Another quarter-end is fast approaching, and as always, some of your reps are on the fence. They’re one deal away from crossing goal, but most of their remaining opportunities are coin tosses. It’s hard to predict whether that last bit of revenue will come in, or where it will come from. So what’s the best strategy for shaking loose a few more deals in these situations?

As deals enter the late stages of the pipeline, we all tend to make assumptions about what it will take to compel our prospects to complete the purchase. Some of these assumptions are valid; but others may narrow our thinking. For example, many reps assume that they’ve reached critical mass once they’ve talked to 3-5 stakeholders. But customers tell us a different story. They say their typical decision-making group has around 8-10 members.

So how do we help reps avoid these types of oversights?   Read More »

(This post is the first in a three-part series about creating compelling sales messages.)

“I’ve tried everything with customers, I talked about their needs, I tried using smart questions, I pitched features & benefits of our offering, I even led with our company’s values…and no matter what, the conversation keeps coming back to price…”

This is an all too familiar challenge voiced by sales reps across company and industry.  There’s no debate that the world of business-to-business sales has changed dramatically in recent years. Companies are looking to sell bigger, more complex (and therefore more expensive) solutions…while customers are looking to squeeze every penny possible out of their suppliers.

The key question at play here: does a sales message exist for our company that can move customer conversations beyond price and position the buying decision in favor of our solution?

At the SEC we believe so, but you have to work to find it…

To build a compelling sales message, you need to understand what truly differentiates you as a supplier—those core competencies that the competition cannot easily imitate and which provide unrecognized value to your customers (at the Council, we refer to this as Commercial Teaching).  Armed with your differentiators, you’ll be able to leverage these in the sales interaction to positively change customer perceptions about the value of your solutions.

The Council suggests using a 3-step process to create this kind of sales message:   Read More »

(This post was originally written by Tim Stafford of our Finance and Strategy Practice.)

Most managers approach an interview in the hope that their search for someone is over. No one voluntarily extends the time or cost of the recruitment process.

This is good news for interviewees – it means that if they shine, they’re in with a shout – but for interviewers it means that, first, they must be solidly prepared before going into the interview and, second, they must have a process for comparing one candidate to another as objectively as possible.

Most readers of this blog likely work in sales functions at large companies, and so you must take one extra step for a smooth interview process: effective collaboration with the corporate recruitment team.  Beyond this though, there are four skills that interviewers can learn to make sure they get the right person in seat.   Read More »

Senior executives who are effective at talent management generate up to 7% more revenue than their less dedicated peers. Unfortunately, 8 out of 10 executives are either uncommitted to talent management, ineffective at it, or worse—both.

Talent management, though, is not a matter of skill (most executives have the business skills necessary) or time (effective executives and ineffective executives spend roughly the same amount of time on talent management): the issue is focus.

Executives should approach talent management strategically—managing key talent like a corporate asset that is developed and deployed in support of business objectives.   Read More »

In addition to the human impact of the tragic events unfolding in Japan, many companies are facing the potential of a disrupted supply chain as production slows and in some cases comes to a halt at factories affected by the earthquake.

To help our members respond to crises that have the potential of impacting customers, I interviewed Rick DeLisi, Senior Director with the Communications Executive Council, who has worked with members on responding to a crisis.

(If you would like to donate to the relief effort in Japan, please visit The Corporate Executive Board Giving Campaign to support the American Red Cross.)

According to Mr. DeLisi, for sales executives, the primary impact of a crisis is the “creation of a significant amount of uncertainty with customers. Any crisis heightens the amount of the ‘unknown.’”  As a result, members should be asking themselves, “are customers likely to make poor decisions with the information that they currently have?”

In response to a crisis, DeLisi recommends that the “frequency of communications needs to be significantly higher.” The worst thing that a company can do is to “clam up and neither proactively reach out to customers nor respond to customer inquiries.”  For sales executives, this means proactive communications to customers, especially key accounts or other large customers. The key thing is to up the frequency of communications with customers.   Read More »

In one of my recent member conversations, a VP of Sales was quite frustrated because his reps never seem to be on the same page with their customers – “Just when we think that we are ready to shake on a deal, the customer pulls away. How do we know where the deal really stands?”

