Subscribe
Subscribe via Social
Selling Is Not War
I admit it. I’ve used military analogies from time to time to explain both strategies and tactics. War analogies are easy to use, easy to understand - and easy to misapply. For years, I’ve written about the various myths of selling, but the one that just gets my goat is this one – Selling Is War.
Recently I came across a sales oriented blog that finished their message on selling strategies with this paragraph:
If you are in sales, you are perpetually in a state of war. All salespeople are warriors who must fight the relentless march of time and enemies who are trying to defeat them daily. Sales is an intense hand-to-hand battle fought between two people or two groups of people who are each trying to win over the customer. The victor outsmarts, outmaneuvers, and overwhelms his enemies. In sales, just as in war, there can be only one winner, and today’s conqueror can quickly become tomorrow’s vanquished. The deciding difference is strategy.
If I searched the world for one paragraph that was at the focal point of what is wrong with selling, I could not find one better than this. What scares me about this, and why I’m pointing it out in this post, is that I think a lot of executives and salespeople believe this philosophy.
After reading the paragraph a couple of times, I admit that I’m not sure whether the author is saying that the customer is the enemy, the competitor is the enemy or both. What I do know, is that author is clearly communicating that sales – at it’s core – is a win/lose proposition. And this belief is at the core of why businesses are being so relentlessly commoditized.
Let’s be clear – SELLING IS NOT WAR; and any allusions to selling as war make your job as a fast growth executive or salesperson more difficult. Is it any wonder that top performers and brilliant salespeople bristle at the idea of “selling.”
The reality is, selling done right, is
• A win/win proposition
• Collaborative
• Creative
• Value Creative
• Fun
War is rarely, if ever, any of these (and the war referred to above is clearly none of these). So, let’s drop the silly war analogies, and get back to creating value for our prospects, customer and clients. When you do that, your competition (the enemy) becomes irrelevant.
Amazon + Zappos = Not So Sure
On the surface it sounds nice. Combining Zappos.com with Amazon sure sounds like a powerful combination. Both companies care about their customers obsessively. Both are innovative. And Amazon has sure built an amazing distribution system.
But, I’m not sure. While I don’t follow Zappos.com or Amazon closely, I wonder if the sum is less than to total of the parts. While it certainly hasn’t been a wise idea to bet against either of these companies, I wonder if this won’t be looked at more as a distraction than an accelerator.
The purchase of Zappos.com accentuates the fogginess to the question: What is Amazon? The purchase by Amazon opens up the question as to whether the internal cultures of these companies will actually mesh. Will all of the things that made Zappos so special transfer after the purchase in the long-term?
It seems to me that Amazon is following the path of Ebay, who built a tremendous business by disrupting the auction and classified advertising businesses. Ebay was a world-beater and could do no wrong. Then, in the name of synergy, Ebay went on a buying spree. The result has been a company that has gone nowhere.
Apple, on the other hand, has followed the path of going deeper and deeper to delight its core customers and to allow new customers to find the core. As the graph below highlights, Ebay was a far better performer than Apple from 2001-2005 (disclaimer: I am by no means saying that stock performance is the key factor in judging success, I’m merely using this to highlight a point). As Ebay spread itself thinner, Apple became a far better performer and has outperformed Ebay by a factor of 8!
My recipe for success is that results equals focus times velocity. I wonder if both companies wouldn’t be better off in the long-term if they had pursued their own paths and increased their focus. We’ll never know. But in this time of celebrating the marriage of two wonderful companies, it’s a question worth asking. What do you think?
UPDATE: Just read a take on the merger from Seth Godin. While he doesn’t clearly express his opinion about the merger, his observations echo my thoughts. When you look at the list of “what Amazon is buying,” it doesn’t contain anything that Amazon hasn’t already built – thus making the rationale less than clear.
Carpe Opportunitas
Seize The Advantage! I’m seeing it. Businesses and consumers are beginning to lift their heads out of the sand. They’re hoping – they’re waiting. What are they waiting for? For someone to step up and really make their lives better – and I mean really.
What does that mean? It means that those companies that step up and create and deliver on a resonating promise will see profitable growth – and loyalty – beyond their wildest imagination. Companies that stop making buyers sacrifice will become the sellers of choice. They’ll gain such an advantage that it will be a generation before their competition will be able to narrow the gap. Don’t believe me – check out this study from The Kaufman Foundation. I love the tile, by the way: The Economic Future Just Happened.
