by Katie Weisz Estimated read time: Less than 1 minute
The conversation of “Do we really need outbound sales anymore?” continued with another lively interview, this time featuring special guest, Brent Adamson. Brent is a distinguished VP at Gartner, and a published author with a lot to say about the case between sales and marketing.
In the interview, CEO, Scott Gillum, and Brent unpack the idea of Challenger, debunking it as a “sales methodology”, and how both sales and marketing should be co-owning the process of the customer and buyer experience.
Brent also shares three very distinctive approaches (giving, telling, and sense-making) that sales reps are adopting towards information in order to connect with potential customers and buyers.
In this clip, Brent dives into the topic of “the world is crowded with good information.” In sales and marketing, the customer is now surrounded by good, quality information, which is having an impact on their decision making and buying process.
Listen here:
To hear the interview with Brent, listen or download here.
For more on how Carbon Design is thinking differently about marketing, work, and business, subscribe to our email list here.
Can we agree that making good business decisions is getting harder?
For each business, the reasons vary, but we see common themes:
Volatility: The pace of change of everything (markets, customers, technologies, products and competitors) is accelerating.
Uncertainty: The accelerating pace of change challenges assumptions about what’s invariable.
Complexity: The number of stakeholders, variables, and perspectives involved in a decision keeps growing.
Ambiguity: We’ve become very clever at accumulating data, but having more data does not solve the problem of knowing what the data means.
School didn’t properly prepare any of us for making decisions in this environment. Deductive problem-solving works best in predictable environments. That’s not the world we live in.
Of course, there is no apparent shortage of external help:
Analysts proclaim their best practices.
Consultants promote their proprietary models.
Technologists offer their SaaS tools that aim to automate some choices.
And in their own particular contexts, all of these are, of course, helpful. But for higher-level decisions, “best-practices,” “models,” and “algorithms” share a common liability: they are, by design, reductive.
And so for those early, fuzzy, high-level and massively consequential choices, the question you need to ask is whether the way to make a good decision is to keep eliminating considerations until the right answer appears.
That happens often enough, but is there a better way?
We think so. It’s called: “Possibility-Oriented Thinking.”
The phrase is most closely associated with innovation, but this capacity is one that marketing people should also hone. Put yourself in the shoes of a classic innovator: you’re not yet sure what the product is exactly, or who the customer is yet, or what they will pay, or what exactly your competitors are working on, or who they even are, and when they will make their next move.
The answers are all emergent properties of a system too complex to fully understand. Doesn’t that sound a little like many marketing challenges today?
So what do you do?
The “Possibility-oriented thinking” approach begins with this perspective.
Rather than:
assuming there is a “right” answer, we assume there are a variety of answers, some better than others.
assuming that we have the facts required to make the right choice, we assume we don’t, and so adopt an attitude of humility about assumptions and relentless curiosity about new data and possibilities.
thinking the answer can be arrived at by way of deduction from existing facts, we assume that something new has to be injected into the system, something we imagine; a possibility we conceive, a relationship we speculate about and then explore.
making ballistic decisions with resources, we think about “Safe-fail” experiments, pilots, & prototypes.
thinking that the best idea comes from the most expert or highest ranking person, we think the best idea comes from a diversity of perspectives integrated through thoughtfully designed interactions.
What are some of those thoughtfully designed interactions? This comes back to context.
Are you seeking a strategy of differentiation in an established market?
Are you seeking a strategy of transformation around the customer experiences you create, or the business model that you create them with?
You might consider using the Basadur Simplexity model for discovering challenges, organizing a map of dependencies around them, and prioritizing the action plans that advance your goals.
Are you creating a new category, or something very close to it, and seeking a framework for decision-making that does not rely on asking an as-yet undefined customer group how they would respond to an as-yet undefined value proposition?
You might consider a program organized around the concept we call “Pathfinding” – an iterative process that involves a rotation between stances – strategic sense-making, research, ideation, market ecosystem analysis, and marketing experiments.
Of course, organizations also look to Marketers to solve narrower more routine problems. If that’s all Marketing stands for and contributes, it does run the risk of being seen as the “arts and crafts” department of the business.
It need not be so.
A marketing organization equipped to provide leadership in decision-processes at those moments when the altitude is high, the problems are fuzzy, and the outcomes really matter – is a marketing organization that produces value far exceeding the narrow chores of “filling the funnel” and managing content.
Building your musculature in possibility-oriented thinking improves your chances of doing so.
Get more thoughtful content on how to ‘think differently’ on marketing, business, and work by subscribing to our newsletter.
Let us know what you think. Are outbound sales dead? Do leaders use technology as a ‘silver bullet’ to try and fix sales, marketing, and the customer experience?
A couple years ago during Gartner’s Sales and Marketing Thought Leaders roundtable, I asked the group, “Do we really need sales anymore?”
The question was in response to research Gartner shared about the challenges facing sales in gaining a consensus from the internal buying group to move forward with a purchase decision. This insight, built on top of the previous CEB (now Gartner) research showing that buyers are 57% of the way through the sales process before engaging sales, prompted me to think about their effectiveness.
