Off-the-shelf sales methodologies aren't differentiating you, so what should you do?
In this article I share why many organizations that want to stay ahead of the curve have decided to build their own sales processes and methodologies. I can't tell you how many CEOs, CROs and VPs of Sales I talk to that have invested major amounts (think six figures) in sales methodologies only to see nothing change... No uplift in revenue and little skills change in their individual contributors after pulling their people out of the field. What's more, using an off-the-shelf methodology doesn't enable them to?stand out from the competition and connect with buyers in a more meaningful way. The widespread use of common methodologies means that experienced buyers are hearing the same talk track (If I have another person hit me with the 'Upfront contract' and the ANOT acronym talk track I am not sure what I will do.).
If you take it off the shelf, you are not the only one using it
I have been in B2B sales since 1995 and while I can't claim to have seen it all, I have definitely seen most when it comes to sales methodologies. Arguably, all sales methodologies are in some form derivative of those that came before them, and so claims of new breakthroughs and insight should be met with skepticism.
Let's get aligned on two definitions:
Sales process is a set of stages that you progress through as a buyer exits one phase of their decision-making journey to the next. It is characterized by milestone or 'exit criteria' that represent what must be true/known before moving to the next stage.
Sales Methodology is the collection of defined activities that are performed within each stage. Embedded within the methodology is often a framework for opportunity inspection that indicates the health/quality of the opportunity (EG Do you have access to the economic buyer?)
If you spend a minute searching for acronyms that represent sales methodologies you will find more than you would ever want, and in some cases, ones that will give you a chuckle. Here are a few:
With a quick skim you will see that many have common elements - My biggest concern is that the broad-scale adoption of a methodology is often on the back of the success of the originating company. Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) was an incredibly successful software company that was made famous for Computer Aided Design technology AND the MEDDIC sales methodology. My issue is that some revenue leaders take the MEDDIC methodology (now adapted to MEDDPICC) and slap it on top of sales processes that don't align at all well - MEDDPICC is highly effective for many complex enterprise sales, but it is not a universal panacea. Let me ask you this - How many deals have you sold where there were neither confirmed metrics nor a TRUE compelling event? Personally, my teams and I have done countless because not all sales are created equal (I can tell you that the good folks at Slack have sold a lot of deals with no confirmed ROI or drop-dead date by which a decision must be made).
Now, to be clear, I am not seeking to disparage MEDDPICC or any other methodology (Although I will FAINT if I hear another NUTCASE tell me that the most NEAT approach is SPICED.) What I am saying is that we need to go back to first principles.
We are in a predicament because of how sales methodology companies make money
If you were to design a sales training company with a focus on profitability and scale, here is what you would do:
This approach allows you to onboard relatively inexpensive trainers who stay 'on the rails' to repeat the same approach and training many times over. It is the same as the home building companies that build a small selection of designs - They buy the materials in bulk, use the same plans and then overweight the teams with lower-skilled contractors who are assembling/building the same design over and over.
A winning approach is possible with skilled, consultative enablement professionals that reside in-house
There are three key outcomes that a sales process and methodology should address:
领英推荐
1) Ensure we are pursuing deals that we are able (and want to) win
2) Provide the buyer the confidence to move forward with our solution as quickly as possible
3) Ensuring customer success after the sale
Have a look at these three and then go and look at the list of acronyms above - It will be immediately obvious that none of them are fully addressing all three of these (I know I will get debate from methodology owners who say that there are implied outcomes tucked away in their pithy acronym, but in reality that is mostly lip-service).
If you speak to an experienced sales enablement professional you will hear two things:
1) I have been through a methodology deployment that failed to stick
2) I have seen enough to support my team in building a fit-for-purpose approach that will serve us better than anything in the market can.
These professionals are the equivalent of architects in that they can craft a unique solution that delivers on stakeholder goals. They will re-use ideas and materials where appropriate, create some new ones, and then assemble them in a one-of-a-kind way that delivers for the revenue organization.
The challenge is that you need to have a certain scale before the business can support a full-time enablement professional. For those emerging businesses that can't make the investment, then the hope is that you can bring in some advisors from your investors or perhaps from within your network to get things going - The reality is that early days you need to hire ICs who can leverage their experience to figure it out for themselves until you are ready to bring on an enablement professional to help you take things to the next level.
You need to coach the individual, not just train the team
A second universal failing of classic sales training organizations is that they take ICs through a standard training program, where everyone has the same experience - I have seen this countless times and I just don't get it. In the same way that medicine is moving on to designer medications based on DNA sequencing for individuals, we need to coach and develop ICs based on their unique profiles. If this doesn't sound right, then reflect on how the elite players in sports teams are developed - Yes they have team training events, but every elite athlete has 1:1 personalized development that is just for them: Sports psychologists, strength and conditioning, etcetera. The approach we use is to map EQ competencies to the sales process and then generate individualized IC coaching plans based on their EQ profile - You could do this with any psychometric/behavioral assessment, but I have seen EQ as being the most valuable set of competencies to inform development priorities.
In conclusion: Give the enablement professionals the resources they need
I'll conclude by saying that the 'roll-your-own' approach to sales process and methodology is done by the enablement 'architects', not a 'carpenter'. These architects have the requisite experience to design and deploy a unique methodology (if not alone, in partnership with a well-resourced consulting group) - Not everyone with 'enablement' in their title can do this.
If you want to pressure test my thinking, go inspect any large enterprise sales organization and interview the top 5% of AEs - I can almost guarantee that they are not following a 'standard' methodology... It is tailor-made for their context and the future winners in complex sales will take a leaf from this book.
A final note: I know that buying clothes off the rack is what most of us do, but we all know that custom tailoring makes for the best fit - The difference here is that the custom tailoring investment is likely the same or less than the off the rack option when it comes to sales methodology.