Magnus Marketing Blog

Some companies actually still do the "old school" thing of participating in tradeshows. With an average investment ranging from $5,000 for local shows to over $20K for national shows, wasting time, money, or resources is not an option. In today's post I thought I would provide some insight and points related to tradeshow success.

1. Tradeshows are about SELLING. If the cost of a show is $20K, you had better generate enough business to cover the cost of the show and then some. Everything ranging from your booth, resources, support materials, and promo has to promote your service or product and lead to sales. This is not a pleasure trip, nor about market research - it is about selling. Usually, trade shows are the LAST step in the prospecting process, it is a place to meet people you have called and called over time, to set up in-person demos for prospects, and to educate your potential market.

2. Be mindful of the Giveaway. Yes, everyone loves an IPOD or some gadget, but will the people entering your drawing be QUALIFIED LEADS? I learned long ago that offering something of value, related to your company, that can lead to further service or product sales will generate and segment real opportunity from some guy who wants a new gadget. Long ago, when launching PeopleSoft services, we offered a free needs assessment and discount on services for PeopleSoft - we only got about 20 cards versus the 100, but man, those 20 were qualified opportunities (they were looking at PeopleSoft). I'd rather call 20 qualified people, versus 100 to find the 20. If you are tech company, giveaway a new server or telephone system, then upsell more servers or services from there.

3. Image is everything. Make sure that your booth conveys an appropriate message and services for the "market" at the show. I had a client that was selling a specialized computer system, but insisted on a generic image that depicted convergence. The market was focused on the specialized computer system, the image did nothing to map to market needs and wasn't compelling. Audiences are getting more target specific, so it is important to create interchangeable panels that can convey the right message. And, people assess within 30 seconds. Test your image with the internal team to see what impression they are left with.

4. Follow Up Post Show. Divvy up all the cards and paper collected and create a process for follow up. Make sure you have the right people following up also. I had a situation with a client, where the salesguy made calls and got NOTHING. I got the SAME list and called and ended up generating leads. A tradeshow list needs to be called within a week or two and CONTINUALLY followed up on, until the people are connected with. They were looking for a reason folks, find out why.

5. Decision-makers will rarely be at the show. Very rarely will decision-makers, unless it is a small company, be at the show. Be mindful that most people will be influencers or will gather information for the decison-maker. Messaging and collateral should be targeted accordingly.

Those are just some high level observations regarding tradeshows. Eating, drinking, talking amongst the team, no focus on the customer - hustling, and using distractions like magicians are other annoyances and detractors from success....if you can't get people interested on your own merit - then you might rethink your strategy overall.

Another true story of stupid from the front lines:

This week I called an interesting start-up company that looked like it had a need for some biz dev help. Can't resist an opportunity. I talked to the VP of Sales. In the discussion, he was interested and needed the help, but would only work with me if I agreed to a "pay for performance" like one of the major tech appointment setting firms. He said he would provide the list. He also said, I would never, I repeat, never see any commissions because the sales cycle is sooo darn long. I have a feeling this guy hasn't closed a deal yet. Of course, I told him absolutely not, I don't work on pay for performance (pure appointment compensation) nor straight commission. Later, I thought, how ridiculous - this company has an innovative technology in a severe economy...all this would result in was calling and calling - they had no marketing engine built to "warm the market" and support sales. I doubt highly that the "competitor" he mentioned would have taken this company on. I would bet they and he don't know much about the market, who really buys, and what messaging works.

Pay for performance only works for known and in demand products, trust me. I can't understand why any company would work on pay for performance - payment only for an appointment. Most companies don't compensate employees on pure commission for meetings set. One of the big boys, claims a 55% meeting-to-sales ratio - that leaves 45% that don't...hate to be the company that is in the 45% area. OK, so, out of 100 meetings - 55 become sales of some amount right? 45 don't. 45 X 600 = $27K. The company is making an average of 27K per 100 appointments (assuming an average of $600 per appointment). You can pay me the same $27K, and I will give you fully qualified appointments, follow up with everyone touched, tell you all the reasons why people won't buy, write marketing support pieces, do more research, and figure out other ways of caputuring the 45 who didn't commit to a sale. This model is actually great, like this week, I set up 7 appointments - of the 7, 1 is high probability, 5 are not going to result in anyting, and 1 is a maybe. I know 5 aren't going to result in any sales. Under the PFP model, I charge $600, I just made 7 X 600 or $4,200 and I know my client isn't seeing any revenue back immediately. The 2 meetings that could turn into something, well may not happen until next year and the sales guy needs to follow up - which he won't because he will work on only immediate needs - they will drop out. Hey, look - I made $4,200 under PFP, my client - zero.

