Do you think The Challenger Sale methodology is superior?

Jill Rowley (‏@jill_rowley) of Eloqua
Winner of the 2013 Sales Representative of the Year – Stevie® Awards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HTJQyce2Qf0

 

 

Asked me a simple, straight forward question:

“Do you think The Challenger Sale methodology is superior?”
[to the IBM Signature Selling Methodology SSM]

The short answer is “yes”.

 

The longer answer is below!

IBM’s ‘Structured’ Sales Methodology (SSM) gave them significant Competitive Advantage, across multiple Sales Channels. I was consulting with Big Data Storage when we noticed an increase in sales being lost to IBM Distributors in the early 2000’s. We were used to winning the lion’s share in this arena because it was not IBM, not IBM sales, not IBM process. It was a ‘soft’ Market. I did a number of lost business reviews, and we interviewed several job applicants from IBM Distributors.

We found SSM.

“Over one-third of IBM’s employees use the IBM Signature Selling Method every day as they develop solutions to client problems. IBM has learned that the professionals who have trained on and use this method sell two to three times more than sales personnel who have not. The method is supported by a portal to allow IBM sales representatives to hone their selling skills and to help with soft-skills development, such as self-image and rapport-building, that is necessary for sales success.

IBM’s learning transformation story. 2004

SSM is an elegant methodology which gives IBM and its Sales Channels a common language, allows for rapid scaling and experience sharing. IBM drove it from Marketing, which gave SSM reach and funding.

It is based on the process that Rackham had published several times, most specifically his 1999 “Rethinking the Salesforce”, accurately subtitled as: redefining selling to create and capture Customer value, which he co-authored with John De Vincentis.

Rackham’s Process is described in Chapter seven “Sales Process light in a long dark tunnel”,
where the basis of IBM SSM is covered.

The KEY point is that Sales, unlike other departments, do not have clear boundary “handoffs”, where ‘lean’ improvements can be made.

Rather Sales have an end to end process…….The BUYING Cycle!

And, Sales have to fit with that.

But then you knew that!  Jill, you are the EloQueen.

What you may find interesting is his “Seven Characteristics of a Good Sales Process” page 217.

And, that was what IBM did,
they tested their Sales Process against those seven Characteristics.

From 2003 on in Big Data Storage and Data Services which, compete head to head with IBM, we have used an SSM, underpinned by Consultative Selling Skills based on SPINFAB to successfully compete with IBM and its distributors. If you do not have a SSM, you will lose, a lot, against IBM. In Big Software we underpinned our SSM with Enterprise Selling based on Advanced Selling Skills using VALUE CONSTRUCTION.

When 2008 happened, we had problems all over. Delayed decisions, status quo decisions, losing to the cheapest competitor, and really, really tough Price/Cost negotiations with procurement. Sales were down, margin was down, and profits were down. Yet some Salespeople were doing OK, Revenue Growth, Margins held, and they were earning good Commission!

We audited and assessed the Salesforce. Compared to previous audits there was no skill drop off, but there was substantial activity change. Late entry [or even last minute entry] in the Buying Process was becoming the ‘Norm’. Selling was becoming a matter of weeks of FRANTIC activity followed by months of inactivity in both Strategic accounts and Major accounts.

 

 

In 2010, in London, I held a breakfast briefing with clients from Big IT, Big Data Storage, Big Telco and Big Software, where I suggested that Relationship Based Selling was NOT working.

It did NOT go down well!
We had a lot of toys thrown out of prams.

 

 

 

Some of these Corporations were betting their shirts that the ‘relationships’ they had been building [for 10 or more years] with their clients in Banking, Government, Industry, Transportation, Energy and Petro-Chem were going to sustain them through the “turbulent” economic climate.

Relationships, did not help.

By 2012, we had the following general situation.

 

Yes, SIXTY per cent of the Profit contribution
was coming from only 15% of the Salesforce.

This means that losing a Sales Top Performer, a Rock Star,
was really hitting the bottom line.

Just promoting the Top Performer, could seriously impact Profit performance.

 

In several Telecom Clients in 2010-2012
we took the step of cutting the bottom 15% of Salespeople
who were causing a 20% profit contribution LOSS.

We then gave their accounts/territories to the Top 15%.

It had a very positive Profit Contribution response.
(This technique was used by Unisys in the 1970’s)

 

Then, in late 2011, we began hearing about some of the SEC-CEB research,
and the forthcoming Challenger Sale. I read Rackham’s endorsement,
and obtained an early copy of the book.

