Magnus Marketing Blog

Sales training, when it comes to general process or construct stuff can be helpful. However when it gets more specific or is vendor sponsored, then sales training can become quite questionable. Case in point:

Recently, one of my clients enabled me to join a sales training session for a service that they newly launched. The service is rather new to the SMB market and requires a bit of strategic positioning, business orientation, and analysis in order to sell it. My client, the Owner/President, of the business informed me that the way to get the sales process going is to talk only with the CFO. He presented a script which talked only about a cost saving and implored the target (the CFO) to set up a meeting and some general collateral. He then let me loose. Well, I talked to a fair number of C-level executives, CFO and COO, even a CEO here and there and ALL of them directed me to the IT Director stating that this person would know the information and decide whether the service would fit. In fact, in speaking with IT Directors - it appeared as though they were the evaluators and final decision-makers for the service and could talk quite intelligently - as other positions could about infrastructure related issues. I also scrapped the script, favoring a more descriptive service/benefit pitch to help people understand how the service would work.

So, I attended the training session - it was the last of a series. The sales trainer, a semi-aggressive type with a bubbly personality quickly went through a bunch of slides. She mandated that the people on the call (many non-sales types) MUST get a meeting with the CFO, be a trusted advisor, talk about value, and get the appointment at all costs. Out of one side of her mouth - the CFO doesn't understand the service, it is new - you need to educate him about the service and talk costs, out of the other - get the appointment quickly. (Not gonna happen). You are a trusted advisor, she said, and not selling anything - you just want an assessment. And how many prospects are dumb enough to believe that an assessment isn't tied to "selling anything" - so you are just taking time up to waste time and talk to them??? Use the script we provided - repeat the same thing everyone else is saying with the same cost/benefit statement without explaining what you are trying to accomplish so the "uneducated" CFO will automatically invite you in. Sure. Also, pushing for a meeting without qualifying whether the infrastructure is there to support the service initiative is a ripe way to show how stupid you are. And the list goes on. I even asked a question about a particular objection I heard - which she replied, "Oh, he was just giving you the brushoff" - or at least she maintained that - until I went into a very detailed description of what transpired between me and the C-Level executive, to which she changed her tune quickly and advised me to "bring it up next time". Sure, no answer today...ok, maybe she had to think about it.

I felt sorry for the non-sales people on the call who would waste their time and sales cycle trying to meet and educate the CFO, while I was being a vendor meeting the IT Director to actually get into the company and discuss the service.

Sales is about following the organization, navigating, finding who is who and how it works. Maybe in some cases it is the CFO, in others it is the IT Director - but demanding it be that one, approached THIS way, for this reason is a cause for failure. Provide a value proposition, scenarios, role play, talking points and let the people present the service the best way they can to the right contacts who can make things happen - which isn't always the C-level, by the way. The C-Level has better things to do and usually that is why they have a qualified, intelligent staff of people who support them - because evaluating services and vendors is partly their job.

Yes this is a true story. A friend of mine was lucky to land a job at a staffing firm in a sales position. This was a small firm and the job was suited to her talent very much. Suddenly, I receive an email from her saying that an opportunity was available that she was pursuing and to be alert to a phone call for reference. I was skeptical, is she JUMPING jobs already? Not happy? I asked her what was going on, it seemed odd. Well, she told me that she joined the company on Monday and exactly 7 days later, 7 days, was called into the office and told that she did not generate enough business and that it wasn't working out. Unless the guy was lying to her because they personally didn't like her or was threatened by her incredible talent, this is one for the books. Gee, she didn't bring enough clients in one week for you to pay your bills for your newly renovated marble strewn office? Or maybe you thought she had a BIG book of business that would automatically become yours by bringing her on? Then, of course when you "had" her clients, you would terminate her.

People like that should be out of business and deserve to be. Using salespeople like commodity books and churning them. And, we are expected to move to a relationship oriented, less transactional culture by doing that? And, the salesperson gets cut and doesn't take the clients and book to another firm? And this works out win-win for who? It takes months for a good salesperson to establish themselves and build a strong marketbase, not a week. A week!

Hopefully, this agency will fold like the many others that have. Hopefully, my friend will get a real job with a good company that will value her talent and enable her to build their company. Let's not work for people like that or with companies that do that and restore professionalism to the business environment!

