You Got a Check. Did You Really Win?

In last week’s post, I gave an example of a company that won a deal, but learned something very important about its pricing structure.

Below, I’m going to share a little more about the deal. After reviewing this information, tell me if you think this company is winning business or not.

“They don’t demonstrate their products. I have never met a representative from FlashNet* in person, and that has a lot to do with my rating. They have never shown up. They are definitely not getting the share of business that they could get because of it. I can guarantee it. “I’ll give you an example: we bought a 20 TB storage area network. 10 TB is currently installed, and were looking at upgrading it. They’re in the storage networking business, so they wouldn’t come see us; they were not even in the list of potential vendors because of that reason. It’s that simple.

“Lunch meetings do make business. They have never visited us. I’ll give you an example: I probably spend about $1 million to $2 million in Cisco equipment a year. Last year, I only spent about $60,000 with FlashNet; this year, I probably spent about $200,000 with them. For the last four years, they have only had a small portion of my overall Cisco business, and when you look at it from an enterprise perspective—for example, we just spent $20 million on a new clinical information system—out of $20 million, FlashNet received no money from that project. We have a budget of $30 million, and FlashNet received just $60,000 of that. It’s because they will not fly anybody out here.

“They don’t have a presence out here, and that’s unfortunate for them. They are a good vendor; it’s unfortunate that they will not come out to meet their customers.”

*Name changed to maintain confidentiality

The fact of the matter is that FlashNet got a check and sold some stuff, but they received less than 1% of the total budget and 0% of a project where they had a potentially strong solution. FlashNet is probably getting a little money just because it is an incumbent in some part of the client's business.

This is probably not a unique case. How many times is FlashNet losing because of a short-sighted decision not to travel and visit? There may be logistical reasons, but this client is located in a suburb of Portland, Oregon; hardly the backwaters of the B2B sales world. Last I checked, Portland has an airport and rental car services.

Do you think that FlashNet will make any changes to its processes based on the information above? I hope so. I hope this information goes to the executive level rather than being shelved with all of the other dusty reports. I’ll probably never know. But, if I were an exec, this is the kind of intelligence I would need.

I would stop high-fiving the sales guy for winning $60K and start asking questions about why we’re not taking $5M.

If you feel differently, or if I’m missing something, let me know (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

And, if you want this type of intelligence on your new customers and lost prospects, Primary Intelligence does this kind of stuff every day.

Even When You Win, You May Learn Something Critical to your Sales Process

In an recent sales post-mortem review, we found a case of a company that successfully sold additional product into an existing account. The sales opportunity was competitive, but the incumbent won, which was not unexpected. In fact, the client had very good things to say about the incumbent vendor:

What were the primary reasons you selected FlashNet*?
“We selected FlashNet for their New/Existing Account program, the return on investment over a five-year period, their long-standing relationship with our organization, and their commitment to service.

We’ve been working with FlashNet for four years. We’ve had a lot of success with FlashNet taking care of us as a customer, making sure were happy and that the account works smoothly. It’s very easy to work with FlashNet.”

Now, the client spoke well of the competitor. The situation was a close win for the incumbent, and the losing vendor should probably keep its eyes open for opportunities to get its foot back in the door.

But, let’s look at some feedback that the winning vendor discovered about the way its prospects and clients perceive the purchase process. I think that this feedback needs to be understood at the highest levels before it turns into too much friction for incoming clients:

Additional comments (FlashNet):
Overall cost: “The cost per unit that we currently have with FlashNet is fairly low from a market perspective. When we purchased in bulk, we found that in one case it almost increased in cost per unit, which shouldn’t happen. When you see a sticker price on a car, you know that’s for retail. When you say you’re going to buy 40 cars, you shouldn’t be paying more than retail for each one, so I was dissatisfied with that.

“That’s how their sales management works. The salesperson that is assigned to me can only offer us up to a certain level himself. Then that has to go to his sales manager who can only authorize up to, say, $100,000. That means they have to take it to their vice president of sales who can authorize anything at that point. The problem is, when you make a single purchase order of over $500,000 worth of equipment, the salesperson you’ve already negotiated with over a long period of time to give margin to has their hands tied. They can’t make recommendations for the decision and neither can the sales manager.

“So the vice presidents get involved and look at the margins, and because the margins have already been so shrunk, they hold the line. Unfortunately, not only does that represent them poorly, it increases the time for decision making and it doesn’t really help—especially when you’re looking to place a fair and reasonable order for half a million dollar’s worth of equipment. I don’t want to argue about half a percent; give me $5,000. That’s kind of how things work. You expect to see a discount from mark-and-base orders, and that doesn’t happen with FlashNet.”

