Which choice provides the best answer for the statement,
An online social network requires each of the following, EXCEPT:
A. a computer or mobile device
B. an Internet connection
C. people you like, know, and trust
The correct answer, of course, is C. No need for familiarity, either. “You have one friend request. Click to confirm.” Done!—without even shedding your fuzzy bedroom slippers. But is your social network a trusted community of valued connections, or simply a collection of names?
Marketing technology has met social networking, and changed it. Whether it's for the better is another question. Once-private “black books” are open to the world. I can “connect” with people I don’t know. From the comfort of my office, I can solicit thousands who have never heard of me or my company to follow me on Twitter, to join my network on LinkedIn, or to become a friend on Facebook. Anyone can connect with anyone—or anything. No additional charge!
“Community” now grows at warp speed—but assumptions struggle to keep pace. Why? Because many people maintain that “social network” and “trusted connections” are intertwined ideas. True--before “click to connect.” But zero-cost Web 2.0 social connections mean there’s a significant likelihood that any two connected individuals have never communicated beyond a perfunctory default email invitation, and a single mouse click. Compare that process to laborious face-to-face meetings, and it’s easy to understand social media’s stunning popularity for building community. Scalable workflows and simple user interfaces have obviated the need to shake hands.
Has the concept faded that social connections are spawned when people mingle with like-minded people? As web-based communities erode boundaries between personal and professional domains, are we more open-minded to different beliefs and ideas—or just more dispassionate? I floated a related question on LinkedIn: “Would you sever a social network connection if you learned the individual belonged to a group, or held an opinion, that was diametrically opposed to a matter important to you?”
Some people drew an almost-crisp line. Mike Stankus, CEO of STM/360 said “if the person was part of a movement (or) group that was pushing hate or some other seriously negative agenda, I probably would sever the connection.” Sales expert Christian Maurer shared that he recently cut a tie. “I did not want readers of my profile (to) draw the conclusion that I could possibly be supporting an idea by being linked to this individual.” Others were ambivalent. A few wrote they value diverse opinions, and social media allows people of adamantly opposing viewpoints to connect. In a sense, we’ve come a long way. Although the same individuals might never socialize over a beer, they remain happily connected in the virtual Web 2.0 world.
In three years, social media technologies have undermined basic assumptions about connectedness. In January, 2007, blogger Guy Kawasaki wrote, (“10 ways to use LinkedIn”)
“By adding connections, you increase the likelihood that people will see your profile first when they’re searching for someone to hire or do business with. In addition to appearing at the top of search results (which is a major plus if you’re one of the 52,000 product managers on LinkedIn), people would much rather work with people who their friends know and trust.”
Feel the love! But not everyone looks at connectedness that way, as blogger Joe Bartling describes: (“LinkedIn: The Myth of Having "Too Many Connections")
“To me, having too many connections is like having too much MONEY. Bring me the connections, and bring me the money! People seem to think that a person who has ‘too many connections’ doesn't have a life. Though that may be true, it's not because he/she has too many connections.”
Want to understand “connection” and “connectedness” in the context of social media? It’s hard to reconcile those two statements. While both tout the benefit of numbers, one statement assumes "know and trust," while the second one doesn't make any mention of either. If you believe the concepts of social networks and meaningful connections are inextricable, then indiscriminately adding connections erodes the value of the network. If networks are valued for quantity of connections, then the assumption of trust between connections adds risk, because there is little that coheres individuals. These risks create costs, a reason that people are driven to B2B communities that are “’gated’ or have a threshold for membership,” as Vanessa DiMauro describes in her blog, “Moderating B2B Communities: Keeping the Fire Lit”.
The future of web-based social networks will be determined more by the requirements of people who use them, than by the technologies that enable them. If societies value true communities, then shared beliefs, trust, and common purpose must exist within those communities. Easier said than done! With 230 million and 50 million members respectively, Facebook and LinkedIn undoubtedly know that it’s harder to measure the intangibles that flow between connections—knowledge, innovation, inspiration, and energy—than it is to collect data about individuals.
Further reading:
Lynn Townsend White, Jr. versus: Technological Determinism
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Just the Facts? Sales Discovery Requires More than Asking "Killer Questions"
Every day, salespeople receive gobs of well-intentioned advice, including:
“Shut up and listen!”
“Being interested is more important than being interesting.”
"Telling is not selling."
“The Right Sales Questions Will Get the Right Answers.”
But simply asking questions and listening won’t solve our most vexing sales challenges. If only it were that easy. Probing questions followed by patient listening as the magic keys to sales success. But here’s a plain fact that many people ignore: Conversations carry questions. And sales questions minus conversation equals interrogation. I know. When it comes to conversational rapport, some sales meetings go better than others.
