Articles | Ali Ghaemi Online

Multi-Million Dollar Sales “With No Sales Staff”

Articles, Marketing, Selling Add Comments »

May 252016

On May 18th Bloomberg ran an article about Atlassian Software, whose sales last year topped $320 million and may reach $450 million this year, “without a single salesperson on the payroll.”

Here is the article: This $5 Billion Software Company Has No Sales Staff

This was not the first article out there on the topic and Atlassian. Others had also written about the company and its business model. An analyst also offers a cautionary note: “Though Atlassian counts more than half of the Fortune 500 as customers, no single customer accounts for more than 1% of revenue. In other words, no single client pays Atlassian more than $3.5M.” That suggests the company is hitting a ceiling in how much revenue it can derive from its customers.

This is not a rebuttal or an article that is designed to be contrarian. Like many other people I read the article with interest and appreciated a company whose product’s name, project management software Jira, is better known than the corporation behind it. Think Kleenex and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. or Popsicles and Unilever. In today’s modern society, everyone and everything has to be justified and that includes sales professionals.

The article does note that the low sales (and marketing) expenditure came about accidentally when the company received an order off its fax machine. However, reading the article one could read into a little bit of a different story.

The company’s co-CEO states, customers “much rather be able to find the answers on the website.” That is, of course, much easier said than done. I am not referring to the power of search technology. I am referring to the power of finding, reading, understanding and not having any questions.

The company advertises. One expenditure cited is “mostly on ads.”

Another expenditure, and this is important so pay attention, is “payments to partners,” which is described as “one-fifth of that” presumably referring to the software firm’s revenue. Would it be wrong to assume partners exist to resell, the company has a channel as a model for leverage and scale and these partners have professional sales teams?

However, what was most interesting were the quotes from several executives like president Jay Simons who is quoted as saying, “lower prices and more investment in research and development to refine software, making it easier to try, understand, and purchase.” One cannot help, but notice that he, and others, are doing some selling here. He sounds like a good salesperson for his firm, doesn’t he? … Or is it just me?

What do you think?

*Things That Need To Go Away: Not Counting Public Relations, Media, Marketing Or Partners As Sales

RFP – Request For Proposal

Articles, Selling Add Comments »

May 232016

Request For Proposals are document vehicles through which private and public organizations procure goods and services. The process to use an RFP, or its variants namely Request For Quotation (RFQ) and Request For Information (RFI), are occasionally mandated by organizational policy and more often simply used to ensure the issuer receives the best and most appropriate goods and services from bidders at the most favourable terms. More completely, a RFx ensures there is clear communication between the two, or more, parties.

Naturally, the system is not fully efficient or fool proof. Additionally, resources are expended on the creation, consumption and reaction phases of a RFx. This is true to such an extent that organizations have dedicated units to creating and to answering these documents. Moreover, the process is developed to such an extent that there are consultants who write these things for organizations, sell pre-written and pre-compiled ones or websites that centralize the repository for such documentation.

Suppliers, however, do not typically like these documents. In sales circles there is little confidence that these procurement vehicles lead to business. Anecdotally, the success rate is low.

For one, there is nothing stopping organizations from not moving forward. There is no obligation by companies to do anything.
Secondly, the very fact that many organizations are bound to issuing a RFx may mean that, while a supplier has already been unofficially nominated, the buyer still has to go through the motions.
The most obvious reason, and the third, is that in a game to stack vendors the winning provider may have little profitability or joy to proceed. Indeed, there are several books out there on how to avoid, ignore or respond to an RFP (if one must).

No surprise then that many vendors have stopped responding to these documents. The manpower to entertain these documents and the payoff is considered unjustified.

However, there is a time when you and your organization decide to play the odds and respond to an RFx despite the three points above.