Think about what that title means. If you haven’t radically changed your approach to the market, you’re now behind. So, ask yourself – and start answering:
- What would you have to do to deliver a selling proposition that was so resonating your desired buyer wouldn’t consider going anywhere else?
- How can you make money doing it?
Less Is More – Can Newsweek Do It?
I’m fascinated by what is taking place at Newsweek. Newsweek, whose circulation once stood at 3.1 million, is looking to decrease – that’s right DECREASE – it to 1.5 million. They’re raising their prices, completely redesigning (or should I say completely redesigned) the magazine and the website. Gone will be the superfluous restatements of information that is available everywhere and instead they will focus on “in-depth reporting and argument.” They explain their new website this way:
Can they do it? Will it work?
My opinion is that if they can do it (which is a big if) – it will work. In an era where more and more people are throwing more and more crap out there, people are looking for a semblance of order. I applaud Jon Meacham (the editor) for moving in this direction, and I hope he will be able to stick with it. I’m sure they’re going to make some mistakes and it my hope that his board will allow him the time to find the right pace. Here are some points Meacham (and every body else) should pay attention to:
- Be really, really clear on who your audience is. This strategy can only work with a maniacal focus on who your customer is – and who it isn’t. I call this the first rule for creating demand: Know and understand your customers better than they know and understand themselves.
- Respect the audience. Make sure that the advertising you present to them is every bit as worthy of my attention as the journalism you are promising. Remember that your customer is your reader – not your advertiser. Too many media companies say this very thing, but then act in a completely different fashion. Don’t bombard me with data that doesn’t mean anything to me – if you do, I’ll stop paying attention and you’ll lose the very asset you are looking to monetize.
- Don’t take shortcuts (this is a subset of point 2). Allow the time it takes to create a new relationship with your readers – both old and new.
- Content is king. You are making a big promise – now keep it. Give me great journalism – and be a maniacal filter for me. Do those two things, and you will become must read.
I applaud Newsweek’s decision to focus on its core and to be great. I’m even thinking about getting a subscription.
What do you think? How can you apply Newsweek’s strategy to your business?
And Now For A Presentation About … Me
I’ve tried to be diplomatic. I’ve tried to be refined. Now let me be blunt.
Your buyers don’t care about you.
Don’t take offense, it’s not personal. It’s just that they don’t really care about what year your business was founded, where you are from, and why you think you are different. They’re too busy worrying about themselves to care about that stuff.
Why am I writing this? Because today I was asked to review a presentation from a client who was complaining that their presentations “just didn’t seem to resonate,” and the client couldn’t understand because it was their best stuff.
How did the presentation start? You guessed it – with the client’s credibility story. But, it’s not just visual presentations where I see this. In my speeches about Creating Demand, I have the audience go through an elevator speech type exercise. 90% of the responses are some form a credibility or capability statement like:
We’ve got 35 years experience providing on-time delivery to manufacturers…
Look, I understand that you need to include this type of information (or at least think you do). If you are going to use it, save it for the end of your presentation – or better yet write it in story form and package it as a leave behind.
There are three problems when you start any presentation with this type of information:
- It’s boring
- Your competition has their own version of the same stuff, so it doesn’t demonstrate any difference, and
- It just adds to the noise.
A far better approach is to start off by provoking your customer/audience. How can you do this? Try one of these techniques:
- Lead off with the results you client is going to get
- Lead off by stating the problem your client is having – and state it better than the client could
Value Adding Your Way to Oblivion
The fundamental purpose of marketing is to differentiate. As I shared my post Monday – the problem with differentiation is that when everyone is trying to do it, it becomes meaningless noise and customer ignore it.
In today’s excerpt from my speech at EO’s Nerve Conference from last week, I share this insight – what I call The Value Add Trap. Think about the last time a salesperson said to you, “this is our value add.” What was your visceral response? The problem with traditional, offering-centric approaches to marketing is that all they end up doing is adding to the complexity. In today’s over-complicated world, buyers just shut you out.
Instead of taking a company centric viewpoint, start looking at everything from the persepctive of your customer. The simpler you can make their life – the more powerful your value proposition will be.
Commoditization & Noise
Last week, I spoke at an EO conference. EO is a great organization of leading entrepreneurs and the theme of the conference – Nerve – was to seize today’s circumstances and turn them to their advantage. I spoke about my favorite topic – Creating Demand.
Over the course of the next few weeks, I’m going to share some of the insights I made (and have been making) about creating demand. Today, I highlight the underlying cause that is making business tougher, and why traditional marketing approaches just make things worse.