Knowing that half of the room was filled with sales thought leaders, I asked the question in jest to provoke a lively conversation. This year, after seeing Gartner’s latest research on B2B sales, I asked the question again with a twist, “Do we really need outbound sales anymore?” This time it wasn’t meant in jest, it was a serious question about the value of a Sales Development Rep (SDR).
SDR’s according to Payscale, earn on average of $42,000 a year to “make outbound sales by reaching out to clients to obtain leads and schedule appointments for the sales team.” They are the voice on the other end of the phone after your download information off a vendor’s website.
The data point that caused me to question their value is based on how little time buyers spent speaking with sales during a purchase decision. In 2017 Gartner found that only 17% of a buying group’s time is spent with sales. In the latest meeting Brent Adamson, vice president at Gartner, shared that in the most recent research the number is now down to 16%. And as you might have guessed (based on the 57% data point mentioned above) most, if not all, of that time is spent at the end of the buying process.
That leads us back to the SDR. Their role is aligned at the front end of the process. Perhaps you could argue that they play a valuable role in creating leverage for the more seasoned and costly sales executives by screening inquiries, and as the definition describes, scheduling appointments for the sales team.
So, let’s explore how effectively they perform this role using a recent experience I had with an SDR of a SaaS company. We were running an RFP bid process for a client. As a mid-market company, they are looking for an online collaboration tool that fits their unique needs. We collected a list of potential providers and I came across an additional vendor late in the process. Here’s my actual email exchange with the SDR after I signed up for a demo.
You guessed it, he didn’t make it happen. As a result, I didn’t have the information needed to add them to the list. If his organization had allowed me to view the demo on their website without being screened, they may have been included in the bid.
Ironically, the well-defined lead qualification process the rep was following killed the deal before he was able to qualify the opportunity.
I’m not alone in my experience. Gartner’s research asked buyers to define the factors that contributed to a “High Quality, Low Regret” deal. In other words, what factors contributed to them feeling like they made a good informed decision.
Interestingly enough, the factors that made buyers feel less confident about their purchase decisions are directly tied to the seller, specifically buyers didn’t trust them to provide all the relevant and/or unbiased information needed to feel well informed.
On the other side of the chart, buyers commented that they felt confident in their ability to ask the right questions, collect the right information and draw out the insights needed to make a good decision.
Now the dilemma…
We are at the intersection of inbound marketing and sales engagement.
With the increasing sophistication of content management platforms and the risk associated with the sales person negatively impacting the information collection process, we face two very strategic questions for sales and marketing executives.
The first — where do you draw the line between allowing the customer to direct themselves to the right information needed to make a “high quality and low regret” decision and inserting the SDR to help guide them?
The second — when do you do it? Do you allow the buyer to self-identify and request help or do you proactively reach out to them?
The answer may come down to simply how you view the process. If it is truly a “buying process,” then the buyer is in control. You allow them to go as far as they need and allow them to reach out to sales.
If it’s viewed as a sales process, then you reach out to them and help them find what you think they need, which according to the research, is the riskier path.
Based on my experience, I think the answer is clear. And if you believe that sales is a “numbers game,” then the numbers in the research are not in favor of outbound sales.
Let the debate begin.
To hear the interview with David, listen or download here.
Clients have complained about it for decades. Agencies have been wrestling trying to find a new model for years, but yet it still exists. Partly because they know that abandoning it will require them to move to fixed fees, and most likely fixed timelines, and that is more risk than they can, or want, to stomach.
Before I start highlighting why the billable time model doesn’t work, let me tell you when it does — with a caveat. In my seven years working in this environment, I can say I have only seen the model work effectively for the client once. Here’s what it took to make it work.
The client had a pipeline of projects – the client went through a process of consolidating marketing budgets to move to a single agency retainer. They then identified enough projects to fill the agency capacity and smalls one off efforts to cover production gaps when the priority projects were delayed.
They put the basics in place – knowing that efficiency is essential for optimizing a retained relationship they had the foundational building blocks for developing campaigns. The client had their audiences defined, value proposition and messaging tested, and an approved media budget with CTAs. You want as much of your marketing dollars going to execution as possible. Don’t burn agency fees on the basics.
Quarterly reviews – they set clear priorities each quarter and conducted quarterly reviews. Learning what worked, what didn’t and why/how to improve in the next quarter. Typically, no month goes according to the plan so they had budgets rollover month to month and a defined point to reconcile fees.
Built in flexibility with “on demand” resources – a core client team was defined with “specialized” skills that were “on-demand,” not dedicated. They used contracts/freelancers on their team to pick up work that may come in “over the transom.”
Strong management of the relationship and retainer – they took an active role in managing the relationship with the agency, with a dedicated agency team that included ex-agency people. One person prioritized and managed the work internally before it went to the agency. That person was the central point of communication, consolidating feedback and restricted others from contacting the agency with requests or changes.
If this doesn’t sound like your organization, let me share with you what you’re up against and why the billable time model is not in your favor.
