It is one of the most error-prone stages in a sales process, and many sales reps find it difficult to get this right. This is mostly due to the fact that majority of the work put into the design of a Pitch happens right in the middle of all the account-planning action. Now, one can't take that factor out of consideration, but one can make things easier by suggesting the way a sales rep should attempt designing of a sales pitch for his/her client.

For everyone who have been selling for sometime now, you may be aware of the build-up to this "event". You have already figured out the people involved in the buying process (or the decision matrix), the buying pattern and behavior, the key-priorities or pain-points, the triggers for buying, etc through the first stages of your sales prospecting process.

I have used the following model for building up a sales pitch and it has worked for any deal size and domain, and I believe this can be used by all sales reps to have the best pitch ready for their clients.

The idea is to check for the following parameters in the pitch while designing it, and ensuring that these parameters are maintained as an important part of the design.

I call it the UMAP model. Which stands for:
U - ease of Understanding
M - Measurable with the right metrics
A - Actionable with the right triggers
P - Promise of the solution as the central theme

Lets understand each of them in detail:


Ease of Understanding-Many sales pitches are not taken forward because of either non-clarity of what the solution actually does, or over-usage of technical details that doesn't resonate well with the knowledge levels at the client side. Buying process, as we already know, has an amount of emotional bit attached to it, and while the client-side-representatives would want to think they made a "better" decision and be emotionally happy for the same, they will throw out anything that they fail to understand - labeling it as non-conforming to their knowledge. With the kind of emotional inconsistency that they may have during the sales pitching process, one can do better by not bringing in artificial bottlenecks into one's pitch. Lack of understanding or non-clarity forces people to behave according to their backup-styles and that's not good news for any sales closure.
Ensure that your pitch reflects the way your client consumes information and the usage of technical vocab is limited to the necessary items only. Clarification (in detail) is required for each action point/trigger that you feel they should consider while deciding on the deal. Don't "dumb down" the pitch document or the presentation. Just ensure that it can be understood in totality by the client-representatives. Put specific information in different sections, use visual representation whenever possible, and provide enough backup data for the important factors so that the client doesn't ever feel that there is an iota of risk involved in their decision.


Measurable-
Measurability is one of the biggest issues in the sales pitching process, and an error in this leads to discounting issues, wrong definitions and estimates of results, and therefore a very dis-satisfied client at the end of the cycle.
Most sales reps avoid this at their own peril. There is a general yet self-defeating idea that the faster one reaches the decision making point, the better it is. To reach to the decision, therefore, the client makes the most safer choice of arguing which solution is cheaper so that if it fails, then it wont hurt much. So to actually expedite the closing process, sales reps inadvertently end up complicating it.
Defining the right measurable factors of the project/solution is the best way to begin. It sets the right expectations, and defines value-additions, measurement-range, etc for the deal and the client can now be motivated to work on these factors rather than negative-price-function-factors (like discounting). A client who knows measurability also understands "why?" they are getting into this association and how results will be coming in or will contribute to the revenues directly. If a sales pitch clearly argues on the measurability and its important definitions, then other bottlenecks are taken care of, and future issues are avoided


Actionable-
A sales pitch should always have the focus to motivate the client towards an "action". The action could be in any form - a final meeting with the economic-decision-maker, a confirmation, submission for finance approval, etc. At all times, a sales rep should design the pitch to ensure that it doesn't waste much decision-making time of the client. For example - if I am aware that the client has a specific need of a component in the pitch to even refer it for final approval, I need to ensure that it is mentioned properly along with the larger plan.
Also, after kind of knowing the budget and their constraints, one cannot pitch something thats really beyond the affordability band of the client. I have seen sales reps practice this to try and close somewhere near the maximum budget that can be afforded by the client (and sometime this is done to get a higher pedestal during the discount negotiation stage - expecting that's going to happen anyways).
Wastage of time is one of the worst things that can happen to a deal and a client will want to avoid that at any cost. A lot many deals are lost because of lack of actionable and doable factors. Either Clients don't get the sense of "call to action" anywhere in the document or the presentation, or they find the whole thing undoable. Give the right triggers throughout a doc or ppt to the client through case studies, improvement graphs (again visual-repn), time-lines, etc that depict what can happen if they act "now". The opportunity cost of not acting needs to be really high and something that can never be ignored.


Promise of the solution as the central theme-
All through your sales pitch, you can't waver from the central theme - which is actually the "solution" itself. But the commitment of the vendor needs to be mentioned in every possible way throughout your pitch. That will enable the connect to the deal remain constant throughout the discussion of the pitch. There should again be proof that such solutions have helped related organizations in the industry and what were the learnings of your company (vendor) from such projects. This needs to reflect in the suggestions that will form a mainstay of the solutions pitched. No one wants to work with a vendor that hasn't learnt anything previous assignments and hasn't had the maturity to handle such assignments. The promise of the solution therefore, is an important part of the pitch.


UMAP model allows a sales rep to clear out any clutter in the pitch or the pitching process, and focus on those 4 important things that matter. These 4 factors will be appraised by the client-side too, and if they find any of these missing, then the resultant discussions wont go in favor of the sale rep.

Imagine a sales meeting, wherein a client is aware of every information about your product, every sales technique you would use to get the order, every discount model, and every mind-game trick that you may have. Imagine, the client controlling your actions and making you feel that they can look straight through you.

Yes, that's where you might feel you are "naked" in-front of your client.

There are a lot of things that have contributed to the ways the buying process has changed in the last few decades, but the most important of them would be:

- Internet: and the relevancy of networking, discovery of info and content, online forums that now serve as reference points, etc has had a phenomenal impact on the way sales used to have an advantage in information asymmetry or the way sales techniques were used to close deals (all out in the open now). Add to this the availability of automated enterprise level software

- The lack of evolution in sales processes across the world - mostly in the sales-driven companies that mattered. The very behavior of such practices across these organizations led to an environment wherein people empowered themselves with every kind of info to negate the kind of negative-value sales-reps were adding to the deals/decision making process

The very power of knowledge/information along with the kind of networking strength with early adopters, gives today's clients the edge and the abilities to decide and always have an upper-hand in deal making situations.

