Recently a client decided to say ‘no’ to an RFP opportunity. It was tough. It was a big company, a huge opportunity and a great chance to get a foot in the door. They said no because of their Red Flag Dozen (see RFPs Suck!). The Red Flag Dozen is a list of the must-haves in order for the company to invest in responding to the RFP. One of the red flags in this situation was that my client had to have an executive sponsor before they could answer an RFP. Another red flag was that my client would have needed to have done business with the company before. Finally, my client needed access to information during the RFP process, access that the company would not grant. Three strikes: no sponsor, no past history and no access.

Here is the letter that they sent to say no. I have made the letter more generic than what was sent, but this will give you a good template to follow.

“Dear Mr./Ms. RFP Sender,

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your Request for Proposal for the XYZ project. That said, I would like to inform you of our intent to not participate in this process. This decision is not based on your process, which is fair and balanced, but rather on our own internal opportunity review process.

Specifically, we require client executive sponsorship and a thorough understanding of the guiding business initiative. This requirement is based on exhaustive experience that indicates that the success of complex projects hinges on executive sponsorship, relentless focus on the underlying business value and trusted partnership between the business and the solution provider. While I’m certain that you fully understand this reality and would never proceed on an important project without such assurances, I am not confident that we currently enjoy this level relationship with you.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit. Please direct questions or comments to my attention.

Executive in Charge
Non-Responding Company”

This response stands on its own. It is not a move.

That said, the letter does create the opportunity for the RFP company to come back and make a strong request for your to participate. What should you do?

1. Make a simple request. “Who will be my executive sponsor?” (see “Executive Sponsorship Agreement” blog)
2. Make a second simple request. “I would like a phone call review of the RFP document for the sake of more complete context on some of the items.”
3. Do one more thing. Go back through your Target Filter and your Red Flag Dozen before you decide to respond.

One of the keys to winning in the RFP game is to say “no” early and often. Establish your best practices and stick to them.

I have been living in the world of sales training, writing, hiring and strategy for quite some time now. I have had a chance to look behind the curtain to see what is back there. Here’s what I have found: a lot of misspent money.

The consultants and trainers working in the field are well intentioned, and many are very talented and effective. There is among all of us, however, a myopic view of solutions and consulting. For example, if I sell selection testing, then I see testing as the solution to everything. If I am a trainer, guess what, training is the answer. Process guys love process, of course the CRM people believe activity tracking is the panacea and so on. The fact is that there is not a universal solution to a multi-faceted problem and as a result, your risk in buying into one solution to solve your problems is that you are bound to overspend on one part and get poor results on another.

The Big Picture

Companies hire my company when they are ready to double the speed with which they are going to double their company. We help them develop the strategy, process and techniques for big sales. But such exponential growth is not everyone’s goal. Some companies just want to grow at a more manageable rate. This means that some times—actually a lot of times—I’m the wrong consultant for the job.

Look at it this way:

• If you want to grow 5-10% per year, then skills training with your current sales staff can help you make that improvement. It is a smaller investment and requires the least amount of organizational change to accomplish it.
• If you want to grow 10-20% per year, then you will need to change personnel and the way that you attract and select them. It is a bigger investment in dollars and culture change. If you want to get bigger in this range, you have to bite the bullet and make the choice.
• If you want to grow 20%+ per year, then you can’t just use the same people with some better techniques to get there. You can’t just use new people to sell into your current market. You are going to need a few new players and a much better market/message/sales process strategy to land your transformational accounts.

In the ideal world, you do all three because no single approach will give you the sustainable growth and solid sales organization necessary. But because most organizations have a finite amount of resources, sales consultants wind up selling you their solutions as the complete answer. It’s not accurate and that is where consultants get a bad name.

The Quartiles

If no one solution is the best for everything, then how do you figure out what is best for you? I believe you should use the Quartiles method- Break down your sales staff in blocks of 25% performers, based upon raw gross sales. Be careful, you can over analyze this. Just force-rank them by sales and you can evaluate for exceptions later.

When you break down that group, the general guidelines look like this:

What you apply universally will kill the productivity of half of your team. Let me say it again. Whatever you apply to everyone reduces productivity in half of your sales staff. You are going to need to apply a blended approach if you want to dramatically change your sales results as it relates to your team.

EXAMPLES

• CRM. If you start using CRM as an activity measurement tool, then your top 2 quartiles are over-managed and annoyed. You are wasting their time by managing them like your lower 50%. The unintended outcome is that the best performers get marginalized
• Selection Testing. You are not going to hire your next rockstar through testing alone. Testing is great for identifying potential. It keeps you away from hiring those who do not fit the job and dramatically increases the possibility of high potential candidates who will develop into top quartile producers. This process doesn’t guarantee all top quartile hires, but it does avoid almost all bottom quartile performers.
• Strategy. Half of your team is not prepared to learn the strategic and nuanced call-coaching information that you are providing. They will take misunderstood ideas to their customers and confuse them. Strategy is lost on people who need tactics and those people who want strategy are bored by tactical training that they learned a long time ago.

