Is "Call on the CXO" a Winning Strategy for Salespeople?

Here are some tired and no longer true sales tenets:

"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.

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?

Tell the Truth--Is an Educated Consumer Really Your Best Customer?

“An educated consumer is our best customer.”

That slogan stood out when Sy Syms, CEO of Syms Corporation, said it in television ads in the 1980’s. Customer empowerment wasn’t a popular notion back then.

Fast forward to social media-enabled 2009. A new book, Get Content. Get Customers. , by Joe Pulizzi and Newt Barrett, challenges the Syms ideal. According to the book, “the more informed a consumer or buyer is, the more difficult it is to sell them.” Could both statements be correct? While they don’t directly contradict, they do point in different directions. In sales, there’s no such thing as an irrefutable truth, and in my experience, there’s truth in each one.

Not everyone agrees. In metro Washington DC, where I live, major corporations employ high-dollar lobbyists to fight the risks educated consumers pose, as anyone who tracks policies of the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration can attest.

When is an educated consumer not the best customer? When she wants to know facts about the soil that grew the carrots she ate in last night’s salad. Or when she wants to learn about the living environment of the chickens or cattle that are now in the grocery meat case. Better for the producers that she sticks to knowing generic fat, carbohydrate, and protein content, along with “sell by” date. For other foods, the lobbyists insist she also doesn’t need to see the word “imitation” on some products, that she doesn’t need to know anything about the farms her food comes from, or what pesticides were used for their production. (For a more detailed discussion about why food manufacturers benefit from disconnected supply chain information, see author Michael Pollan's blog.)

Beyond food, The Wall Street Journal reported three related articles just this week:
FDA Says Video for Pain Drug is Misleading
SAT Coaching Found to Boost Scores—Barely
Laws Take On Financial Scams Against Seniors
What value do uneducated consumers bring to the companies profiled in these articles? Bernie Madoff won’t be reading this blog, but it’s not hard to guess how he would weigh in on this question.

Closer to where my clients live in the B2B selling world, I floated the statement from Pulizzi's book to a few sales groups on LinkedIn and received some excellent thoughts. The consensus was that it’s preferable to sell to informed prospects. That’s good, because—like it or not—prospects are better informed than ever. But a few of the responses I received were circumspect. Informed prospects aren’t necessarily any more open minded or are better decision makers than uninformed prospects. One salesperson commented about the difficulties that occur when a prospect is well informed on price, but has a poor grasp of the complexities of the product he or she is buying.

So when it comes to prospect knowledge, information is a two-edge sword. I’ve left some sales meetings in frustration, convinced my uninformed client wouldn’t recognize a good solution if it flew in and hit him in the head. In other situations, my client did homework and told me (correctly) that he could procure reliable refurbished or off-brand equipment for one-third the cost of my proposal—information that a sane commission-driven salesperson wouldn’t typically volunteer.

But today, with social media, the information genie is already out of the bottle. It’s more fruitful to debate what to do about managing prospect information than it is to debate whether informed-slash-educated prospects are better to deal with than those who aren’t.

Here are some questions to ask:

How well-informed is your average prospect? When you begin your formal sales process, what do they already know? What don't they know that they definitely need to know?

Where do your prospects congregate online (and offline) to get information?

For information outside of your company’s direct control, what risks and opportunities are present? What misinformation exists, and what is the impact on your sales strategy? Do you have a plan to counter significant misinformation?

What information do your prospects seek? What motivates them to seek the information, and how do they value it? Which risks are they mitigating and which opportunities do they want to capitalize on?

What information is available to them? Who contributes to that content? Who “owns” the content?

How will your prospects use the information they obtain? What portends a next step or action? What will break the buying process, and do you have ways to mitigate the risks?
Back to Syms. Whether an educated consumer really is the best customer depends on what you sell and how you sell it. Above all, be agile. If your sales process can’t adapt quickly to changes in information power, you will be debating about whether it’s better to sell to educated customers. But with social media, events move quickly. By then, it might be too late.

Will a "Slow Sales" Movement Save Us from Ourselves?

“Sell more, with fewer resources, faster. Oh, while you’re at it, bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West.”

How’s that for a quartet? If you haven’t seen these challenges in a PowerPoint slide at your latest management meeting, you probably will. Most of us are already experienced delivering at least three of them.