So, for a sales rep, who used to thrive on supplying data pointers like - industry trends, competitor data, analysis of problems the client has/had, etc. now has to face a client who is already aware of all these things in totality. The age old sales techniques like - smooth talking, buttering up the conversation/client, consultative selling, coercive selling, discounting strategies to close deals, conversations to wrong-foot the client and close deals, etc are extinct. At most times, these techniqes are a reason behind sales reps losing deals and client. The whole concept about "up-selling" has also now gotten regulated and controlled by clients themselves.

So if you are a sales-rep and you are standing naked in-front of your client, would you be seen as an Old, flabby, non-athletic, paunchy person? or would it be better if you atleast have the body of an athlete that's young, maintained, muscular, toned, and could run the marathon?

If you already know the answer, then the following needs to be done:

- Forget the age old cliched sales techniques. In today's open-info world, you are a facilitator in the buying process at first, and then you can graduate into someone who needs to have strong and impeccable business sense to suggest the "quantum" of your product that needs to be used for a certain delta improvement in productivity/revenue at the client's end

- Reinvent yourself "every-day" (this is key) and understand business requirements of your clients in your domain. Read more about the analytics in business that could be a point of discussion during your meetings with your clients. I always like discussing a good topic with someone who knows what he/she is talking about, and then I would listen to additional inputs from the same person. So if you really want to "sell", then get yourself prepared for having those conversations

- Ditch every coercive technique you might have learnt, and every smooth talking ways you might have mastered. Those techniques might be useful while you bargain in your own domestic buying process, but they scare away clients who will see you as a repulsive being, who cannot be trusted and have no respect for their business or their team

- If you really want to run the marathon with your clients, then let them see that evidently throughout your Account-planning process. They need to know that if they run the marathon with you, you will be there throughout, and not run away right after the deal is inked. Some of the best sales-reps follow
-through with their clients throughout the process wherein the solutions are implemented (How many times have you not heard of clients complaining that the sales rep promised something and I am being given something else now?)

- Understand priorities and the importance of such priorities with the group of people you would be meeting at the clients end. Motivation and power factors, alongside other important issues at clients end need to be studied and then that should reflect in your conversations, presentations, etc. Challenges that they face in internalizing a deal or a decision is a strong factor for your closure. Don't you want to do something constantly to improve their chances internally for a closure?

- Stop being defensive about what you can do or cannot, since they are aware. At most time, your openness to discuss the parameters of improvement that can be implemented in the product you want them to buy can also help them see that you are strong enough to make those changes knowing very well that limitations are a part of every product at any stage

- Participate in all required/related forums, networks, etc wherein your clients might be present for information. It is always better to know their queries, worries, troubles, and opportunities and be respected as someone who has the required expertise to provide insights without being directly involved in the sales process. I already have many such examples in forums like - Quora, Focus, etc.

The idea of a naked salesman is haunting, and it can also have a humbling effect on anyone who feels that he/she has the charisma to sell anything under the sun. Those days are gone when you would use tricks and be termed as a sales magician. In today's world, wherein there are questions whether field-sales makes sense or not and if companies should invest in internal-sales teams, it is pertinent that we evolve the sales function into a much stronger and defined entity, rather than hold on to the already extinct philosophies that need to be put into coffins sometime soon.

The new age sales rep might actually not be naked. He/she is just not that "ordinary" sales rep anymore.

There exists two separate hypothesis explaining the "positive" or "negative" function of price on decision making (in a sales cycle). The first one is the obvious Value perspective theory, wherein the buyer is told about some sort of "value" being added to his organization or his process if he buys this product or service. The other is the Cue Utilization theory that states - a client will try to overcome the uncertainty and the lack of information (at his end) by selecting one or more "indicators/cues" as a "basis" for their assessment of the quality of the product.

Most of sales literature today focuses on the first theory (that of Value perspective) wherein we are supposed to establish the value of the service/product with the client so that price function remains positive and discount issues etc do not plague the deal.

In most cases (inside a buying process), the product evaluation is connected to the "involvement" of the very people buying the service/product.

The decision making process can be defined as -
fn(Cognitive thinking, Affective thinking), which basically leads us to understand the role of emotions in the buying process. For most humans, there needs to be some trigger in the buying system that makes them feel happy over a given choice.

Generally, the negative price function leads a buyer to believe that the given "price" and the resultant buy will be a "sacrifice" the buyer must make to obtain the product. This "sacrifice" is also linked to the status-quo that the buyer experiences throughout the buying process. For a Value perspective situation, the seller will be trying to establish something of high-value at a good price, but the factor of involvement by the buyer at that time and how he perceives the value will decide on the polarity of the price-function.

This is rampant across B2B deals wherein a complex decision making matrix is active at all points in time. There are people who do not see "value" in the same way the other person in the group does, and therefore it creates multiple-value points for the sales person to establish. In a common meeting, therefore, the final decision will be affected by the collective perception of "value" by all members at the clients end. The essential characteristic of involvement is related or proportional to the perceived
personal relevance of the "value" at that "time".

The Cue Utilization theory, on the other hand allows for a positive price function at all times, because the person (at an individual level) will be trying to tag a cue or indicator other than obvious value of the product, to overcome the uncertainty in the buying process. This gives the sales person an excellent opportunity to define these cues for these people. The cue could be related but not the actual solution that is being pitched. Also, there should be multiple cues arranged for each person in each stage of sales process.

Example - For a Business School, I might be trying to sell usage of a communication platform like Pagalguy.com over a period of 5-6 months, improving "reach", "brand perception", "multi-channel-attribution" etc. But the cues might be relevant and different at the same time. Certain things like "measurability", "introduction of new and effective medium", "integrated marketing system for the institution", "effects on placements", "high or low risk of use for this medium", "lesser losses in the system", etc can be of importance for the people in the decision-matrix that they may attach to the product or service as an Indicator to cast their vote for the buying process.

Therefore the idea is to always think through the cues that can be given to the buyers at all times to maintain the positive function of price. Since these cues will improve involvement and therefore emotional score to buy the product/service, it will therefore always improve the chances of sales closure at all times.

Such implementations of this theory can also help in dealing with discounting impulses, demand, goodwill for the product that they are going to buy, etc. To have a well thought out strategy for the same (value, Cues) will be pertinent with respect to account planning strategies.

Today's organizations are striving towards operational efficiency and rationalization of their functions/processes by trying to redefine the parameters and usage of existing processes using new age technology (along with some algo).