And, as someone mentioned, how do you think they get appointments? They tap into a well worn, tracked database, call up Mr. CIO - say, "Hi Bob, remember me? I used to work at TTS, Inc, I am now with TTY, Inc - new product - I think it would fit - how's about a look?" Meeting set. Will Bob buy? Who knows...who cares. $600 pay up, thanks.

Does anyone really sit down and figure stuff like this out? Most initial meetings are informational, not sales oriented and only start what could be a long sales cycle - particularly for complex high tech sales. Start ups are the ones that need the most market intelligence and support, too. Pay for performance as many have noted, can lead to the focus on "the appointment", not quality, not support, not critical information. I have seen the results of this in the past: In one case the company targeted threatened legal action if one more call came in - the caller was aggressively calling every five minutes, in another case the rep went to the "appointment" only to be informed that the "prospect" committed just to get the caller to stop calling - they never were going to meet the guy. Add up the reputational costs, travel costs, failed pipeline costs, and morale costs to your salesperson...was it worth the appointment?

Too many stories about PFP, which I think desperado companies will resort to. It usually is the desperados or the ones who really don't get their market and know how to sell or market that resort to that. They leave it up to "someone else" to do all the work and end up paying. Then, they can blame the company when things don't work out. Nice scenario, isn't it.

A lot of companies contract with telemarketing or business development firms expecting that in a short time they will build a market, get lots of leads, and generate a ton of revenue. And they are rapidly disappointed. If you believe in relationship building and really want to build your market and develop your service, then you need to really build your market.

Market development consists of consistent prospecting, monitoring of environmental and company changes, and true listening. It can take a minimum of six months just to get a feel for a market, even longer to really build anything of value. This refers, by the way, to entrepreneurial firms or larger firms promoting a new service to a different, untapped market. There are no quick hits. You need to consistently touch different people, send emails, send information, time calls, leverage new information about your company, competitive situation, and products/services.

The more you understand your market and the needs, changes, and shifts, the better you can position your company, messaging, and solution and change your tactics. It amazes me how many executives disregard field feedback or allow their ego and experience to dictate execution. It also amazes me how swapping out salesguys or marketing personnel is used so frequently, as if that will solve the problem.

There are no quick hits, no fast short cuts, and no miracle solutions - competitors come quickly and edges are lost. We read about Sun Microsystems being sold, watch the shells of Former Fortune companies get auctioned as worthless paper stock in frames, and see bubbles burst.

True market development takes time, learning, patience, persistence and it takes cohesive teamwork between sales and marketing and the executive staff to align and focus on customers. The old King is dead, long live the King.

Just the other day, this Austrailian consultant cracked a joke about people who want "to connnect, sell you stuff, and talk to you". I lost the exact post, but while meant in humor, his post was 100% on the money. Take this example:

A college student considering a start-up had no experience in outbound telecampaigning or sales and asked a question on LinkedIN about stay-at-home moms. One other cold calling expert answered and I seconded his answer, supporting what he said and adding to it. Neither one of us said a thing about working with him, we offered advice and answered his question which was about the validity of stay-at-home moms as telemarketers. Three other people answered who spent one line saying in essence, "forget that, what you really need are professionals like the ones at my company which has tons of experience doing exactly what you need".

Wow, I thought. If these companies all approach sales the way they answered the question, they really must suck. And lets review why!

1. Define experience. I have learned that to really make sales happen, you need experience in the product, service, industry or the ability to quickly (and I mean quickly) "get it". Just because you have "people" who can "dial a phone" doesn't mean there will be RESULTS. In fact the wrong people with the wrong messaging can be devastating to a company, particularly a start up! These three respondents pitched the service based on the fact that they had "people who could dial a phone". No where did the question-asker elaborate on what he was trying to accomplish, which brings me to the next point:

2. Exactly what you need. What does this student need? He never elaborated on his business, situation, goals/objectives, or what he was looking to do. Sometimes, you get to talking with someone and realize that the REAL ISSUE is something else. I make an assumption that the questioner was looking to increase revenue or go-to-market and thought outbound phone selling would help. Possibly in further discussion, this may not be true - maybe he would need SEO and print ads, direct mail, better messaging, a restart to a new market...whatever. You never exactly know what ANYONE needs, until you engage in a discussion - an OPEN discussion. Consultative sales requires relevant knowledge.

3. Exactly what you need - part II. So lets say one of these companies undertakes the effort assuming that telesales is what he needs and, it turns out, it isn't. They just sold to an unqualified prospect, which could do more harm to their business because it was a failed effort from the beginning. The sale was made, money was collected, but at the cost of reputational harm. Worth it? No. BS has a way of catching up to you.

