The more visibility we introduce to our processes for building interest, qualifying leads, handing them to sales, and having sales connect in order to grow a revenue opportunity, the better we are able to improve those processes. The cash flow statement, as a metaphor, provides a great way to look at which sales teams are getting good sources of leads, and what the uses of those leads are. The ability to optimize this lead flow or guide the sales team's response lets us optimize revenue quickly and effectively.
Understanding which sales teams are seeing the best sourcing of leads gives a good sense of whether there is any imbalance in the lead flows. For example, in the following data, you can see that although the West is generally getting more leads, they are of significantly lower quality. Similarly, while there are lots of leads for Widget B being generated, there is a significant imbalance in lead flow to reps in the East.
With this understanding of which territories, product lines, and salespeople are provided with leads, the next step is to provide insight into the outcome of those leads once they have been handed off to sales. Done properly, the disposition of leads by a sales team after they attempt to connect with them should not only trigger a marketing process to correctly handle the leads, but also provide clear insights into the quality of the leads. If the leads were unreachable, lacked interest, were not the right role, or only had early stage interest, this insight allows marketing to see whether there are potential quality issues with their leads.
Likewise, if certain sales reps are doing a poor job in following up with the leads they are given, this will also show up in the analytics of lead disposition. In the following lead disposition chart, for example, you can see that both Bob Clark and Jane Chen received a large number of leads, but failed to convert many of them to opportunities, instead resorting to voicemails or calling back in 90 days. This may be an indication of a performance or training challenge with these two sales reps.
The more visibility we introduce to our processes for building interest, qualifying leads, handing them to sales, and having sales connect in order to grow a revenue opportunity, the better we are able to improve those processes. The cash flow statement, as a metaphor, provides a great way to look at which sales teams are getting good sources of leads, and what the uses of those leads are. The ability to optimize this lead flow or guide the sales team's response lets us optimize revenue quickly and effectively.
|
|
|
||||||
|
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Relationships Salespeople's Biggest Competitor
Truly great sales skills are both rare, and genuinely valuable in the overall revenue creation process. The art of understanding the people, politics, and pains within an organization, and positioning your offering in such a way to navigate through to a closed deal is difficult and needed. In almost any situation, as you try to navigate the buying process, your competitors will be working to disrupt your progress and further their own.
This is definitely a threat, but many sales people seem to overlook an even bigger competitor to their efforts. Google.
Quite simply, the reason that you, as a B2B salesperson, are invited to meet with prospects is because you carry the promise of unique and valuable information. Whether it is insights into their business, unique perspectives of industry trends, anecdotes of what others in the industry are doing, or access to negotiation options on pricing, service, or terms. Only by providing that valuable insight do you earn the right to their time and consideration.
However, more and more, executives and mid-level decision-makers are becoming less willing to grant that time to salespeople. The reason is not economics, as this trend was here in good times and in bad. The reason is not even solutions that are competitive to yours, as this trend is affecting everyone. The reason is access to information. If a prospect can get information on your capabilities, understand the market’s opinion of your fit in circumstances close to theirs, and form an understanding of the effort and costs involved in making and investment, then the information you provide is not a unique value.
This makes Google your largest competitor for prospects’ attention. If you can’t add more value than Google (or Bing) in your sales call, then you should not go.
The major search engines do a great job of providing access to generally available information, opinions, and perspectives. To provide value, as a sales person, the level of information you provide needs to improve beyond this. To add value above and beyond the search engines, top salespeople need to provide unique perspectives on the prospect’s own situation, inside access to pricing, service, or terms, and intelligent commentary on which industry trends may be relevant to the prospect.
The early stages of buyer education are best done, in today’s environment, by the marketing team, using marketing automation and lead nurturing. This change in the roles of marketing and sales may be uncomfortable, but it is needed in today’s changing buying environment. The insights that might have been gained in the initial discovery conversation is best understood by observing the buyers’ digital body language.
Sales, as an art, will continue to be a key element of delivering revenue to a business. However, as access to information continues to increase for prospects, good B2B salespeople must continue to increase their ability to provide unique information and perspectives.
This is definitely a threat, but many sales people seem to overlook an even bigger competitor to their efforts. Google.
Quite simply, the reason that you, as a B2B salesperson, are invited to meet with prospects is because you carry the promise of unique and valuable information. Whether it is insights into their business, unique perspectives of industry trends, anecdotes of what others in the industry are doing, or access to negotiation options on pricing, service, or terms. Only by providing that valuable insight do you earn the right to their time and consideration.However, more and more, executives and mid-level decision-makers are becoming less willing to grant that time to salespeople. The reason is not economics, as this trend was here in good times and in bad. The reason is not even solutions that are competitive to yours, as this trend is affecting everyone. The reason is access to information. If a prospect can get information on your capabilities, understand the market’s opinion of your fit in circumstances close to theirs, and form an understanding of the effort and costs involved in making and investment, then the information you provide is not a unique value.