While some of the functions have improved by such technological inputs and have been automated to a certain extent, there are a lot of other functions that cannot be fully automated, or need the kind of human-touch to keep exponentially improving their outputs.
Sales teams have seen such changes post SaaS models came into being, wherein most of the sales occured through carefully designed interfaces of online demos, marketing literature, trial period, online buys, etc.

Here was a system wherein if there was a defined set of requirements of a particular domain, then one could design something that would be used by the early adopters and then gain traction as word gets out. The biggest assumption was that power user themselves will ensure that the product gets more sales and no field sales team was required for this business. Trouble happens when cross-functional teams work on projects and such SaaS chosen by technological teams then fail to impress the "other" section about usability or interoperability. Since most of such issues are difficult to trace for automated systems, companies have witnessed abrupt shifts in usage of services, thus affecting business and top-lines. Why did so many companies choose to have a go-to-market strategy without even a small field sales team? Why was Customer-Acquisition-cost the only metric considered whereas there was an equally strong Customer-loss-cost - which was the reality at most times?

There is no debate that SaaS companies chose to define the field sales teams in the same old decadent views of how sales is done. I guess the reason behind this was also the fact that these companies were startups that didn't have a clue as to how they would be able to attract rock-star sales reps who would redesign go-to-market strategies and solve the sales complexities for them. I figure that with a potent field sales team, these SaaS startups could have sealed larger deals with corporations wherein a smaller user group were sold on their services, but the sales-complexity didn't allow for further
growth in getting more users from across functions to use the same service.

From B2B dilemma to a B2C problem -

When one buys Facebook Ads, and spends a good amount of $$, one doesn't approach a sales team but uses the interface to buy required inventory and have his campaign online within minutes.
This is the case with ecommerce sites, deals, etc. that have a tendency to practice something known as "Advertising Pulsing". This is a practice wherein a firm or an advertiser switches advertising ON and OFF at a high frequency. Many a times, such advertising pulsing is justified to be an equilibrium advertising practice wherein the advertiser wishes to advertise on the platform on a certain time and then goes off the platform expecting lesser returns of every additional advertising $$ spent.

There is a certain S-curve that is followed by some advertisers as a reference point for deciding when to actually switch ON and OFF their Ads on a platform. This is a curve wherein the first half of the curve is super-linear and then it proceeds to become liner ending with a sub-linear trend.
The question that advertisers ask themselves at most times is that at what value of their $$, the P(Sales response | Advertising) is super linear and how can that threshold effect be replicated over the total time period of advertising?

Hypothetically, advertisers believe that the Advertising effect "decays" over time and therefore "pulsing" is the most effective cost saving device. We are aware that the Advertising response is always a function of individual response and probably an aggregate response calculation for a specific kind of ad/domain. Most firms who believe that advertising effect decays, overlook the fact that to a large extent, advertising influences product demand - which is mostly the long term consequences of advertising and therefore the S-curve isn't the right representation of what is the optimal dynamic advertising strategy. The optimal strategy is actually derived from either the demand side of advertising or the supply side. At most times, advertisers go ahead with linear ROI calculations to judge the potency of an advertising medium and therefore take decisions on advertising strategy, but that is the most incomplete way to go ahead deciding on frequency and presence of advertising in a particular platform.

A more accurate depiction of advertising effort is probably done through the GRP, that captures the typical exposure of people to advertising in each market or each week, along with the intensity (frequency and reach) of advertising each week. But this is hardly used by our advertisers since the measurability definitions are set differently and most of those definitions are set on the premise of pulsing being the most effective strategy. Most of the Ads today provide such an option without asking any question. I am sure that automation of FB ads doesn't solve any of these, and therefore performances of brands using the platform at a given period of time begins to decline due to the strategies they use at their end. There ought to be a certain sales team at FB's end or probably FB can use newer definitions while launching a new Ad-format, to explain this concept with enough data - and to let these advertisers know that if the exposure to ads in a certain threshold period is improved and extended, then there will be improvements in profitability.

To change a premise for people's buying behavior, you will need to change the definitions of their objectives or results. So when I need to understand the success of my advertising in FB, I need to be given the correct understanding and guidance of how my advertising actually worked - in terms of GRP, goodwill, extended product demand, etc and shown a projected value of returns if I continue in a certain mode. It can no longer be only about clicks, or CTR or views, etc. and needs to be a system wherein better metrics are related to profitability over a period of time.

Reference: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pmanchan/IO_files/Dube_Hitsch_Manchanda_QME_2005.pdf

Some of the best sales reps today are the ones who not only have the ability to solve larger problems in their sales processes, but also should acquire skills that can be defined by a function of "Business acumen" and the knowledge of client's business.

I am into helping my clients identify and implement effective communications strategies (online) and then measure+improve such campaigns with the best practices of marketing2.0.

One of troubles that I saw my sales reps face (in the initial days of selling), is that they used to jump into the cliched sales conversations of how if the client uses our products, they will be making a right call and then get good results etc. The focus was only on solution selling. It works for a certain deal size and a certain client type. But as clients improve and more complexities are added into the buying process (aided by more also-ran companies, services, etc), the need to do more than solution selling becomes important.

Since at most times, my clients use my services to address their marketing needs, I ought to understand how some of the best practices in marketing will help them achieve their objectives. Most A-players are worried about their clients business, else the kind of growth in the revenues-per-client will drop drastically.

I need to underline the following while designing the marketing-prospecting stage for them, along with the conversations that I will have with them:

1) The buyer has changed. The persona of the buyer can now be defined as Buyer2.0. I will need to include this fact at the core of all explanations for my client

2) Marketing2.0 includes the best of 360degree branding options. The client needs to understand these options, their characteristics, measurement metrics, and the time needed to be invested

3) Behind using each marketing channel, there is always a specific strategy in mind. Integration of all marketing channels is important and this will help the client to use the synergy of all activities and communications to get to desired objectives (including brand-connect)

4) Content mapping. This is an important part of my prospecting stage anyways, but it also has an important role to play in my client's communications stages. The client needs to understand how content mapping will help in creating a loop that will in-turn help in engagement with the final users

5) Multi-channel attribution and how the mechanism works. This will give my client the idea of how they should map the responses of online/offline communications and how to make sense of the 360degree structure that they are following. This will allow the client to measure and understand the importance of each of those options used in the campaign

It is no longer just enough to understand the product of the client, or the industry. Its pertinent that I am aware of the process end that the client will realize through my services. This kind of engagement goes beyond the normal definitions of sales, but has now become an integral part of the sales-reps work everyday.