4. We are better than.... All three companies denounced the stay-at-home mom idea, yet never created a value proposition that really made any sense. Our callers are better because they sit with headphones at a computer in a cubicle? What if there is a stay-at-home mom who has an MBA, inside sales experience, worked for a start-up as a EVP, and her husband is a CFO and does consulting on the side? I don't think that profile will be found anywhere in a cubicle. Uh, I have an MBA, worked for a start-up or two next to the CEO/Founders, have inside sales and marketing experience, and have pals that do consulting work on the side - and no kids - does this make ME lesser qualified than someone in a cubicle? Hell, no. In the past, I worked with a telemarketing company that had a caller who was so aggressive, they caused problems for our clients and another that put an unqualified person on the campaign. Can't say those resources in "professional" firms worked out any better than alternatives.

Scary isn't it? These firms or their representatives rush to secure business without qualifying the opportunity, creating a value proposition relevant to the opportunity, providing support for why they are the best fit for the opportunity - in fact, they don't even understand the opportunity! Many don't even take five minutes to check the profile out of the person who asked the darn question - such a simple task or email them for more information.

And, I am going to trust them with selling or marketing my product...

Don't think so.

I was shocked the other day when I saw one of my former, enterpreneurial, bosses proudly displayed on another company's website in a C-level, full-time position. Not as an interim executive (although I have a feeling this too is a mismatch), but in an actual job - working for someone else! The guy who declared years ago, that he will never work for anyone ever again. A few months ago, I was surprised to see an announcement on the JS Group's website stating that founder/CEO JS departed - she went to work for her A-One client as a VP. Even my old Auntie Judy, who used to have a successful business plan and financing company - travelling the world over, sold out - she got married and -poof - "Ms. I could be a friend of Carrie's on Sex in the City" turned into a real disappointment - a bon-bon eating couch potato. I may not be her biggest fan overall, but the woman was an inspiration for her "Sex in the City" ways and corporate business and later entrepreneurial acumen.

Aside from Auntie, when the going got rough, the espousers of sales and marketing methodologies sure got going - right into a full time job. Remember, JS espoused the idea that sales was "dead man walking" - maybe she should have done more of it to build her company - eh?

That is the fundamental problem with business owners who depart, they really can never go back. The reasons are as follows:
1. In the case of sales/marketing type companies, they aren't successful - they couldn't execute or fulfill their own value statement. Actually, with any company they aren't successful, it is a complete vote of no confidence when a Founder decides to work for someone else (and it is NOT a merger). One of my former clients CEO's was talking about getting a job because his company ran out of money (not the first time) - this guy is the poster boy for financial mismanagement and incompetence - no one should do business with him or his company. That is a case where the owner should get a job, maybe he would learn something from his more successful superiors.
2. I would never trust the owner again. Perceptually, the owners literally walked out on employees, their clients, the mission - to what? Take a better opportunity with a client or company? You control your own destiny as an owner, why not reposition the company to do something in line with what you want? Take a job for more money? Why not work on building your client base and MAKE more money? For stability? What about the employees that are left leaderless or with a lesser driving force in place, if any leadership at all.
3. I wouldn't trust the company. The founder leaves, sending a no vote of confidence message. Even if they returned, why work with them - will they leave again? If they return and claim "interim executive" is it true or are they "covering up" showing a lack of integrity.
4. You cannot be an owner and work full-time. Great message there also. Either make the 100% commitment to your employer and make his company successful or make the 100%+ commitment to your company and make it successful. There is no in-between, particularly for established firms. True start-ups that are launching, may have part-time founders who are building their company to a point in which they can work full-time for the venture - different story. Once that company hits that point, the owner/founder will be working 150% to continue that success.

Of course, there are valid reasons for an owner leaving which send a completely different message:
1. Owner/Founder steps aside for new management: This message is one of confidence and growth, more professional management is taking over to "take the company to the next level"
2. Owner/Founder hands over the company: Whether it is health reasons, retirement, tired of working 100 hrs a week - many founders/owners will "hand off" the business. Acknowledging that new blood is needed to continue the company's survival and growth.
3. Owner/Founder hires a CEO to run the company, starts another venture or philanthropic pursuit.
4. Owner/Founder MERGES the company with another company. Take the case of JobMachine which merged with Arbita. That was a super intelligent, can't give Shally enough credit for that, decision. Not only, not only, did he completely preserve JobMachine as a semi-autonomous division, the new combined services are just phenomenal - the employees, associates (myself), clients benefitted tremendously. While he gave up some "power" as an owner, everyone, including him and his family (which is growing), is so much better off. Hard decision, great outcome. A true business leader.