This makes Google your largest competitor for prospects’ attention. If you can’t add more value than Google (or Bing) in your sales call, then you should not go.
The major search engines do a great job of providing access to generally available information, opinions, and perspectives. To provide value, as a sales person, the level of information you provide needs to improve beyond this. To add value above and beyond the search engines, top salespeople need to provide unique perspectives on the prospect’s own situation, inside access to pricing, service, or terms, and intelligent commentary on which industry trends may be relevant to the prospect.
The early stages of buyer education are best done, in today’s environment, by the marketing team, using marketing automation and lead nurturing. This change in the roles of marketing and sales may be uncomfortable, but it is needed in today’s changing buying environment. The insights that might have been gained in the initial discovery conversation is best understood by observing the buyers’ digital body language.
Sales, as an art, will continue to be a key element of delivering revenue to a business. However, as access to information continues to increase for prospects, good B2B salespeople must continue to increase their ability to provide unique information and perspectives.
|
|
|
||||||
|
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Relationship Sales and Today's New Buyer
For years, the prevailing thinking in sales has been oriented around relationship sales. The idea was that by being a friendly person, a good listener, and a decent golfer, you could gain the opportunity to build trust with potential buyers. In initial conversations, sales would ask a lot of questions, learn about the prospect’s business, delve deep into areas of pain or business challenge, and finally wrap things up with a solution that was oriented to curing these pains and solving these challenges.
However in today’s world, there is often not an opportunity to have that conversation in the first place. Unless you have information of value to offer first, the chance of a prospective buyer wanting to spend an hour with you to describe their business while you ask questions is plummeting . The access to information, which was once mainly managed by sales, is now open to all. This has forever changed the dynamics of relationship selling, as the early conversations, upon which the “trusted advisor” relationship were built, are now being diligently avoided by most prospective buyers.
Now, that trust is built by educating prospective buyers early in their buying process, providing information of value to them, and establishing the credibility of knowing enough about the space to be able to solve their problems. Rather than relying on large sales teams with good golf skills, this now relies on marketing and sales teams who are able to work together closely to understand prospective buyers and educate them on topics of interest to them so they remain engaged throughout a lengthy buying cycle.
So where does that leave the discipline of Sales?
The discipline of sales is changing fundamentally, as there is a shift away from the upfront concepts of relationship building social functions and the discovery call. Sales is shifting towards being a discipline that builds trusted relationships based on providing real business value based on prospective buyers true needs and discovery based on guiding, and observing, buyers own education processes.
For those in the Atlanta area, I’m excited to be joining Rick Page, author of Hope is Not a Strategy, and Debbie Qaqish, Principal Partner at the Pedowitz Group in a luncheon and panel discussion on these exact topics. The event is on Friday, September 25th, and more information is available here:
http://success.eloqua.com/?elqPURLPage=2557
For those unable to attend this event in Atlanta, I will definitely share the ideas, thoughts, and discussions that come out of the event with the audience here.
However in today’s world, there is often not an opportunity to have that conversation in the first place. Unless you have information of value to offer first, the chance of a prospective buyer wanting to spend an hour with you to describe their business while you ask questions is plummeting . The access to information, which was once mainly managed by sales, is now open to all. This has forever changed the dynamics of relationship selling, as the early conversations, upon which the “trusted advisor” relationship were built, are now being diligently avoided by most prospective buyers.
Now, that trust is built by educating prospective buyers early in their buying process, providing information of value to them, and establishing the credibility of knowing enough about the space to be able to solve their problems. Rather than relying on large sales teams with good golf skills, this now relies on marketing and sales teams who are able to work together closely to understand prospective buyers and educate them on topics of interest to them so they remain engaged throughout a lengthy buying cycle.So where does that leave the discipline of Sales?
The discipline of sales is changing fundamentally, as there is a shift away from the upfront concepts of relationship building social functions and the discovery call. Sales is shifting towards being a discipline that builds trusted relationships based on providing real business value based on prospective buyers true needs and discovery based on guiding, and observing, buyers own education processes.
For those in the Atlanta area, I’m excited to be joining Rick Page, author of Hope is Not a Strategy, and Debbie Qaqish, Principal Partner at the Pedowitz Group in a luncheon and panel discussion on these exact topics. The event is on Friday, September 25th, and more information is available here:
http://success.eloqua.com/?elqPURLPage=2557
For those unable to attend this event in Atlanta, I will definitely share the ideas, thoughts, and discussions that come out of the event with the audience here.
|
|
|
||||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