New models of such engagement with the client need to be designed everyday by sales reps. This is like creating/curating content, and then sharing for better value. Imagine a sales team wherein every person does this creation/curation of content and then shares it with the team everyday, so that each of those solutions can be referred for designing better value for all our clients.

There are two sides of the story of Sales Compensations - mostly of the ones that are linked to performances.

One side of the story revolves around "you". This is where you are responsible for setting individual targets (probably beyond the targets given to you by the company) to earn a certain commission or bonus. For a certain type of sales people who are driven by such impetus, its possible that they hit the targets pretty well (the ones defined by themselves). They consider this as Success. So what transpires post getting to the targets is a calculation of the amount of bonus and commissions that they are to get for their work.

The second part of the story has the "company" at its core. In this part, the complexities of human thinking and company culture mix together to create a rather difficult situation of growth inside the company - for all such salespeople who have performed well. Almost every company who are operating under the "pay-for-performance" mode and at times @100% commissions only salary structure - subscribe to "capping" the bonuses and commissions for their own sales people. So there is a Level 1 cap that is always in place for such a structure.

The Level 2 is defined by the salesperson's choice of target and probably the kind of money they want to make out of their sales revenues.

The problem arises when Level 2 grows beyond Level 1. This will happen when the salesperson starts making more in bonuses and commissions than some of the top-management folks (and definitely the HR, who controls the process and feels people are getting so much more money unnecessarily), and therefore people running the company start wondering "How much money is
actually good money to be paid to such sales reps?"

So the clash between Level 1 and Level 2 invariably brings the following:
1) Frustration for the sales rep
2) Disbelief amongst the work-force
3) Low sales output
4) Loss of good sales players
5) Overall fall in performance of the company

Managing expectations is difficult when you have performers who will go after the numbers set by you (since you really know Nuts about anything related to human potential to defeat numbers), and therefore such clashes are imminent threats to most of those organizations. Gone are the days of door-to-door typewriter selling where the sales-reps had to be good looking and talk-nice/polite and have amazing charm to sell products. Sales reps in today's world are people with high end cognitive skills and are supposed to be innovators in their own way (in terms of new processes, sales systems, models, etc). Building such a commission based system will defeat the purpose of good sales reps and then the inconsistency of companies to live upto the fact that some people will make a lot more money than the company estimated will open the pandora's box of worms and redefine the worth of a salesman.

Isn't this avoidable? and isn't it worth taking a shot at solving such problems at the outset for an amazing sales organization?

Questions:

1) How do you address the complex b2b buying process that can delay deals and hit your sales top-line? How would you design a sales process that will take care of such a complex system and produce conversions?

2) What are the different parameters you would use to identify the market opportunities (market share, revenues, conversions)?

3) What would be your content marketing strategy and how would you map that to the sales prospecting process for your sales-team?

4) What are the important success factors that you would want your sales reps to keep in mind when planning for a quarter? Why?

5) How would you ensure that you provide enough autonomy to your sales reps so that they can plan and implement their own processes with very less deviation from revenue-goals?

6) What would you suggest to your sales team to do for mastering the sales process every-day? How
would you ensure that such a system is scalable?

7) What according to you is the larger purpose for the sales team that should motivate them to go beyond normal performances and strive for brilliant results? How would you define such a purpose?

8) What are the important things that you will check for a sales rep while Hiring?

9) How would you improve on the critical success factors that will affect your top-line, and how will your sales team be involved in this process?

These are the questions that you can help answer-


1. How much time should one take before making the second call (while cold calling)? Why?

2. How many touchpoints, ideally, are required to get the first meeting with the prospect? Why?

3. How many meetings are required for closing an account? Is there a difference in pattern when considering various types of clients? How many hours ideally needs to be spent behind each prospect and why?

4. What are the best opening lines for large accounts? What are the opening lines for new clients or those that don't value your offering?

5. What is the schedule of micro-closures that once should plan for in every meeting in the prospecting phase?

6. What are the pitfalls to avoid to not get anchored into price points/discounts? What are the common mistakes?

7. When does one get to understand that the deal is rotting? When should one keep an alarm for such things?

8. What are the steps for educating a non-digital client?

9. What is the ideal "Deal-Exit-time"? (i.e. when do you know that you ought to exit from all communications of this particular deal and it wont make any more sense trying to talk to them?)

10. What are the best followup mechanisms and content?

11. How do you dislodge people from their own status-quo and initiate their buying process?

12. How do you figure out decision makers (without playing around with people's egos)?

13. How do you figure out what to pitch to the client and how do you know if that's the best for the client? Is there a way to design this?

These are not the 5 "only to do" things in sales, but these 5 points can actually help you solve some of the problems that act as sales-bottlenecks for many campaigns/clients

(1) Establishing the premise of 'Status quo"Most clients I have worked with and have successfully closed had one thing in common - they were worried about "maintaining status-quo and failing". It literally means that they didn't want to carry on doing the same kind of work every year to get to desired outcomes. I agree that it takes a lot of inward-thinking to understand that such a thing is necessary, but the good part is that this can also be counseled into their thought-process. One starts with explaining their current set of problems, maps these problems over the next year and then probably 3 years (with all things remaining the same, and others improving) and then predicts with a good amount of certainty on the Results expected. I have seen such a discussion scare the wits out of them.

(2) Providing the "escape"Like all emotionally tired souls who need an escape, these clients too need their own emotional 'blue-lagoon' that promises them real-time solutions to their set of worries. Now its very important that one defines these things for clients openly - Why are they supposed to be looking at certain business success factors? What is the extent of the solution that the client will have once they decide on choosing me? How will it all look when they finish the first cycle with my solution?
People buy emotionally and it doesn't change much once your standard set of deliverable and value-adds have been discussed and understood. The part of the brain that gets activated when the final moments of the decision is to be made, many of my clients have looked back upon the so called "experience" in the overall buying process/discussions process. The Limbic-system (or the cerebral cortex) fires up during these times allowing your actions (including the consultative sales part, the questions that made them think "Wow", etc) become important along with the set of deliverable.
Since you know this, the "escape" from their problems needs to be presented in an impressive and strong way so that it makes an impact. It's something that will take away most of the stress, risks, worries on new-age-tech, and a whole lot more so that decision is all yours.