Yet, hard-sell hype about the power of questions drives many people to website altars in search of A Better Way. Do you really believe in
“Killer sales questions?”
“Sales questions that close every deal?”
"The 12 best sales questions to ask?”
We count on the promise of such “hot ideas” and shortcuts to help us become more productive. No doubt, for many people, this is all very confusing. Should we ask open-ended questions? Closed-ended questions? “Facilitative” questions? Who cares! If salespeople can’t embed sales questions into meaningful, rapport-laden dialog, the best sales questions in the world take sales opportunities down a path to nowhere.
Salespeople—it’s time to talk! Questions need the medium of conversations in order to work. It’s what we do! But this time, let’s call it dialog! As our top-producing salesperson, Denise, said in an earlier CustomerThink article, To an Octopus, ‘50’ Means Nothing: Why Empathy Matters, “. . . I think about what I’m going to ask and say.” In that order. Denise doesn’t dismiss the importance of her contribution to the conversation.
From her desk in the depths of the call center cube farm, Denise has a key insight. With all the attention we heap on asking good questions, do we honestly believe prospects will spontaneously open up? Is “ask a Really Good Question, get an answer,” a simple, straight line? Or, is there more to it than that? How do we create what author Jim Collins described as an environment where the truth is heard?
Here are a few ideas:
Make your intentions and motivations clear from the outset. As Mahan Khalsa wrote in Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play,"you will communicate your intent whether you want to or not . . . Based on your intent, people will decide to trust you or not.”
Share your expertise throughout the discussion. No one likes a know-it-all, but as a prospect, would you rather share your answers with an expert or a greenhorn? As Jill Konrath, author of Selling to Big Companies, said, “the best sales questions have your expertise in them.”
Demonstrate that you are connecting the dots. Sharing your insights throughout the conversation not only makes it clear that you’re listening, but also helps to ensure understanding.
Be transparent, not opaque. It’s hard to ask for a prospect’s candor without being similarly forthcoming about your enthusiasm and concerns. Being open with both enables reciprocal dialog.
Above all, don’t be afraid to talk. Sales discovery works best in a conversation.
“Shut up and listen!”
“Being interested is more important than being interesting.”
"Telling is not selling."
“The Right Sales Questions Will Get the Right Answers.”
But simply asking questions and listening won’t solve our most vexing sales challenges. If only it were that easy. Probing questions followed by patient listening as the magic keys to sales success. But here’s a plain fact that many people ignore: Conversations carry questions. And sales questions minus conversation equals interrogation. I know. When it comes to conversational rapport, some sales meetings go better than others.
Yet, hard-sell hype about the power of questions drives many people to website altars in search of A Better Way. Do you really believe in
“Killer sales questions?”
“Sales questions that close every deal?”
"The 12 best sales questions to ask?”
We count on the promise of such “hot ideas” and shortcuts to help us become more productive. No doubt, for many people, this is all very confusing. Should we ask open-ended questions? Closed-ended questions? “Facilitative” questions? Who cares! If salespeople can’t embed sales questions into meaningful, rapport-laden dialog, the best sales questions in the world take sales opportunities down a path to nowhere.
Salespeople—it’s time to talk! Questions need the medium of conversations in order to work. It’s what we do! But this time, let’s call it dialog! As our top-producing salesperson, Denise, said in an earlier CustomerThink article, To an Octopus, ‘50’ Means Nothing: Why Empathy Matters, “. . . I think about what I’m going to ask and say.” In that order. Denise doesn’t dismiss the importance of her contribution to the conversation.
From her desk in the depths of the call center cube farm, Denise has a key insight. With all the attention we heap on asking good questions, do we honestly believe prospects will spontaneously open up? Is “ask a Really Good Question, get an answer,” a simple, straight line? Or, is there more to it than that? How do we create what author Jim Collins described as an environment where the truth is heard?
Here are a few ideas:
Make your intentions and motivations clear from the outset. As Mahan Khalsa wrote in Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play,"you will communicate your intent whether you want to or not . . . Based on your intent, people will decide to trust you or not.”
Share your expertise throughout the discussion. No one likes a know-it-all, but as a prospect, would you rather share your answers with an expert or a greenhorn? As Jill Konrath, author of Selling to Big Companies, said, “the best sales questions have your expertise in them.”
Demonstrate that you are connecting the dots. Sharing your insights throughout the conversation not only makes it clear that you’re listening, but also helps to ensure understanding.
Be transparent, not opaque. It’s hard to ask for a prospect’s candor without being similarly forthcoming about your enthusiasm and concerns. Being open with both enables reciprocal dialog.
