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.