(3) Reassure them about the "expertise"What's your image in-front of your client? Are you a sales-rep? Do you do things the same way that your most pathetic competition does when they sell? Do you remind them of the kind of (bad) experience they had with another guy who had something similar as a solution? Considering they will be emotional about all these, you can ruin your chances by not setting course on the "Expert" Mode.

You solve the problem by designing the first set of meetings and their objectives that will provide a game-changing experience for the client. You will probably have a longer Phase-1 of your sales cycle, but your Phase-2 (Closure) will happen quicker and without any pricing issues.

(4) Allow them to see the "passion" in your conversationsMost top quality sales guys care for their clients business. If you really do, then please note that this care and passion needs to come out in all conversations, emails, etc so that they know you are taking this seriously. Your knowledge about their business (for my clients, I need to know their application numbers, channels from where they got specific application numbers, improvements in their numbers YOY, new campuses, new programs, issues with regulatory bodies, etc) will allow them to understand that you are deeply involved in this process and you can be trusted with a plan you design for them.

Why else would anyone really bother to look at your plan?? You can't fake this passion (Sorry!) You will need to really worry to make that thing happen

(5) "Paradise" isn't cheap
Many of my clients have asked for abrupt discounts. At most times, such requests were mostly to figure out if I really trusted in what I was selling. Things like - " I get something like this cheaper from X and Y and Z" and I told them - "I don't price my products on someone else's incompetence in understanding value and business". It is not alien that what comes at a cheaper price is also bundled with other bad things, but people want to feel "emotionally" charged when they get something measurably good for their company. At most times, they are appreciated for that. So when the client doesn't understand anything of my product, the best thing he would do will be to get the best of something that he understands - money!

If you have REALLY done the hard work and taken them through the above pointers/stages, then the conversations are much better. Imagine walking into a laptop store with your mother and all she wants to do is to get a deal of 50% off on something you really have researched and know of. How would you feel? Whats the first thought in your mind? Knowledge and emotion is a heady mix that can give you the best advantage. Paradise isn't cheap for anyone.

In my experience of working with companies that intend to use marketing channels (some planned and others as a part of new experiments), I have come across a large bunch of people who do not have the "budget" for doing something that will give them sensational results.

For you to be doing the right thing in marketing, you ought to:
- Do what is needful NOW and what makes sense given the kinds of communications that work TODAY

- Use the best of mediums and tools available TODAY and therefore get the kind of expertise to use such tools

- Look at brilliant user engagement opportunities and design for the results that will give you the kind of revenues you can ACTUALLY achieve rather than what you can hope to achieve this year


At most times, marketing activities are planned based on the following:
- Budget: which is again based on the kind of revenues that one did last year

- Tools: monolithic ones that are considered safe-bets (coz it worked somewhere in the past) while common sense and knowledge tells them to use the new-age media (which actually works)

So with such a premise, most companies can fall into a downward spiral once the economic factors hit them hard and they have bad results (topline) to show. It definitely means cuts in marketing spend, hires in marketing team, and a long list of regrettable decisions.

According to me, an ideal way for any company to look at marketing will be to first set higher goals to achieve as revenues, market shares, etc (which is contrary to common beliefs amongst companies who intend to shoot down ambition first thing post a slowdown) and then figure out the best activities in marketing that one will do to get that kind of sales/revenues.

So if you started with the premise that its a Clean-slate this year and your company can achieve amazing amount of revenues from the available market (as well as new market-share), then you will plan for an amazing and creative marketing program that will get the best results for you.

But the fundamental problem is - How will you fund this marketing program??

The answer is hidden in the way we should look at solving such problems in a way a start-up would. Most startups don't have any money and they generally have to work hard to get working-capital to move up and chain and become a larger player. Most of such startups go for seed-funds or venture-capital which is essentially credit from a certain source.

What if you run your marketing program in this particular way? Get funds/credits from some source and then use it to fund your marketing program of this year. This will not be limited by your last year's revenues and failures in marketing tools. Since you know that you ought to pay back the loan, you will ensure that you are getting to the numbers promised by your team and marketing activities.

So will it be a bank? or a special fund? I really don't have an answer for that, but for me this idea has the potential to solve the larger issues of companies dying out due to a practice of anchoring your future based on your past, whereas they should be looking at making the future work.

The future holds the promise of an evolution in marketing practices, tools, theories, and a whole lot of innovations that will allow companies to engage and connect to their customers in more better ways then ever. If past mistakes/errors and dogmas define the future designs of marketing programs, then there is not much hope. (Example - The way Indian B-schools are shutting down today)

As someone responsible for the overall revenues and the evolution of my sales team, it's quote easy to fall prey to the calling of "controlling" outcomes.

I am sure that we are all eager to control outcomes in our own ways - by designing systems around us, defining processes that have a certain "algo" feel to it, and also by solving our problems (manpower, sales results, etc) via sacrifices of quality work.

The moment my universe/ecology begins to be seem like something based on my definitions and rules, then its easy to feel comfortable and believe that "all is right". This feeling turns out to be momentary in most cases since it takes a large blunder or a case of something not working out, to attract another set of rules and design changes in my working process.

So, there are pertinent questions:

(Q) Do I solve my problems - market share, revenues, manpower etc. by using my definitions and rules?

OR,

(Q) Do I allow my team members to become better everyday through providing them with Autonomy in what they choose to do, finding their own purpose to work, and mastering their skill sets through a customized and well-supported individual learning model?

At most times, a Sales VP would want to solve things (rather control the solutions) by trying to answer the first question. That's probably because its easier to track what I know I can, and therefore it is better that I allow only a certain deviation in systems that I design and control. Else I will probably have to figure out individual plans and a more complex structure to grow my team to be one of the best in the world.

Example:
I want to solve the market-share issue of a particular territory wherein the present team has been getting the low hanging fruits pretty well but hadn't had the time to prospect for the larger volume of clients. I can easily ask the current team guys to take up more work and figure our ways to close more sales in their territory. I know that they have worked hard and can do the job if they are pushed to go after more prospects-per-week and improve conversions.

