Complex sale or buying complex?

During the last years it is remarkable how sales efforts are qualified. Old tricks are even sold as new breakthroughs while it is widely known making sales is no longer a trick every dog can learn but doing serious business.

Still at the buy-side responses are remarkable. Barking, biting and guarding the door are more common than looking for a serious B2B opportunity. How come?
It looks like buyers have an easier task but in fact most do not even care. As long as there is enough competition or demand can be facilitated without long negotiation, the buyer feels comfortable.

Now this is not about exceptions but about general sales. In general it is time to criticize buyers instead of always looking for apologizes from sellers. Who is really more aggressive, for example?

Yes, sellers should not be aggressive, unless it is a numbers game. Wrong but this is not about informing call centers how to fix that problem. A very interesting and easy solution is available but that is not the discussion here.

This is about buyers that represent (read: are on the payroll) of multinational companies. SMB’s cannot be excluded but this is about companies with a global interest (2 or more regions).

Whatever you sell them, you may call yourself fortunate when you have a real interest or someone taking the time. This partly can be affected by being a sales pro but there are limits. Limits made by the Buyer and often without reason.

A buyer that not only likes your product or service but really makes an effort, i.e. using well his or her position paid by his or her organization, is not common but exceptional.

Not the person that starts telling you that they already have your stuff or no longer have budgets. Or use words in their feedback such as “sufficient”, “satisfied” or even “happy”. Lucky for them their company is not affected by downturns!

Do they get training to say this or are they really not interested in improvements for the company? Or do they fear Sellers?

Some even believe they can decide for the whole company. "Sorry, but WE....."
It is not only wasting time for the seller, assuming her or she is prepared well and has indeed an additional value to offer and is well educated. This is also a missed B2B opportunity.

So, what is the value of giving excuses? What will add that to the company?
Instead of "nothing" the person, that should consider the purchase better, at least must give the seller the benefit of the doubt (unless your offer pencils to Staedtler, latest news to Reuters or printers to HP).

Now when you as a good sales person deal with these situations there are two options:
1. Moving on, ignoring, no further efforts, let them have a worse solution etc
2. Show some teeth.

Those who go for number 2 will have most of the struggle but also more success. First of all you do not have to eat them or scare them. You only have to be persistent and showing how dedicated you are.

There is nothing wrong with being determined and demonstrating where a buyer is mistaken or where he or she failed in the evaluation / decision process. The problem only is that hardly any one is really making that effort. Why?

Is it easier to go for number one? Does this not confirm the whole idea of distinguish yourself from a numbers game or competition?

According to research top annoyances of sellers are over aggressiveness and failure to listen. Really?

That is remarkable because why would a majority of Buyers choose these above a lack of preparation, a lack of follow through or a lack of product knowledge?

The answer is simple; top annoyances can only be created (by) when Sellers consider their prospects as numbers. For this you do not need preparation or knowledge. You just hammer them!

This has provided Sellers a bad name when you offer your products or services. There will always be the feeling “They want to sell me something” when contacting potential Buyers.

It also has not helped Sellers getting a better negotiation. Patience and less pressure on your sales cycle can be a better strategy to fill your pipe-line.

Now when looking at what impresses Buyers in this same research on top you find; thoroughness/follow-through, willingness to fight for the customers, knowledge of the customer needs, market / product knowledge.

In other words; when you are able to come close to the above Buyers are impressed. But are they also buying?

Without making further research concluding from the above Buyers mostly find themselves more important than their company. Otherwise best impressions should be Quality, Synergy and Price.

The impressions nevertheless are useful and praised but not by all Buyers. Partly this is understandable because who cares about what your company uses, wins in terms of cost and time savings or finally pays for? When being able to decide, you decide because of you.

The typical Buyer will also first look at his or her position. Does this decision undermine my power or status? Can this affect my career or promotion? Do I have to work harder now when using this product or service?

Buyers will of course deny but why would there be so many products and services on this planet? Is it not just to satisfy someone for a moment or that we stop thinking?

In fact in some industries it is all about brand identity. Local or small players have to use other instruments to get the Buyer’s attention. Often here is forgotten that Quality, Synergy and Price has no or hardly any value.

Imagine a manager or director who uses product / service A from a well known source. Would he or she do that because it is really better or because he or she feels more comfortable when sharing it with the higher management? Is impressing your management more important than the quality or contract details?

A contradiction is born. While this higher management urges for cost cuttings, savings and freezing budgets the company Buyers stop acting. Even those who normally appreciate better solutions. They now have the perfect excuse for any one who offers a B2B opportunity. Postponing has become the key.

This not only blows away bad proposals from aggressive sellers but also good proposals. Until the management declares the company is back on track or profits have returned Buyers will not even give you the benefit of the doubt.

Another contradiction as now it looks like only in good shape the company is willing to consider or use your products or services while many make the difference during hard times.

Fortunately there are exceptions from both Buyers and Sellers. But the essence is no longer what you have to do as a Seller to get the Buyer´s attention but what the Buyer should do with this attention. Then they can benefit all.

Making a Sale more complex is not the solution. Complexity is already there when the Buyer is not giving what he or she should give; a chance. Selling will remain the same with the same pros and cons and this is repeated over and over.

