How different is Selling now to Selling in the 1930s ?

LAST BUT NOT LEAST

This is the first of many 'single page' Salespersonship wisdom that came into my possession several years ago. Each of these was created in the 1930s.

Let me state up front and ask your tolerance for the gender specific references consistent with sellers of that time (1930s) being almost exclusively male.

It has occurred to me that now will be a good time to share these articles and this is the first.

In sharing them I seek to stimulate conversation and introspection among those most connected to me here.

People like me who make a living from engaging with customers and prospects to understand, develop and co-create solutions and services which meet both tangible and intangible expectations.

In the B2B world of complex selling we find an increasing number of buyers whose role and opinions count in varying degrees in the selection of vendors.

These buyers have access to abundant information and come to perceive there to be minimal difference in vendor offerings.

The rise in prominence and influence of purchasing specialists is an indicator, bias and manifestation of this 'buyer maturity'

What is underestimated by both buyer and vendor cohorts in my experience are the intangible elements of the ongoing relationship.

What might seem to be a 'best in market' offering from a buyer's point of view might not lead to a 'best in market' experience.

Buyers turn to contracts to protect themselves from negative and costly implementation and ownership experiences.

A supply contract understandably points to the tangibility of tasks and outcomes but cannot effectively regulate the attitude of those on the vendor side responsible and accountable for delivering these outcomes.

It is these attitudes and these relationships (between vendor delivery and customer users) which are central to the success and long term value of the relationship from both sides.

The article above written in 1930s speaks from an age long since passed which offers tips on Salespersonship from almost 100 years ago.

I present their relevance to modern day selling and buying challenges.

Image courtesy of EpicTop10.com

The contention in the article that a seller's personality is a consequence of what is learned as a seller is interesting and relevant.

What exactly is personality?

It is representative of who we are. It is expressed in combination and in sequence of thought, word and deed/action.

Our personality allows us to interact in the world and is an inherent and uniquely personal array of biases and values from which we draw in reaction to catalyst.

The contention of the article: 'Last but not Least' is that unlike the horse that might not learn, successful sellers do.

One of the starkest differences between selling ~ 100 years ago and today is that the inference in those days was to adapt one's sales personality to a shape and form most suited to making the sale.

The most distinctive point of differentiation for the customer in the 1930s was the 'personality' of the sales person.

Salespersonship is more of a differentiator today than most vendor solutions.

The article causes me to think about the role of the seller's personality in facilitating differentiation.

In the 1930s the objective of the seller was to get the buyer (usually one) to say yes. The positivity of the seller which radiated from their being needed to offset the risk for buyers who had no internet or other references to anticipate the ownership experience.

The objective in complex sales today requires selling organisations to obtain agreement from multiple buyers with multiple requirements who operate within a complex political environment who quite often seek solutions whose scope is unknown or unclear to vendors.

To seek to differentiate by fashioning or adapting a single seller's personality to such a diverse landscape is suboptimal. What is far more effective is to express a collective and collaborative face to the customer.

Sellers who genuinely seek and leverage the internal expertise of pre and post sales departments and teams are what is required to develop profitable long term relationships.

The more vendor representatives introduced to their customer counterparts through the buying process the more apparent the personality of the vendor becomes.

The key is to ensure that each introduction enhances both the credibility of the primary seller and the collaborator.

Buyers prefer to deal with a vendor who enjoys working collaboratively to fashion, implement and deliver positive outcomes for customers who fit their ideal customer profile.

I remember discussing with a CEO what are the indicators or symptoms of sellers who do not believe in the products and the solutions they are selling.

He told me that in his experience they are poor collaborators preferring to represent themselves to customers in isolation as a means of preserving their personal credibility.

In summary then, I agree with the article that personality should be the LAST element to be learned and developed BUT as the product of a vendor's 'collective' delivery organisation and team rather than of an individual seller.

The attributes of positivity, congruity and responsiveness of a collective face to the customer should overwhelm and most effectively mitigate the tangible risks of engagement

A stage-coach of selling organisation representatives learning and supporting each other is the new frontier of differentiation

What do you think?