Oh, what a great Harvard Business Case study the Conan O'Brien/Jay Leno situation will make when someone writes it up. A great study in decision-making, talent retention, public reputation, ratings/money & profit, and more. I admire both Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien and enjoy their shows, although Conan's show lost its luster for me over time. I did enjoy seeing his show taped live in NY, went a couple of times. Here is my commentary.

1. If something is working, don't break it. Never, ever promise anyone anything that there is no intention on delivering on or put conditions on it. If Jay retired, if the ratings fell, if Jay wanted to go - then the show is Conan's to take over. It was just bad, bad, bad to promise and not follow through. It creates bad blood and a situation where regardless the person not only will leave, but leave for a competitor. Hey, I was promised a "Sales Intelligence Director" position which my employer reneged on, I was quite Conanized, so...I now have my own business, while my former boss got himself a job.

2. Conan stated that he didn't want to destroy the Tonight Show and he didn't have time to build ratings. On point one, he DID destroy the Tonight Show - all that was done was taking a "watered down version" (sans masturbating bear) of the Late Show w/Conan O'Brien to 11:35. He did NOT step into the Tonight Show and did NOT adapt his material to the 11:35 audience. I tuned out when the guy who repeats stuff loudly started the dumb stuff with Twitter. I quickly realized that this was the same stuff he did at 12:30 and my expectations were dashed. Brand equity means consistency. Everything from the set, music, and logo should have been retained with more mainstream "Jayish" skits, over time - the Conan stuff could wend its way back in to the format. Oddly, the really good funny stuff like the "interviews" with Arnold, Clinton, etc were removed. On point two, not only was he expected to take his core audience with him to 11:35, but those folks who couldn't stay up and wanted to see his show would tune in. Again, expectations were dashed.

3. Underestimated INDIRECT competition. Sure, the focus groups indicated Jay would work at 10, but they forgot about the new shows on CABLE. While CSI may repeat at 10, Drop-Dead-Diva (a super show) premiers in the summer. While I love Jay, I'd rather watch Drop-Dead-Diva on Monday at 10. Also, Jay needed to really keep it fresh and COMPELLING every night, the material and format at 11:35 competes well against other material (apples to apples - repeats, talk shows), he is competing with compelling storylines, ongoing characters, and compelling content (Dateline Mysteries). Having the Green Car Challenge everyday - BORING. 10 at 10 everyday- BORING. He should have mixed it up more, created some interesting stuff like: 1) a new comedian showcase, 2) popular hot star with extended movie preview, 3) entertainment scoop news, 4) fresh SNL type comedy skits, 5) hot music group. The idea was good, the execution was not.

4. KPI's. If the ratings aren't there, try something else. They cancelled both shows essentially before reformatting or "fixing" them to try to meet the public needs. Re-engineer the shows a bit, cut the days, mix up the format, anything before changing the line up.

5. Unanticipated issues and poor response. It didn't work and the effects were far-ranging. From unhappy affiliates to negative press to other late-night hosts gleefully destroying the targets, it became a public mess ever-widened by the blogosphere and social media. The suits at NBC really should have dealt with the situation early by making a statement much like Leno did earlier this week. The generational gap was also exposed as Leno professionally and upstandingly made a superior commentary on the situation, while O'Brien lashed out at NBC, Leno, and anyone else. Talk about bad-mouthing the boss, O'Brien got that down pat! Sometimes, however, that behavior is justified.

6. It's Business. With all the polarization for Leno or O'Brien, no one thought about the business end. The ratings drive cancellation, neither show performed well. Conan had his shot, he couldn't make it. Leno had his shot, he couldn't make it. End of story. As Leno said, "I have a staff of 175 people to take care of and when the boss offers you a job, you get humble"...like any great boss - both men had to look out for their staff support. No one seems to comment about the loyalty and concern for their employees BOTH of them demonstrated. It is beyond admirable. And, as usual, the executives who "dick around" with their subordinates lives suffer nothing. No one at NBC is having their head rolling! Accountability?

There is much more. Regular people like you and me have been through similiar stuff, but we don't make the entertainment news. Look at the polarization, disruption, loss of talent, bad blood, and overall general mess this situation has caused. It happens more often than not with similiar consequences from organizations like GE/NBC to tiny start-ups where the devastation can be even greater. Lesson noted.