The “noise” that is created by traditional marketing methods makes connecting with customers and prospect almost impossible. Overcoming the noise barrier with more noise, more “we do’s” won’t work.
What can you do instead? Stop forcing your customers to understand you, and instead make them feel understood.
Be My Fan – Please?
Early in my sales career I was given some of the worst advice ever – it nearly destroyed by career. “It’s a numbers game,” I was told. If I could rid the world of one destructive, commoditizing thought it would be that piece of advice.
This philosophy shows up in a number of places. Most recently, it has shown itself as more and more businesses are turning to “social media” to drive the outreach programs. As more and more small and mid-size business (SMEs) executives and salespeople are looking for new ways to stand out, they are experimenting with things like LinkedIn groups, Facebook pages and Twitter. I applaud this effort – however, please stop demeaning yourself by begging and peddling for “fans.” (For those that are not familiar with these tools, fans simply means people that decide to follow your posts and/or be alerted anytime you put something up on one of your pages.)
I’ve lost count of the number of requests I’ve received recently asking me – no, begging me – to become a fan or follower of their new endeavor. This idea is clearly rooted in the idea that if more people are “fans”, then you must be more successful. In reality, this is just another example of modern businesses taking a quantity/volume approach over a quality/profit approach. I am not impressed by the number of followers you have,nor is any reasonable person that I am aware of. I am, however, impressed by the quality of followers you have. One of the ways I judge that is by judging the quality of your content.
It’s funny, I’m a big (BIG) Bruce Springsteen fan – seen him more than 30 times and I’ve got tickets to see him several more times this year, plus I’ve turned on hundreds of people in my life to his music – and he’s never once asked me to become his fan. He takes the harder route – he did (and continues to do) something great and I became a fan. I’ve found this principle exists in business today – those that ask me to become a fan provide the least value; while those that provide great value never feel the need to ask. The more we pursue fans (remember, that’s short for fanatical) who are not really fans, the more we reduce the impact of having actual fans. When that happens, no one is better off – actually, it’s one of the reasons that marketing professionals are in the trouble they are in.
I guess it’s human nature to look for the shortcut – the easier route. Look getting people to click a button to become a “fan” is relatively easy – it’s a lot harder to build a true fan base; a community of people who are connected to what you do and care – passionately – about what you and your company are. It might look better to have thousands of people signed up to be your “fan” – but I’ll take the few that really, truly care.
Are You Moving Fast Enough?
As I was perusing my online news sources, I came across this headline:
While we’re watching “creative destruction” at its best/worst playing out in front of us, I wonder how many small and mid-size business owners are making the very same mistakes as GM and Chrysler have.
Stories of success and failure are always written in hindsight – and in hindsight, the cues of success and failure are obvious. It’s easy to see where the auto companies screwed up. It’s easy to compare them to Honda and Toyota, whose sustainability is not being questioned.
But, I wonder, how would you look under the glare of the microscope that the autos are under? Are you moving fast enough – or are you incrementalizing like the auto manufactures did?
The absolute worst thing you can do today is to make incremental changes. The market will not respond to incrementalization. You must act big and move boldly. You must accept today for what it is. Determine where you business is now. Determine who are most likely to be your best customers tomorrow and focus maniacally on solving their problems better than anyone else – and I mean anyone else. Discover which revenue streams are taking more resources than they are worth, and reallocate your resources to those areas of revenue that will be profitable tomorrow. You must train your people to perform differently – and that means increasing their business acumen.
If you fail to move fast enough, you don’t have to worry about the President commenting on it – but then again, you probably won’t have a golden parachute like the auto executives have either.
Be Useful
I heard some of the most powerful advice for any growth oriented executive or salesperson:
Just because you can’t sell anything right now, doesn’t mean you can’t be useful.
The advice came from Dan Sullivan, the founder of The Strategic Coach – a lifetime focusing program for successful entrepreneurs (on a side note, The Strategic Coach is a great program. If you’re not familiar with it, you should check it out). The advice really hit the mark. I often say that the mark of a great salesperson is one who can “sell” when there is nothing to “buy.” Dan said it better.
The best companies, and the ones who are going to get through downturns stronger, are the ones that focus on being useful to their clients, customers, and prospects first, with making a sale coming in a distant second. The amazing thing is that the more you focus on being useful to someone, the more often, and the easier, you make sales.