Jill, I have worked in Evidence Based Selling skills for 30 years, ~
I am NOT taken in by Fads, silver bullets or Hyperbole. I am a Sales Skills Sceptic.
To be even more precise I use an ‘eliminative philosophy’ which simply says:

“If what you tell me is true, then show me the proof and let me TEST it!”

I wrote a Philosophical Criticism about The Challenger Sale in November 2011.

http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/philosophical-criticism-of-challenger.html

I cautioned, TCS would be misunderstood, and it is now the most misrepresented Sales Methodology around. It has ‘disciples’ who don’t get it, and it has “critics and detractors” who don’t get it, either. I suspect that many who comment for, or against, the book have never read it!  Not understanding the Book, the Research, or the Practice does not seem to stop anybody from commenting about it.

Remarkable!

2011, and The Challenger Sale, I already knew that Relationship Selling was NOT working. The startling new Information that the book offered was a sound statistical basis to take a fresh look at Selling,
since the 2008 financial collapse

The emergence of The “Challenger” profile, as distinct from the “Lone Wolf” was really helpful, as both in my research, and is most other research, they were both in the SAME category “Top Performer”. However, now we could measure that one type of ‘top’ performer was in decline, and the other in ascendancy in current Market conditions.

The TCS comparative Statistical Analysis on the ‘Challenger’ out-performing the ‘Relationship Builder’ by more than 10:1 in Complex Selling, was even more than our calculated 7:1.  We had a Validation for what we had perceived in 2010, and had implemented by restructuring the Salesforce population.

Now Jan 2012, the real work began:
“What were the Sales BEHAVIOURS being used by Challengers, and Relationship Builders,
which were defining their success and failure?”

Challengers are “Challengers” because of what they DO,
not because of who they ARE!

Likewise for Relationship Builders.

Early research, we had a 15 year database of Sales Behaviours and Sales Performance results to examine, (n=3000 approx.) We had 300 hours of Video to review. And a current base of 350 audited and assessed salespeople to improve behaviourally.

 

We had several early wins.

Challengers and “Lone Wolf” both used more Suggestions than Proposals unlike Relationship Builders, who used almost exclusively Proposals. This is NOT published in the TCS book and is unique to BMAC Consultants.

What do I mean?

• A “Proposal” is a Statement: “You should do this!”
• A “Suggestion” is a Question: “How would it be if you (or we) did this?”

Challengers and the Lone Wolf by using Suggestions
were having a 60% Buyer agreement rate and a 40% disagreement rate.

Relationship Builders by using Proposals
were having a 60% Buyer rejection rate and a 40% agreement rate.

i.e. this behaviour alone was proving to be 50% MORE successful.

The second early win was on Challenger “Insights.”

See: http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/putting-challenger-sale-to-work-four.html

This was the method we used, very successfully,
to generate insights for Big Software to sell Cloud Based substitutes for Enterprise Software.

We then looked at the Behavioural Practice to deliver the insight content.
Again using the Challenger group and comparing behaviours to Relationship builders.

Challenger exhibited a 60:40 ratio of DISAGREEING to Agreeing

Relationship Builders exhibited a ratio of 40:60 disagreeing to AGREEING

It has to be noted that Challengers disagreed rationally, by saying WHY they disagreed,
and delivering an insight, RB’s tended to agree with Customers without saying WHY they agreed.

The Impact on the Buyer is noticeably different!

The Buyer would accept the RB’s agreement and reinforce their current approach.

The Challenger’s rational disagreement would cause the Buyer to defend their current approach and enter into Customer Engagement where the Challenger could PROVE their insight.

So, the question

“Do I think The Challenger Sale methodology is superior?”
[To IBM’s SSM], is:

That they work together!

Using a Structured Selling Process is better than not using a Structured Process.

(NB. it’s very worthwhile to test your “Structure” against Rackham’s Checklist,
just any old “structure” will not do!)

Using the Challenger Approach to initiating Customer Engagement, is superior to most alternatives, especially the Problem Discovery Question based, then Solution offered approaches.

Hence, the furore over “solution selling” is dead discussion.

My research leads me to conclude that Salespeople will NOT learn the ‘behaviours’ of a Challenger just by reading the book, but anyone in Selling can become a successful Challenger by learning the Challenger behaviours and USING them correctly!

 

 

The Golden Triangle, the very Top 5%, Performers in Sales can be developed by careful construction and combination of:

• Revenue Generating Sales Activity [an SSM],

• Evidence Based Selling Skills [including TCS] and

• Business Knowledge [access to Business Insights or an Insight Generation system].