But, are these team guys interested in such selling process? Are they going to get better by doing such work? Will that let them define larger goals of their quality work?

The easiest thing for a Sales VP and definitely the blunder one can make with the current team is to force solutions into an existing set without bothering about analyzing individual objectives, work-ethics, possibilities, and growth plans.

There ought to be guiding rules and set of expectations that are preset for a team, but pushing in new rules and targets just for the sake of an easier solution for my problem will dis-allow my own people to grow into better talents of future. If there is a need for a new team with a specific skill sets for a new problem then I should get that done properly rather than to push people with different skill-sets and growth-life-cycle into my solution.

If you cannot believe that people develop organically (and not linearly) then you ought to get out more often.

For many years, sales practitioners and mostly industries that evolved post the industrial revolution successes had treated sales-work as a menial job that had a set rules to play with and a carrot-stick job role that looked at people who would make a living by meeting customers and 'selling' them some product to get a commission at the end of the day. People didn't need cognitive skills to do such a thing in the early days and customers needed a good story and a well groomed person to sell them anything under the sun.

Times changed as did customer profiles. Along with industries that produced for the masses, now there were organizations that created solutions and products for other organizations (Enter B2B sales). With organizations spanning across geographies and sometimes across continents, large sales-forces were witnessed. Training for such sales reps changed as did the sales process to meet the complexities of such buyers and buying process.

What didn't change was the "perceived" motivation for a sales guy.

They were still getting "rewarded" on the premise of the past, wherein the demand of advanced skill sets were already getting implemented through new age sales guys.

This led to a divide amongst sales reps - giving birth to a normalized population wherein there were always judgements on the quality of sales reps across the board (the A players, C players, etc), but not much happened to solve the problem at the right premise.

Some of the brightest kids fresh out of Grad-colleges saw sales as a such a menial job that majority of them shooed away any prospect to join the profession. "Marketing" (an available condition provided to such kids then) came as a packaged profession interspersed with cognitive brain-work, strategic roles, etc that they didn't find in Sales.

Some have argued that Sales isn't a work that can be enjoyed and improved upon throughout one's lifetime. I guess these very people drew the lines and laid down the rules that took this professions by its horns and turned it into a "dirty job" role.

It seems that the best way to get sales reps to do their work is to promise them commissions on the sales quota they achieve, a quota which is already defined by someone else and not the sales person himself/herself. People feel its less brain work and more of "spraying and praying" work that these sales reps master. How can their cognitive strengths match up to other professions like - technology, product designs, editorial/news, (marketing!!), and even finance?

The problem of sales' demise in the middle ages (lets say this was around 25-30 yrs back) has been the kind of people who were chosen to populate the profession. Agreed that there were some of the best brains who actually changed the scenario in the last 30 yrs from the same batch, but most of the lot at that time actually allowed some of the best minds to steer clear of this profession.

Why should anyone join the profession if they find no respect in the kind of work and no quality work happening at any point in time?

Thankfully, all that seems to change now and I believe the profession is set to evolve. Most of what sales reps used to do for their living during those years are now replaced by technology and therefore are obsolete. The core functions still remain but are evolved to a large extent, and everyday, salesreps from across the world are trying to solve larger problems.

However there is a lot that remains to be done and changed:

1) Change perception that one can do sales for a few years and then master marketing (Dream On! Coz it never happens that way. it takes a lifetime to master sales and its completely different from one's perception of learning)

2) Change motivation factors (We are not High Class Hookers who get paid for a performance with a client. We are highly creative, with high logical-mathematical skills/intelligence, and an amazing work ethic+persistence combination)

3) Change the amount of Autonomy given to sales reps. Good quality work doesn't get limited by designations, work experience, hierarchies, etc.

4) Change the ways of development for Sales reps. There won't be over emphasis on pathetic "training" modules with one-size-fits-all approach. Mastery over sales practice needs to be done everyday. Get that as a part of the culture.

5) Change the purpose for the sales reps. Sales is not only to get revenues and profits for the company. It is an ecology that involves the customer, and very often they are ones who bear the brunt of sales-gone-wrong. Higher "Purposes" exist and they need to defined. There needs to be a vision for sales reps in each company - one that will super motivate them to push themselves to the edges of excellence and bring out brilliant work and results without any tangibles promised as a part of the salary.

There is promise of making such things happen at every organization and there is hope that today's sales organizations (kinda micro-organizations inside a company) will be able to implement most of this.

So what's a b2b-marketing-program all about? Why do we need something like that, and is there any reason to spend quality time devising marketing strategies that will aid b2b sales?




A major part of our b2b sales goes behind prospecting the right way. A large prospecting bin along with the quality of the prospecting done, goes a long way to define the end results in sales.



I wish to combine this prospecting stage and the account planning mandate together to define a b2b marketing program. Both prospecting and potential account planning are supposed to be brilliant for sales reps who are "A" players. These stages set these people apart from mediocre talent.



Consider the following diagram:



As you can see, the process of prospecting begins way before the real time account planning happens (i.e. when sales reps are meeting people at the clients end and devising resource specific plans). So if you are a sales guy who has a territory and you have already done the following:

(a) Categorized the clients as per spending capacity, buying behavior, usage, technological expertise, etc. and

(b) Identified their needs that are in line with trends and challenges that you can help them solve,



Then you will be required to look into the prospecting stage seriously to ensure that you close more than 75-80% of these prospective clients in your market/territory and also earn the respect and permissions for future sales and servicing.



The Marketing program for such clients who are not into your sales funnel needs to be customized to their individual demographics and psychographics. This is the stage wherein you understand how many people are involved in the decision making process and what are their roles. You also understand at what stages in their learning curves are they functioning that will either help or create bottlenecks for your deal. You will need to know the history of their buying patterns and also understand the kind of media-consumption behavior that they have (for example - do they consume news via newspaper/RSS/websites, etc). You don't want to design webinars for them while they may never sit through such a session at any point in time. You will also need to figure out the motivations for each and every individual as per the role they play in the organization. This is key to customizing messages for them throughout your marketing program.



The marketing program doesn't end at the start of your sales meetings and actually continues into the sales engagement process that you will have for your client. Most times, my sales colleagues misinterpret the sales engagement communications as marketing messages, or vice versa. The point to be noted here is that sales communications are direct and have a different way of consumption. Marketing programs and the related communications will only be support to your sales activities through the sales-engagement phase.