Here are tips to increase your chances of winning the business:

First and foremost be truthful in your response. It is important to describe your capabilities and qualification accurately and systematically. This not only mitigates future problems – one of which could be legal –but also allows you and the organization to focus on what you do best. The law of comparative advantages certainly applies here – not to mention your eternal soul should you believe in that sort of thing.
As mentioned, sales organizations typically insist on having input into the document and its creation or having a level of prior relationship before engaging. Lead an honest internal discussion on your chances, your cost (time and money) to participate in the process and estimated profit you may derive. Regular sales factors like likelihood a solution will be adopted and a set deadline for a sale being present also apply. Is there potential additional business? Do you have the scope to offer an elastic response, which gives you and the buyer several cost, material and scope options thus increasing the odds that one of your solutions will be adopted? Speaking of which, should you be the winner your offered price will not be the accepted price. Expect to face price negotiations. Have you bracketed if needed?
Think about the problem you are solving for the customer. This is a different proposition than answering the document point by point. As experts in the field, it is necessary to express your solutions and bring your know-how to bear in addition to solely addressing the questions posed. This includes understanding your audience. Is the end ‘customer’ technical? Is the end customer the manufacturing manager? Is there a financial audience that will review your proposal? Are you speaking their language?
Do not be shy about selling. The sales process did not start or end with the receipt of a RFP or delivery to the customer of a RFI. In fact, sellers are often asked to present on their proposals and answer follow-up questions. It is a must that you explain what you can do, better and above and beyond the competition and how your experience and subject-matter expertise can contribute in addition to what is obvious and written in the document. Remember that your number one competitor is not your competitor, but the standard do-nothing laziness. This does not mean you have license to ignore your closest industry competitor. It is necessary to contrast yourself and to do so explicitly. Do you have differentiators that you should state even if you are not being asked explicitly to do so?
Most obviously, understand the rules. There are typically pre-deadline Q&A sessions, conference calls or information sessions. You may be surprised to know how many times organizations are disqualified due to procedural errors, mismatched expectations or prohibited stipulated criteria (see ‘elasticity’ in point II). Spending some time on this factor saves time, regret and even schadenfreude later on.

On the flip side, should you decide you do not wish to proceed explain it to document issuer within the parameters of your organizational context, offer your free additional consulting and do express your wish that you work together in the future instead.

*Things That Need To Go Away: Organizations picking a supplier and subsequently issuing a RFP.

Inward, Downward, Wayward

Articles, Management, Marketing Add Comments »

Apr 242016

How would you answer were one to ask you what is a hallmark of good branding? How would you respond were someone to ask you to cite an example of a successful internal organization?

Customer First Organization

The thought came to me when I realized that during the last fifteen or so years I have read about so many Cisco reorganizations that fact became fiction became legend which, in turn, became one melding into another. This is not meant to be an exercise in being an armchair expert, but the number of public, as well as less publicized, reorgs at the networking giant are widely known. Why mention Cisco? The changes are examples for inward looking organizational structures.
The most recent organizational structure has the company divided into the following divisions:

• Networking
• Security
• IOT & Applications
• Cloud Services & Platforms

One notes that the business is organized according to internal imperatives (development, engineering, marketing and fiefdoms probably) and not according to customer needs. It would indeed be the scarce customer, which would have a group or department dedicated to Cloud Services, which would be distinct and separate from IOT. The same applies to any other combination of Cisco’s four groups.
This is not a knock against Cisco, which certainly makes competitive products, or even an article about the Silicon Valley mainstay. It is about what the successful companies of the future should give thought to.
So, let us take a look at the quintessential success story of the day, namely Apple. What is Apple known for? It certainly is not divisions for computers, phones, mp3 players and operating systems. Apple is known for, wait for it, simplicity, elegance and functionality. These are things customers care for, garners their attention and for which they certainly pay extra. Moreover, all its products are sold under one roof. The Tiffany & Co. company is known for style and luxury. Customers are not expected to deal with a salesperson for earrings, another for gemstones and another for third party products. In fact, the salesperson-slash-concierge personally takes the shopper from corner to corner and ensures a seamless transition. Again, the experience is designed to be oriented towards what the customer would like and enjoy. Contrast that with HP where customers would have had to speak to different persons for printers, laptops, servers and so forth. It is no secret that HP’s star had been diminishing and the company recently threw in the towel by chopping itself into two. Ironically, the move may be a harbinger of focus and good things for the remaining parties, although past experiences do not bode well (does anyone remember Palm and 3Com, to pick a HP-related example)?