Above all, don’t be afraid to talk. Sales discovery works best in a conversation.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Going, Going, Gone! e-commerce Erases More Than Paper Money
Imagine a meeting of Major League Baseball team owners as they collaborate to improve their financial results. You're in the room. A scrawl of operating statistics covers several flip charts. Alternatives ranging from increasing ticket prices to cutting fan perks are discussed. But at the end of the 10-hour meeting, one option prevails: beginning next season, the pitcher’s mound in every stadium will be moved a modest six inches closer to home plate.
Great excitement follows. Owners can take the results to the bank, and players and fans won’t even notice! How? The executives figure that the shorter distance will make it possible to play a full game in just under three hours, down from the current average of three and a half. They reason that six fewer inches of throwing distance cuts the decision time for a hitter to swing, resulting in more strikeouts. More strikeouts mean less playing time, and less playing time means shorter operating hours for stadiums. (There were about 33,000 strikeouts in 2008.)
Eyes light up as numbers are eagerly keyed into pro-forma spreadsheets on flickering laptop screens. The thirty-minute per game reduction will save millions of dollars of operating expenses for every team. Lower labor and utility costs! Faster fixed charge coverage for expensive stadiums! The savings will drop right to the bottom line!
If you think the boundary-changing idea sounds preposterous, think again. This principle behind this imaginary gambit isn’t fantasy in e-commerce. The difference is that the boundaries are abstract and the money is real—to those receiving it. Want proof? This year, banks are projected to earn $38.5 billion in overdraft charges by shifting a long-assumed boundary called “I accept the charges.” How? According to a recent editorial in The Washington Post (Overdrawn and Uninformed, 9/22/09): “. . . from time to time, you may have found yourself inadvertently making a debit card purchase that exceeds your remaining funds. Alas, the way you may have found out about the overdraft was a notice from your bank, days later, informing you that you owe a $30 service fee. The bank just automatically floated you a small loan and charged you for it without giving you a chance to accept or reject the offer.”
Missed the boundary change? Don’t worry. Thirty-four billion dollars in 2009 overdraft fees suggests you’re not alone. The bank extracts money through a silent, virtual [i]ka-ching,[/i] with binary 1’s and 0’s flowing to complete the seamless transaction, absent the faces of Jackson and Hamilton. And that’s just the point. Customers don’t attempt to intervene because the experience fails to excite the same area of the brain that real money does—a phenomena that author Jonah Lehrer describes in his book, How We Decide. A small transaction-boundary shift yields a $38.5 billion reward—a sensational feat that now has the attention of Congress.
Elsewhere in e-commerce, changing abstract boundaries also keeps fiscal 1’s and 0’s moving from payer to vendor. Ever receive a charge on your credit-card statement for a "trial offer" you didn’t really want? It’s probably because you didn’t remember to “opt out” after you “opted in.” Was there a clear boundary for the transaction?
Opt in/opt out. It’s today’s tool of choice for e-commerce boundary changers. Remember Facebook's Beacon Debacle, in which a man purchased a diamond ring (for his wife?) from overstock.com, and 720 Facebook friends were informed about the transaction? As Christopher Caldwell wrote in The New York Times (“Intimate Shopping,” 12/23/07), “Facebook designed Beacon so that members would be able to “opt out” by clicking a pop-up window. But these windows were hard to see and disappeared very fast. If you weren’t quick on the draw, your purchases were broadcast to the world, or at least to your network . . . Privacy advocates urged that Beacon be made an “opt in” program, which members would have to explicitly consent to join . . . Facebook agreed to this approach. The Beacon fiasco gives a good outline of what future conflicts over the Internet will look like. Whether a system is opt-in or opt-out has enormous influence on how people use it.” No joke. And how much revenue can be generated, as well.
Of course, boundary changing has as much to do with our (presumably) private information sold to others as with the flow of money. Did you “accept” the data-collection cookie that resides on your hard drive? Better check the Terms of Use. “Increasingly, there are no limits technologically as to what a company can do in terms of collecting information . . . and then selling it as a commodity to other providers,” said Representative Edward Markey in August, 2008.
These examples prove that dollars can be taken and lost in the blurry zone between asking for specific approval to complete a transaction, and simply assuming assent for things that formerly required it. Whether it’s baseball or banking, with scalability, a little boundary shift goes a long, long, way.
Great excitement follows. Owners can take the results to the bank, and players and fans won’t even notice! How? The executives figure that the shorter distance will make it possible to play a full game in just under three hours, down from the current average of three and a half. They reason that six fewer inches of throwing distance cuts the decision time for a hitter to swing, resulting in more strikeouts. More strikeouts mean less playing time, and less playing time means shorter operating hours for stadiums. (There were about 33,000 strikeouts in 2008.)
Eyes light up as numbers are eagerly keyed into pro-forma spreadsheets on flickering laptop screens. The thirty-minute per game reduction will save millions of dollars of operating expenses for every team. Lower labor and utility costs! Faster fixed charge coverage for expensive stadiums! The savings will drop right to the bottom line!
