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.

"It's the economy, stupid"

"It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush.

The recession at that time cannot be compared to the current one (in size and matters) but when looking at corporate campaigns the phrase has lost a lot of value.

Corporate spending on information has drastically been reduced as part of a total cost cut. This looks relevant and necessarily but what about economic intelligence?

Since May experience learn a lot about corporate spending behavior. Where outlooks remain grey and lacked with visibility it is not a surprise budgets for information have been cut.

Market conditions still show a volatility that should keep professionals informed of the potential business opportunity, even the smallest, which world wide is much decentralized.

This requires more time and stress testing to make sure when getting back into markets risks remain under control as far as possible.

Professionals in prosper times easier can make decisions as market conditions remain profitable but why not exploring better tools in desperate times?

To answer this it might be a false accusation but is it logical when economic outlooks are missing any visibility to continue with existing data providers or tools?

What makes decision makers decide to maintain essential economic information to support operations while the past 12 months no additional value was seen?

There can be five explanations for these questions:

1. They simply do not care or miss time to care. Business leaders, although referring to the economic impact on corporate development, do not look at macroeconomics or find them relevant in their decisions. They have other priorities.

This can be true because at certain levels, at the top, there is not time to monitor every country of interest. But what about lower levels of corporate finance & control, strategic planning, business development, market intelligence etc?

Why would in these departments managers not consider more effective tools for macroeconomics?

2. They leave these decisions up to their teams. Why would professionals not inform their upper management of possible improvements?

3. Only in good times it is allowed to spend on secondary information, such as macroeconomics. In other words when there is a budget left over.

4. A change would implement extra attention and labor to make the change successful. The fear of a change to distract people and learn another tool seems to override the potential benefits.

5. As discussed in other blogs it is fear itself of making a wrong decision. Rather no changes than any change that can jeopardize someone’s position.

Combining the above it still does not justify not welcoming improvements in terms of less spending, more time efficiency and overall benefits for each employee using macro to complete micro. What happens when nothing changes?

1. Total costs remain at the same high level or are even increased. While with current information providers discounts could be achieved any kind of synergy will be missed as long as additional benefits cannot be integrated.

2. Besides costs such as fees labor expenses are often higher because not all employees have access and need to find alternatives (internet is the worst alternative). People often forget to be on the pay roll.

3. Costs of risks cannot be calculated but when not improving any efficiency level operational results will rather decline than remain stable. Professionals in downturns often face higher work pressure and risks will be higher.

What can happen when making the right changes?

1. Total costs will be reduced as no longer (over) expensive and overvalued information providers are used or new tools are added to compensate them.

2. Corporate time savings will lead to lower labor expenses. As people have more time for core business, core business will directly benefit which increases the ROI.

3. Less stress and better time management can help risk assessments in for example market analyzes, financial reporting or strategic planning. Even business decisions are better supported.

Conclusions;

Instead of walking away from changes or being afraid of them it is better to consider them. It is too easy to claim satisfaction or sufficient access to available alternatives.

The past period has learn there is no such thing as “security”. When not being open for change will harm your corporation. It is then no longer the economy but corporate inefficiency, stupid!

p.s. This blog is written on personal title but related to my work as Global Sales Manager of FocusEconomics

"Reliable is no longer realistic"

How reliable is current business / market intelligence?

Global providers have earned a lot of credit before the financial crisis and economic meltdown started. Projections about sectors and industries were often very realistic and producers used this guidance to the top.

Analyzing markets in a downturn is a different ball game. First analysts have to get rid off their wrong projections. What was predicted in 2007 did not happen in 2008 and in 2009 etc.

Secondly adapting to more challenging market conditions must not be underestimated. This will not lead to better advises while clients should demand more values for their (high) fees.

Third and perhaps most important information providers can no longer rely on their historical performance. Without changing these promises to clients it would be harder to keep them.


Was it really quality info or just benefiting friendly market conditions?

Without doubt experience counts. Explaining an industry and the trends or competition and pricing can only be done after years of study and involvement.

Information providers could claim therefore for years their knowledge and valuable analyzes. Selling it for large amounts was not difficult as budgets were available and in an upturn there is less doubt (worry / fear) about the outcome.

Until two years ago. Without having to study all predictions made in 2007 or before half 2008 it can be said that 99% did not happen due to the fast and unexpected turnaround in global markets.

Exceptions were hard to find and therefore a lack of quality information is nowadays a reality.


