Experiment - Which Sales Approach is Really More Effective?

Posted by Dave Kurlan on Mon, Oct 28, 2013 @ 06:10 AM

I haven't been completely transparent in some of my recent articles.   I have continued to urge readers how important it is to sell using a consultative, buyer-focused methodology and a formal, structured sales process.  This helps to shorten the sales cycle, increase closing percentages and most importantly, differentiate, allowing you to sell value instead of price. Well, at least that's what I have been writing...

What have I really been doing?

A secret experiment.

What if I was wrong about what I've been writing?  What if buyers should dictate the process?  What if we should sell the way buyers want to buy?  What if inbound leads should be handled in a more transactional way?  What if we should use a judgment-based approach instead of structured sales process?

I never want to be in a situation where I'm writing, coaching, consulting or training about a sales topic, but not actually doing those things myself.  And the same is expected from every professional on my team.  How else can we possibly keep it real for our clients?  

During the past 90 days, I have been secretly selling multiple ways.  On one third of our opportunities, I have been selling the way we teach - using a formal, structured sales process with a consultative approach.  On another third of our opportunities (inbound leads),  I have experimented with a more transactional approach, although even that has a consultative element because I can't help but ask some good questions.  It simply means that I show and tell much earlier than normal.  With the remaining third of our leads, I have experimented with allowing the buyer to dictate the process.   My buyer-dictated approach included a little push-back because I can't allow a potential client to take the wrong approach to a solution.  

Want to know what happened?  Look at the table below:

Sales Experiment

Did I have a bias?  You might think so, but nobody wants to get the business, regardless of approach, more than me.

One thing you don't see in the table is average contract size.  While it can be measured, we don't provide a specific thing that can be compared across processes.  And the services we do provide have more to do with the size of a sales force, their financial resources and the scope of work that we need to provide.  That said, the size of the contracts, when compared with the potential of the opportunities, was proportionately smaller with approaches 2 and 3.

Another thing you don't see in the table is that we were with decision makers in each of our structured, consultative opportunities, but weren't always able to accomplish that with all of the opportunities in the other two categories.  Before you jump to conclusions, we need to consider the chicken and the egg.  Which came first?  Did we default to the consultative approach when we were able to reach decision makers and the transactional approach when we weren't?  No.  Our approach dictated whether we were able to speak with decision makers.  When we took the consultative approach, it was easy to get decision makers to participate in the conversation.  When we took a buyer-driven or transactional approach, it was nearly impossible to get decision makers involved in our discussions.

Proponents of the other approaches might argue that there are some products and services that are better suited for their favorite approaches.  I agree.  But as I have said before, if you don't have a product that is under $200, if you aren't the cheapest, if you aren't the industry leader, or if you aren't the logical or safe choice in your space, then you are an underdog and the underdog needs to outsell everyone else.  If your company needs to outsell the competition, you'll need to do it using a formal, structured sales process with a consultative approach or you'll find yourself with unreliable forecasts, a longer than necessary sales process, smaller deals and a lower closing percentage.

Topics: Dave Kurlan, Consultative Selling, sales process, closing percentage, sales cycle

Is Your Selling Model Effective? Know your Salesforce's ABC's

Posted by Dave Kurlan on Sun, Nov 16, 2008 @ 20:11 PM

Every company, with or without a salesforce, has a selling model.  I know of one company whose model is "we don't believe in sales". It works for them, but it won't work for many others.

What happens when you force yourself into a model?  My wife did that with her company.  She is a very driven, gifted, caring, giving, talented, brilliant, effective, successful leader, entrepreneur, philanthropist and marketer.  Because of that rare combination of attributes and talents, she is in demand as a speaker, board member, fund-raiser, volunteer, and champion.  In addition to being the CEO of her company, she is also the chair of the non-profit she founded, the incoming chair of a non-profit on whose board she sits and the vice-chair of the local chamber of commerce board.

She is a terrific wife and mom to our son, who is frequently mentioned in this Blog. When you add up all of those important responsibilities and learn that she is also the only salesperson for her company, how much time do you suppose that leaves for selling?  Exactly.  So her selling model is a combination of self-imposed time limitations, along with a strong need to be selective and effective.  When she meets with a potential client, there is business to be done!

What happens when you compare a model like Deborah's - if you're gonna go hunting you'd better come back with dinner - with a model that has its salespeople making 3 sales calls per day, or around 60 per month? Do you think those salespeople come back with 60 new customers or orders per month?  No chance! They probably sell 10.  That's why they're on so many calls. 

What would happen if you told those salespeople that you only wanted them to go on 30 calls per month, but you want them to be a lot more selective, and you expected them to close 50% instead of 10%?

I'll tell you what would happen, your A players would close 50% of them and your B's would probably get 33% (the original 10 deals with half the work and half the resources). Your C's?  Same as today - they'd still fail to get the 10 you needed.

You need to develop your B's and replace your C's.  The only problem is that you aren't really able to identify who your A's, B's and C's are.  You think you can but you're measuring them by the dollars they produce, the worst possible measurement of potential, because the dollars are not necessarily the result of their efforts today as much as the dollars may be the result of their previous efforts or the efforts of others over time.

If you want to learn how to truly learn your ABC's, engage me, send me an email or leave me a comment.  We'll talk.

(c) Copyright 2008 Dave Kurlan

Topics: sales competencies, sales assessment, sales model, selling, Salesforce, Sales Force, closing percentage, improve sales, sales evaluation, FLIC, sales personaility, PENTA

Content not found
Subscribe via Email

View All 2,000 Articles published by Dave

About Dave

Best-Selling Author, Keynote Speaker and Sales Thought Leader,  Dave Kurlan's Understanding the Sales Force Blog earned awards for the Top Sales & Marketing Blog for eleven consecutive years and of the more than 2,000 articles Dave has published, many of the articles have also earned awards.

Email Dave

View Dave Kurlan's LinkedIn profile View Dave Kurlan's profile


Receive new articles via email
 to the Blog on your Kindle 



Most Recent Articles


Top 50 Sales & Marketing Blogs 2021

Sales & Marketing Hall of Fame Inductee




Top 50 most innovative sales bloggers


Hubspot Top 25 Blogs