We responded even before the banking meltdown. We absorbed higher sales quotas, targeted prospects better, made our lead generation more efficient, and shortened sales cycles. What’s unclear is whether we’re rocking uncomfortably from the ripples we’ve created. Time and again, we learn that our sales efforts have a negative impact on customer relationships. Our prospective customers often don’t trust salespeople, don’t like them, and don’t want to communicate with them. Are we pushing too hard? Should we cool our jets? Maybe the time has come for a Slow Sales movement.

Decades of Fast Sales dictums have yielded tactics that clash with long-term strategic goals:

“Close the Sale” versus “Build a Relationship”

“Generate a Quick Win” versus “Improve infrastructure to gain long-term improvements in customer loyalty”

“Win the monthly individual sales incentive” (and hoard tacit knowledge) versus “share knowledge so the entire sales organization can benefit”

“Make the quarterly revenue goal” versus “maximize the total value of the customer”

The Slow ideal has found a growing audience willing to question whether our obsession with collapsing timeframes serves our longer-term interests. The Slow Food Movement began as a counter-force to government and commercial entities that promoted convenience food and economies of scale without regard for sound nutritional and environmental practices. Educators have recognized a parallel danger. Peggy Orenstein wrote in The New York Times (Kindergarten Cram, May 3, 2009) “maybe the current economic retrenchment will trigger a new perspective on early education . . . Call it Slow Schools. After all, part of what got us into this mess was valuing achievement, speed and results over ethics, thoughtfulness and responsibility.” In education, it takes a brave person to question outcomes that are sacrosanct to many. But Ms. Orenstein reframed the question: it’s not about how can a child’s development be sped up, it’s “why are we so hellbent on doing so?”

Similarly, in sales, we must change the overarching questions we’re asking. The problem is, “how do we sell more, better, faster?” sounds better at the Achiever’s Club golf outing than another question I recently heard, “what steps do we need to take with each prospect and when should we take them based on the natural progression of our prospect’s purchase process?” That long-winded question sounds way too kind, and many sales executives would feel silly asking it. But by asking and answering that question we’re possibly more likely to achieve strategic sales success than by relentlessly pursuing tactics to satisfy the first one. Fast Sales rarely comes without high pressure and customer pain—two conditions that damage, rather than improve, financial results.

The promoters of the Slow Food movement exposed exploitation after recognizing a long-simmering win-lose relationship between top producers and end consumers. Large food manufacturers such as Monsanto, ConAgra, and Archer Daniels Midland could meet their financial objectives while at the consumer end of the value chain, people became overweight and undernourished. But Slow Food and Slow Sales are an imperfect comparison. The Slow Food movement encompasses ideals I haven’t seen on the white board for any sales planning meeting I’ve attended: equitable distribution of products and resources, and responsible stewardship of the planet.

Not that we’re unconcerned and mercenary, but in sales, one simple financial reality explains our preoccupation with speed: Net Present Value. Assuming the cost of capital is constant, the present value of a dollar in revenue today is worth more than in any future period. That cold fact drives strategic decisions. Sometimes customers benefit—sometimes they don’t. So through the Net Present Value lens, the juxtaposition of “slow” and “sales” might mean a situation to avoid rather than an inspirational movement.

But the same way fast food brings us Type II diabetes, and high-achieving preschoolers bring us win-at-any-cost adults, tactics to secure short-term revenue bring unwanted side effects that could take more than one generation to fix. Some progressive companies understand this, and not surprisingly, have embedded Slow Sales ideals into their brand. For example, “At Oboz we build shoes for outdoor use—shoes with meaningful innovation, solid performance and recognizable quality. We are also stewards of our rich natural heritage and believe that a business should contribute to the greater common good.”

If that lofty goal conjures up images of American consumers (who want affordable quality footwear, available in local retail outlets) holding hands in the woods with citizens of producing countries (who want jobs, unpolluted air, and clean lakes), it’s probably a mirage. Would Oboz voluntarily curtail sales growth to avoid sourcing materials from non-compliant vendors (a common dilemma in eco-manufacturing)? There are no easy answers, and tradeoffs must be made. But kudos to Oboz! At least I sense this issue has a spot on the white board in the company board room.