The Brand Pivot To Culture

We are here to hear an argument for creating a uniform culture that is focused on customers, for customers and based on employees winning when customers win. By definition, such a culture negates fiefdoms, internal divisions, competition and trains and rewards employees to deliver on the brand promise, but there is a catch. The brand promise too has to be focused on the customer

• Here is a brand focused on the customer: See Your Business In Our Software – Oracle (where I used to work)
• Here is another: Grow Your Company With Our Solutions – Fictional company
• Here is the reverse and one that is misguided in that it is inwardly focused: The Largest Distributor Of Cola

You see, customers do not care that you are the largest distributor of anything and least of all a certain brand. In contrast, companies do care what you can do for them. It should be about them.

Walking The Talk Of Culture

More critically, and this is actually important, there should be a supporting structure behind the outward and customer-oriented brand. Everything should be designed to support the outwardly focused branding. Aside from deliberate hiring, structure and the functional day-to-day work the company must absolutely insist on employees behaving as such. Companies must align pay, bonus and promotions accordingly. What is the sum total of the design just enumerated? Culture. A culture, which is the enabling structure for a successful company.
This would be a real shock to the system for companies, which foster internal competition, tolerate nepotism and turfs and reward managers who are in it for themselves and their egos.
However, if there is one thing you take away from this article it is this most important concept. The key is that the organizational culture will conform, follow and match what the leadership puts in place for the group. It is not about instilling the culture per se; it is about creating and moderating the enabling structures and guidance that points to the correct orientation. The analogy is that of children and their parents. Parents can say whatever they wish and could instruct their children as much as they want, but unless the walk matches the rhetoric the organization will never follow.

*Things That Need To Go Away: Arrogant Corporate Culture

Summary Of The Most Popular ERP Products

Articles, Marketing, Selling Add Comments »

Mar 282016

EnterpriseAppsToday has a short summary of today’s leading ERP vendors. It is noteworthy that each listed vendor has multiple suites for different purposes with different names, but the website lists one specific offering per vendor. Interestingly, there is the comment by an analyst who dismisses other vendors in that fragmented market. He may have a point.

ERP buying Guide: Top Tier Vendors

The site also offers an interesting analysis of the CRM Market. The elephant in the room is the actual ROI of CRM and the user base’s resistance to the product. Is it too controversial to believe Microsoft Excel is the largest ‘CRM’ in the world?

CRM Market Leaders

*Things That Need To Go Away: Ignoring vertical specialist ERP and CRM solutions

Pareidolia! Where Is My Prospect? What Happened To The Customer?

Articles, Prospecting, Selling Add Comments »

Mar 202016

It is one of the biggest challenges in the sales world. The salesperson has a process with his or her customer and the customer goes dark. AWOL. MIA. Radio silence.

What is going on?

Manners, etiquette and social politesse aside, the sum of the situation is that the selling party has received his or her answer. The customer is either not interested in moving forward or is not quite ready yet.

These pages have written about the actions that need to transpire before this point:

Salespersons must ask the ‘why’ question
Salespersons must be well acquainted with their customer (and if your prospect does not allow for it then the action speaks for itself)
Salespersons must interact with at least three employees at the customer’s company.
Customer must have demonstrated the MAN acronym, which is comprised of Money, Authority and Need (Desire).

As it turns out humans like to succumb to inertia and dislike change (ironically, hence the million and one quotations about how change is normal). The customer has decided to stick with the status quo, do nothing and let inaction prevail. So, the question really becomes ‘what does it take for you/customer to undertake a change?’ and ‘do you/your employer want to change the situation?’

Either a customer can answer the question to both parties’ satisfaction or the answer comes indirectly through conversation, questions, change action and triangulation. Do not allow your sales pipeline resemble a menagerie of company names.