 

 

 

And, all of this fits right on top of current best Practice in Marketing from Companies like Eloqua’s cloud-based marketing automation and revenue performance management software.

Eloqua’s modern marketing cloud delivers best-in-class capabilities to ensure every component of marketing works harder and more efficiently to drive revenue. Having a robust Evidence Based Structured Selling Methodology and an Evidence Based Sales approach, with Validated Sales Behaviours delivers the REVENUE and PROFIT results!

Closing is a Dysfunctional Selling Skill

 

In his blog http://thesaleshunter.com/never-leave-a-sales-call-without-closing-on-something/

Mark Hunter offers advice on how ‘Closing’ [asking for continuance in this case] should be done when a Sales Call is going badly. The premise he uses for this is the “Try Harder”, “persist longer”,
the “never give up” Sales school.

 

Mark writes:

 

“It is essential to always remember there is no such thing as a final sales call. If a sale can’t be made, there is still a sale that can be made and that’s selling yourself and creating a next step.”

 

 

 

What is the Evidence Basis for this view?

Well, Top Sales Performers use the opposite approach.

They ask themselves what is the likelihood of winning this business?
Unless their chances are high [the algorithm they use I will write about at a later date] they cut and run.

Their most important resource is their TIME, and they don’t waste it, on unlikely sales.

Poor Sales Performers, on the other hand, don’t give up.

They flog dead horses. Poor Sales Performers appear to lack judgement,
they do not use an Algorithm.
They spend 4 times as much time on No-sales as Top Performers.

Mark then writes:

“Minimally, strive to agree on what is keeping the customer from making a decision to buy.
Doing this helps to clarify in both your mind and your customer’s mind where the issues are.”

This is a highly Dysfunctional Selling Skill!

Agreeing with a Customer’s Objection is called “Objection Reinforcement.”

This was used disastrously with the Positive-Negative Close.

“You’re too expensive!”
“Yes, we are expensive, and it’s this Price ‘exclusivity’ which many of our Customers enjoy!

Agreeing with ANY Customer objection reinforces the Objection.

Xerox PSS in the 1970’s used a step in Objection Handling called “Confirm and Isolate”
e.g. “You believe we are expensive, is this the only reason why you won’t go ahead?”

Salespeople who used this were found to be 10 times less likely to get the business,
than Salespeople who missed this step out!

 

First of all recognise,
that YOU have most likely made mistakes both before, and during, the call.

Poor pre-call qualification, poor proposition or insight preparation or just poor selling skills during the call.

Don’t make it worse by “Reinforcing the Objection”,
or by causing further Objections through more ‘Closing’ or Commitment requests.

 

So, how can you manage the ending to a ‘difficult’ call?

DISAGREE with what is keeping you apart,

ask for a time-out and a new appointment.

 

 

Give a positive reason for the next meeting,
see three great selling skills that really work.

 

http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/three-great-selling-skills-that-really.html

And, finally if you did a good job in the Call, and it did not payoff, use the Algorithm “Move on!”

Sometimes Your Cheese really has Moved!

Be the Type of Salesperson who uses an Evidence base to Support their Sales Behaviours, not speculation.

Sales, a Job for Life! Part Two

 

Why some Sales people consistently outperform others.

Transferable Selling Skills are not COMMON sense.

If the skill is just “COMMON” in Sales then it is usually “Common Nonsense.”

 

“The last thing the Sales Manager saw and heard
before the Salesperson won the business was the Salesperson Asking for the Order.”

The Sales Manager used inductive reasoning
and made note of what he had seen. 

He saw it again soon after.
Then, again and again.

 

 

 

 

 

Considering the “evidence” he had seen, the only conclusion he could draw,

by INDUCTIVE REASONING, was Asking for Orders, CAUSED Buyers to Buy!

 

He labelled this Sales Behaviour “Closing” –

Closing the Sale or Asking for the Order.

The Sales Manager left his job and became an independent Sales Trainer.
He called himself an “Expert” and claimed to have discovered the “Secret of Selling”.

He promoted his Master Class in Selling under the Title

“Close the Sale!”

So sure was he about his “secret” that he offered a money back guarantee, if you did not win more sales by learning his secret!

Some people tried to claim their money back.
But, he simply said “It works for everybody else!”
And, then he added
“You are not doing it properly,
with great confidence and a positive mental attitude”.
So, he did not refund their money.