Like other Slow movements, Slow Sales requires taking some unpopular stances, and asking uncomfortable questions that put tried-and-true in the cross hairs of change. For some companies, that means looking at selling in a fundamentally different way by regarding a purchase transaction as a point on a timeline, rather than the end-game of a sales process.

Slow Sales won’t work for every company. It requires a long-term planning horizon, and companies that don’t have the resources to go the distance will trade one set of risks for another. But as with food and education, Slow might provide the best way to deliver value that can sustain both producer and consumer now, and in the future.

Hype of Hope: For Salespeople Does Social Media Live up to its Promise?

Social media has permeated our personal lives so thoroughly that we hardly notice when a new technology tool chips away a little more of our privacy. But in sales and marketing, we embrace social media as transformational. We're primed for game changers, and we don't need to look far for good old fashioned hype in these articles about how social media will transform sales:

For Sales Guys, Social Media is the New Cocktail Party
Five Ways to Increase Sales Through Social Media
How to Tap into the Social Media Phenomenon for Greater Sales and Profits
Social Selling—Building a Web2.0 Sales Force

. . . But is social media living up to its promise?


Double-edged sword

It depends. One statement by Kevin Waldvogel, Account Executive at Image Systems sums up the ambivalence of eight senior salespeople I interviewed for this article: "Social media is great to help people and get your name out there, but not the greatest place to make instant business. It reminds us to listen to people who are in need of help and think about helping them because you never know when you might be in that situation. It's kind of a double-edged sword."

One edge symbolizes that social media provides valuable improvements to sales processes, and the other that social media won't help if it's not intelligently embedded with more mature, proven sales techniques.

From Waldvogel's comment, one senses that if the plugs were suddenly pulled on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook, life would go on—at least for this group. Social media touches their jobs, but outside of collaborative CRM, I couldn't find one case of a corporate mandate to use it.

Clearly if there were a mandate, it would have to consider the boundary of social media, a question Jeff Baker, Major Account Manager for Hewlet-Packard asked. "It's important to expand the list, to expand the footprint" of social media. According to Baker, it's everything from the directories in today's cell phones, which can be shared, to electronic community directories. Joe Panella, Sales Manager at Alpha Systems, corroborated Baker's idea. He has scoped the recipient line of more than one neighborhood community email to find domain names of companies he targets for his company's suite of data collection products and services. When he finds one, he sometimes contacts the individual. But from there, his sales processes are little changed from the early '90's when he joined his company.

Mike Chiappetta, Unified Computing Systems Specialist at Cisco, voiced a similar view. "Selling hasn't changed in fifty years. LinkedIn makes for great icebreaker discussion, but you don't know your prospect's agenda or business problems, so you gather nothing that will help you in a B2B sales process. There are no shortcuts for doing real homework."

Real homework requires learning strategic and operational pain points that ignite sales processes—information which social networking sites don't offer. And while the sites offer community, there's no insight about the activities between community members. According to Chiappetta, "if I spend time on my client's corporate website or Yahoo Finance, I'll get more information to help me build trust than I ever can on LinkedIn."

Social media's greatest impact results from how it enables internal sales collaboration.

These seemingly prosaic uses of social media are emblematic of the resourcefulness of people who sell for a living. They don't necessarily rely on sophisticated social networking software to capture, share, and use information about the organizations and people who are potentially valuable to them. They exploit little ways to improve on what they already do. I asked about the most visible social-media created change in their jobs. The prevailing answer? Email—not voice—now transmits an overwhelming majority of prospect sales communication. According to Panella, "I rarely get a phone message, but I touch 200 emails a day."

Still, I probed for a big social media success story. Panella told me of a large order he sold when he serendipitously discovered a friend's posting on Facebook. Baker described how he facilitated a sale for HP hardware in Eastern Europe by connecting a graduate school colleague to an Outlook contact who specializes in IT financing in that region. But despite these positive outcomes, neither Panella nor Baker is convinced that the same tools could dependably enable them to repeat those successes in the future.

Internal collaboration

For the salespeople I interviewed, social media's greatest impact results from how it enables internal sales collaboration. Cathy Cromley, Sales Director at market research firm IDC Government Insights, uses Yammer, which her company implemented to enable employees to share knowledge internally. In an organization with over 1,000 analysts, Cathy would find it overwhelming to identify expertise on high-level topics such as cloud computing or green that she researches for her prospects and clients. But with Yammer, she can find referenceable projects, connections to subject matter experts, and blogs internal to IDC.