THE TRUMPS

Here is my rule of thumb if you have to make tradeoff choices rather than implementing all of these investments at once:

• Strategy trumps talent
• Talent trumps skills
• Skills trump activity
• Activity trumps inactivity

In best-in-class companies, there is an attention and investment in all four. Picking consultants has to be an outcomes first consideration. Decide what you want, then look at the changes in which to invest. As always, buyer beware. If anyone promises a fast and effective answer, it is probably neither. And if anyone promises a universal answer, they probably don’t understand the problem in the first place.

“We’re getting commitments, but we’re not getting orders…”

“Some of the biggest companies out there are our customers, we just aren’t getting the volume…”

“The decision-maker is saying we’re going to get the business, but then her people order from their old suppliers…”

One of the most common problems I hear from clients is the problem of traction. They can get into the big companies, but they can’t get that “yes” to turn into dollars. I have touched upon this in the past in “Unsticking Stuck Deals (parts one & two) and “The Executive Sponsorship Agreement.”

I believe that sales people are pathologically optimistic, and it’s a good thing that they are. If they weren’t, how could they get out and face the rejection and frustration that accompanies the sales process? But that optimism carries with it some inherent dangers for their companies.

False positives, missed signals and ‘hope’ acting like ‘commitment’

Sales people are given a variety of “yes” answers over the course of a sales process that create the sense that a deal has occurred. In reality, though, there is at least one unseen step in the decision spectrum where the ‘maybe’ masquerades as ‘yes.’ You can probably spot it.
(more…)

“If we get Microsoft, (replace Microsoft with your favorite iconic brand name), then it is going to be a lot easier to get other big guys. So what if you take a little bit of a haircut on that deal? It’s what we are going to have to do to get our name out there.”

When I work with small and mid-size companies, I often hear the siren song of the logo deal.

This is not a discussion I hear on occasion. In one flavor or another I hear this conversation in almost every company I meet. The promise of affiliated greatness for your brand because of someone else’s strong brand is very hard to pass-up, I know.

I’ve written and spoken against this practice at length. For the sake of context, I’ll just give a quick summary of why this is a dangerous temptation. Then I will outline the Trigger-Map Strategy we teach for companies that want to boost their brand through key brand affiliation.
(more…)

I posted this blog some time ago, but in the past several weeks I have directed so many people to it that I thought it would be good to bring it back for a re-post. Enjoy!

I’ve been on the road the last two weeks with a number of clients and I have to tell you that the swagger factor in the marketplace is low. That’s right: SWAGGER. That quality of confidence that provides patience in the face of stupidity, no-blink nerve when looking into the eyes of challenge and the slight strut of knowing you’re the best.  In talking to best-in-class sales leaders in a variety of industries who work with top-shelf branded clients, I discovered that they are still committing the following party fouls when approaching new prospects:

• Running test-proof cycles for the most basic products and services;
• Waiving engineering, design, drawing, setup and installation fees for first-time buyers on small orders;
• Fulfilling tiny initial orders so that “you can prove yourself”;
• Agreeing to long “try, wait and see” cycles.

Brando Don’t Audition. At some point in your company’s history of performance, serving demanding clients and developing your reputation, your company became good enough to answer this question from a prospect: Are you qualified to do business with me?

“Qualified” means competent and market competitive—in pricing, features and benefits—which further means that you should have the right to move past the first round (walking in the door).  Prospects ask for samples, references, test-runs and little orders as a credentializing step in the process of doing business with you. After you have credentialized yourself, THEN you get to the real issues of a potential business relationship, which means relevance and value at a scale past credentialization. That’s why I say, “Brando Don’t Audition.”

Marlon Brando’s has a level of expertise and notoriety that makes it ridiculous and insulting to ask him to audition.  His body of work of work speaks for itself.  Your company’s body of work should do the same.

When prospects ask you to credentialize yourself, you have to get them to see you as competent and competitive straight away so that you can get down to the nitty-gritty: the value and relevance of using your firm. One of the best ways to do this is to take the prospect back to your company’s body of work.

You say:

“Look, we work with X, Y and Z companies, solving problems like P, D and Q and with the scale of A, B and C. This tells you that we are capable of doing this type of work, consistently and at a market competitive rate. Otherwise these companies, with their rigorous qualification process and purchasing approach would never have hired us. If you agree that we can probably handle your work, let’s spend our time focusing on the specifics of this relationship so that I know whether or not we can be relevant and valuable on this particular program.”