Oh, boy, I may have written about this before, but many start-ups never see the light of success because of greed and unrealistic expectations. I was talking with a former salesperson who worked with start up and small businesses, we ended up passionately laughing together about our respective "careers". He said, most of the companies he worked with are gone and the options wallpaper - not pretty at that. He, like me, went from three year stints with tech firms to six months to less - that is when he too, became a consultant and then looked for more mature firms. He validated my opinions about the VC's and how, more often than not, they tend to take over firms and run them straight to the ground - all the while hoping to "strike it rich". A terrible oxymoron for companies that are supposed to be the economic driver of this country!

Just because a firm has a product or service and a few people buy it or like it or review it favorably DOES NOT MEAN it is the next Google. For every MILLION startups, probably ONE is Google! It takes YEARS to build a brand and build brand equity, HELL IT CAN TAKE A YEAR JUST TO GET ONE PAYING CLIENT. And, just because you get that ONE client, doesn't mean that the implementation will go well or more clients will immediately follow.

I keep working with start-ups that have so much promise, but with founders that seem to put greed or instant gratification ahead of actually building a business. They run for the VC's instead of finding out if the product has a sustainable market, they get a meeting with a larger firm and hope they will buy them out - not considering that slowly growing the firm can yield a few MILLION dollars, they build a product and go-to-market without considering if the product has any sustainable VALUE - all the while wanting to be GOOGLE. Amazingly, by doing really STUPID things, these firms which ACTUALLY MAY HAVE SUCCEEDED - end up in the wrong hands, end up becoming a mess in the client, cause the founders to lose everything, etc. and get steamrolled along with employees, managers, and clients.

A lot of tech products are me-too solutions and not innovative or comprehensive enough to fight the big boys, some have real innovation - but lack the resources, others are not business solution oriented enough. It takes a lot of backwork and time to build a company. Do the right things, do the market research, the trial sales, the marketing, hire the right people, prove you have a sustainable product and market before running to VC's or stay the hell away from VC money - if your solution is good enough - it will build a market ON ITS OWN. Resources will come to you if you have something worth coming to.

Be a SMARTTREPRENEUR NOT A DUMPRENEUR and maybe you actually will have the next big thing!

WOW, and there is a recession? You wouldn't know it from the last two weeks of activity at our friendly neighboorhood Kohl's stores. Once again, I have concluded my 10th retail Christmas and 7th at Kohls with much fanfare - actually a ton of cookies - some of which I MADE WITH MY OWN TWO HANDS.

The blizzard dampened our Santa and the Elves event which we do yearly - still singing with hats on - we encourage customers and all the clueless guys "looking for sweatsuits and Snuggies for mom" to ask questions. I personally love the holidays at Kohl's when we really can help customers who need it.

The thing that ruins the holidays is, like any other business, the bad Santa customers. Customers who destroy neatly (and recently) folded tables, demand rudely that you must do their personal shopping (over-reaching the help me find something for mom), and the last minute shoppers. The last minute folks were numerous this year, with I think, record breaking sales for Christmas Eve. Please, I implore those shopping, do not get upset when we have no Snuggies or matched sizes in on the LAST shopping day of Christmas, do not demand discounts and misunderstand your Kohl's cash acquisition at 5:55 p.m., and wait until 6 p.m. (store close) to bring a "Santa cart" full of merchandise. Like our manager, Dave (who I traditionally close with every year) announces - the workers do have families and events to get to. It is very unholiday spirit like to force the workers to work hours extra because of your thoughtlessness regarding gift giving, however your spending is appreciated.

The jolly elf turned into cranky annoyed elf running register at 5:30 when the lines went to customer service. OY. But it was fun. I look forward to closing with Dave again next year and the crew and more bellybusting cookies. Our new store manager is aces, real nice employee and customer focused manager...that too made it an enjoyable season. To another year at Kohl's, great sales, great co-workers, and overall nice customers!

Well, I am joyful to report that I did receive both my last payment and commission check from Arbita. And they had the respectfulness to communicate their apologies for the delay. First, that indicates that there was some condolences and recognition that I actually have to eat - particularly since I have to rebuild my client base. Second, apparently the human resource services market must be turning around which is good news for ALL HR services providers including technology, recruiters, and sourcers. Looks like Shally has some competition from Irina - an up and comer in sourcing and a lot of new technologies are coming out - the job market itself is soon to follow. Good news all around.

Perusing LinkedIN, someone asked whether the dial or the conversation was more important. I say in fact neither if it doesn't get you any further in the sales process! But seriously, first you have to connect to someone in order to have a conversation, then conduct the conversation to uncover the right information with the right questions.