But, he did carry out some more research.

He found that Closing did NOT always work, the first time,
so he altered the “secret” and said you have to ‘Close’ FIVE TIMES to win the Business.

His Training now said “you can’t close too early and you can’t close too often!”
He developed many ‘types’ of Closing to give variety to the repetitive close five times!

The Assumptive, and the step by step,

The direct ask, and the indirect ask,

The alternative, and the trial close,

The Ben Franklin, and the Half Nelson close,

The Sharp-angle close, and the Positive-negative close.

His original 2 hour session was now a TWO DAY Sales Workshop called:

“101 ways to Close the Sale, the SECRETS to Sales Success.”

He performed in larger and larger venues.
He was a Rock Star, and the show went from Teaching to Theatre.

 

He trained over 200,000 people.

 

His Sales Training ‘heirs’ have passed his secret on to Millions of Salespeople,

through several generations of Salespeople.

But, He never conducted the simplest of all research, a behavioural experiment:

“Do Salespeople who Close MORE often, SELL more,

  than Salespeople who Close LESS often?”

If he had conducted that experiment,
then he would have uncovered that:
People who ‘Close’ LESS often SELL MORE, and
People who ‘Close’ MORE often SELL LESS.

What he had been selling as “The Secret to Selling”,

was in fact, a DYSFUNCTIONAL Selling Skill.

THE MORE YOU DO, then THE LESS YOU SELL.

If he had used Evidence Based Research, simple behavioural research,
instead of Inductive Reasoning, then he would have found that:

The most likely Buyer response to an “Early Close” is an OBJECTION.

He would have also been able to observe that:
the more often you close, the more objections you get!

And, he would have been able to empirically measure that:
the MORE Objections you get then, the LESS YOU SELL!!

When a Positive Attitude to Closing is displayed
by “Closing” too Soon and too Often then:

You do NOT succeed in Sales!

Sales, Jobs for life!

 

Nobody has a lifetime Contract of Employment,

which is strange because Employers want Customers for life.

 

How do we understand a “Job for Life” in 2013?

I believe it is found in the concept of “EMPLOYABILITY”

An ‘employable’ person is one who has desired Skills and Competencies,
which they can use to generate Value for their Employers, they are always in demand.

 

 

As a Sales “Employee” you have the right that your Employer shall at least maintain your current employability.

It is to their current benefit
and it is of vital future importance to YOU.

Employability, for a Salesperson, is having a Portfolio of transferrable Selling Skills,
which will enable you to bring Value to your Employer whoever that is.

 

 

 

 

 

If a Salesperson’s Selling Skills are developed and maintained,
then I believe they will have a job for life.

Selling skills, FUNCTIONAL Selling skills, serve as a good foundation for Management and a great foundation for General Management.

Insist that your Selling skills, hence your future EMPLOYABILITY are at the highest level.

If your current Employer will not do this, then before you lose what employability you have.
Leave and find an Employer willing to maintain your Selling skills.

In all events, recognise that YOUR future employability,
YOUR Job for Life, rests in YOUR own hands.

Take actions to safeguard your employability, do it for yourself!

Managing Sales Attitude for Success

 

Attitude, “Positive” Sales Attitude
is one of the five “leading indicators”
of a Sales person’s likely Sales successes.

We know this from repeated research.

 

Attitude is linked to motivation and if all other things are equal,
the more motivated Salesperson sells more than the less motivated Salesperson.

Adverts for Sales jobs frequently ask for “positive” Attitude,
every job Candidate claims to have it, but how do you measure it?

There are several Validated, and Reliable (in expert hands) Psychometrics,
which give insights into a Sales person’s likely attitude
to their Product, Company, Manager, Customers and to themselves.

Here is a simple exercise, which is a good indicator of a Salesperson’s Sales Attitude.

1. List the five most important tasks you completed last year.

2. Now, put them into two groups:

· Group 1 Tasks you did to avoid negative consequences or to receive promised reward.

· Group 2 Tasks you did because they had meaning for you or your company in the longer term.

You can now “measure” their engagement, the number of Tasks in Group 2;
which will give a percentage of their optimal Motivation, intrinsic motivation.
Sometimes this is called “Self-motivated”.

The number of Tasks in Group 1 which,
were sub-optimal motivated by external events of Punishment or Reward
show their Ratio to External or Manager-based Motivation.

During interview this exercise,
and YOUR subsequent inquiry,
will give insight into how the Salesperson works.

It applies equally to your current Sales team!