In addition, it is important to track the customer’s decisions and choices online in the same manner that one listens for indirect verbal cues. Which one of your marketing activities is engaging the customers? Which e-mail campaigns elicited clicks from your customers? Which of your web pages or assets is the customer touching and in which other websites are they engaged? That is, hopefully, your marketing team is tracking the online world for you. Are they?

*Things That Need To Go Away: Lack of Bi-Directional Communication

Product Managers And Sales

Articles, Marketing Add Comments »

Mar 142016

Wikipedia defines a Product Manager’s role as, “investigates, selects and drives the development of products for an organization, performing the activities of product management.” These activities include researching intended demographic, the products offered by the competition and how they fits with the company’s business model.

Product managers are the bridges between the company’s line items, developers and sales and marketing.

The job is both becoming more simple and more arduous at the same time. The advent of Internet and sources of research and communication at one’s fingertips have made the collection of data almost seamless compared to days of yore (a.k.a. 20 years ago). The same efficiencies have made the market that much more fast-moving and prone to shifts.

Elsewhere, the buying process has changed drastically. Buyers come to the table much better informed, less dependent on sales and marketing. The old spectrum and funnel definitions and directions do not apply. In such an environment it behoves any company to use the job function closest to the market and its customers. Who are these mystery people? Why the sales team of course.

This is why it is such a surprise that in an informal survey of my contacts in sales and sales management the grand total number of companies in which there existed a formal process of communication between sales and product management was…. One.

The market is more competitive, products are commoditized, customer demands and appetites are changing and changing more rapidly and alignment is minimal or one-way at best.

Should product management at all companies not have a formal, standardized and consistent standard for using the sales team as the company’s canaries in the mine so to speak?

Sales need product management’s assistance and input. Product management needs input from the individuals who are on the front lines and most exposed to customers.

Does your company have a formal sales-to-product management process?

*Things That Need To Go Away: Product Managers Who Have No Time For Sales

Employee Retention – Why Employees Stay And Why They leave

Articles, Management Add Comments »

Mar 132016

These pages have often featured articles on why employees choose to stay with an employer and why they may choose to depart to other companies.

Here are a few past posts:

Most managers and employees agree that ‘bad’ bosses are the main reason employees quit. The anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom only add to my own observation from both sides of the divide.

Here comes the Harvard Business Review with a new study which claims, “employees leave both good and bad bosses at almost comparable rates.” The researchers reached their conclusion by studying and interview 700 employees in the IT sector. The conclusions being counterintuitive it is possible that the study confused its cause and effect. In other words, better employees left and were also the same ones who ‘kept their chin up’ and remained positive in the face of bad bosses or other reasons that motivate employees to decamp. Above average employees are likely to have a passion for and be deserving of more senior jobs and better pay, which are already identified as employee incentives. The key is whether it would be at their present job or elsewhere. This is where companies need to be diligent and retain talent.

The study itself believes that the silver lining in this is that employees leaving good managers become better ambassadors and alumni. Even so, the finding is at odds with what has been this writer’s personal and professional experience. Still, the conflicting findings are not a reason to exclude writing about them or to immediately assign a false value to them.

If – and this should not be construed as a leading sentence – the article is mistaken it could be due to it being one sample studying one industry, although it is doubtful to me personally that employee retention fundamentals are that different from industry to industry.

What do you think?

*Things That Need To Go Away: Companies Without A Growth Plan For Employees Who want It.

With How Many Of Your Customer’s Employees Are You Interacting?

Articles, Marketing, Selling, Uncategorized Add Comments »

Mar 062016

It is often noted that successful salespersons interact with the right employees of their prospects/customers.

What is less often discussed is with how many of these folk a salesperson should interact. The question is more and more relevant because decision-making is increasingly and more and more diffused.

IDC’s 2010-2012 survey has something to say about this question.

In a survey of IT buyers (see figure 8) customers/buyers report the following statistics when asked “How many people were on your buying team including yourself — that is, the group actively involved in influencing the short list of vendors considered and making the purchase decision?”:

Companies with 100-499 employees: 3 to 4 people
Companies with 500-999 employees: 4 to 6 people
Companies with over 1,000 employees: 5 to 7 people

Noteworthy is that in two out of three scenarios the number of employees involved in making a decision is increasing.