What now is needed is that Buyers become more open minded and really look what can help their organization, not only their own position. This is not as complex as it looks like. It should only be much easier to find both Sellers and Buyers at the same time and place with the same objectives.

Why the economy can be blamed instead of bad management.

Why the economy can be blamed instead of bad management.

The past twenty months or so and in current corporate reporting the executive branch uses the economic downturn and some pickups in regional economies as arguments for not being able to give full year or quarterly guidance to share and stakeholders.

First of all there is not much they can do about it. These recoveries are fresh and in many countries too small to even call it a recovery. Some countries are excluded but exceptional companies when it comes to avoiding economic risks are hard to find.

So far understandable and the guidance from executives will remain without a clear vision for the time being. This might slightly improve but as limited is this outlook is also the ability to predict corporate results for 2010 and even beyond.

Secondly it seems when it comes to economic risks for many this is still not related to the real economy but only an easy phrase or excuse. Based on first hand communication with several business leaders world wide, especially those with a focus on emerging markets and BRIC markets, improvements or needs of more quality data / information are not a priority (of their management).

Too often professionals using macro for completing market analyzes, for making business decisions, supporting management meetings, doing internal reporting or using the data as a strategic or financial planning tool they rather rely on one source only. In most cases the same source used for industry specific data.

This is very strange and also kind of worrisome. Imagine this is also done for Pension Funds or IT Security. Billions invested in only one stock, for example Walt Disney, a good example when discussing fairy tales or economic forecasts of one source. Using one provider for IT Security will give them a lot of power.

Companies are crowded by advisers, especially coming from banks and other financial institutions. Mostly external ones get paid heavily for sharing an opinion that is different from any other. Does this not look familiar when talking about economic opinions? All these opinions from IMF, World Bank, OECD, central banks, governments, corporate economists, experts, gurus etc?

We all know they are all wrong but these same advisers work with institutions which have their own economists. Again each divided about any economic country trend. No one can really outperform because all face the same interference from political, social, demo-graphical or other kind of instability, disturbance or equal phenomenon.

So, why then relying on one source? Or is economic guidance no longer helping the company? Why mentioning economic reasons of slowing down your results or using recovery signals as hope for a short term revival?

A third argument that contributes to blaming the economy, and not taken economic risks (more) serious, instead of blaming management are the claims of having sufficient information or teams doing already economic analyzes.

Does sufficient indicate no other data can be better and therefore ruling out economic risks? Does sufficient cover for bad management decisions? Since when next to your global leadership in the food sector your core business involves macroeconomic research?

And when internal teams do these analyzes should that justify no other analyzes can be better? Justified how? In costs? Savings? Better guidance?

Unfortunately when looking at the above many companies still seem not to worry about economic risks and find it an easy way to blame their bad management. They keep on relying on one provider, they do not care about the quality of available information and do not consider non core business corporate time as a problem for cutting core business time (including labor expenses rising).

The worst of worst is the decision of budget restrictions. No, we are not interested in cutting costs by 90%. Sorry, our management blames the economy, not me.

Too simple would also be the explanation of missing realistic forecasts. Like as no one can make them, why arguing about them? While it is true this pure outlook cannot be given it does not exclude improvements. Especially not when paying too much, spending too much or not benefiting from synergies.

What will these companies do the coming years?

They will keep on blaming the economy for the bad results instead of bad management. They will continue cutting costs but only the easy core ones. Oeps, another restructuring charge. They will reorganize in the hope to attract better managers instead of better instructions. But as budgets will remain under restriction, good people will leave the company, competition benefits etc.

But they mostly will fail because those who do not take economic risks serious by focusing only on core business or do not demand full concentration of its employees on core business and those who believe one source is enough to guide them through rough times will miss a lot of opportunities for improvements.

These opportunities can only be discussed when the decision maker is truly identified, is open minded and is interested in business deals. Not someone who is only interested in his or her own position. Because then we only hear and see the same excuses over and over again, the economy is again blamed for not being able to make a corporate change.

This can easily be measured in labor costs. For every manager, analyst, director or corporate leader monitoring the underlying economic trends of countries of interest a process is needed. Either someone delivers them internally a report or this report is purchased directly.

People do not like reading but most reporting is useless when not using the best tools. Lots of corporate value time is lost when stopping searching for these tools. Every process of macro data is therefore an underestimated cost and time inefficient process when using one source or counting on own research.

On an average at least one hour per week people read about economies. Not to study but just a number or country report. Based on an average corporate salary per year this reaches easily 2,000 US$. Multiplied with an average of 10, 20, 50, 100 or more people, depending on company size, these costs are a waste of assets and valuable time. Big companies loose 100/200K while for smaller 10/20K is acceptable.

Excluded here from better data and cost / time efficient tools are the positive effects on eliminating risks, recognizing better economic trends, better prepared for internal and external meetings, more core corporate business time available and more core corporate budgets available.

Including these last items for missing revenues or miscalculations losses can reach millions.

When that is not of an interest, it is clear why economic risks are not taken (more) serious and why the economy is only used to cover up mismanagement.