Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Why Doctors Are More Popular Than Sales Reps.

I was fortunate enough to be the nephew of one of the preeminent authorities on sales and selling methodologies in the US. My uncle has written 5 books on the subject and puts on seminars for executives for household names like Kimberly Clark, Time Warner Cable, Zions Bank, and Watson Pharmaceuticals who all use his sales and negotiation methodologies. After reading his books he gave me my first job after leaving the nest and for the past 10 years has mentored me personally in the area of sales. Anytime I talk about sales or selling he is my biggest influence. However, this does not mean I don't put my own spin on all of this, and I certainly bring my own experiences in sales and insight because of them to the table. Still,  I want readers to know that this blog is based not just in what I think, but in what has been proven over and over by his methodologies in many many companies. I will start with a story.


Doctors vs Sales Reps 

Imagine if you went to a doctor and he began telling you about this great new medication for Diabetes. He tells you about all the amazing benefits this drug has and then proceeds to write you a prescription for this wonderful miracle medication. Indeed the doctor is telling the truth, he is not pawning some crummy med on you. This is in reality a miracle drug for diabetics. The only problem is, you don't have diabetes.


Obviously the example above is a little far fetched. Of course a doctor would never write a prescription without first making a proper and thorough diagnosis. But can the same be said of sales reps? Perhaps this is why people like doctors so much more than sales reps. Obviously there are some differences between a doctor and a sales rep but is the difference really that fundamentally different? A doctor is trying to match up certain medical products and services to a patients needs. Isn't that pretty much the job description of a sales rep?

At this point I want to illustrate a difference I make when thinking about sales vs marketing which are related but still very different. In my own methodology sales is not the act of generating initial interest from a "cold" prospect who may or may not have even heard of your company before. The act (and art) of generating initial interest exists in the realm of marketing and really is a science unto itself that deserves its own methodologies and specializations (perhaps this will be the subject of a future post). Often people are called sales reps that are really nothing more than "human billboards" who approach relatively random people, parrot a message and stab in the dark to see who might be interested. This may be effective in certain cases, but the tactics and methods used to generate interest are very different from the ones used to close a sale. Selling is the process by which we take someone who has in some way has shown potential interest (I.E, walking into your store, calling your phone number, asking a question about your services) and turning them into a closed sale.

Beware of the "Show up, Throw up"





The video above perfectly illustrates the classic mistake of novice and sometimes even experienced salespeople. They think they are a sales rep and that means they are supposed to parrot some carefully crafted message that magically generates interest from a potential buyer. Instead of thinking like a doctor and carefully first diagnosing the needs of their client then prescribing products and services that meet those needs.

All of us approach sales reps from time to time. Why? Generally, it is because we think they understand a product or service better than we do and might be able to give us the information we need in order to fully understand if that product or service will meet our needs and be worth the cost. This is why it is so annoying when a sales rep does all the talking and never shows a thorough understanding of the need we are trying to satisfy with his product or service.

Seek First To Understand

I think one of the best sales slogans I ever heard was "lead with need". The only trouble is that you never will know what that need is unless you first listen. If you are a sales rep, the most important of Steven Covey's seven habits is "Seek first to understand, then to be understood". Furthermore, we should not assume we know what people want or need. We must allow them to articulate their needs and show we understand that need and can assist. This can dramatically change the dynamic because it soon becomes clear that you are on their side helping them to accomplish their objective and you become an ally instead of a foe.




Certainly this is not a silver bullet and there is much more to sales than just this. However, this idea of diagnose, then prescribe has totally changed the way I approach sales and has helped me and the others that understand it stand out as sales reps not only in the number of sales we make but as honorable and respectable people the eyes of our clients and customers. Suddenly sales becomes fun because instead of feeling like slick willy the used car salesman pawning crap on others so I can make a buck, I feel like I am a doctor making a living by helping others find solutions to their problems via the products and services I offer. It's a totally different paradigm and a more dignified one in a profession that is often seen as disingenuous.  