Eric Freeburg, Senior High Touch Account Manager with Motorola Enterprise Mobility Business leads teams of up to 70 people on sales engagements for large accounts such as Kellogg, Whirlpool, GM, Ford, Chrysler, and La-Z-Boy. For Freeburg, internal collaboration is mission critical. If he spends time on social networks, it's managing his team through Motorola's CRM software, Salesforce.com. "Who has time for LinkedIn?" he asks.

External sales processes

When it comes to client contact, the veteran salespeople I spoke with use social networking tools conservatively, and in different ways. Baker of HP, manages one customer, AOL. "I know everyone I need to connect with at AOL. I don't do prospecting the way others do."

Trudy McCrea, CEO of IT Services firm Achieve-IT, LLC in Northern Virginia, avidly uses social media tools, but not to close business. Through Outlook, she maintains a list of target accounts, and uses LinkedIn for an advanced search to uncover who isn't in her database. She searches for specific information about the kind of people who work for a company, their education, previous company affiliation, and other background to develop a second tier of contacts. From there she might make a cold call by phone or send an inMail. She also uses LinkedIn's Groups function extensively. McCrea understands the role luck plays in developing new business, saying "I make many unplanned discoveries."

Unfortunately, social media websites have driven many influencers away.

Motorola's Freeburg works with between 50 and 300 active customer contacts at a time, but uses one resource—Salesforce.com—for the daily information he requires. He uses LinkedIn mainly to post his professional credentials so he can "present myself without bragging." IDC's Cromley thinks of online social networks as a dynamic Outlook application that doesn't require time or resources to maintain. She uses LinkedIn and other tools "mostly to keep up with where people are."

Protocol and impediments

This conservative use of social media might result from the fact that adoption of social media tools faces large hurdles—an often-obscured reality. According to Panella, "some employers don't allow their employees to use (social media) for company purposes. They place restrictions around it."

Such impediments aren't fully recognized. In a March 31, 2009 webinar "Hear it Now! Social Selling: Live Q&A on Selling with Web 2.0," Christopher Carfi of Cerado, Inc. said that it's important to engage with an influencer in their place first, and that if they have a public persona to use the mechanisms provided. Unfortunately, social media websites have driven many influencers away. McCrea, who regards client privacy of paramount importance, works with a high-level contact at Google who had a public persona, but changed because the visibility brought unwanted solicitations. According to McCrea, "LinkedIn doesn't shield customers. (My contact) got unwanted email and now uses Facebook. Now, people keep less data on LinkedIn to keep from being found."

Several salespeople shared that simple business etiquette guided their decisions about how to adopt social media. Cromley believes that using social networks as a prospecting tool is "not appropriate," adding "I'm offended by someone trying to tap my network simply to hawk their wares." While she uses LinkedIn to look up information about prospects, she cautions that salespeople "should be careful not to look like you've stalked the person."

And then there's The Law. A senior business development professional who sells technology solutions to the legal industry said that attorneys must address confidentiality, security, and privacy issues of Electronically Stored Information (ESI), and the public nature of the Internet adds to the complexity of legal issues. Many sources of ESI are discoverable in legal matters —something to think about before you set up your next social media campaign. My contact cited the case in which Whole Foods CEO John Mackey posted blogs for over eight years on Yahoo online stock forums by using a pseudonym. The SEC opened an informal inquiry to see if any insider information was released. Although the SEC ultimately concluded that Mackey hadn't broken any laws and that no action needed to be taken, ethical issues linger.

Social products and services

If better social media mousetraps exist, salespeople will buy them, and Twitter has made the shopping list of at least two.

If social media hasn't forced major process changes among the group I interviewed, it has dramatically changed the products they sell. Motorola, long a dominant player in mobile technology and retailing "has always been a strong supporter of social networking and is developing solutions for its clients," according to Freeburg. IDC has conducted numerous studies of government's use of social media and has released a case study about how the DC Government used YouTube for procurement, entitled Social Networking and Takin' Care of Business Every Way. In the legal industry, FTI Consulting broke ground in legal discovery with Attenex, a software application that provides visualization of social networks by tracking email traffic and document trails. In a global economy, this resource provides crucial support to corporations that might need to document connections for a seamy side of social networks—bribery activity.

