Posts Tagged ‘selling’

September 2009 Carnival of Trust: Nine ways of looking at trust

Monday, September 14th, 2009

This post is part of Charles Green’s Carnival of Trust, a monthly review of blog entries discussing elements of trust in relationships among people and companies. Thanks to Charlie for inviting me to host this month’s Carnival.

What is trust? Or, more directly, what are the conditions for trust to be present, between a customer and a company or between two companies? This was a theme of several great blog entries this month. To Ron Ashkenas in the Harvard Business Publishing Conversation Starter, simplicity creates trust. He writes: “When you create complicated explanations of products, services, and contracts, customers often feel that you aren’t being truthful about what’s being offered.”

In a selling situation, a salesperson’s knowledge and insight are essential to creating trust, according to Dave Brock. “If the customer doesn’t know, immediately, that you can contribute to what they are doing, they will be reluctant to engage in any kind of discussion with you.”

Roger Dooley of the Neuromarketing blog writes that fairness and transparency are essential to trusting and effective relationships between partners and that engaging in those behaviors (which are rare indeed in many business dealings) can yield better profits than every-man-for-himself negotiation.

Another dimension of trust is allowing autonomy – the ability to loosen the leash a bit and allow employees to make their own decisions rather than the system deciding for them. For example, deciding what material they need to access, even if it’s outside their everyday needs. Bruce Schneier discusses the ineffectiveness of “role-based access control” and argues for a system that sets employees’ access rights but allows them to override these controls when they decide it’s necessary. These escalations are closely audited and inappropriate accesses are penalized. In a world where companies are logging keystrokes to “ensure” remote workers’ productivity, Schneier’s proposal is welcome indeed.

A warning to companies reinventing themselves: merely acting differently can impact the trust their customers have in them, according to Lewis Green in his post, “Social Strategies Grow Out of the Culture, Not the Tactics.” Writes Green, “When customer service is outsourced overseas and customers perceive a decline in their experience, people conclude that efficiency and cutting costs are more important than customers.”

Being able to balance a corporate strategy with the need and perceptions of customers is necessary for trust, as well. So writes Bob Sutton about the dust-up caused by Wal-Mart creating an imitation Girl Scout cookie for sale in its stores. (I posted earlier on Sutton’s post, here.)

Wally Bock talks about the unique and rare breed of trust between an employee and his/her boss (”How Do I Trust Thee?“). To Bock, a boss must be willing to stand up to his own management and defend/protect the employees who work for him. Without this, trust is nonexistent. This post made me think of my management experiences: how often did I stand up for my employee, and how often did I find it easier to agree with my boss about things the employee should do better?

Indirect means of building trust are necessary when your product is intangible – when you’re “selling the invisible,” writes Jorge Lazaro Diaz. Doctors, for example, can build trust in patients by listening to them, showing care and concern, and running an organized office. Patients see these behaviors as proxies for what they’re really in the market to buy, but what’s hard to measure in advance – curing what ails them.

And to wrap up, remaining on the subject of doctors, Scott Eblin mines a New York Times article about a palliative care specialist for leadership lessons. Dr. Sean O’Mahony talks to patients who are dying. He is honest, clear, caring, and curious about his patients’ feelings. He also keeps a level of detachment, preserving his emotional reserves for other patients and his own needs. In this case, passion does not promote trust, it can damage it.

(Thanks to Ian Welsh for collecting an excellent batch of posts to choose from.)

Selling today: casting a wide net and “going for the no”

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Market segmentation is a very attractive concept. Analyzing a group of customers, comparing it to the capabilities of your product set, and deciding who are the highest-probability targets. Salespeople then focus their efforts on this narrower set of prospects. Sales then follow.

At its worst, though, segmentation allows you to fall in love with a small pipeline. After all, if the prospects are in the target segments, they should be easier to close than an undifferentiated mass.

But these days, negative factors are overwhelming positive factors in buying. In other words, companies’ reluctance to do anything during this downturn means that there are far more automatic “no’s” out there than during boom times.

For the salesperson, as a result, the small pipeline is the kiss of death. No amount of persuasion, reference-sharing, value proposition development, trial closing, etc., will turn around a prospect who’s not ready, willing, and able to do business with you. And today being a “ready, willing and able” prospect means having a business problem that’s so acute that you are willing to surmount all the obstacles to get it approved and funded.

How does the salesperson deal with this? Understanding the business problem her solution addresses is the first step. Then, finding customers suffering acutely from that problem is paramount. This may mean ignoring or de-emphasizing market segments in favor of casting a very wide net, to get lots and lots of suspects. And then, using Jeff Thull’s terminology, “going for the ‘no’”–meaning very quickly assessing whether they prospect has the business problem, and whether its acute enough to take that person’s time, resources and budget to address it right now. If it’s a no, say “thank you” and move on.

Someday, we may be able again to isolate high-potential prospects through market segmentation. At this moment, I’ll put my money on a ton of leads.

Related posts:
Downturn is costing companies their adventurousness
To close, a purchaser must be ready, willing and able

Studying what customers do, and acting on it: marketing as an “art form”

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

There’s a great op-ed piece by Judith Flanders in today’s New York Times, covering the recent bankruptcy filing of Waterford Wedgwood and recounting how the company has lost its way, especially in comparison to the marketing genius of its 18th centry founder, Josiah Wedgwood.

According to the article, two innovations catapulted the pottery company from humble origins to leadership. One was a technological breakthrough, “creamware,” a process that created high-quality earthenware nearly indistinguishable from porcelain.

The other was marketing acumen that would impress Steve Jobs. I love this quote, discussing Josiah’s focus on learning from buyers and leveraging that knowledge to improve his product and its marketing:

In a letter to his business partner, he marveled at “how rapidly the use of [creamware] has spread” and “how universally it is liked,” and tried to balance how much this had to do with its royal “introduction” versus “its utility and beauty.”

That is the true Wedgwood. It wasn’t pleasure at past achievement, but instead determination to understand why success had come about, so he could build on it. Selling was an intellectual pleasure, an art form.

What a refreshing viewpoint, during these days when selling and marketing are portrayed (often by people in those professions) as a grind, perhaps even dishonorable.