Repeat the exercise with every individual.

Diagnose their level of Engagement, by using the two lists.

The more Group 2 items the Higher their engagement,
they have the Positive Attitude to do the Task.

The more tasks they have in Group 1 the less engagement they have,
the more variable their Commitment and their Attitude.
Then, the more work YOU will have i.e. to manage them by punishment and reward!

 

As a Sales Leader, the Sales Manager’s role
is to connect the Salesperson’s work to meaningful outcomes.

The lowest form of motivation [the least effective] is Carrot and Stick; people are not Donkeys.

Understand and share the meaning of work, FOR yourself,
WITH your Salespeople and FROM your boss.

“Cutting stone is just poorly paid, hard, exhausting work,
  but, being part of building a great building that then brings meaning!”

 

.

Selling against Value, with Price.

 

In these frugal days, Price,
or as Buyers refer to it “COST”, is a very important factor in their Decision Making.

Sometimes, clever salespeople reverse the Price Advantage by offering more VALUE.

It’s a Formula:

Value = Benefits less Cost

Their “Added Value” comes from offering MORE benefits to cover their EXTRA Cost (higher Price)

For example:

They may claim that “due to lower running costs”,
their Total Value over five years is better than yours.
However, YOUR PRICE is less than theirs is, NOW!

 

 

So, “How do you WIN on Price?”

 

There is an embedded preference in most people.
In Human Decision Making we have a marked preference
for Rewards (payback or benefits) that arrive EARLIER.

 

People prefer Rewards sooner, rather than later.

Would you rather have $1 now or wait a year for $3?

If you chose a dollar now, then you are in the majority and you exhibit PRESENT BIAS.

 

You like the certainty of rewards now,

rather than the hope for reward at some future date.

A future which may, or may not, come!

When selling on PRICE, you have to appeal to your Buyers “Present Bias”.
The Value of a lower Price is available NOW.
The Value of “added” benefits only occurs over time and has a lower value than a Reward instantly available!

Who knows
if the projected value over five years will occur?
Who will get the credit, perhaps your successor?

The Time Value of Benefits discounts with time.
The certainty of reward and recognition of a lower Price, to you a lower COST, is available now.

 

 

So, when Selling on Price against a “Value” Seller, make sure you invoke the “Present Bias”.

Make sure your Buyer knows they can have their REWARD from you NOW!

How does PRICE link to Sales forecasts and missed Targets?

Read http://brianmaciver.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/ignoring-sales-forecast-and-missing.html?spref=tw

Do NOT spend money on Sales Training without doing a Sales AUDIT first

 

Dealing with Recession and Market Downturn
is causing many Companies to consider expensive or extensive Sales Training and Coaching Makeovers.

Do a SALES AUDIT first, before you throw good money after bad!

“Our research [ The MAC Group, no connection to BMAC ] shows that in most firms,
more than half of all Customer accounts are NOT profitable.
Moreover, between 30%-and 40% are only marginally profitable.
It is only a mere 10%-15% of a Company’s Customer-Sales relationships
that generate the bulk of the profits”.

A Sales Audit MEASURES your sales force,
its individual and their total capability.

It measures your ABILITY to SELL your Product,
to your Market, against YOUR Competition.

 
A meaningful Sales Audit is a PORTFOLIO of appropriate
Sales MEASURES, for your particular Product-Market.

 

 

The Sales Audit is the baseline score (100) against which future Sales Performance, both Positive or Negative, can be measured and compared.

 

THIS IS NOT A QUESTIONAIRE OR PERSONALTY TESTS.

 

Sales Audits and Sales Assessments

The purpose of the Sales Assessment is to measure Key Performance Indicators and calculate the likelihood of Sales Performance Success. The process producing a Sales Assessment should involve a Sales Audit by an Independent Sales Assessment Professional; its purpose is to provide a measurement rather than to express an opinion about “quality” of Sales Performance.

Sales Audits should always be an Independent Evaluation, which will include some degree of quantitative and qualitative analysis, whereas an
Sales Assessment implies a consultative approach.

The Sales Audit includes both LEADING and LAGGING indicators as well as an overall Performance Benchmark.

 

 

A Sales Audit is an ESSENTIAL part of:

• Due Diligence, Pre-Acquisition, Merger or Joint Venture
• Pre-Training Project Management
• Pre-Investment (or Re-investment)
  the Sales CAPABILITY is a key indicator of likely future success.

Contact brian.maciver@gmail.com for details it’s a LOT cheaper than a mistake!