What is left of the value of current industrial analyzes?

While facing difficulties in most markets and countries up till now the past two years many information providers continued with making wrong predictions.

It seems the strategy of pleasing customers with positive information about their industry, even though at much lower levels than before 2008, was for many the only or best option.

Reports about recoveries in all sectors are floating to the markets and many use historical excuses for explaining their projections.

Instead of becoming more conservative most remain focused on what the client would like to hear and not about the very small chance of a fast recovery.


As historical performance is no longer a guarantee for offering realistic future information, what should information providers do?

All main information providers claim to be reliable and being the best alternative for their clients. But do they learn from this set back and can they adjust to keep the client on board?

Information providers must stop selling their past performance. Until now they got away with it as most clients kept buying information.

But what happens when this buying dries up completely due to the ongoing budget cuts inside companies?

When information providers cannot adjust and offer a better service, becoming another value for their client than only delivering the same wrong conclusions it will be a tough short term future.

Conclusion:

There are too many similar information providers (wrong). Too many offer the same reports about a certain sector or industry but instead of being critical they remain positive or at the save side.

Probably out of fear of losing the client. Some still can afford to warn their client that what is ahead is not delivering same profits as 2-5 years ago. Would it not be normal that current analyzes are less positive to make them more acceptable or at least more understandable?

Here lays the difference between quality and price/value. Consolidation is good for every industry and also for information providers. From large providers to small consultancies there will be tough times ahead or already facing.

Changing the core business to improve it is best to do. Offering a better service including discounts could work for now. But what really would help is stop selling unnecessarily optimistic expectations which finally do not occur.

At the end that only creates false hope, intimidation and wrong assessments. It will not help any company reaching final goals. Reliability based on only analyzes is no longer realistic in this business climate.

Who are the Winners and Losers in this Cost Driven Business Climate?

Who are the Winners and Losers in this Cost Driven Business Climate?

There are winners and losers in today’s management. Not those who already blew it with fraud, greed and mismanagement but those who are not capable of convincing their management of making a change which leads to a long term cost / time saving.

Perhaps a bold statement but it is true. After almost one year of being in daily contact with decision makers it is clear that there are winners and losers in this environment.

Excepted are those leaders who cut the big peaces out of the cake. Everyone can fire 10,000 people. Short term cost cutters are no winners. Maybe they are not losers either because they get paid for it very well.

Also excepted are the unfortunates who simply had no chance and were part of the inevitable job cut. But this is about those who still are out there and can make a difference for the company, for the colleagues and even for themselves.

The easiest way to describe a winner is a manager who continues looking for improvements and is willing to approach his or her management asking for a change.

As this change involves spending this manager is risking a lot but with the right argumentation and attitude there is nothing to loose.

When can be demonstrated that with often a small investment a large saving will be realized this can only create a win/win situation.

Think of for example tools with an annual investment of 1K, 5K, 10K or 20K where otherwise 10 times more will be spend.

Imagine you propose your management to spend 20K to save 200K. Would they look at it or call you insane?

It is noticed that while the upper management welcomes this kind of opportunities the lower management is not making the effort to inform them. Fear or disinterest?

Losers will not even think about trying. They will deny every possibility of making improvements. They do that for own (job) protection, disinterest or simply to avoid any confrontation with the management.

In fact they see this crisis as a great opportunity to say `no`. “Sorry, we are told to cut spending, so we have no budget”.

What no budget? Will your upper management postpone a decision when all computers are hit by a new virus?

"Sorry, we cannot afford to fight this virus because there is no budget, try again in six months time".

Is the economic crisis not a kind of virus? How come companies blame the economy for missing orders but not spending better on economic information for example?

It is similar to consumers who stop spending which will not help the economy recover. When companies keep on using secondary tools to "understand" economic threats, waste hours on non core business research etc, is that helping?

Is it because economic information is not important or there is no better alternative available? It does not matter because the outlook remains uncertain?

Have you really tried and compared in terms of cost/benefits or it really does not matter costs remain higher in terms of labor and fees of ´we can only contribute in good times` providers.

Unfortunately due to the global crisis there are more losers than winners. Again, this is about working winners and losers.

Where in this cost driven business climate a search for more efficiency and the naturally cost cut is a priority most managers remain silent. What is the benefit of this hiding?

Almost every company turned into a cost cutting machine to remain profitable or keep losses controlled.

While this is an old trick it has to be done but it will not be the best way to prepare the organization for a recovery. It certainly should not be awarded.