People put you through the hoops of auditioning because:

• They feel they have to. Some part of their process requires it.
• They want to put you in your place. Like keeping you in the lobby 15 minutes extra before meeting you.  It’s a power play.
• They don’t know you’re Brando. This is the place you have the greatest amount of control. Through your initial conversation and presentation, the prospect needs to understand that putting you through the hoops is a waste of their time and yours. You are the Marlon Brando of your industry!

The competitive market place has caused companies to stop swaggering. You have to get the swagger back or you’ll risk grinding out your confidence by going through the audition door.  And really, you should be going through the finalist door at the first knock.

I liked your “Sales Challenge” answers so much that I am going to make “Sales Challenge” a regular part of this blog in the future. Great ideas from everyone!

Here’s the rest of the story…

The team improvised. The second-in-command eel exhibited classic “I don’t want to be here” body-language: he was slouching, his arms were crossed. He didn’t even bother to cinch up his tie when he came to the meeting. He could not have tried harder to project the “I’m here because I have to be, not because I want to be. Make it fast” attitude.

The first thing the sales team tried to do was break the ice and ask some questions about what the eel wanted. Nothing doing. He simply said, “Just make the presentation like you would if John Doe was here.”

Without much to go on, the team tried to change the expectations. Team: “John Doe’s not here, so the objective of the meeting is different. In fact, it’s wide open now and the presentation may not even be valuable. Let’s talk for a moment about the area we are looking at, what goals you have in that area and what you consider to be some of the pain points.” They got a little bit more out of him here, but not much. The eel was still closed off and defensive.

Third, the team tried to befriend the eel. Team: “Considering the time the team has been in place and what your group is trying to accomplish, our analysis is favorable. Some of these results are probably in line with things you are already addressing.” Even as the team presented high-level results, we’re got nowhere. The problem was that we were now all-in. We opened up the dialogue about the presentation, so we had to make the presentation. Calculated risk. I would like to say it paid off, but it didn’t.

We pitched the presentation, left copies of it and promised to follow-up. The team’s email to the eel’s boss (our AWOL first-in-command) to set up a conference call to review the results was brushed aside with a perfunctory email response: “Thanks so much for the report. It is very thorough. I don’t think a call is necessary at this time. I’ll review your recommendations and get back to you.”
Dead stuck.

Mistakes in our approach? A bunch. I’ll give the short-list:

1. We didn’t make a same-day appointment confirmation call with the most important person in the pitch to make certain he would be there.
2. We didn’t call the meeting off when we found out that the sponsoring executive was not going to be there.
3. We pitched the one guy who had the most to lose and then let him pitch the one person who had the most to gain without us.
4. We had not involved the eel early enough in the sales process to have gotten some level of buy-in or fear-reduction before we started the entire sales process that culminated in this presentation of results and opportunity to propose our solution.

There are more, but I think these are at the top of the list.

You have all been very helpful with what should have been done differently.

I now have a different challenge for you. What should the hunt team do next?

It probably seems a little confrontational when I ask a prospect the simple question of “Why are you doing this?”, but really it’s just a more direct variation on a theme.

The other, less direct versions of this question are questions like:

• Why is this the right time for you to consider changing vendors?
• What performance threshold are you hoping to achieve by changing your provider right now?
• How have things changed so much in the last 6 months that you are now considering changing your provider?
• What will working with a new vendor give you that you are not getting from your current vendor?

In the end, though, it all boils down to wanting to know why.

I am working with two clients who have put this question into the early parts of their sales process and the answers they received are astonishing in their frankness.  I assure you that all of these examples are real.  I find some of them rather disturbing.

• “I have to look at other vendors every so often to keep procurement happy.”
• “The company we are working with says they can’t make any money because raw material costs are higher than what we pay in total price, so I’m looking to find someone who is cheaper.” (All providers in the industry buy their raw materials from the same source.)
• “We’re always looking to see what’s out there.” (The next question: “When was the last time you changed vendors?” Answer: “We’ve worked with the same company for 11 years.”)

These same clients would visit any company that would give them the time before even reaching the “Why are you doing this?” point.   Their reasoning, and I hear this a lot, was, “Hey, you never know.”

True, but only if you don’t ask. If you ask, you will probably get a good idea of whether or not the prospect is interested in making a change (and whether it is worth your time to move forward in the process).  The good (for you) answers from prospects to the “why” question include:

• Current vendor is failing to perform
• Specific improvement targets for changing
• Clear need for new technology, system, process or materials
• Company initiative to change approaches and therefore vendors

It’s never too late or too early to ask the “why” question, and you really can’t ask this question often enough.  By finding out the prospects’ motivation you can find out the reality of whether or not they actually plan to change. After all, change is where the money can be found.