It amazes me how in prospecting so many advocate leaving "benefit" messages and teasers and advocate not telling too much because then your prospect will have a "yes" or "no" and not respond. I ask why?

One of my clients engaged with a major manufacturer and is reselling their service for small to midsize companies. The major manufacturer, who is not doing that well in the market anyway (and whom I invested a few bucks), send over sales support material. I was shocked by the quality or lack thereof of the material designed to "engage the C-Level" prospect. All the material drove for was a meeting - get the meeting and business will come. Actually, after using their script and engaging in a dialogue with a "C" level prospect, I quickly realized that if I set up the "appointment" it would have led nowhere as the "C" level person had no clue about the particular parameters involved in the service - his IT Director, however did. I would have wasted my client's time, his technical support manager, my time, and the "C" level contact following the advice of the manufacturer. The manufacturer provided an "Objection handling" sheet that indicated that one should not be directed to Purchasing - uh, most smaller firms don't HAVE a purchasing manager! And, you wonder why the big boys can't sell to the SMB firms.

In sales, it isn't about "getting the appointment", it is understanding whether there is a need and determining whether YOUR offering (product, service, or self) will fit that particular situation. Much of that qualification can be done upfront without too many steps or too much involvement - a good conversation or two should do it.

So, lets talk about corporate culture, fit, and competitive advantage. In an autocratic, "this is the way it is", type company such as the one my friend was previously affiliated with, the focus is on what the management thinks, wants, and desires. It is a management centric and product centric company, not customer centric company. Many mature organizations as well as start-ups become ossified or frozen in a mindset because "this is the way it is" and lose the market focus and customer focus that is required for long term growth and success. Founders with deep experience may "dictate" the growth strategy based on their assumptions, which may not be validated against actual market demands or needs. Not to mention that rigid processes and task definition stifle employee productivity and inhibit growth.

For example: As a highly intelligent, creative,very opinionated and observant, customer-focused professional (modern knowledge worker), I cannot succeed in a position where: a) my skills and capabilities are not utilized to the fullest extent, b) where I have no empowerment, c) where I cannot grow. For example, the prospecting I do leads me to learn a great deal about prospect behavior which in turns leads to both strategy development and tactical development. After a few months of talking with prospects, I can easily turn around a very strong tactical marketing plan nearly guaranteed to target and "pull in" customers. I understand the buyers, know where they are, know what motivates them, etc and can develop tools, tactics, strategies to play into that - creating a force multiplier to identify the right buyers and attract them. And, by "staying in touch" directly, can detect shifts in the market quickly. I fit very well into a collaborative, structured environment with defined roles and direct, open, honest communication. A flexible and flat organization that focuses on the customer. I work very well when told, "we would like to grow revenues X%, acquire X customers, get meetings, etc" and am empowered to do what it takes to achieve that goal. Anything other than that, I am guaranteed to fail - either from demotivation or from "strangulation" - the inability to execute in the manner required.

Organizations with such tightly defined processes create an assembly line mentality, even with customer acquisition. Customers are viewed as conversions or numbers, people to be sold to, not treated as valued partners. This transactional mentality quickly diminishes the value of the solution, creating a commodity. Without bidirectional communication, the organization loses touch with the customer and market. It is quantity over quality. The tendency is to provide tools, not ask - "what do you need to succeed".

Smaller organizations looking to gain advantage over established competitors or in more established markets, can make huge strides with a customer and employee centric focus. Even in larger ones, more people tend to shop in our Kohl's store rather than other stores because of the friendly and nice atmosphere and service our associates provide - they drive out of their way to come there because of it. Even in speaking with CIO's more recently, they told me outright - they would rather talk to me rather than a pushy, aggressive hard sell salesguy. So, if you want real differentiation - be nice, care about the customer, offer something of value and the money will naturally come.

A friend of mine was consulting with a small startup firm that had been bought out by some VC types. Working directly with the founders, she derived and explored various avenues for their homegrown product to fit, made tons of prospecting calls with zero marketing support (no money for lists, good collateral, good website, etc), set up initial meetings...all during the height of the recession when IT spending was cut significantly. One of the meetings led to the identification of a senior sales rep, a true down in the trenches heavily networked salesguy who - when laid off from his company (because he brought in not enough sales) started to work with the startup also.