If better social media mousetraps exist, salespeople will buy them, and Twitter has made the shopping list of at least two. Ironically, the staid legal industry occupies the vanguard of industry adopters. That's because "congress is adopting Twitter, so attorneys are as well," according to my legal industry contact. Cromley also considers Twitter a potentially valuable tool. The analysts at IDC use it extensively in the financial services vertical, and the company will expand its use to all six verticals in which it competes.

The road ahead

If the individual insights of these salespeople prove anything, it's that social media's promise depends on the ingenuity of the people using it. But there's another takeaway. Even in the face of market upheaval, and a great shift in information power from vendor to consumer, legacy selling processes are surprisingly durable. We're a long way from the seismic changes in selling others have predicted.

So where are we on the Social Media Maturity Curve? No one can say with certainty. Some have suggested that we're at a social-media saturation point. In her recent column, Let Them Eat Tweets—Why Twitter is a Trap (The Medium, New York Times, April 19, 2009), Virginia Heffernan wrote "Twitter may now be like a jam packed, polluted city where the ambient awareness we all have of one another's bodies might seem picturesque to sociologists (who coined "ambient awareness") to describe this sense of physical proximity, but (it) has become stifling to those in the middle of it."

If that's the case, in an uncertain economy, should companies take a conservative approach and delay implementing new selling strategies by waiting for the Next Great Thing after social media? No. When deployed intelligently, social media can provide remarkably valuable outcomes. Here are a few points to remember:

• Social media should transform processes, but not etiquette.
  Technology-enabled sales tactics will backfire unless acceptable business protocol is considered in the customer experience.
  
• Social media enables business strategy. It's a set of tools, not an endpoint.
  
  
  
• In the short-term, deploy social media tools selectively. Identify the most persistent selling problems you or your sales team faces, and embed social-media tools where appropriate. Unless there's a compelling reason, don't rip and replace.
  

Thought Leaders: PLEASE tell me something I DON'T know!

This year CMG Partners, an East-coast based marketing strategy firm hosted a panel discussion entitled Why Good Products Fail & How to Improve the Go-to-Market Process. The face-to-face event was complimentary to the local business community in Northern Virginia, and included experts from four enterprises: startup beverage company Honest Tea, National Geographic Channel, WeatherBug, and Intelevision.

Five minutes into CMG’s introductory PowerPoint, a man in the audience named John interrupted the presenter and opined “You’re the experts in marketing strategy, and yet, I don’t hear anything new. You haven’t provided anything we don’t already know!” He continued by reciting the unremarkable bullet points projected on the large screen in the front of the room, and emphasizing that he wanted to hear thought provoking insight worthy of his time. The slack-jawed audience at the McLean Hilton fell so totally silent you could hear a Blackberry hitting the plush carpeted floor.

Faced with this unexpected detractor, the presenter replied with such aplomb that his response belongs in the history books along with Lloyd Bentsen’s legendary debate response to Dan Quayle : “Well John, you get what you pay for!” The widespread laughter that followed was evidence that the tension of the moment had been broken.

The exchange somehow ended amicably, although I don’t think John will receive an e-invitation to CMG’s next event. The panel tried hard to live up to John’s expectations, thanks largely to Mark McNeely, CEO of Intelevision (more about that in a moment). During the post-panel networking, I introduced myself to John and thanked him for voicing an opinion that was probably unspoken by many, including me. “I might not have said it the same way, but I appreciate that you spoke your mind. There have been many times that I’ve wanted to say what you said, but didn’t.”

John might have been similarly moved during the recorded one-hour webinar on social media and selling I listened to on Monday. The topic is of particular interest as I’m completing a series of interviews with salespeople for an article I’m releasing next week. Like CMG’s event, there was a panel of thought leaders with cross-functional expertise—a great blend that should have created pungent discourse. And there were some good ideas that I jotted on my notepad and marked with an asterisk. But a few opinions were so over-worn that I stopped the recording and pushed back the timer a few seconds to make sure I heard them correctly: “We have to be in touch with our customers and understand what’s OK for them and what they expect from us.” And “It’s becoming more critical to know your customer.” Really? I acknowledge these comments are removed from the context of the discussion, but they were as attention-grabbing in the webinar as they are here.