If you think the boundary-changing idea sounds preposterous, think again. This principle behind this imaginary gambit isn’t fantasy in e-commerce. The difference is that the boundaries are abstract and the money is real—to those receiving it. Want proof? This year, banks are projected to earn $38.5 billion in overdraft charges by shifting a long-assumed boundary called “I accept the charges.” How? According to a recent editorial in The Washington Post (Overdrawn and Uninformed, 9/22/09): “. . . from time to time, you may have found yourself inadvertently making a debit card purchase that exceeds your remaining funds. Alas, the way you may have found out about the overdraft was a notice from your bank, days later, informing you that you owe a $30 service fee. The bank just automatically floated you a small loan and charged you for it without giving you a chance to accept or reject the offer.”
Missed the boundary change? Don’t worry. Thirty-four billion dollars in 2009 overdraft fees suggests you’re not alone. The bank extracts money through a silent, virtual [i]ka-ching,[/i] with binary 1’s and 0’s flowing to complete the seamless transaction, absent the faces of Jackson and Hamilton. And that’s just the point. Customers don’t attempt to intervene because the experience fails to excite the same area of the brain that real money does—a phenomena that author Jonah Lehrer describes in his book, How We Decide. A small transaction-boundary shift yields a $38.5 billion reward—a sensational feat that now has the attention of Congress.
Elsewhere in e-commerce, changing abstract boundaries also keeps fiscal 1’s and 0’s moving from payer to vendor. Ever receive a charge on your credit-card statement for a "trial offer" you didn’t really want? It’s probably because you didn’t remember to “opt out” after you “opted in.” Was there a clear boundary for the transaction?
Opt in/opt out. It’s today’s tool of choice for e-commerce boundary changers. Remember Facebook's Beacon Debacle, in which a man purchased a diamond ring (for his wife?) from overstock.com, and 720 Facebook friends were informed about the transaction? As Christopher Caldwell wrote in The New York Times (“Intimate Shopping,” 12/23/07), “Facebook designed Beacon so that members would be able to “opt out” by clicking a pop-up window. But these windows were hard to see and disappeared very fast. If you weren’t quick on the draw, your purchases were broadcast to the world, or at least to your network . . . Privacy advocates urged that Beacon be made an “opt in” program, which members would have to explicitly consent to join . . . Facebook agreed to this approach. The Beacon fiasco gives a good outline of what future conflicts over the Internet will look like. Whether a system is opt-in or opt-out has enormous influence on how people use it.” No joke. And how much revenue can be generated, as well.
Of course, boundary changing has as much to do with our (presumably) private information sold to others as with the flow of money. Did you “accept” the data-collection cookie that resides on your hard drive? Better check the Terms of Use. “Increasingly, there are no limits technologically as to what a company can do in terms of collecting information . . . and then selling it as a commodity to other providers,” said Representative Edward Markey in August, 2008.
These examples prove that dollars can be taken and lost in the blurry zone between asking for specific approval to complete a transaction, and simply assuming assent for things that formerly required it. Whether it’s baseball or banking, with scalability, a little boundary shift goes a long, long, way.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Pfizer's Ethics Violations Hurt All of Us
"At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn't do that," said John Kopchinski, the sales representative who blew the whistle on Pfizer’s illegal marketing practices of Bextra, a now-discontinued medication approved for arthritis and menstrual pain.
Mr. Kopchinski was fired from the company in 2003. In hindsight, he won’t miss his job. He’ll receive over $50 million from the US government for his efforts to prosecute the $2.3 billion fraud settlement from his former employer—the largest such settlement in US history.
Paying $2.3 billion for “fraudulent marketing" should cause every marketing professional and salesperson to break into a nervous sweat. Why? Because murky ethics aren't limited to Pfizer. They're amazingly common. They begin innocuously, then escalate. According to Mr. Kopchinski, what started as “aggressive promotion” of Bextra mutated into illegal practices. As he put it, “the ethical line kept moving.”
I’ve seen it over and over. Ethical risks are shrouded in code-speak: “we’re a ‘revenue-focused’ organization,” or “our company champions an ‘aggressive sales culture.’” Sound familiar? Anyone who doesn’t take heed from Mr. Kopchinski’s ethical-line observation faces the same risks. In Pfizer’s case, the problems didn’t begin with stereotypical predatory salespeople and percolate upward—they began at the top. Lies float, and so do corporate leaders who don’t set a good example--belly up. As sales effectiveness consultant Christian Maurer wrote this week on LinkedIn, “the fish starts rotting at the head.”