Five minutes after said salesguy joins the firm, he does what any good salesperson does - breaks into his rolodex and sets up meetings. Not extraordinary or unusual by any means - in fact, quite expected. Well, the company gets one major opportunity and goes nuts. Suddenly the salesguy is put in charge of all sales and is managing my friend. The first thing that happens is she is removed from any executive level support and is shut down from any further input to the company, the second thing is that she is labelled a telemarketer and told to quickly bang the phone and get appointments. No proposals, no demos, no meetings without the micromanging oversight of the salesguy (who hasn't closed a deal yet). Her strategic and analytical manner and philosophy is quickly rejected. Said salesguy chats up the executives and is handed golden keys to whatever he needs - new website, collateral, anything.

The founders themselves, synergistic with my friend, are depowered and shoved into subordinate positions with little input into the company they built. The company, rapidly gaining a reputation for being friendly, flexible, and nice is becoming an ossified form of itself driven by words like "and that is how it will be" and "process over innovation" and "dollars over customers".

My friend, a senior level marketing and sales person who has closed deals, built inside sales and telemarketing teams, and brought innovation in business development process was told - you do what we say or else bye-bye. The job they were going to offer her was that of a telemarketer, pounding the phone. No longer were her skills, experience, and expertise a fit, no longer was she valued - of course, she would have been valued if she had a Rolodex and brought contacts.

Watching as her beloved founders and their product are taken over by people with no soul was too painful. She said the words "the engagement will have to end" and disgustingly walked away...knowing another firm with great potential will likely never achieve it because they don't care anymore about anything 'cept the green.

Moral of the story: Entrepreneurs - if you want real success, stay away from the venture capitalists, never give up more than 51% of your company, and retain control. Make sure the you hire people like my friend, people who can execute and do the job - find the holes and fill them. Competitive advantage can come from culture and customer focus too, ya know.

I cannot implore you business owners, sales people, CEO's, and Venture types to please, please hire and work with sales and marketing people who know something about your business. The worst thing any young, entrepreneurial firm can do is work with, hire, or engage marketing, biz dev, or sales people who do NOT get your industry, product, or service. Or even worse, really have very little marketing, sales, or biz dev experience at all.

This can absolutely ruin, and I mean RUIN, and company. If it doesn't outright cause bankruptcy, it can set a company back significantly. A friend of mine worked for a company with a VP who came from another discipline and ran marketing, needless to say - the lack of tactics and application caused the firm to lose visibility, hurt lead generation, and caused the loss of business. It set the company back. The company brought in consultants to help the situation who lacked the business and product knowledge which made it even worse, because the tactics were completely inappropriate to the market. The friend is looking to leave the company due to the sheer frustration being experienced - she has the knowledge and experience, but the company - like most firms want the "expert" outside opinion from the CEO's buddies. Recently, a friend of mine that has tangential technology knowledge is seeking software clients to provide sales strategy and business development services to. I don't question the sales ability, but I shudder to think about the software firm that expects this person to generate results given there is zero experience selling software which is more business driven anyway. Another former employer - one who drove a company to near bankruptcy due to his incompetence in sales and marketing and who surprised me by becoming a Director of Sales/Marketing at another technology company - lasted 2.5 years before probably being fired yet again. No surprise there. These people, just from their credentials, show a lack of knowledge. Some things, some can be learned - however, learning should occur in a respective position. People in VP/Director roles should be able to drive the effort and possess the skill and the respective industry knowledge. The friend lacking software selling should work for a mature company in a sales representative role to gain the right knowledge and training. The former employer just should NOT do anything with sales and marketing and stick to the core expertise he has.

I don't work with clients where I do not have some understanding of the business, industry, or solution (more likely some combination thereof) and have a level of certainty that I can be successful. I don't proffer my marketing expertise unless I know how to bring a company, product, or service to the market. I know people at Gartner, I was behind the scenes at Brainstorm, I did soup to nuts tradeshow coordination, collateral and web development, venture capital business showcases, email campaigns, PR,market research, advertising - I have done everything in marketing and biz dev, even closed some sales. I have sold software, hardware, solutions, professional services to every industry. My MBA enabled me to learn industry issues and how to STRATEGICALLY research and analyze companies. This knowledge, this motivation, this long experience through different companies makes me and, subsequently, my clients successful.

And successful they are with meetings and leads still being generated fairly consistently even in a tough market.

I implore you, like the big companies, do due diligence and hire sales and marketing people that get it.