Sale.jpg (Photo credit: SteelCityHobbies)
Roger Edward Jones, a good friend and insightful sales consultant just published a neat article on selling in low or no-growth markets. I'll share the up front summary–more on his website:
"Over the past year or so, I've been getting a consistent message from leaders responsible for complex and big-ticket sales:
It's getting harder and harder to differentiate an offering to any substantive degree.
In low and no-growth markets (and worse), there's no longer scope for differentiating through price cuts.
So, what's working?
A new breed of salesperson is emerging that seems to be genetically programmed to thrive in these conditions. A few weeks ago I used the term 'fisherman' as a description.
But there's more to it, it seems.
My argument was that the hunters and farmers of the past are endangered since the landscape has changed beyond recognition. To recap:
The difference today is of course the volume and quality of intelligence available to salespeople. Not only can you easily identify a prospect organisation, you can often read about the tastes, preferences, life history and activities of key executives. The prey is in full view.
The hunter is a dying breed since he or she does not have patience to play the long game.
The farmer is a dying breed because overservicing is unaffordable. While 80% of business comes from 20% of clients, the farmer finds it hard to deviate from his 'round'.
But what if you could combine the charismatic power of the hunter and the methodical and caring qualities of the farmer to produce a hybrid with foresight and patience.
The fisherman.
A new challenger for the Supreme Salesperson title?
In a a book called The Challenger Sale, the authors introduce the notion of "salesperson as teacher".
This positions the salesperson as consultant, in the true sense of the word and not by ego-enhancing but inauthentic job title.
It seems that winning salespeople are showing prospective clients how to better compete in their market*.
This means that salespeople have to possess the expertise and vision to see how products and services can yield strategic benefits to an organisation.
Big call.
According to the authors, it signals an end to warm and fuzzy relationships as the basis of success.
Another take on this comes from authors Erik Peterson and Timothy Riesterer in Conversations That Win the Complex Sale.
As with the challenger sale, it introduces the notion that prospects need to be "shaken up" and "challenged".
I take it to mean that this goes beyond the passive role of "problem solver" where the problem is teased out of the client.
The authors argue that with many/most industries being perceived as commodities, using what they call "conversations" rather than a proposition based pitch, provides the basis for differentiation,
"Be bold: Startle your prospects, and shake them up."
Challenging the prospective client's assumptions on a regular basis is the most effective sales technique, they argue.
This (literally) challenges Selling 101 in so many ways. We were taught to identify needs and emphasise product and/or service attributes that will potentially benefit the prospect. These should not be generic benefits for a product or service class, we should always have USPs.
The authors argue that the prospect has already determined that your product class is a commodity and is thus immune from any talk of a USP.
"For many salespeople, the biggest roadblock is the status quo, not the competition", say Peterson and Riesterer.
Inertia is the enemy, and they encourage salespeople to "Make your prospects feel pain, and present your product or service as pain relief."
From "sales consultant" to sales consultant
To be a regarded as an authentic consultant, you must present a distinct and relevant point of view.
The key to this practice is to help the prospect visualise upcoming challenges. This naturally requires the salesperson to provide an insight that is as yet not known or fully understood by the prospect.
I'm yet to be convinced that avoiding pain is the only or primary reason why a prospect would sit up and take notice, but it is a reason.
It could equally be an unknown or unrealised opportunity.
One potential flaw in the authors' logic is that the salesperson must be better able to "provide pain relief" than a competitor. In other words, there must indeed be a USP (unless I'm missing something).
The salesperson as a visionary
If there's little scope for substantive differentiation in a market the sale is won by the organisation that can better engage the prospect. While there are many touch-points the salesperson is crucial in big-ticket and complex sales.
A Case Story that provides an insight is central to success. If this can be achieved, the salesperson is a visionary.
If he or she can provide the prospect with a competitive strategy insight (missed opportunity, unseen threat) then engagement, and a conversation rather than a pitch, will ensue.
What of the fisherman?
Well we do know that successful ones bring home the catch. "
A VC in Vacationland 