Questions for reflection
- Do I separate the tactics and methods for generating interest vs selling or do I combine the two?
- Do I allow buyers to articulate their objectives and needs PRIOR to my pitch?
- Do I genuinely care about the buyers needs and want as much as my own paycheck?
- Does my pitch focus on connecting product/service solutions to buyer articulated needs and objectives?


Note: This blog only scratches the surface of Patrick's sales and negotiations methodologies. If you would like more information visit www.PatrickHenryInternational.com. Also please note I am in no way being compensated for this post and my promotion of Patricks methodologies is based solely in my deeply rooted experiences in their effectiveness. Contact me with any questions. 





Saturday, September 6, 2014

Process Thinking Part 1: Input + Process= Output

While in college I had many different professors but the one who stood out to me and deeply impacted me was Professor Castle. He stood out because unlike many of the others he had just come from a COO position in a very large company in Asia. He was a no nonsense kind of guy whose style was more like that of a football coach who demanded high performance from his players. The number one lesson that stuck with me from this expert in the real business world was Input+Process=Output. Personally this concept/mentality has totally changed the way I view a business and the way I go about understanding and improving it.

Input+Process=Output

Every business is essentially a collection of inputs (time, people, money, machines, software etc) that are organized into a process that produces a desired output. Lets imagine a lemonade stand which has two departments the "Lemonade Production Dept" and the "Lemonade Sales Dept". One department would be in charge of the process by which the lemonade was made and the other would be in charge of the process by which the lemonade was sold. Each would design their own process for achieving the output they are in charge of and ideally measuring each step of that process for effectiveness and efficiency. The ultimate "output" for any business is money but each process and sub-process will have an output of its own. These outputs are often called your "success metrics" or "Key Performance Indicators".

Below is an example of the process a the lemonade stand both on a high level and a more detailed level . If it was needed you could even drill down deeper if you wanted and go into more detail (exactly how they mix the ingredients, where they purchase them etc). I have found it to be essential to deeply understand your own processes on both a high and lower more detailed level and to work closely with those running those processes to ensure they produce the output desired.

________________________________________________________________________



A Real Example. 

In my own company we act as a marketing agency that helps vacation rental owners get more bookings. We find homes we can book, we market them online and book the guests who are interested in them. Therefore, I have 3 departments and each is charged with producing 1 output which we measure as follows.

1) Sales Dept= New properties for the Marketing Dept
2) Marketing Dept= New leads for the Reservations Dept
3) Reservations Dept= New bookings for the Owners.

Each department is provided with resources (inputs) and with the help of upper management come up with processes and subprocesses that will produce the output they are in charge of. Input metrics help us measure what we put into the process (IE our effort), output metrics measure the results and our process is the means by which we convert our efforts into results.

Are you making decisions based on data or just gut feelings?

Often the focus is placed almost entirely on the output when really that is only partially in their control. However you have near total control over your input and the process itself, and that is the goose that lays the golden egg. We have all heard the phrase work smarter not harder. This is simply saying that if you put in a lot of effort into a bad process you will get a poor output and you need a better process. The more objective measurement and analysis you do on your process the better you are going to be able to monitor if the process is performing the way you intended it to and you will be able to modify and improve it based on data instead of opinion.

This may all seem like common sense but very few people actually measure their inputs and processes, especially if it involves measuring themselves. It is my opinion that everyone in some way should be accountable for periodically reporting and analyzing both their input and output numbers, even if it is to yourself. By doing this you can more easily identify the source of bad performance (low output) and fix the broken parts of your process.

By collecting data on your processes you now are empowered to make decisions and create strategies based on data instead of a hunch. With this mentality you can easily and objectively identify why you are not getting the output and take the needed steps to get it.

Questions for reflection. 

  • Have I mapped out my processes and subprocesses in detail? 
  • Do I measure my inputs in my my processes in a meaningful way?
  • Are these measurements as objective as I can get them to be?
  • Are my input and output numbers reported and analyzed periodically?
  • In general is strategy and decisions driven by data or personal whim?