Which leads to a question: are thought leaders fostering a sort of institutional stupidity by being too timid to espouse bold ideas? Or are thought leaders simply reacting to a perception that businesspeople need to be spoon-fed unremarkable ideas (not too big, not too small, not too hot, not too cold) so they can be nudged into considering larger ideas? On the other hand, could executives and managers simply be too intimidated by the multitude forces that are upending their business plans and strategic objectives to consider big ideas?

Mark McNeely might have answered the question when he synthesized the reason for the problems American businesses face: “there’s no oxygen in the room. Companies are run by management that is stagnant, bureaucratic, and self-satisfied.” He predicted that will change—because, if you subscribe to the idea of a Darwinian process for business, it has to.

Resolving our global economic situation demands the creation of provocative ideas. Controversial ideas. Ideas that are unpopular or disagreeable. We don’t need any more Mom and Apple Pie. In marketing and sales, nothing great will happen when well-known truisms are dusted off and passed on as contemporary expertise.

To those who regularly offer contrarian views, keep doing what you’re doing. The world needs your fresh perspectives now more than ever.

Ready to Sell? Quick--Name Your Prospect's Issue!

Author Michael Korda said “great leaders are almost always great simplifiers who cut through argument, debate, and doubt to offer a solution everyone can understand and remember . . . straightforward but potent messages.”


As the photo illustrates, simplicity alone doesn’t make a message potent. What’s missing? Two crucial factors that Howard Gardner describes in his book Leading Minds: how effectively the scripts are enunciated and how convincingly the deliverers of the communications embody the scripts. On those dimensions, “now serving food” doesn’t demand rigorous analysis.

In marketing and sales, we live and breathe message potency. We have to. Everything we do must nudge, push, or demand a change in one or more entrenched behaviors. So, when it comes to potency, could the intended change be as significant as the message itself?

To answer that, we must address a challenge even more basic than potency: how to select the right issue to address in the first place. From experience, I know it’s hard to get it right. In business, we tout high ROI when our clients want strategic enablement. We push strategic enablement when cost reduction matters most. We communicate about best practice knowledge transfer when the greater issue is how to build communities. We promote social media tools to build communities when a client’s overarching concern is managing profitable growth. Our assumptions leave us in a fog of sometimes-happy ignorance. Most exasperating, our prospective clients usually can’t tell us that we’re attacking the wrong issues because they’re not even aware of our companies or our products!

Happily, every now and then, we find a great example that reminds us that we can connect to visceral issues and make our communications potent—but first we have to understand what the issues are. An advocacy group called Food Democracy Now (FDN) has a mission is to advance “the dialogue on food, family farm, environmental and sustainability issues at the legislative and policy level.” Against a powerful food industry lobby intimate with the complexities of the Farm Bill and the machinations of the National School Lunch Program, Dave Murphy, FDN’s president, faces a daunting challenge. According to a recent article in The Washington Post (“Where Policy Grows," March 25), Mr. Murphy recognizes that it’s not only important to understand the legislation, but to “recast the debate about good food from a moral battle to an economic one. Take the school lunch program, which Congress will review this year. Food activists have long argued that more fruits and vegetables from local producers should be included to help improve childhood nutrition. But Murphy says the better way to sell the idea to legislators is as a new economic engine to sustain small farmers and rural America as a whole (italics, mine). Talk about nutrition and you get a legislator’s attention, he said. ‘But you get his vote when you talk about economic development.’”

Bland? After all, ‘economic development’ lacks originality—many times over. In addition, because righting economic wrongs isn’t FDN’s primary mission, Mr. Murphy could be forgiven for being more pedantic about nutrition, health, and the environment. But he knows that by building an economic frame around his cause that FDN will accomplish more than it could through moral grandstanding. By going after the wrong issue Mr. Murphy would find promoting his cause a much tougher row to hoe (pun intended).

Mr. Murphy’s circumspection about issues applies equally to other marketing challenges with differing complexities. What does finding the right issue mean for achieving a targeted return on invested capital? Sales productivity? Reducing sales risks and shortening sales cycles? Meeting revenue forecasts? Everything. Attacking the wrong problems (or attacking the right problems the wrong way) creates a cascading set of selling failures. When it comes to changing entrenched behaviors, not all issues are created equal. For maximum potency, messages need a highly motivating context, and that means choosing the right issue.

Like FDN, when you find the right one, you can change the world!