How can bright people working for well-regarded companies commit such ruthless dishonesty, when they wouldn’t think of robbing a cabbie at gunpoint—arguably a far less-heinous crime? By insulating the perpetrators from the victims. Here’s how (please see the embedded links):
Sales commissions: According to the NPR health blog, a “$50 bounty (was) paid to reps when they got doctors to add Bextra to the standard care for patients before and after surgery. These care protocols would direct patients to take Bextra, often at high doses, a few days before a knee operation, for instance, and then afterward to control pain.”
Telemarketing scripts directed to physicians: Salespeople were coached to tout greater efficacy and safety for Bextra compared to Vioxx, a competing painkiller from Merck. The US Food and Drug Administration never approved these claims.
Sales culture: OK. Let’s call it by its real name—intimidation. "If you don't aggressively sell your products . . . you're labeled a non-team player," Kopchinski said, adding that only by promoting Bextra for unapproved uses could he achieve management’s revenue goals.
You can see the evidence in clear black and white, and it’s all creepy. What was Pfizer’s management thinking? Caught with its pants down, Pfizer cut a check for $2.3 billion. Everybody—just shut up, leave the chicanery behind, and let’s move on! Problem resolved. But is it? At the same time that jolly Pfizer managers were gloating over PowerPoint slides showing escalating sales curves, people were suffering or dying from taking medications for unapproved uses. Bad ethics don’t get much worse than that, and even a $2.3 billion mea culpa won’t enable the company to sweep its dark tactics under the rug. A plan to sell cigarettes in elementary schools might have appeared more benign.
Which brings Pfizer’s indiscretions to the everyday salesperson. We’ve all experienced what happens when “baggage” is brought into a sales meeting. A salesperson is often considered guilty before he or she proclaims innocence. It’s understandable. Along with evaluating the performance and features of a product, prospects scrutinize a salesperson’s motivations and integrity. But as Pfizer’s deceit has shown us, prospects now need to look further, and to question whether the top management of a vendor's company has a moral compass. The answer to that question could reveal buyer risks that were previously unimagined.
For more on the topic of marketing ethics, please see:
Goofus and Gallant Make CRM Decisions, and
On My Honor as a Salesperson: Why Sales Ethics Matter
Mr. Kopchinski was fired from the company in 2003. In hindsight, he won’t miss his job. He’ll receive over $50 million from the US government for his efforts to prosecute the $2.3 billion fraud settlement from his former employer—the largest such settlement in US history.
Paying $2.3 billion for “fraudulent marketing" should cause every marketing professional and salesperson to break into a nervous sweat. Why? Because murky ethics aren't limited to Pfizer. They're amazingly common. They begin innocuously, then escalate. According to Mr. Kopchinski, what started as “aggressive promotion” of Bextra mutated into illegal practices. As he put it, “the ethical line kept moving.”
I’ve seen it over and over. Ethical risks are shrouded in code-speak: “we’re a ‘revenue-focused’ organization,” or “our company champions an ‘aggressive sales culture.’” Sound familiar? Anyone who doesn’t take heed from Mr. Kopchinski’s ethical-line observation faces the same risks. In Pfizer’s case, the problems didn’t begin with stereotypical predatory salespeople and percolate upward—they began at the top. Lies float, and so do corporate leaders who don’t set a good example--belly up. As sales effectiveness consultant Christian Maurer wrote this week on LinkedIn, “the fish starts rotting at the head.”
How can bright people working for well-regarded companies commit such ruthless dishonesty, when they wouldn’t think of robbing a cabbie at gunpoint—arguably a far less-heinous crime? By insulating the perpetrators from the victims. Here’s how (please see the embedded links):
Sales commissions: According to the NPR health blog, a “$50 bounty (was) paid to reps when they got doctors to add Bextra to the standard care for patients before and after surgery. These care protocols would direct patients to take Bextra, often at high doses, a few days before a knee operation, for instance, and then afterward to control pain.”
Telemarketing scripts directed to physicians: Salespeople were coached to tout greater efficacy and safety for Bextra compared to Vioxx, a competing painkiller from Merck. The US Food and Drug Administration never approved these claims.
Sales culture: OK. Let’s call it by its real name—intimidation. "If you don't aggressively sell your products . . . you're labeled a non-team player," Kopchinski said, adding that only by promoting Bextra for unapproved uses could he achieve management’s revenue goals.
You can see the evidence in clear black and white, and it’s all creepy. What was Pfizer’s management thinking? Caught with its pants down, Pfizer cut a check for $2.3 billion. Everybody—just shut up, leave the chicanery behind, and let’s move on! Problem resolved. But is it? At the same time that jolly Pfizer managers were gloating over PowerPoint slides showing escalating sales curves, people were suffering or dying from taking medications for unapproved uses. Bad ethics don’t get much worse than that, and even a $2.3 billion mea culpa won’t enable the company to sweep its dark tactics under the rug. A plan to sell cigarettes in elementary schools might have appeared more benign.
