I’m sure many of you have figured out, I’m not your typical process guy. I’m not a big fan of process, but, there are a few places where process works. The sales cycle is one of them.
David Brock thew out this sales process post last week, But We Have A Sales Process . . . It’s a good post on why a Sales Process is necesssary. I agree with much of it. His post went and got Anthony Iannariono all fired up. In response, Anthony posted this: Sales Process Problems: Turn by Turn Guidance is Unavailable. I agree with much of what he says too. They are both good posts.
After all this Sales Process talk, I had to jump in. I love fricking sales processes. This is where I agree with David. They work. BUT, I don’t measure activity and this is where I agree with Anthony. Measuring activity does nothing but constrict the sales team.
I measure results.
Every sales cycle has a series of customer events or triggers that almost always happen before the deal closes. In almost all cases they happen in a linear fashion, ie one happens before the next one happens. These events are customer driven not vendor driven. They are based on how the customer buys. They could be the combination of signing of an NDA, the approval of budget, a pilot, the creation of a evaluation team, a solution assessment and contract signing (a six stage sales process). It could simply be a face to face meeting, a trial and approval from the CEO (a three stage sales process). What it is doesn’t matter. Knowing what it is matters.
Most sales processes focus internally and are activity based. They don’t work. Activity management doesn’t guarantee results. A sales process needs to map to the decision process of your customers. How does your customer buy? What steps do they take before they agree to buy? What support must be had? What processes must be followed? Who’s approvals must be gained? What must happen before money goes out the door? Figure out these questions and you have your sales process.
Every company has a process for buying new stuff. Go figure it out. Then build your sales process around that. Don’t make it activity based. Make it results based. Let your sales people figure out for themselves how they are going to get their prospect to “create an evaluation team” or get “the CEO’s approval.” That’s their job. Just don’t let them move past that stage in the sales cycle until they figure it out. Because, that’s your job.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9382f772-1898-416c-ba28-a537811f6422)
Loading ...
1
I agree that employing the buyer's perspective is very effective. But on the process side the error is in using nouns not past tense verbs. The best sales people think about the next step as an action item that will advance a sale. The worst think the next step is “Meeting” – What the heck does Meeting describe and as it relates to an action. Try “Scheduled C-Level Presentation” – Note that it is past tense letting the rep know that there is a direct and deliberate action that they need to take and when they change the status, it better be done! Inother words, you can't advance the sale to “Set Up Meeting” and claim that the opportunity has moved forward.
Comment by tobiasbray — December 16, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
2
The only way a sales moves forward is if the customer is closer to buying, and they are the only ones who determine that. Build the process around their decision buying process.
Comment by Keenan — December 16, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
3
If you mean by measuring results the reaching of the next customer milestone in the buying process, I fully share your view.
Comment by Christian Maurer — December 17, 2009 @ 6:02 am
4
So Jim, given your article's content here, do you think that part of any sales process should be mapping out how the prospect's actual buying decision making process is or is not in line with the typical one expected and experienced?
If you do that, maybe what you will get is a flexible, situationally-appropriate sales process that is defined by 'gates to past through' rather than mindless and constricting action steps to take.
[By the way, I loved Tobi's comment here about "the error ... in using nouns without past tense verbs"]
Comment by tonyjohnston — December 17, 2009 @ 6:19 am
5
thats exactly what I mean
Comment by Keenan — December 17, 2009 @ 6:49 am
6
you got it Tony,
In my book, there is no “typical one expected or experienced one”, only the customers. I love gated sales processes that are mapped to the customers buying process. Don't measure actions, measure the results of the actions.
Comment by Keenan — December 17, 2009 @ 6:59 am
7
If you mean by measuring results the reaching of the next customer milestone in the buying process, I fully share your view.
Comment by Christian Maurer — December 17, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
8
So Jim, given your article's content here, do you think that part of any sales process should be mapping out how the prospect's actual buying decision making process is or is not in line with the typical one expected and experienced?
If you do that, maybe what you will get is a flexible, situationally-appropriate sales process that is defined by 'gates to past through' rather than mindless and constricting action steps to take.
[By the way, I loved Tobi's comment here about "the error ... in using nouns without past tense verbs"]
Comment by Tony Johnston — December 17, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
9
thats exactly what I mean
Comment by Keenan — December 17, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
10
you got it Tony,
In my book, there is no “typical one expected or experienced one”, only the customers. I love gated sales processes that are mapped to the customers buying process. Don't measure actions, measure the results of the actions.
Comment by Keenan — December 17, 2009 @ 1:59 pm