If the prospects can’t purchase in a way that makes sense to them, some will leave. Fortunately, there was a bunch of goodwill built up in the existing relationship that carried the sale through. But, if loyal clients feel this way, what are the new prospects going to do when they can’t find a satisfactory way to deal with FlashNet?

This is the kind of competitive intelligence that a company should perform on itself to make sure that processes, policies, guidelines, message and all that stuff are up to snuff.

If you need a little help getting these kinds of feedback mechanisms in place or if you want to bounce some ideas off of me, let’s chat. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600)


*Names changed to maintain confidentiality.

Sales Feedback for Sales Execs

Sales leaders are always in a quest to win more business for the company. Some sales leaders even turn to statistics and research to determine best practices. The most successful implementation of these programs often brings consistency in the best practices to the middle and lower parts of the sales achievement pile. You don’t always have to make the eagles fly higher. It is often better to figure out how to get the sparrows and crows up where the eagles fly.

One of the most effective pieces of information is the answer to “Why do we win and why do we lose?” Many companies don’t yet know this answer objectively. Some are starting. In my experience at Primary Intelligence, very few have been scientific about this.

The best place to start to answer this question is to understand what went right/wrong in your most recent sales opportunities. There are many ways to gather this info. I’ll discuss a couple.

After the sales deal is done and you have won or lost, who do you turn to for feedback on the actual sale? Many say that they do a post mortem review with the sales rep or team involved in the deal and this is a good start, but let me tell you why this is a system that is bound to fail from the start.

1. Sales guys are naturally going to take credit for the wins. It is stereotypical, but sales reps are likely to take a substantial amount of credit for bringing in business. I can understand that fact, but the result of this exercise is not likely to produce a program that will help elevate the middle of your sales pack. There is only so much you can do with the message, “I won because I’m good!”

2. Sales guys are likely to deflect the blame for losses. “We were beat on price” or “the deal got fouled up when the owner’s brother came in with a different provider.” Again, you have to have a pretty strong self-perception to be successful in sales and taking the blame for deals gone bad does not help you much at all.

3. Sales guys may not know what went wrong. After all, if they knew exactly what the prospect wanted from the beginning, they would have been able to perform better or get out of the wrong deal earlier.

4. In the end, it doesn’t matter what the sales rep or team says. The only perception that matters is that of the prospect. I don’t care what the sales rep says nearly as much as what the prospect perceived throughout the sales engagement.

Personally, I recommend that you spend all of your energy gathering the feedback from the lost prospect or won client. If you want to know why companies select you or walk to a competitor, that’s the only information that really matters.

If you have successfully implemented a win loss post-sales analysis, let me know. And, if you would like to see a very nice compliment from one of our clients, check out my other blog here.

Talk to me about your thoughts. Post a comment or give me a call (801-838-9600 x5050, cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Your Competitive Intelligence - SWOT Analysis

The usual Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat analysis provides information on you and your typical competitors. A typical SWOT is listed below:


My guess is that this data is a good start for most sales people, but not nearly enough. Sales managers and reps need more analysis.

In other words, if a sales organization acts on data, the results need to be delivered in a format that tells them the “so what.” Analysts and researchers need to provide recommendations, analysis and go-forward recommendations.

But, this is a good start that might be a foundation for the type of information your company needs.

What kind of intelligence does your company use in the sales department? What do the sales guys want that make them more effective? Let me know (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-960o x5050)

For VP Sales Only

Some say that knowledge is power. We at Primary Intelligence believe that the right kind of knowledge is exponentially powerful.

An example of our intelligence and feedback we provide is listed below. In this example, our client is Tenscon, a software solutions provider. Now, we have changed the names to maintain confidentiality, but our customer list includes companies such as Microsoft, Avaya, Symantec and EDS are the kinds that tend to do very good work with us.

The table below shows "Tenscon's" competitive advantage against 4 competitors (again, names have been changed to maintain confidentiality, but the results are real).

The results show some competitive advantages in the company and sales, but the product has some significant weaknesses against Sistemic and Howein Partners:

Overall, Tenscon had generally higher performance ratings than the competition, especially in the company and service drivers. However, several ratings for the sales team were lower than those of the competition as a whole, indicating that some improvement in these areas may be needed.