What a salesperson needs to know is that buying is a collaborative effort. As such, not only a wider view of the process is needed the typical marketing funnel and CRM single-person view of leads is lacking in a broader view of how customers buy unless used by sales as a single strand in a larger weave.

*Things That Need To Go Away: Marketing and sales efforts, which focus on persons, contacts and a decision-maker and are not holistically geared at accounts i.e. multiple persons.

Sales Organization

Articles, Prospecting, Selling, Selling More 1 Comment »

Mar 022016

You may have come across the phrase ‘sales strategy’ or ‘sales process’ on this site. Moreover, several book reviews on the website contemplate and discuss the subjects. Either way, you have seen or read about the same elsewhere.

I have come to understand that the difference between the two is not always clear however. A sales organization or department needs both complementary concepts to function or, at least, to do so well. Here are the distinctions:

Sales Strategy

Organizational goals and plans especially vis-a-vis customers
Your objective SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats) analysis
Financial actuals and reality
Interaction with other departments
What is the internal and external story that aligns to, and addresses, your SWOT

Sales Process

How the sales strategy is executed
How do the junior and senior, inside and outside, farmers and hunters, pre, post-sales, sales professionals and their hierarchy do their job? Moreover, are roles and responsibilities clear to everyone?
The degree of autonomy and self-management versus scripted and regimented methodology
Which tools and skills are required and leveraged in the sales organization

*Things That Need To Go Away: Expectation of success without a sales strategy, process and consultation with sales.

E-mail’s Slow Demise (Not What You Think)

Articles, Uncategorized Add Comments »

Mar 022016

There have been multiple articles and statistical reports in recent months and near-term years about the demise of e-mail as a mode of communication. Culprits vary according to the source who, nonetheless, reach the same conclusion about the depreciation of a mode of communication that for practical purposes is less than 25 years old.

Compare that to postal services, which have a history dating back 5,000 years, carrier pigeons which were in service for 1,000 years or telegraph/telex which lasted 150 years and are still in use in parts of the world.

Research and reports have e-mail dying because:

It is just “noise” according to one Facebook cofounder.

There are smarter ways to do the electronic communication thing according to the co-founder of Evernote.

The old, and by now famous, ‘teenagers are shunning e-mail in favour of Social Media and IM’ evidence or, to keep the ‘blame’ on teenagers again this study that shows six percent of teens use e-mail daily.

Finally, there is spam. According to a 2009 Microsoft study 97% of all e-mail is unwanted.

Otherwise, and obviously, e-mail is not conducive to instantaneous communication like IM, collaboration for large groups or invulnerable to forked offshoot conversations.

The aforementioned studies and citations have merit and, whether cause or effect, valid. I would suggest, however, there is another and more profound reason e-mail may be going out of fashion: a lack of an ability to construct a basic sentence. We all suffer from it and it is getting worse.

I am not taking about your run-of-the-mill ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re/you are’ (as in ‘your good to go’ or ‘your the man’) or illogical expressions of time in a sentence (as in ‘Every Monday, they play tennis’ as opposed to the correct ‘They play tennis every Monday.’) either. While these, and many similar sentences, have their order of words backwards the problem extends to nearly every aspect of written communication.

Many English teachers cannot construct a sentence correctly. Couple that with the increasingly multicultural society of ours where individuals’ mother tongues are something other than English and the situation is in fact, when one thinks about it, more dire than imagined.

That is the main reason e-mail is dying. How many times have you personally received an e-mail, looked at it, not been able to decipher it, reread and focused on it and given up? How many times has a colleague or family member asked you to come over only to show you an e-mail, which he or she has trouble making head or tails of (‘of which make heads or tails’) or you have had to begrudgingly pick up the telephone to speak to someone because their e-mail was simply incomprehensible?

Give me a call and let me know what you think.

*Things That Need To Go Away: Language instructors and there spelling and grammar mistakes.

Older Entries Newer Entries