Which brings Pfizer’s indiscretions to the everyday salesperson. We’ve all experienced what happens when “baggage” is brought into a sales meeting. A salesperson is often considered guilty before he or she proclaims innocence. It’s understandable. Along with evaluating the performance and features of a product, prospects scrutinize a salesperson’s motivations and integrity. But as Pfizer’s deceit has shown us, prospects now need to look further, and to question whether the top management of a vendor's company has a moral compass. The answer to that question could reveal buyer risks that were previously unimagined.
For more on the topic of marketing ethics, please see:
Goofus and Gallant Make CRM Decisions, and
On My Honor as a Salesperson: Why Sales Ethics Matter
Monday, July 27, 2009
Perfect Pitch: A Tribute to Billy Mays, 1958-2009
Think you can sell ice to Eskimos? What about making a sales pitch in front of strangers for toilet bowl cleaner, picture hooks, laundry detergent, or putty. Go ahead. Step right up. See if you’re a better salesperson than Billy Mays, who died this week at age 50.
Billy’s commercials for Mighty Putty, OxiClean Detergent, and Kaboom are as close as a sales process gets to haiku. He builds rapport and trust, identifies a problem, pitches a solution, and motivates action—all within a two-minute commercial. Straight up, straightforward—and straight for the jugular. Whether he’s talking about toilets or dirty laundry, with his staccato delivery, Billy doesn’t tiptoe around anything.
Selling solutions that aren't glamorous, for problems that aren't pretty is much, much harder than it looks. And while it’s tempting to analyze Billy’s effectiveness by looking at the components of his sales pitches, his commercials are best appreciated without being encumbered by details. Billy connects with emotions, not with intellect. Who wouldn’t buy bonding putty that sets instantly, with the strength to pull a tractor trailer? I saw it in the commercial! And Billy just tripled the offer to six sticks!
What separates Billy Mays from other great salespeople isn’t his mastery of sales techniques. It’s not his effective deployment of people, processes, and technology. It’s his ability to delight the buyer. On that measure, he has few equals.
Whether we’re marketing gardening tools or ERP software, Billy Mays offers sales lessons for all us. In the meantime, a haiku tribute to Billy Mays, who could sell ice to Eskimos:
Top sales producer.
An opening. Hard sell. Close.
Buyer spends money.
Billy’s commercials for Mighty Putty, OxiClean Detergent, and Kaboom are as close as a sales process gets to haiku. He builds rapport and trust, identifies a problem, pitches a solution, and motivates action—all within a two-minute commercial. Straight up, straightforward—and straight for the jugular. Whether he’s talking about toilets or dirty laundry, with his staccato delivery, Billy doesn’t tiptoe around anything.
Selling solutions that aren't glamorous, for problems that aren't pretty is much, much harder than it looks. And while it’s tempting to analyze Billy’s effectiveness by looking at the components of his sales pitches, his commercials are best appreciated without being encumbered by details. Billy connects with emotions, not with intellect. Who wouldn’t buy bonding putty that sets instantly, with the strength to pull a tractor trailer? I saw it in the commercial! And Billy just tripled the offer to six sticks!
What separates Billy Mays from other great salespeople isn’t his mastery of sales techniques. It’s not his effective deployment of people, processes, and technology. It’s his ability to delight the buyer. On that measure, he has few equals.
Whether we’re marketing gardening tools or ERP software, Billy Mays offers sales lessons for all us. In the meantime, a haiku tribute to Billy Mays, who could sell ice to Eskimos:
Top sales producer.
An opening. Hard sell. Close.
Buyer spends money.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Is "Call on the CXO" a Winning Strategy for Salespeople?
Here are some tired and no longer true sales tenets:
Why are these passé? Because the statements rely on these increasingly tenuous assumptions:
Besides, selling isn't a numbers game. It's an intelligence game. But if these sales-ism's aren't true, then how do top sales producers develop, use, and manage selling networks?
Meet "Mr. Barcode"
I stumbled into part of the answer to this question in the early '90's, when I sold barcode technology. My prospect, a Fortune 100 manufacturer, purchased on a departmental level, but I wanted an enterprise-wide sale. I didn't know where to begin my campaign. Operations? Information Technology? Materials Management? Finance? As I placed calls into various departments, my inquiries were rewarded with a consistent answer: "When we have questions about barcoding, we go to Jim. We call him 'Mr. Barcode.'" I didn't know Jim, but encouraged by the moniker his colleagues assigned, I called him.
Jim was an unassuming man who worked in a windowless office in the middle of a cramped cube farm on the fifth floor of the Information Technology building. He had no decision-making authority, and his position was so low it didn't merit a spot on a published org chart. But today, a Social Network analyst would call Jim an Information Broker, a role of crucial importance for salespeople. I quickly learned why: no department made a barcode-related decision before he was consulted. I also learned that Jim already had many connections to my company's engineering team, and that by encouraging more connections, I improved the probability of achieving my goal. With Jim's involvement, along with some luck, our team won an enterprise-wide SAP project the following year.