I made the mistake before incorporating of leaving two or three clients to work full-time for a client. I actually made that mistake twice in my history, the first time I wasn't quite on my own - worked with a partner and the circumstances were really not good. I didn't feel I had enough experience at the time to start anything on my own. The company I went to work for - went bankrupt in five months, the client I ended up working for after that bankruptcy - changed strategy (thanks to my market insight) and terminated me eight months later. Just before incorporating Magnus, I worked for a client - who basically threatened me to work for him full-time or else. I gave up my two clients - I was asked to leave 3, THREE months later, because he decided he wanted a full-time outside sales guy and couldn't afford both me and him. The clients I worked with never re-established the relationship, and why should they? I lost their trust.

Tt wasn't worth it. Within weeks, Magnus Marketing was formed and has been going for two and half years. I have the best clients and met cool people along the way. It is not easy. Maybe someday I will add employees and really grow, but as long as I have clients who need me - I stay with them. And, unlike others, I "eat my own dog food" and use my methods to find new business. My motto: where there is a will, there is a way! Stick to it and if you have to leave, shut down the company all together and clear the path for others to succeed in your place - second-rate competition is such a drag on the market.

Oh yeah, good luck in your new position. May you have the same success and gain the experience that I did working for you. ;)

I have worked for and with many start-up and new businesses over the last 12 years and learned a ton about what can make for success or failure. Believe me when I say there are many companies that are small for a reason. Some, like my little entity, remain small because I choose to stay this way (in my case, it is a choice), but for others - they are that way because of strategic missteps and other "done wrong" things. What follows are some common observations:

1. Management that Manages: In start-up and very small companies, it is critical to have people who are "doers" and wear multiple hats. Basically, if you aren't delivering the product/service or acquiring new clients, then you need to be employed elsewhere. Paying resources who do not contribute to delivery or activity is money that should be going elsewhere. Even the CEO needs to be networking and driving business, however, this one person can be "the manager".

2. Follow the leader: Gee, Rachel has a biz dev/marketing company, she did it, I think I will too. Problem is, I really don't know a thing about how to get business, my forte was closing deals. The point being, just because someone else has a successful product, service or company doesn't mean you will also. You need to build a company on YOUR strengths, interests, and ideas - not on someone elses. And, for goodness sake, try to innovate and do something different and of value to clients, creating a knockoff is, well, creating a knockoff.

3. Hiring the Wrong Management: Hiring a CEO that isn't complementary to you, doesn't understand the industry, has no relevant contacts, or operates from a big-company mentality....wait, why did you even HIRE a CEO? In early stage companies, the owner/founder of the company should drive product/service development and strategy - they know the market, should have contacts, and understand the buyer. Hiring the wrong people, installing management that doesn't add value, hiring "management" at all just burns money and wastes time. In one case, a former employer hired an account manager (a farmer) to run a business development sales practice - uh, the guy was a farmer who stated, no lie, "marketing never generates leads". Talk about a major mismatch! Wow!

4. Buying the Lie: As mentioned before, a person with great credentials, connections, money, or even knowledge who walks in and will "take your company to the next level" isn't worth a second interview if they don't deliver. Make sure you check references and ask hard questions to ensure that the person will do what they say they will do. If they don't in short order, eliminate them and quickly.

5. Big company mentality: Great interview question - so, VP of Marketing or Sales, our budget (if you can call it that) is $10K, yep, $10K - maybe less - what tactics can you create to drive new business? If the person answers, I can't work with less than $100K or they don't answer - "give me a phone and an email address", thank them and send them to the next opportunity. I recently spoke to a "VP" who stated, "when we get a real marketing team and resources, a physical sales office, and more money to spend then we will do more, until then..." - uh, no...you need to be able to develop and do the marketing work yourself, rely on mobile sales people with no physical office, and employ tactics with few resources and do it NOW. I think we have a mismatch here. Uh-oh.

6. Listening to the Experts: If the expert is really an expert in your industry and knows your product/service and business very well - then by all means, listen and take their advice (but not over the employees who actually really know your business). Too often, as related, I see owners of small companies get stars in their eyes because they talk to people "more experienced then them". Wow, Bob really knows marketing and has contacts at major companies or Keith did P&L at a major company, they must know what they are doing! Until you realize that Bob's contacts really aren't the buyers for your product/service and he really never did marketing for enterprise level solutions and he really can't help you much at all and Keith may have P&L, but no relevant industry experience. Then, you risk taking your company down the wrong path. And, of course, paying heed to one person over a few smart advisors is never adviseable - ask a few people for perspectives and make your own judgement.