A perfect marketing program will also allow you to preempt all possible issues, bottlenecks, exit points, and therefore you can actually have a Plan A and B for each of the scenarios in place. This is like the game of Chess - you will always have one more move against the opponents moves. Its about understanding and predicting the possible issues that will plague your deal.



A note of caution - Always remember that your involvement in the client's solution doesn't end with the signing of the MOU or the payment for the services. What you have sold them - the "solution" that they are meant to get from your product/organization - begins to take shape after your sales-engagement process ends.



Therefore all communications that are designed for your clients through the marketing program and sales-engagement process should explain at all times the deliverable schedules, expectations, etc. properly so that they never feel that they were lured into buying something that wasn't what was delivered. Therefore, practical data and factors should always be the core of your marketing programs.



Sales reps are the best people to design such programs and therefore I firmly believe that amalgamation of the two functions being served by a single person is the best way forward. Sales and Marketing programs are intertwined and therefore a single mind can plan and execute both the programs perfectly, being accountable at all stages.

As a sales rep, I have been witness to many sales programs and processes that were part of a larger picture in an organization. While at most times, the focus was on getting to the numbers and revenue targets (or, the "What?" part of the equation), the sales teams weren't really bothered to understand the larger picture of get to answer "Why?" were they doing something in the first place.




In B2B sales, we are aware of various stages in the sales process and each stage has its own best practices and guidelines. There is a entire process-flow that can be designed to kind of automate the best practices via conversation matrices and pattern-recognition algorithms. So training a sales rep in that direction isn't that hard and most people with good logical-mathematical and interpersonal acumen will pick up things pretty smoothly.



The tougher part is to be a part of the larger picture or answer the "Why?" for your team or even at individual levels.



For across all sections of the industry, there are some large lofty goals that are held close to the hearts of the top-guys (or top-management). I am not saying that these necessarily define the sales goals or the larger picture. Those organization level goals can merely state the direction of the company as a whole and the direction of future products at best.



The "Philosophy" of a sales team and its beliefs based on such a thing is the most difficult thing to establish, but once it's done it will contribute to sales success in ways that are unimaginable. Every-day as we (sales reps) sell and follow the beaten-down processes, we should always be aware that all this are a part of a larger cause.



For super-performing teams and individuals, such philosophy would define their work and the kind of gratification they will derive from such work. So what I am saying is that its doesn't need to be tangible factors like money or perks that can bring out the best, but the philosophy alone will be the factor that has the capability to create word-class teams and exponential results.



I believe that my sales targets are not derivatives of last years numbers, and that I should start with a "zero based" system for every person in my team. I have been asked that in such cases, how is one to identify with the goals and objectives of this year and therefore plan out the stages in sales process! My single-point answer to any such doubt is the "philosophy" that I follow and want to inculcate the same into the teams and people who work in my team. The philosophy alone can allow you to:

(1) Create the mandate for this year and the kind of numbers possible in this year alone

(2) Be objective about all strategic factors, sales plans, revenues, top-grading of sales process, marketing programs, etc.

(3) Recruit "A" players with ease and induct them into the team of performers



I want some of the best suggestions on best practices and research to come from each individual in my team. That's the way super performing teams are made and sustained. I am not a believer that the sales person's job ends when he is done with his work of closing the deal. I am sure he/she will have the accountability beyond that - a fact that can only be identified when the guiding philosophy is something so strong that it inculcates a behavior within the team and individual. No incentive scheme can bring this kind of behavior within any team.



For example:

At present, I am working on the philosophy that - "We will help each b-school in India to top-grade themselves and become world-class Institutions". There are no sales numbers of lingo attached to this statement. But if this is the starting point of my sales process, I will be ethically attached to creating value for the b-schools who are my clients along with my company. I will fight to create some of the best marketing programs that will help me to sell some of the best solutions to their respective needs and have a servicing team that will provide world-class help and suggestions - leading to an amazing result. I know that this whole statement is a large picture that I will help get painted, and I have my own tools to get that done. I will definitely act, think, and implement differently than any other guy in the market or who will meet my clients.



With all things remaining constant (including the best practices in sales and marketing), I will be able to create a niche for myself through my philosophy. Anyone who would join my team will right away be introduced to this idea and I believe that it will then be easy for them to connect to all that I practice and believe in.

I wanted to devise the simplest way to understand account planning for sales reps and the following matrix is what I have been able to come up with, that can define and broadly categorize the matrix of a complex decision system along with the expected behavior from each section:


There can be different combinations of the people who have power and motivation to make the decisions:

Lets denote Power as "P" and Motivation as "M". The degrees can be denoted as "h" for High and "l" for Low.

Therefore:

M(l) x P(l) = a person who doesn't have any inclination to do anything for your deal. Simply a time waster, but be careful, this will most probably be the "Gatekeeper"

M(l) x P(h) = the person who has been handed down a senior level job but hasn't been given the authority to take any call on any important implementation that you, with your sales and product, are going to do. Sales people generally always get delayed rejections and mostly no good response from these people. They are known to use phrases like "I have forwarded, now let's see", "We will get back if interested", "Our board will take a call and then I will let you know", etc. Mostly frustrating roadblocks.

M(h) x P(l) = in my domain, this is a faculty member that has all the motivation and fire to make changes happen but doesn't have any kind of power to get anything implemented. However, this kind of person at times can be someone who will possess technical knowhow and can be consulted at a later date. The kind of meetings one gets to have with such a person is always great and sales people come back to me reporting that "Wow, what a meeting", to later recognize the mistake to just anchor all hopes on this guy

M(h) x P(h) = the toughest guy to meet and explain your proposition, but ultimately the one with all the power to sign that deal and cheque for you. The Economic decision maker is the guy who is one with vision and capabilities of implementing the same.

Please remember that all 4 categories are important and therefore should be a part of your account strategy. The fact is that if you have chalked out this strategy for each of your clients, then you will have probably mapped each and every activity and future steps properly. You will know the power relationships and also understand the issues related to each person, their motivation anchors, etc.

This is definitely one of the most important things to sell successfully.

I will start by defining what I mean by open-ended performance: This is a situation wherein there are no targets and no limit to achievements. A person or a team can go about redefining the revenues or numbers every year, and each year's sales plan starts with a zero-based process (no calculation of linear trends or progression).