What makes this story remarkable isn't that low-ranking Jim played such an important role. It's that most enterprises worldwide have many Jim's—and sales executives pay little or no attention to reaching them. Why? Because finding Jim's isn't easy. Their titles don't convey their importance. Their identities aren't readily mined from data warehouses. They don't hang out together in the same bars. Most significant, these key influencers are not self-anointed—they achieve their status through peer recognition. For a salesperson selling into a large enterprise, that fact alone makes identifying a Jim a task of near-monumental proportion.
Finding the First Mouth
But once identified, the rewards can be great. A paper by Raghuram Iyengar, Christophe Van den Bulte, and Thomas W. Valente Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion, and discussed in an article The Buzz Starts Here: Finding the First Mouth for Word-of-Mouth Marketing explains how Social Network Analysis can be applied to this challenge.
The researchers conducted their work for a pharmaceutical company and found their Jim, referred to as Physician No. 184, on a Social Network Map. "Researchers had tracked how prescriptions of a new drug spread from one physician to another, depending on who talked to whom and referred patients to whom. Mapped out on the screen, the story became clear: The medical community was actually divided into two sub-networks split apparently by ethnicity, with one sub-network dominated by physicians with mostly Asian names and the other with mostly European names. Connecting the two, like a spider suspended on a thread between two webs, was the dot for Physician No. 184— a doctor the company's marketing department and salespeople barely knew (my emphasis).
The article shared further insight: "Not only did the study indicate that word-of-mouth had been affecting physicians' prescription behavior . . . but it also showed that converting the right individual could have a dramatic impact. And for executives in the conference room, it revealed something else: They had been overlooking some of the networks' most important social hubs. 'That was the biggest a-ha! for the company,' said Van den Bulte. Physician 184 'was not the most important in the number of connections he was getting, but he was vitally important in linking the networks.'"
And there's more. Whereas traditional market research asks people "Are you an opinion leader?," network research asks "Whom do you turn to for advice about ...?" According to the article, "the different approaches can produce widely different results...asking people how important they are is not the best measure of how important they really are. Just because people think they're important doesn't mean it's true. And some people are actually more important than marketers believe, or even they themselves believe."
Great opportunity awaits salespeople who develop relationships with Jim's and Physician 184's. But the first challenge is in knowing who you're looking for. So put titles and organization charts aside. If your sales team finds that concentrating effort on getting C-level appointments doesn't bear fruit, and that it's frustrating to "get around gatekeepers," maybe it's time to ask some questions beyond "how can we better reach the CXO?" Those questions could start with "what do the selling networks of top sales producers look like?
Like the study that discovered Physician 184, your best path to a sale might be through people your competitors don't even recognize.
"Focus your efforts on reaching C-level executives."
"Get in front of a decision maker."
"Get around the gatekeeper!"
"It's a numbers game. The more calls you make, the better your chances are for a sale."
Why are these passé? Because the statements rely on these increasingly tenuous assumptions:
- C-Level executives are influential
- Job titles reliably predict whether an individual will be valuable in the sales process
- An organization transfers value through formal hierarchies
- Within an organization, decision rights are consistent, enforceable, and understood
- Sales is the most important connection point between vendor and prospect
Besides, selling isn't a numbers game. It's an intelligence game. But if these sales-ism's aren't true, then how do top sales producers develop, use, and manage selling networks?
Meet "Mr. Barcode"
I stumbled into part of the answer to this question in the early '90's, when I sold barcode technology. My prospect, a Fortune 100 manufacturer, purchased on a departmental level, but I wanted an enterprise-wide sale. I didn't know where to begin my campaign. Operations? Information Technology? Materials Management? Finance? As I placed calls into various departments, my inquiries were rewarded with a consistent answer: "When we have questions about barcoding, we go to Jim. We call him 'Mr. Barcode.'" I didn't know Jim, but encouraged by the moniker his colleagues assigned, I called him.
Jim was an unassuming man who worked in a windowless office in the middle of a cramped cube farm on the fifth floor of the Information Technology building. He had no decision-making authority, and his position was so low it didn't merit a spot on a published org chart. But today, a Social Network analyst would call Jim an Information Broker, a role of crucial importance for salespeople. I quickly learned why: no department made a barcode-related decision before he was consulted. I also learned that Jim already had many connections to my company's engineering team, and that by encouraging more connections, I improved the probability of achieving my goal. With Jim's involvement, along with some luck, our team won an enterprise-wide SAP project the following year.