And, it is about results and feedback. Within a short period of time, whomever is associated with your firm should be producing something of value - whether information or tangible dollars. Don't buy into the hype or what the investors tell you, remember Friendster? Pets.com? Starting a business and running one isn't easy, you don't need to make it harder for yourself.

In these challenging economic times when dollars are scarce, it is critical to be efficient about spending money in the right direction. Today, there are two areas that direction is focused on: 1) customer acquisition or 2) customer retention. It probably is not prudent to spend money on any type of initiative that will not directly add to the bottom line, such as awareness (i.e., sponsorships, speaking for speaking sake, or branding) which should fall out of other more overt activity. It is critical for marketing activity to link to sales and help push forward activity, however, at times - this doesn't always happen and can sometimes even detract from sales efforts. Here are some ways that marketing will harm the sales effort:

1. Talking without Understanding the Market: Yes, this actually does happen. Ignorance of the target market, the positioning, the challenges or pains, or even who the real buyer is - creates messaging and activity that yields nothing but missed opportunity. Lacking market research or assumptive thinking based on few real interactions will generally result in this spend with no result scenario.

2. Failing to Understand the Target Buyer: If your buyers are technical people, then they will want White Papers, "pilot proof cases", competitive analysis, and technically driven data sheets. If your buyers are strategic, then they need ROI business cases, comparative analysis, "fit cases", and other persuasive material. PR is not likely to capture the heart of a network manager and technical data sheets will be meaningless to the CFO. Marketing tactics that are not aligned with the buyers research propensities will result in wasted dollars.

3. Going off on their own: Marketers who follow their own ideas without listening to those of the field will create missed opportunities and strategic defaults. It's better to ask, "how big do you think the opportunity is" rather than dismiss it or go down another path. Take for example the hypothetical company insisting that the government market is ideal and should be key, when in fact the private sector network management people are really in need. To market to the government will take a full-time dedicated resource, obtaining GSA schedule, pricing adjustments, and competitive analysis etc on every bid - it usually is a bid process. To market to the network management people will take a phone call, email, some white papers and follow up. Where should I be focusing? Short term, the private sector.

4. Not providing support to sales: Marketers who spend money on branding and awareness without developing sales tools, lead generation efforts, and direct customer acquisition activity are wasting time and effort and missing opportunity. Brand is a result of what clients and prospects think of your firm in using your product, service, or interacting with you - it is not a "look and feel". Remember Pets.com - tons of money spent in building image - without any real substance. Worse yet, not listening to sales - that is a travesty.

When marketing operates in an ivory tower without real understanding of the market (running on assumptions for example), a very dangerous strategic path can be forged. As I stated in previous commentary, marketing does not create demand - it finds it, pulls it to the surface, and then spreads it across other areas to evoke demand. This is why real market research and discussions with "those who are not clients" are critical to uncovering real needs, appropriate messaging, and market acceptance criteria.

Recently, someone asked the question on LinkedIN about censorship and how some postings are mysteriously deleted. I lost the question and answer, but this triggers a very good point about what is appropriate to post and discuss and what is not. The United States was founded on the principle of Freedom of Speech, the ability to state opposing and sometimes unfavorable views about issues including our very own government. With the proliferation of social networks and other socially accepted venues, more opinion is being generated than ever before. This opinion is both positive and negative. What are the boundaries of freedom of expression?

Recently, I myself came under fire for a posting that was perceived as negative. Out of respect for the complainant the posting was removed. Although the posting had been directly responsible for generating traffic and added fuel to a joint awareness, I removed it. It would have been very, very easy for the complainant to turn my posting into a very positive story. Instead, I was censored.

The post, by the way, discussed an issue that was relatively minor, 100% factual, was not denigrating in anyway to the organization, product, or management and posed a great lesson for other businesses that had a similiar challenge. My blog is one designed to identify issues and educate, I really would hate - and I mean it, for other small businesses to make the same mistakes that I and the organizations I have been associated with.

In many respects, as someone said, we recently have lost our integrity - choosing to hide the truth under promises subsisting more of style over substance. We are so concerned about image and looking good, both in a physical and leadership sense, that we lost the real value of leadership - the ability to honestly deal with situations and express true candor leading to debate and discussion. Those who cannot handle criticism are those who fail because they are dishonest with themselves - whether insecure about position or knowledge or hiding under a veneer of representing as something they are not.

Censorship should only apply in cases where liability exists - where slander or libel is an outcome, where real monetary harm could be caused, where truth is twisted for manipulative means. Otherwise, it is time to bring back honesty and integrity to our interactions. Let substance replace style and candor reign over phony obsequiesm.