The Truth About Innovation
I’ve always been a fan of innovation. I firmly believe that innovation is at the core for all value creation, and that any business that fails to innovate is destined to the ash heap of history. When I speak to groups of CEOs, I regularly talk about the importance of innovation. As a result, I’ve learned that there is very little understanding of what innovation really is. Too often, innovation is considered with new product development or, even worse, new hi-tech applications.
Last week, I came across a compelling article about The 12 Different Way for Companies to Innovate. You should check it out – it’s must reading for anyone who wants to harness the power of innovation for their business.
Here’s some of my favorite excerpts (with my comments in green).
- But what exactly is innovation? Although the subject has risen to the top of the CEO agenda, many companies have mistakenly narrow view of it. They might see innovation only as synonymous with new product development or traditional research and development. But such myopia can lead to systematic erosion of competitive advantage. (Right on the mark)
- Viewing innovation too narrowly blinds companies to opportunities and leaves them vulnerable to competitors with broader perspectives. (Again, right on the mark)
- In actuality, “business innovation is far broader in scope than product or technological innovation, as evidenced by some of the most successful companies in a wide range of industries. Starbucks Corp., for example, got consumers to pay $4 for a cup of latte, not because of better-tasting coffee but because the company was able to create an experience referred to as “the third place.” (This is a great example that executives need to grasp. Starbucks didn’t “invent” anything, but they were one of the most innovative companies in the world – and certainly in their market.)
- Conversely, technological innovation in the laboratory does not necessarily translate into customer value. (Simply put, every great innovation starts when someone looks at the world from the standpoint of the customer and identifies gaps. Everything is just guesswork.)
- To avoid innovation myopia, we propose anchoring the discussion on the customer outcomes that result from innovation, (Hallelujah!) and we suggest that managers think holistically in terms of all possible dimensions through which their organizations can innovate. Accordingly, we define business innovation as the creation of substantial new value for customers and the firm by creatively changing one or more dimensions of the business system. (If it doesn’t create value it’s not worth doing.)
Now my favorite takeaway:
Business Innovation is About New Value, Not New Things.
The Urge to Merge
It should be no surprise to readers of The Fast Growth Blog that I am not a fan of mergers. Today’s latest “we’ll get stronger by merging” announcement between Merck and Schering Plough prompts today’s thoughts.
While it’s the big mergers that get the news, I’m hearing more and more of my clients (Imagine works exclusively with small and mid-sized business enterprises (SMEs)) float the idea of mergers as a way to get through the downturn in the economy). I’m hearing things like:
- “I had a conversation with one of my competitors and we got to talking about how we were dealing with the downturn. We thought, ‘Hey, why struggle when we could combine.’”
- “We’ve been thinking about how if we found a couple of companies that complement what we are doing, we’d be able to go-to-market more powerfully.”
- “You know, I’m getting frustrated working with limited resources. I’m really interested in what I could do with a ‘larger platform.’”
These all sound like logical, reasonable thoughts – worthy of consideration. They’re not. Why? Two reasons:
- Mergers rarely work. (I define “work” as after everything is said and done – do the resources (time, money and energy) that go into making the merger work produce better results than the same amount of resources going into growing the company/companies organically. Simply put, do I make more money for my resources after the merger.)
- All of the above reasons for a merger come from a position of weakness. The ideas are prompted because of frustration and struggles – not because of success and strength.
While I’m certainly over-simplifying (and possibly overstating) let me share the advice I give all of my clients who are considering a merger.
Never merge from weakness. Mergers from weakness fail 95% of the time. If you’re going to merge, only merge from strength. Mergers from strength only fail 60% of the time.
Now, I understand (and I hope you do as well) that no merger was ever undertaken where the parties merging didn’t believe it would succeed; yet most don’t. So realize, no matter how good the rationale for a merger is – the vast majority fail.
The reason mergers fail (especially for SMEs) is because they are a distraction. Making a merger work requires significant time, energy and focus to be spent on the internal areas of the company – not on the market. Additionally, if you want to find out what every weakness of a company is, merge. You’re sure to find them after the merger takes place.
Companies that are in a very strong position are capable (at times) of being distracted. Companies that are not firing on all cylinders cannot afford the distraction. They must be maniacally focused on the market – and nothing else.
Once you’re strong, feel free to consider the merger. Though my experience proves that once you get strong, executives no longer feel the “urge to merge.”
An Insight Into Brands
I’ve written before, and often said, that a brand is not what you say it is, it’s what you’re customers, stakeholders and people who come in contact with you say it is. The point is that you don’t control your brand any more – the market does. The best you can do is contribute to the conversation. (BTW, I am by no means the first, nor the most highly qualified to make this point, it is fast picking up consensus.)