An analysis of the responses from clients yields the following key findings concerning Tenscon’s performance:

-Tenscon was seen as a strong and solid company, but was not generally seen as an innovator. As a senior vice president from Dillent explained, “I don’t think they showed as much innovation in their solution. I think they took a much more conservative approach, a much more introverted approach rather than an innovative approach.” The CIO from ABC Aerolineas echoed this sentiment by saying, “We have some applications that we expected to be technologically advanced, but what they offered us was delayed during the delivery process. By this I mean that some applications were not as innovative as we expected them to be.”

-Some clients were concerned that Tenscon was not offering a unified solution, but rather a set of pre-packaged offerings. For instance, a respondent from ABC Aerolineas said that the initial Tenscon team did “have a real understanding of our model, and they just trying to sell us stand-alone systems. This was the idea. The idea was a cost-effective strategy, and people from Tenscon did not understand our model, our strategy, the market, or our needs. They just about systems and stand-alone processes.” A representative from Flentic Crendall explained, “One of
complexities of [Tenscon] is it is five separate businesses that have been swept into one company. It’s trying get them to work as one company with one approach. don’t think that there was a perfect solution.”

-While a majority (66 percent) of clients believed that Tenscon put the right people in front of them, there were some concerns that decision makers were not involved in the negotiation process. A vice president at JNPD expressed this sentiment, saying, “As some of these things escalate, or we run across impasses, there might be opportunities in the future that if we were
able to talk directly to the true decision makers, then it might expedite the process.” A senior vice president from Fiserv also said, “It took a while to get the right representatives from the healthcare side and from the financial side [of Tenscon] to be on our team.”

-Understanding the clients’ needs and business requirements was a theme throughout the interviews, and an area where respondents believed Tenscon could improve. Tenscon’s ratings in this area were slightly lower than the average for other bidding companies, indicating an area of advantage for Tenscon’s competitors. As the CIO of Coles Meyer explained, “Sometimes I was worried [that they gave] affirmative answers without really understanding what the issues were. At
times I felt they didn’t understand how big and complicated the work was going to be. ‘Let’s make the sale and then afterwards worry about how we are going to deliver it.’ There was a lack of business and delivery knowledge with the up front sales team. With other vendors we don’t experience that.”

If you have any ideas of how to make these data come to life in your organization, drop me a line. (801.838.9600 x5050, cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Tactical Sales Intelligence - Creating Competitive Advantages for Sales Teams

For a sales rep who deals in the tactical world, an objective measurement of strengths and weaknesses may be the difference between winning and losing a deal.

At Primary Intelligence we provide a view into the prospects’ perception of your sales efforts. We measure their perception of the sales team, company performance and product fit. These three areas are almost always considered in complex sales.

In a more transactional setting, we find that product and sales performance are the most important.

Recently, we completed a competitive intelligence analysis for a client and found that they had a number of competitive strengths. Their list of competitive weaknesses was relatively short, which was no surprise considering their prominent market position.


However, if there was an area of concern, it was in the performance of the sales team. There were a number of areas where, compared to the competition, their scores did not measure up.

Presentations, Subject Matter Knowledge and Understanding Business Requirements are all areas of some concern. The recommendation to the sales group was to improve the presentation style and delivery. Additionally, the sales team should spend a little more time practicing their listening and understanding skills. If they were to listen better to requirements, the presentations would probably improve as they became more targeted to the specific needs of the prospect.

Again, these are tactical improvements that need to be addressed right now to level the playing field. These are not strategic recommendations. For more insight on the data needed to make strategic plans at the executive level, see my other blog regarding impact-based competitive intelligence.

Do you see something in the data here that I’m missing? Let me know (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Sometimes, It Really is About Price

A few days ago, I said that “it isn’t really about price.” That is only partially true. I have never been in a position to buy a luxurious item “regardless of price.” (Maybe someday, but not yet.)

But, sometimes, it really is about price. If you are a completely commoditized product or service that anyone can provide at an equal level of quality, timeliness and satisfaction, it really is about price.

And, if this describes you, I am sorry. Get out and go find something fun to do.

Most every product and service in existence can differentiate itself one way or another. The trick is to find out which differentiation aspect will make the difference. Product, features, packaging, service level, people, timeliness, quality, brand recognition, reputation and many other value identifiers can be modified, tweaked or emphasized to show an advantage over the competition.

The trick is to figure out which one will matter.

CPG companies know. That’s why they can sell corn flakes and toothpaste at double the cost of generics and stay in business.