Old men aren’t the first to die in shipwrecks.

You would think they would be since they do not have the strength or endurance of young men, but in maritime records, young men die first. Why?  Because they flail about and waste precious energy while old men grab onto drifting debris, conserve their energy and wait for daylight to determine what to do.

Right now, one of my client’s business unit leaders is acting just like a young sailor during his first shipwreck.  His biggest deals are finishing up with little backlog to absorb the headcount and he’s flailing, yelling into the darkness and panicking.  He’s frightened and he has the right to be.

So what can he do?

1)    Shut up. Quit talking to everyone about how frightened you are, how quickly the sky is falling and how new and different strategies need to be implemented.  For the most part, this is not new news and does not serve a proactive purpose. Start talking when you have a consistent strategy and when you can articulate it clearly, often and with conviction.

2)    Grab onto some driftwood. Just because you are frightened, it doesn’t mean that everything is not working. You have to define the core pieces that are working and start building a boat (your strategy) based on them.  At the very least, you need to cling to what is working until daylight comes.

3)    Quit kicking until you spot land. There are no silver bullet solutions. Changing the offering to the market on a 72-hour cycle confuses your people and your prospects. Follow a strategy with 10 prospects and determine the outcomes.  Don’t just take a sample size of one conversation with one prospect and decide that you “have the answer.”  Calm down. Follow the plan through 10 conversations with 10 prospects and then decide if a complete change in strategy is necessary.

4)    Conserve energy. Make choices. More of more is not necessarily going to yield more.  Focus on the opportunities that you are hunting one at a time and with rigor.  It is the opposite of the shotgun approach—a flurry of activity in many directions—but it is more effective in the long run.  It’s better to pick out strategic targets and drive hard at those opportunities.
5)    Give encouragement. Chances are that other people on the team are frightened.  Use your experience and judgment to show them that your team will get through this tough time.

As in life, the people who need the most help are usually the least likely to take it.  If you are the drowning man, follow this list. If you know a drowning man, give him this list. If you are doing just fine, keep this list.  You may need it the next time there is a sales shipwreck.

My last post dealt with the “Problem” problems that cause deals to get stuck. There were quite a few.

As I promised in that post, there are other reasons that deals get stuck besides “Problem” problems. I call them “Us” problems.

These “Us” problems include:

1. No Solution. There are times when we believe that a prospect’s aggravation with the current provider is so acute that they will switch to us at almost any price. But their frustration is really only enough to get us in the door and in contention for consideration. Research has shown that the usual threshold for changing out a major supplier, vendor, or partner is the potential for an 8-14% improvement, or there will not be a deal. This improvement is the aggregate of improvements in price, cost, friction and value.
2. No Credibility. There is another side to the world of big claims: the TOO BIG CLAIM. When we claim that our solutions offer more than a 14% improvement, our credibility goes through the floor. The expectation of an 8-14% improvement comes from a Harvard Business School study, and I have found it to be in line with real world expectations. Though there are differences between industries, anything too far beyond a promise of a 14% improvement is likely to be seen by prospects as BS.
3. No Chemistry. The prospect has to be able to see their people company working with your people. When they can’t, or worse, when they can but they hate the idea, you have a chemistry problem. I have been on the inside of buying groups. Time and again personalities and chemistry have been major factors when value propositions are similar. It has even been the driving decision factor in multi-million dollar deals.
4. No Precision. Using generic answers that focus on what we can do, instead of on tailored, real-world solutions to their problems, issues and time frames create the sense of risk. Our one-size-fits-all approach creates the risk that we will miss something that will limit or eliminate the benefits that they prospect was seeking.
5. Solution Creates More Problems. Every solution holds the potential for greater damage during implementation. For some companies, the problems may be more political than they are financial or operational, but they hold a sense of great risk nonetheless.

With these “Us” problems, we are overwhelmingly dealing with what our solution means to our prospect…
(more…)

In our business, more than half of our deal coaching work focuses on “unsticking” deals, and believe me, it’s exactly how it sounds. Sometimes a deal loses momentum, gets lost in the fold, or just gets plain stuck. Some symptoms of a stuck deal are:

These symptoms are measured against my three indicators of the health of a deal: information, people and time.

The reasons that deals get stuck generally fall into two categories: “Problem” problems and “Us” problems. In this post, we’ll focus on the “Problem” problems. Next time, we’ll focus on the “Us” problems.

“Problem” problems fall into these categories…
(more…)