What makes this story remarkable isn't that low-ranking Jim played such an important role. It's that most enterprises worldwide have many Jim's—and sales executives pay little or no attention to reaching them. Why? Because finding Jim's isn't easy. Their titles don't convey their importance. Their identities aren't readily mined from data warehouses. They don't hang out together in the same bars. Most significant, these key influencers are not self-anointed—they achieve their status through peer recognition. For a salesperson selling into a large enterprise, that fact alone makes identifying a Jim a task of near-monumental proportion.
Finding the First Mouth
But once identified, the rewards can be great. A paper by Raghuram Iyengar, Christophe Van den Bulte, and Thomas W. Valente Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion, and discussed in an article The Buzz Starts Here: Finding the First Mouth for Word-of-Mouth Marketing explains how Social Network Analysis can be applied to this challenge.
The researchers conducted their work for a pharmaceutical company and found their Jim, referred to as Physician No. 184, on a Social Network Map. "Researchers had tracked how prescriptions of a new drug spread from one physician to another, depending on who talked to whom and referred patients to whom. Mapped out on the screen, the story became clear: The medical community was actually divided into two sub-networks split apparently by ethnicity, with one sub-network dominated by physicians with mostly Asian names and the other with mostly European names. Connecting the two, like a spider suspended on a thread between two webs, was the dot for Physician No. 184— a doctor the company's marketing department and salespeople barely knew (my emphasis).
The article shared further insight: "Not only did the study indicate that word-of-mouth had been affecting physicians' prescription behavior . . . but it also showed that converting the right individual could have a dramatic impact. And for executives in the conference room, it revealed something else: They had been overlooking some of the networks' most important social hubs. 'That was the biggest a-ha! for the company,' said Van den Bulte. Physician 184 'was not the most important in the number of connections he was getting, but he was vitally important in linking the networks.'"
And there's more. Whereas traditional market research asks people "Are you an opinion leader?," network research asks "Whom do you turn to for advice about ...?" According to the article, "the different approaches can produce widely different results...asking people how important they are is not the best measure of how important they really are. Just because people think they're important doesn't mean it's true. And some people are actually more important than marketers believe, or even they themselves believe."
Great opportunity awaits salespeople who develop relationships with Jim's and Physician 184's. But the first challenge is in knowing who you're looking for. So put titles and organization charts aside. If your sales team finds that concentrating effort on getting C-level appointments doesn't bear fruit, and that it's frustrating to "get around gatekeepers," maybe it's time to ask some questions beyond "how can we better reach the CXO?" Those questions could start with "what do the selling networks of top sales producers look like?
Like the study that discovered Physician 184, your best path to a sale might be through people your competitors don't even recognize.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Race and Gender Impact Employee Customer Service Bonuses
Are customer satisfaction surveys a fair and unbiased tool for for assigning employee bonuses?
No, according to a study published in the Academy of Management Journal, An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction. According to the lead author, David Hekman, assistant professor of management at the University of Wisconsin, surveys “are highly reliable—but they are reliably wrong.” The authors believe that customer satisfaction surveys are biased because they are "anonymous judgements by untrained raters that usually lack an evaluation standard."
Hekman conducted several experiments to measure customer satisfaction. In one experiment, subjects watched videotaped interactions between a bookshop sales clerk and customers, and were asked to imagine they were the customer and to rate the bookshop’s service performance. Three actors played the part of the sales clerk—a white male, a black male, and a white female. All used identical settings and scripts.
The subjects shown the white male clerk rated the bookshop’s service 19% higher than subjects who viewed the other two actors.
If we use customer satisfaction measures to assign bonuses, can we assume we’re not compounding race and gender bias? If this assumption isn't correct, how can we make survey-influenced compensation systems fair? Could other attributes not measured in Hekman's study—for example, weight, age, and appearance—create similar results?
No, according to a study published in the Academy of Management Journal, An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction. According to the lead author, David Hekman, assistant professor of management at the University of Wisconsin, surveys “are highly reliable—but they are reliably wrong.” The authors believe that customer satisfaction surveys are biased because they are "anonymous judgements by untrained raters that usually lack an evaluation standard."
Hekman conducted several experiments to measure customer satisfaction. In one experiment, subjects watched videotaped interactions between a bookshop sales clerk and customers, and were asked to imagine they were the customer and to rate the bookshop’s service performance. Three actors played the part of the sales clerk—a white male, a black male, and a white female. All used identical settings and scripts.
The subjects shown the white male clerk rated the bookshop’s service 19% higher than subjects who viewed the other two actors.
If we use customer satisfaction measures to assign bonuses, can we assume we’re not compounding race and gender bias? If this assumption isn't correct, how can we make survey-influenced compensation systems fair? Could other attributes not measured in Hekman's study—for example, weight, age, and appearance—create similar results?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