When I have met some of the senior sales guys across some industries, I have heard a common thread of issues that they think are relevant to their performance and the measure of it. The most important of them all is - achievement of targets and the extent by which they surpass the number given to them (monthly/quarterly or even yearly).

Unlike technology or product, wherein the achievement for the tech guy or the product guy begins once the product is developed, a sales guy's job ends with the customer buying a product or service. Which means that a sales guy's hard work gets the deal closed, while a tech guy's or a product guy's achievement sets the ball rolling for future business. So if I am a tech/product guy, I get two shots at performance and the obvious payout - Developing + Launching a product, and getting the benefits of the product performing well.

For a sales guy who is giving his best shot and creating the kind of excellence through his work and perseverance, the performance parameters allow him only shot - that of total revenues generated, to claim that he has done great work (and probably get his due rewards).

So we have a problem here - in one hand I am asking sales guys to give their best and redefine numbers for themselves (become thought leaders in their own domain), and on the other hand I am aware that and open ended revenue target may lead to these sales guys being taken for granted.

Why will they be taken for granted?
Its like being best at all times gives others a feeling that that's your normal performance level. So if you are performing at a specific level X (quantified by the sales revenues, market share, etc) in a particular year, what will be the quantum for the next year? How much growth is really good growth in performance for you? Who decides that?

When you as a sales guy are defining and then redefining the revenues you can achieve, and then go ahead and achieve those numbers, how does a company deduce the performance parameters for you? How does an HR get that done? Is it even possible to have the best sales guys work in that kind of format?

I believe that many sales guys are not giving their best shot because organizations have designed their performance parameters (or the pathetic KRAs system) in a way that will allow these sales people to perform and excel in targets every year without giving 200% to their job. But since there is a cap on how much you can achieve, things are easy. Set 100 as the benchmark, and get 115, and then you are eligible for a reward on performance (some 15Y as a component). But how does this allow sales guys the environment to perform at their best? I am sure some of them do and then are not bothered with the kind of pittance that's dished out as rewards. But the majority are more concerned with the "extra" that they earned for the company.

Let sales guys themselves define what they think are the best ways to reward a team that redefines its own targets and works with a open-ended zero-based system. How does anyone else understand the way this team will work but the sales guys themselves? Why not have internal performance reviews in the team and everyone decides what will be the performance benefit that the team will enjoy? I believe that might be called fair.

When I hire for my team, its a transition for a lot of sales guys brought up on the cowboy cultures prevalent in organizations across the geography wherein people are nothing but expended bullets. So these guys get a shock when they figure out that in here, there's no way to cross an "extra" line or target. The idea is to set such high standards that you get to become the reference point for others. Those are times I have seen people becoming worried about the kind of money they will make of work they will do. It takes real strong will to go after something that is not defined.

I am dealing with this issue of buying behavior and patterns in my daily work, wherein the ticket sizes/deal sizes are dependent upon the way my clients are planning to spend money on Online marketing.

I have been experimenting with this issue for sometime now and I don't think its a sales problem. I am almost certain that through a sales pitch, the whole behavior of buying online ad space or advertising with us, will not change. This is due to the fact that at most times, the entire decision matrix that involves too many people to sign on the proposal document, doesn't allow something so big (to change buying patterns) to take shape.

For me, its a marketing problem. Which needs to solved by engaging these people in every Decision-matrix through a well thought-out communications strategy and a whole lot of other related activities. I was wondering how I pay my investment premiums every month and how did I or my wife/family decided upon going for multiple Mutual-fund options.

The consultant who takes care of our portfolios did not increase our spending or buying pattern. It was through other people that we all decided to go ahead with something larger and spread across a selected number of funds.

Through my sales pitches and through the meetings I have with top-execs of these institutions, I try to drill down the points of how they should behave when they are planning to top-grade themselves. More often than not, those suggestions are taken as cues to buy my product. Ultimately that might be the main thing, but there is a lot of data and sense that goes behind each of those suggestions to improve buying media and optimize the strategies for maximum results.

I will get them at a different setup and a different time alongside people whom they will listen to. Sales cycles need to be shorter, and revenue per month per client will have to be maximum. Top-grading at their end cannot happen by simply following old methods of media buying and have so called "Official Policies" that they have to have an Advertisement on TOI and other such publications.

There is a revolution in how applicants are receiving, deciphering and reacting to information. Print ads are not effective any longer if I can take the word of some senior guys in the education industry. Then what's stopping institutions and Universities to have a larger online marketing plan or engaging applicants online? Maybe they are scared or maybe they lack the required IQ. But they are good at one thing - following others. Its high time to get those front row guys moving and then let the others follow.

In recent times, when I have tried to educate some of my clients about how online works for them and how they should use it properly to communicate with aspirants from across India, I have come across people who actually bought something or some idea because it probably made them look cool internally (to their bosses).

The list includes things like - SEO, SEM, social media marketing, Google's Adwords, etc.

The trouble in dealing with such people is that post their thought-orgasms, they tend to get the flak (as nothing works properly for the institution for sometime), and then have this withdrawal syndrome when they meet sales guys like myself.

I tried to explain this with the premise that most of these so called initiators inside business schools or institutions, are people who have been kept on roles but are necessarily asked to do the job of an external consultant - that of getting admissions or students. They are not meant to think and give ideas, and in the rare occurrences, these people face the music of wasting time and money of the school. BAD GATEKEEPERS.

There is another category though that are asked to generally handle administrative activities (recording files, getting the owner's son his lunch, etc). However, these guys are very docile and generally are very cordial in meetings. Somehow, they always fail miserably to push that file or presentation that I would leave for the senior management guy. BAD GATEKEEPERS Again.

There are Senior management guys too who would buy such fads because some senior colleague told him (lied actually) that in their institute this idea is being used successfully. Since they have limited knowledge and they never learn the secrets of using these new ideas, they fall flat and then blame everyone who's involved with such ideas.

I feel its like partying without wearing your underwear. When you are dancing and people laugh looking at your behind, you blame the party and people around you.

The folks brought-up in the pre-digital culture have real-time trouble in making the right moves when it comes to embracing the new tech and things that they need to learn in that. The only hope is that when they retire, and the next crop come in, things will change.