If they can figure it out and fight the battle on the store shelves, your product/technology/service/solution (ranging from hundreds of dollars to hundreds of millions) is ripe for differentiation.

Find out what the prospects value and give it to them. If you don’t, you’re in a race to the bottom on price. And, that’s a race you don’t want to win.

Good selling. Give me a call and let’s chat about identifying your value proposition. (801.838.9600 x5050, cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Why are Sales People so Stupid (or are they)?

I recently read a blog posting from last year by Scott Santucci where he talks to marketers about their perception of sales people in general. It starts like this:

"Come on, admit it.

"It’s what you think, isn’t it?

"If I had a dollar for every time I heard “our sales people lack the skills
or ability to (insert any of the following: cross-sell, sell higher, sell to
value, get ahead of the RFP)” I would be a very rich person. But is this really
the problem?"

Then, he goes on to point out how sales people don't live in the simple world that many marketers might assume. Just trying to manage sales messaging and collateral can be much more complex than might be assumed at first:

"Assuming your company has 10 products that all can be sold by your sales force, lets try to determine how much information a sales person must process and manage on any given account they are pursing.

•10 products
•5 key value propositions for each product (50 different value propositions)
•Messages must be delivered to 5 different client stakeholders (250 different messages)
•Each value propositions has a set of 5 questions to uncover and they are different from stakeholder to stakeholder (the degree of difference is not important) – 1250 different messages
•Each value proposition has one competitive knockoff per competitor and you have 4 key competitors (50 different value propositions x 4 competitors = 200 +1250 = 1,450 different messages)
•Each product has a minimum of 5 different collateral pieces that exist about various aspects of the product (5 collateral pieces X 10 products = 50 different collateral pieces to locate, which equals 1,500 different information elements to manage)
•Each stakeholder has a set of 5 personal goals and 5 business goals that must be matched with their corresponding value propositions (5 personal goals + 5 business goals X 5 stakeholders = 50 unique goals + 1,500 information elements = 1,550 information elements.

"So, in this scenario, a salesperson is asked to manage over 1,500 different forms of information for each account they deal with."

So, what is the takeaway? Mr. Santucci suggests that marketing needs to better understand what the sales team is up against. Marketing should produce tools that will help simplify (rather than complicate) the sales process.

Personally, I think that marketing and sales need tighter integration. Put some marketing people in the sales department for a couple of weeks. Let them attempt to use the tools and messages that sound so good in marketing's ivory towers. When they return, they will probably have a better appreciation for the needed materials. They might also want to return occasionally to sales as a source of inspiration.

And, don't let the sales team off the hook. Let them spend a little time in marketing. Some cross-pollination and discussion will do them good, too.

In the end, both teams have to work hand in hand. It's all about selling. And, if anyone in sales or marketing forgets that, big obstacles are looming on the horizon.

Happy selling, and let me know what you think. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801.838.9600 x5050, www.primary-intel.com)

Why Sales Professionals Don’t Use Competitive Intelligence

Every sales professional in the world may provide a different answer to the subject question. But, overall, sales professionals themselves may be mostly to blame for the lack of use of good competitive intelligence.

1-Sales Professionals already know everything – This is probably true. But, it isn’t necessarily good.

2-Intelligence programs are run by marketing – This doesn’t inherently make the data evil, but decontamination procedures are time-consuming and costly.

3-Current intelligence isn’t available in a convenient format – Who has time to hunt down info when we’re too busy selling

4-Sales Reps are creatures of habit, not learning – I’m not implying that sales professionals aren’t smart, but the general methodology of prospect, build relationships, present value, close contracts (lather, rinse, repeat) doesn’t include much in the way of intelligence gathering.

But, as you refine your craft, you have to look for better ways to differentiate yourself. To do so, competitive intelligence (the right info delivered at the right time) can give you the advantage.

Even if you don’t sell competitively, intelligence will show you the highest value propositions to create higher conversion rates. If you Value Sell, S.P.I.N Sell, VITO or Solution Sell (or whatever your methodology), some very simple feedback mechanisms will refine your message and increase your effectiveness.

I have some tips. You might be interested. Contact me.

The Stronger Company Loses? (Part 3)

Over the past couple of days, I have displayed charts of sales performance information. Up until now, I have shared the quantitative information. If you were paying attention, it looks like the battle in about 30 different performance areas was just about even, and even leaning away from the incumbent. But, in the end, the incumbent held onto the client.