The production process – flexibility gives agencies problems once you’ve committed to a retained team and defined work. Think of it this way…let’s say you hire an organization to build a car. The company gives you a price to build it. Sticking to the production schedule the car will cost you exactly what you contracted. The problem in marketing is that few things go according to the production schedule. Issues with approvals and getting content or legal feedback within the defined time is often the exception rather than the rule. So, let’s say your car is making its way down the production line and it gets to the person who is handling the windshield install but the windshield isn’t there because the size and shape wasn’t approved. As a result, the entire production line is now slowed, or the car is taken off the line so other cars can progress. Either way, costs are now being incurred due to the delay. This is what happens when marketing assets are being created. A client doesn’t approve an image on time so when the agency production schedule has the image retoucher scheduled to work on the image, it’s not there. The image retoucher is then reassigned to other work and this task goes back into the scheduling pool, causing delays further down the line.
“Microspecialization” – perhaps you’ve noticed that your team has blossomed with “specialists.” For example, content development; long form, short form, digital, technical writers, etc. A good writer is a good writer, or at least one would think. If you are working with a large agency they will have the luxury of having broad skill sets in house or contracted. These “specialist” are assigned to work on multiple projects. Their time being divided among 5-7 or more projects during the week. Let’s go back to the production line analogy. The work is progressing down the line, now there are twice as many stops as in the past because of the microsegmentation of the work and skill sets needed to complete it. This means we have twice as many people to schedule, coordinate calendars and manage handoffs. Let’s say the main copywriter creates the campaign content that moves to the digital copywriter to chunk it up for the website. Then, it’s off to the short form writer for emails, and the technical writer for the sales sheet. You get the picture. Each step is a handoff, an opportunity or risk to come off of message, change the tone, or lose the intent, etc. All which result in burning more hours to fix.
Efficiency and creative – speed is the enemy of the good, not always, especially in a billable time model. Being more efficient is not necessarily aligned to a billable time model. There is no incentive (beyond due dates) to move work quickly or efficiently. If a creative is assigned to spend a half day working on a banner ad and can complete the task in a hour…“work expands to fill the time for its completion” as they say. Agency folks have to meet a certain threshold of billable time, similar to attorneys. This is not all bad. To be fair, you want to allow the creative team to have the time to well, be creative. Rushing the creative process can produce poor outputs but it is often times at odds with efficiency. More on this later…
Revenue recognition – for an agency to recognize revenue they have to have time billed against it. If you have a $100K a month retainer, for example, you will get a large team. It starts out with good intentions. Agencies will assess the work to be done and then assemble a team to do it, that’s how the pricing model is built. But the model is built in a vacuum based on previous client engagements. It allows agencies to assign and/or hire resources. Once the team is constructed and the real work begins, the team may or may not be aligned to capacity needed. However, it is aligned to the capacity needed to fill out timesheets to justify the fees.
You, the client – yep, you are complicit in this problem. To get the most out of your relationship (and money) you need to take an active part in managing and partnering. Consolidate feedback internally, force internal stakeholders to make decisions and tradeoffs. Stick to and/or set realistic timelines and expectations. Do your homework and have as much of the prep work done prior (more on this below) to selecting or working with an agency partner. You know that time is literally money (your money) so be active in finding ways to be more efficient. Agencies do their best work when there is clarity on goals/objectives and communication.
Here’s the funny thing — the billable time model doesn’t really work for agencies either. It restricts growth, creates rigidity, causes inefficiencies and counterproductive employee behavior. So why do they keep it? Because it protects them from you.
Marketing can be messy and managing clients can be challenging. You miss a deadline or change a deliverable, and here comes the change order. To abandon it would require discipline, analytic rigor, and STRONG client and project management skills, which few possess. The billable time model is the devil they know, but unfortunately, can’t kill.
It’s not unusual to find companies referring to their relationship with clients as “partnerships.” It’s common to find client logos on vendor websites. But how often do you see an agency or consulting firm’s logo on client websites? If you visit www.evepark.ca – that’s exactly what you’ll see.
Carbon Design, represented side by side with, a global architecture powerhouse, a world-class designer, and the project principal: the innovative green-tech engineering firm, S2E Technologies Inc. Under S2E’s leadership, these firms are inventing a new consumer category – one that integrates bold new ideas about housing and transportation – and radically resets the carbon footprint of both at the same time.
CASE STUDY
Did you know, that until recently restaurant owners only cared about the cleanliness of the food prep area? Most customers, and owners, assumed that if someone got sick after dining out it was because of food poisoning. That was until Carbon Design and Challenger Inc. helped “challenge” the norm by showing owners that half of the outbreaks in a restaurant were caused by people to people transmissions.
Now owners know where the “hotspots” are, and as a result, restaurant are cleaner than ever. Grab your face mask and enjoy a safe night out, but you may want to avoid the raw oysters 😉.
CASE STUDY
How do you do it? By giving clients and users what they want. Using the remaining budget that was to be used to update the site with the new branding we designed and built an entirely new site on a new platform. But audience needs are constantly evolving so the work never stops. Our team continues to audit performance and make improvements.
As a result, the two-year journey has paid off with the site being named #1 in the industry. Even more importantly, their key priority areas (site search, attorney profiles, etc.) were ranked in the outstanding category. Proving that excellence is a journey not just a destination.