What is more important are the smaller changes like for example the attitude of employees but also secondary expenses.

Would some one who after making an effort surprises his or her management with a contribution to the new corporate strategy in the form of a cost/time saving not be better off?

Of course size matters. Big charges will contribute faster than smaller ones but the effect on the long run (economic recovery and growth will take some years) is smaller.

After cutting the large parts it is time to look for smaller parts. But here is entered the domain of the mid and lower management where there are more losers.

To be more successful a company not only needs a restructuring from the outside (immediately visible for share and stakeholders) but also on the inside (not available to public domain). A difference in looking at short or long term results.

Changes on the inside of an organization can only be done by the managers. They have to search for new tools to help lowering costs but without creating disorder or sending wrong messages to their teams, like the upper management with their large cuttings.

To do that you have to be a manager that can operate in both good and bad times. Most managers now only think of their own situation, lesser about the organization and not at all about the colleagues.

They even consider leaving the company or already accepted another job. Sure, surviving is a priority but who guarantees your next job is save? Would it not be better to become a winner?

Who says it is not possible to gain from this momentum? Can you only perform when everyone is winning and loose when everyone is losing?

Should we all feel miserable and wait till the storm is over? Stop being creative and taking initiative? Not listen to what is available in the markets because there is no budget?

Is it really true when offering the board, the higher management or whoever is above you a solution that helps cutting costs, you will be ignored?

Is it more important to stop new spending because of budget restrictions or orders from the top instead of creating a long term synergy? Is it better only to contribute to a short one?

Managers who accept it is time to stop producing, to make no further attempts and wait for the next episode have a higher chance of losing. Not only jobs but around the corner there are always winners.

Managers who can convince their bosses certain changes do not affect negatively but positively business. Managers who for example come with a tool that demonstrates a welcome ROI after the first day, week or month.

These managers can demonstrate efficiency is out there and this is the best time to find and implement it. Even when an initial investment needs to be made. Making a change is not without investment.

Investments can be small but for sure can be done smarter. Why spending 100K when it can be done for 10K? Because it is easier or the ´we are so used to this provider`excuse?

Who would not accept a change from 100K to 10K? Who would not invest 10K when this would lower costs from 100K?

Only winners will accept and will make an effort. Not because it is impossible but because it is the best alternative.

How Corporate Spending affects negatively your Corporate Planning.

During the past 12 months the global companies (read decision makers) negotiated with in regards to supporting them with essential economic data reports clearly were divided in two groups:

One group fully agreed making changes in the cost structure is needed at all means. Not only restructuring the work force or shutting down plants but also saving costs coming from non core business activities.

The other group in contrast was very determined in not spending at all but only in the core business. No chance of smarter or better spending when it comes to external intelligence, no need for additional economic data despite the worst economic crisis in their job history and certainly not willing to even look at the proposal.

When it comes to Corporate Spending is a negative impact on Corporate Planning justified? Can it easy be eliminated or limited?

My main focus will be on the second group. Not only because I disagree with their spending rituals but because I simply do not understand in this climate there is no need for better economic data combined with cost/time savings.

Current market shifts are caused by changes in the local economies and when these recover more market opportunities will occur. This will go slowly and not by one region.

When China improves the immediate affect on Korea or Malaysia will be smaller. The same for Brazil for example while recoveries from the US and Euro zone remain uncertain.

It all needs time and during this period every minute or dollar spent on non core business issues is a direct extra cost. This is not different per sector or industry.

The global crisis is not caused because of one industry. Housing and finance are related but cannot be marked as one industry. Economic data is essential in every market.

To be prepared or in better shape for potential market recovery most attention is paid to the largest efforts of cutting costs; laying of 5, 10 or even 20% of the staff, cutting salaries of executives or shutting down plants abroad. This will save millions and people actually get rewarded for it.

The irony is that when recovery takes place the staff is hired again and plants are re-opened or re-built but that is the way it is.

But what is wrong with a cost cut of 10, 30 or even 100K?

The past 12 month is noticed group two is not interested. Especially when this is regarding non core business information there is no interest as it is not seen as part of the core Corporate Strategy or Planning.

The majority is not prepared to listen or consider a change here as a contribution. Instead they continue wasting corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as economic information.

The contradiction here is that for group two good or bad times do not matter. They do not care who provides them the forecasts or costs involved. They even prefer a well known brand to “blame” for wrong established analyzes.