Much has been written about Apple and the power of it’s brand. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a huge (HUGE) Apple fan. In December of 08, The Simpsons, spoofed Apple in the opening of their show. It’s worth looking at because a) it’s tremendously funny and b) it provides a great insight to branding.
A Little Perspective
Here’s what I don’t get – why are we giving the very same economists who completely missed this economic cycle the authority, credibility, and expectation that they have any idea when we’ll get out of the recession or how. My friend, client, and fellow blogger, Bob Corlett, points out that this time last year, only 2 of Business Week’s “esteemed” 54 economists predicted we’d be in a recession. I’d like to point out, additionally, that they made this prediction when (as it turns out from the “recession panel”) we were already in the recession.
I’m not complaining that they were wrong (though I’d like to add this to my complaints in college when I was forced to take a class that made no sense – but that’s a story for another day). My complaint is that we – yes, you and me – are allowing people who have no compelling history in predicting the future to create the narrative for how we should think. As a financial advisor, I was taught that past performance doesn’t indicate future results, and yet, we keep acting like it does.
Look, I admit that I have no idea when or how we’re going to get out of this recession. I have my theories – and I’d like to add that my prediction track record is just as good (bad) as the economic prognosticators. I have no control over this recession. I have little control over economic policy or any of the other things that dominate the news today.
- Here’s what I do control – my attittude, my behavior, and my actions.
- Here’s what I pay attention to – my customers and my market.
- Here’s what I know – there is a completely new reality. Of course, there is always a new reality, so the recession isn’t really different.
The recipe for success in this environment is the exact same as it is in any market condition:
- Know and understand your customers better than they know and understand themselves.
- Focus on the results you create for your customers.
- Create value in everything you do – especially in the sales and marketing process.
- Listen to the market – it is always right.
It’s time for a new narrative – we control our destiny. The fabulous thing about America is that every day, 300 million people wake up, believe and act in accordance with the belief that they can make their life better. The more we focus on that, the faster we’ll get back to a feeling of normalcy (even if it’s a new normal) and the better off we’ll all be.
McStarbucks
When all creativity is gone, when any new idea for value creation is lost, the answer appears – discount. News that Starbucks is launching its first value meal is the final nail in the Starbucks coffin. It is time for Howard Schultz to step down. For the group from Seattle that made “triple shot, grande, skim latte” sound normal to admit defeat. As a longtime fan of Starbucks, I am (unfortunately) not shocked by the announcement. Starbucks has been falling down the discount trail for some time.
Check out the article in USA Today – it’s a great lesson for any business owner/executive of how to contribute to your own problems. Some of my favorite excerpts, with my commentary in italics.
- The food and drink “pairing” program, which Starbucks actually refuses to call a value menu, rolls out March 3. The only thing worse than a premium brand discounting is trying to spin their way out of it. The company that used to pride itself for treating its customers as intelligent must think we’ve gotten really stupid.
- The move — something CEO Howard Schultz vowed he would never do — comes at a time when the coffee giant is spiraling down. No comment necessary.
- Starbucks, once the model of the New Economy, has been concurrently hit hard by three powerful forces: a recession, changing consumer habits, and growing competition from fast-food chains. The article overlooks the fourth – and most important force: Starbucks inability to stay true to what made it powerful and special in the first place. You can blame this on the recession, competition or consumers, but the reality is this is a problem made by Starbucks for Starbucks.
- The move by Starbucks is glaring evidence of how retailers and marketers have been forced by the economy to rethink game plans and long-held strategies. The move is not evidence of how the economy is changing strategies – it’s evidence that when you stop creating value, you start to kill your business.
- Additional price-cutting is expected at Starbucks soon. Enough said.
Starbucks was a great story. They did something special (and polarizing) for a unique group of people. For years, they were as focused on Who their customers were as Apple is. They didn’t kow-tow to their competition, they practiced customer-centered innovation. They grew aggressively and carefully. Then they believed they were the cause of their success. They forgot it was their customers who granted them what I call a Demand Creation Monopoly™. They stopped doing what made them successful to begin with. Then, when they realized they were in trouble, they acted in the very same way as companies they used to displace by trying to shortcut their way to success.
In today’s economy (and frankly in every economy we will see in the future), the recipe for success is clear – serve a unique set of customers uniquely well. Anything else will bring failure – sooner or later.
-
Resources
Doug's Washington Business Journal Columns- Intelligent Growth Articles
Third Wave Selling Blog
Products to Grow