Some companies choose a traditional route of tracking sales reps’ actions to gauge a deal’s progress – have reps made X number of calls to the customer, have they sent the proper collateral, have they taken the right subject matter expert on a customer visit.  This approach could work, if not for these two big problems.

• First, it’s highly prone to rep bias – it’s relatively easy for reps to overestimate the impact of a particular activity on the customer (just as it’s relatively easy for the rep to exaggerate the quantity and quality of the activities themselves).

• Second, and more importantly, there are many things that influence customer buying decisions other than rep activities – competitor activities, market forces, end-user demand, internal stakeholder priories, etc. All these have a profound influence on customers’ decisions—often in ways that are completely non-transparent to our sales people.

So, what’s left? How do we really know where customers are in their buying process and whether the deal is moving forward?   Read More »

I’ve been getting a large number of M&A-related questions lately, specifically on how to integrate two different sales forces, the challenges posed by new or changing roles and responsibilities of reps and managers, as well as the shuffling of accounts that normally accompany a merger. To help, I’ve compiled here some key learnings gathered from members who have integrated two different sales forces into one.

There’s not much here regarding the HOW – and that is by design – the idea of this is to validate what you’re doing as well as identify some areas were you could be putting a little more rigor.  At that point, we have resources (tools, templates, processes, etc) we can share with you to help you execute more efficiently and effectively in all of these areas.

At the highest level, you should think of M&A challenges on three levels:  customer, rep, and manager. And interestingly, of those three levels, the place most companies struggle isn’t the rep level—where they focus all of their time and energy—it’s the manager level.

Let’s review some of the key considerations you must take into account for each level:   Read More »

We’d all agree that we sell more complex offerings today than we did 10 years ago, mainly as a result of the shift from product to solution selling. Add to that customer demands for greater customization, and we’ve often got our reps dealing with more than they can handle.

The problem is selling large customized solutions complicates deal economics. Reps’ view of deal profitability is often shortsighted and doesn’t account for all variables and outcomes. Deals that on the surface looked profitable, end up as losses for your company in the long-term. And with most rep incentives skewed to gross revenue/volume metrics, reps focus more on closing opportunities quickly than ensuring long-term deal profitability.

It’s no surprise, then, that companies are considering establishing a new-in-kind function, Deal Desks, which is tasked with advising and supporting field sales on deal economics. A recent SEC Deal Desk Survey shows that 45% of surveyed companies have a deal desk function in place, while 35% plan to have one in the next 1–3 years. Of the companies that have a deal desk, 50% established one in the last 1–3 years.

But, while the need for them is clear, the survey shows deal desks are being tasked with a wide-range of responsibilities. Read More »

(This post was written by Tim Stafford for our Finance and Strategy Practice.)

Every team in a company seems to have one or two people that can accomplish large complex tasks – product launches, organizational redesign – at a speed and with an ease that outweighs their seniority or formal authority. These people are able to influence a course of events far more effectively than their peers.

Some are able to do this because they are naturally good at what management experts call “soft skills“, but many others have learned how to be influential; this is why those that set education policy have become as keen to develop children’s EQ (their “emotional intelligence quotient“) as their IQ.

There are a number of things that successful influencers do that can be replicated, and even formally encouraged within your organization.

Six Ways to Be More Influential

Read More »

(This post was originally written for the Communications Executive Council, our sister program for heads of communication).

Fear kills.

Think of all the phobias that are directly responsible for sub-optimal results at big companies.

The fear of making a decision (often described in government agencies as “paralysis by analysis”). Liticaphobia, the fear of getting sued (also known as “G.C. ya later”). And the one that afflicts far too many organizations — kakorrhaphiophobia.  Fear of the “F” word.  Failure.

Why are some companies more successful during times of change than others?  Why are some more adaptable, better able to adjust to their ever-changing environment?  What are the traits and qualities that make some companies more agile than others?

Here’s one hypothesis I’m really curious to get your reaction to:

Is it possible that one essential element of being great at change, is being unafraid of failure? Read More »