Once again my article review comes from Harvard Business Review, this time from their latest edition which focuses on sales training. This article interests me for two reasons; first because we at MTP are always wanting to increase our selling effectiveness; secondly because a recent project for a major client has involved the work of the joint authors. We were asked to develop case study material to support a sales training programme built around the authors’ recently published book, the Challenger Sale.
This article refers to the content of the book but goes much further, in my view too far. The principles of the Challenger Sale are sound and valuable to any organisation selling business to business. You must know the customer’s business, be able to tailor solutions, be comfortable talking about money, take an assertive role, provide insights about the market that others cannot replicate, act as a support to the purchaser in the buying process. This is all good stuff and it was a rewarding challenge to be able to write case studies/role plays that bring out these principles.
But in this article the authors seem to go much further. They rightly identify the reason why a new approach is required; because purchasing procedures have changed, buyers have become better prepared, have more formal processes and are much more likely to go out to price based tendering. But the authors’ answer to these challenges is much more far reaching than is advocated by the Challenger Model; they suggest that, in addition to providing valuable insights for the customer, those who are successful in the modern business world also do the following:
- Focus their efforts only on organisations who are in a state of flux
- Seek out those in the organisation who are change agents, even if they are sceptical and resistant
- Coach these change agents on how to buy, changing the way they think about their needs
An example of success would be to persuade the customer that the tender they put out should be withdrawn and reassessed, because the needs are different from what was originally believed. This sort of outcome is clearly possible and would be a dream result for those who are selling business to business but it is hard to see this working on a regular basis, even if the three processes mentioned above were successfully carried out. And it does not help that the example of this goal being achieved successfully is an anonymous 'business service company'.
Though there is a lot of good advice in the article, some of the content comes over as idealistic, even arrogant. How far is it possible and advisable to confine your selling efforts to the 'state of flux' segment when there are so many other characteristics to use for segmentation; and how easy is it to define those who are in flux? And isn't it almost arrogant to think that you can coach these change-agents to better understand their own organisations?
The good advice is the emphasis on insights, both as a way to show that you are different from competitors and to help the customer rethink the way they are approaching the problem. The authors' research indicates that new market insights are the biggest driver of customer loyalty. The article is also right to put emphasis on meeting the right people and not just the group which are cleverly defined in the article as 'The Talkers'. We know from our selling activities at MTP – often in hindsight it has to be admitted – that being blocked from meeting the key people is likely to lead to failure, either to get the business or to develop a successful solution.
The authors suggest that rather than spend the easy time with the 'Talkers' who enjoy meeting you but will not close the deal, good sales people will seek out the 'Mobilisers' who will challenge and question you but are much more likely to make the right decision. They may challenge your insights but, if your knowledge and your solution are sound, they will respond to your approach.
There are sub-headings that break down the Talkers and Mobilisers into sub-categories - for instance Mobilisers are split into Go-Getters, Teachers and Sceptics – but I found this unnecessarily complex; I could much more easily identify the two main types. I did however have difficulty in relating the need to find Mobilizers with the suggestion that the sales person needs to 'coach them through a sale'. I can see the need to influence this category in subtle ways but the idea of coaching them better to understand their own buying processes would surely meet with resistance from more self-confident change agents.
This seems to me to be the main weakness of the article; it goes too far in advocating the coaching approach without making any reservations about the type of people and personalities likely to be involved. Insights, yes, understanding their business yes, but coaching all customers in this way? I don’t buy it.
Read the article:
http://hbr.org/2012/07/the-end-of-solution-sales/ar/1
No comments:
Post a Comment