The reason why should be fairly evident based on the comments below:

What features of Right Tech, Corp’ solution did you value the least and why?
“The solution was basically missing parts that we specified, or they were highly underestimated, and this was then sorted out until a week before the decision was made. Maybe it’s not a feature of the solution, but a feature of the process was a lack of curiosity from Right Tech, Corp about what was behind the specifications.”

Where could Right Tech, Corp have made improvements in Communication?
“Start to communicate early in the purchasing process and ask a lot more questions to really understand the requirements. Another point that I would like to add is not to look for one person to make the decision because that is what we saw from Right Tech, Corp, and it just doesn’t work that way. It might be US culture versus German culture, but within German companies, it is not that if you play golf with the CEO you get the job. It’s more teamwork. They recommend something and it’s a joint decision. There is one person responsible for the business unit, but that person usually will not influence the team during the decision-making process.”

What could Right Tech, Corp have done differently to win your business?
“Respect the procurement and decision-making process. Meet deadlines. Be more understanding of our specific business needs and provide a more cost-effective solution.”

Did you experience any significant problems or challenges during the evaluation and selection process for this solution?
“Deadlines, that’s it. It was strictly with Right Tech, Corp; it didn’t happen with any other vendors. We actually extended the deadline two times just for Right Tech, Corp. We extended the process to give them more time to work on their bid. We extended the deadline two times, and it still never worked out. They still came in late and we accepted it, but that was very annoying.”

Right Tech, Corp came into the deal as the new, fresh blood that was going to right all the wrongs of the incumbent. Instead, the sales team ignored the specs, didn't listen and assumed they would get the business anyway. These were costly mistakes that have to be corrected.

The funniest part is that the sales team at Right Tech, Corp is still sitting around the office, wondering where it all went wrong and blaming the potential client for not communicating. Hopefully, this feedback will help them avoid the same mistake next time.

BTW, Primary Intelligence does this stuff all of the time. We're the best at post-sales analysis, competitive intelligence in the trenches and predicting the improvements that will make the biggest difference in sales performance.

The Stronger Company Loses (Part 2)

Continuing the thought from yesterday, a German manufacturer of automobiles was re-evaluating its IT support provider. During the sales process, it evaluated two providers and rated the newcomer more favorably than the incumbent in company-related criteria.

Below, you will see the quantitative ratings for both teams as related to SOLUTION and SALES TEAM:

In the next post, I'll provide some of the comments that were the cruz of this deal. But, in the meantime, post a comment letting me know who you think won this deal based on the performance comparison in the charts above.

The Stronger Company Loses?

In a recent evaluation, a prominent German automobile manufacturer evaluated two technology vendors for support services. They had an existing vendor, but intentionally execute shorter contracts to force themselves to re-evaluate relationships regularly.

When the client invited Right Tech, Corp to the table, they were excited to introduce new blood. Their current vendor had grown stale and they made the following observations:

“SoftCommerce needs to bring more innovation, new services, and new technologies into their services. They need more innovations… That was why we brought Right Tech, Corp in. We thought there would be more innovation on their side.”

Based on a side-by-side evaluation of the companies’ performance, It appeared that the incumbent might be in trouble. Right Tech, Corp, stacked up nicely with SoftCommerce and had significant advantages in Size, Technology Reputation and Future Direction.



But, Right Tech, Corp never had the chance to show their innovative ability. Tomorrow, we’ll review the solution performance for clues.

An Enchilada of Information

Once when I was young, my family was set to leave on a three week family vacation. In a last-ditch effort to clean out the fridge, my Mom (who never threw any food away in her life) emptied all of the leftovers into tortillas and served us the most interesting enchiladas ever created on earth.

Normally, I'm a pretty good eater and I'll try most anything, but the combination of ham, beans and beets (among other stuff) has created a wonderful story that has lasted for dozens of years now.

When thinking about all of the information available within your organization, how do you want to receive and digest the good bits? And, how do you let the supporting departments in your company know your tastes and dislikes? Or, did you decide long ago that you don't want information because there were too many beets falling out the end?

Start today by:

1. Making a list of the types of intelligence you wish you had
2. Figure out how you want to receive that information
3. Decide whether you prefer to interpret information yourself or engage a 3rd party that can provide expertise.

Then, sell this idea up the organization. Odds are, the information exists somewhere already. If you make your needs known, you may even receive the data in the requested format. (Those marketing guys are secretly hoping that someone will pull a report, dust it off and use the data.

If you want some ideas, give me a call (Chris, 801-838-9600 x5050)

www.primary-intel.com