But they forget hidden costs like non core business spending finally reduce budgets more resulting smaller budgets. Where remain benefits?

People can only spend once in terms of time and expenses. When a too large part is not related to own business it will have a negative effect on the total.

This total includes all budgeting and corporate planning. While those who are in charge of the larger restructurings clean up the next 12 months hidden costs remain untouched.

Why?

An easy calculation concludes that in every organization operating in other international markets 10% spends corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as macroeconomics.

This 10% contain professionals linked to for example corporate / regional / country departments such as Finance, Marketing, Business Development, Country Management, Strategic Planning etc where macroeconomic data is used to complete market insights.

Per person a cost calculation will result in an annual extra non core expense of at least 1,000 dollars based on one hour per week with an average hourly salary of US$ 30.

Just multiply that with the 10% of your work force. Is that a not relevant or can be missed under the new corporate objectives?

Often current external provision is not under revision which leaves costs unchanged which is a missed opportunity. Lack of interests or lack of decision making power?

The same professionals claim not to be able to work without certain global providers of information (business / market intelligence) but are they right?

Should they not instead to complete the new program of Corporate Strategy and Planning, which is adjusted to this cost driven climate, not look for better and more efficient tools?

According to group two this is again not necessary. Conclusion;

New Corporate Planning requires new settings but this cannot only be focused on core business expenses.

When business leaders complain about the market conditions every dime saved should be embraced.

Business leaders should not hide behind the new Corporate Planning, even though this indicates more savings than spending.

All what can positively affect the corporation should be explored and welcomed; even if this is only 10K instead of 1000K.

When a service can cut down 80-90% of non core business costs of similar information and help professionals prepare for a new era of corporate growth, should that be ignored?

Group two screams about the worst performance in decades but only looks at the big and easy numbers. Their non core business spending will therefore remain inefficient in terms of costs and corporate time.

While this looks like a small issue it will finally slow down the whole corporate processing and directly Corporate Planning.

Helping improving the non core business part by spending smarter resulting from the first month in more time and assets available to core business should be welcomed.

Otherwise Corporate Spending will affect negatively Corporate Planning.

Only efficient market research is vital

Please read first at:

www.marketresearchbulletin.com

Top B2B Tips For Emerging Markets

These are my comments:

I especially like the tip that market research is vital and the need of using independent sources.

Still many believe what can be found for free (internet) is better because it is for free. The fact this info is out of date, increase labor costs or can harm results seems of lesser importance.

On top who is best? What market information provider really makes a difference or has done a good job the past 12 months?

I have no doubt many have good knowledge about certain industries or call themselves sector experts.

Still predicting a trend is not the same as explaining one.

Therefore I believe professionals using market research have to divide this in two groups:
1. One for all information directly related to the core business, i.e. industrial analyzes and competitive intelligence.
2. One for all information about the operational countries, especially those where it is hard to find reliable macro data.

For 1. there is a wide range of providers. Most of our clients use one of them or even let them overlap to secure each specialty per provider (for their core business).
For 2. they have our macroeconomic consensus forecast reports because they do not want to rely on single sources (1.) only for different scenario planning.

Furthermore without 2. more valuable research time is spent during core business hours and already time limited professionals are further cut back or delayed.
On top every one complains about costs. Well, in a cost driven climate you should look for more efficient tools and not postpone a small investment.

Unfortunately even the smallest investments on market research are examined or are simply postponed / canceled because the upper management can no longer fly first class or spend corporate money at fancy restaurants.
This is a time for solutions and every contribution should be welcomed.

Now those not being able to use our reports will spend 10, 20 and sometimes even 100 times more the coming 6-12 months in extra labor costs, hence not even including the risks on the results of bad data.
Imagine you can choose between spending 5K or 500K? Would you not go for the 5K and impress your upper management with the cost saving?

Finally emerging markets remain volatile, unstable and less predictable. Still some have clearly become more developed but the information stream remains difficult in regards to economic forecasts.
This cannot be solved (only) by the other steps mentioned by Matthew Harrison.

There is also no one-stop-shop for market research. Like with doing your private shopping also for corporate shopping you must change and become a smarter spender.
Look around or look at our website. I look forward to send you a copy of our global regional reports or any country in special.

Yes, market research is vital but those the one which is most efficient. Or otherwise do not complain about lost revenues due to the crisis.
When for macro intelligence there is no interest in improvements, what is then to worry?