QUALIFICATION 2.016

Believe it or not I still get this question...Should our Sales Development Reps qualify for BANT (budget, authority, need, and timeframe)?

That question comes up more than any other when discussing sales development strategy.

For many years, BANT was the criterion by which all opportunities were measured. SDRs would connect with prospects and immediately begin to grill them.

• Are you aware of any initiatives around [ . . . ]?
• How will you be involved in the decision-making process?
• Have you established a timeframe?
• Is this project funded?
• What is your approximate budget?

Sometimes, reps would even ask questions in the exact BANT order, leaving prospects wondering: Wait! Was I just BANTed? For most organizations, this approach is past its prime. I tend to think of it this way:

Qualifying for BANT is like going on a first date and asking to see a credit report.

Yes, you want to know if your future partner is a financial nightmare or on solid footing, but come on. Too much, too soon.

 QUALIFICATION 2.016

For all its pitfalls, BANT has one upside. It’s easy to remember.

No, seriously. Don’t underestimate the value of a catchy acronym. If you’ve built a non-BANT qualification framework, go grab an AE and see if he can recite each piece correctly. Dollars to donuts, he’ll miss something.

 I recommend a qualification methodology called PACT: pain, authority, consequence, and target profile. Let’s take them each in turn.

• PAIN: Not every company has a need for your product or service (the horror!). And some that do need to buy from you stubbornly refuse to admit it. You can have access and a good relationship with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but if her team doesn’t agree that you solve a pressing business issue, you’re dead in the water. Pain matters.
• AUTHORITY: They’ll be multiple decision makers involved in your sale. Reps need to understand the role that each person plays. Remember almost every sale requires dozens of yeses and runs aground in the face of a single no. Don’t just think “sign on the dotted line” authority. You are looking for people who can get an organization to move. That isn’t always reflected in a title.
• CONSEQUENCE: Prospects are human—with all the misbehaviors and contradictions that entails. Plenty of companies have suffered with acknowledged pain for years. Their biggest issue is fear that the cure will hurt worse than the illness. You need to dig for the implications of not acting. An organization that isn’t in motion is much harder to move than one that has already realized the consequences of inaction.
• TARGET PROFILE: This one is all about confirming fit and identifying red flags. Are there technical, cultural, or internal political issues that will kill the deal? There is no point in wasting an AE’s time on the false promise of a no-way, no-how

PACT is useful for a large majority of companies with opportunity-generating SDR teams. I will make one small amendment for a certain situation. If you’re selling into a mature market and attempting to displace an existing vendor, timeframe matters. If you ignore timing, your AEs will be screaming their heads off when all those “hot opportunities” turn out to be under contract with a competitor for the next two years.

If your market is mature, I recommend using PACT2: pain, authority, consequence, target profile, and timing. That addition should prevent your SDR from handing over opportunities that are qualified, but unable to buy for three or four quarters. 

BUILDING PACT INTO YOUR PROCESS

Does PACT make sense for your organization? If not, what are you using as part of your process? Share!!