Quantifying opportunities together
Historically, "qualification" was something that sales people did to prospects. They lined them up, judged where the money was, and then extracted it! Everything centred on the moment of contract signature, get pen-to-paper, get the money, move on...
Cloud, and post-pay consumption models change that dynamic significantly. In a post-pay world, vendors are only paid when, and if, the customer actually consumes the product. Or, to put it another way, the vendor only gets paid if, and when, the customer is actually successful and actually gets value from the product.
In the new world, it makes no sense to sell something that a customer can't use. They won't use it, and since it's post-pay, consumption-based, the vendor doesn't get paid... Everyone is wasting their time, everyone losses.
In the new world, it makes no sense to sell something that a customer can't use. They won't use it, and since it's post-pay, consumption-based, the vendor doesn't get paid... Everyone is wasting their time, everyone losses.
So how do we evolve qualification to a world where opportunities are mutual between vendor and the customer? How do vendors work together with customers to qualify mutual opportunities? Qualification still makes sense, and I propose the following prompts to think of it together.
Do we have the means to execute on the opportunity?
Does the vendor and the customer actually have the means to deliver on this partnership? Do we have the products? Do both sides have the people and the know-how? Are we willing to invest? What is the customer expecting from the vendor? What is the vendor expecting from the customer? Can we each actually deliver those things?
Do we all understand the decision-making process?
Assuming we aren't ready to start, how do we get ready? Who needs to deliver what? Are both sides prepared to commit those resources? If not, what do we need to know to be convinced or able?
Why are we doing this?
Embarrassingly obvious? Too obvious to ask? Or the elephant in the room? Do both sides know why they want to do this? Do both sides know what a successful outcome looks like? What are the alternatives to going ahead for each side?
When are we doing this?
When are we going to do this? What's driving that timescale? How long do we expect it to take us?
Conclusions
Cloud and other post-pay models change the dynamic of 'selling' from something you do to customers to something you do with customers. In that environment, qualification is more important than ever, but it has to be done as a joint exercise. Hopefully these questions help both sides to understand what they are doing, why, and whether it's worth it.
Curious to get other perspectives on this! Let me know what you think...?
[Note this is my personal views, and I'm responsible for them, if you don't like what you read, don't blame my employer, family, friends, pets etc...]
Group Lead Chief Engineer at BJSS
8 年It's similar to Darwinism - survival of the fittest. Many software organisations traditionally rely on the capabilities of their sales force to convince potential buyers of the value of their wares and hope for subsequent lock-in or reliance on their products (or simply apathy for wasting effort to evaluate alternatives). The model you describe encourages product teams to engage with the customers to continuously improve their products - if they don't they will be overtaken and eventually fail. Not only that, organisations that take the time to listen and engage with their clients, or potential clients, build empathy and trust. These days, one frequent, and almost unconscious, evaluation criteria I use when selecting software products is how quickly and closely I can communicate and work with the team that build the product - I'm not interested in the script a sales person can read me, I want to talk to the people that create the software and have a vested interest in working with me to get the best out of it - which may well include introducing new features. In a world of open source software, Agile, Devops and new organisations with Kickstarter-mentalities, new products are entering existing markets all the time, shaking up and redefining everything from pricing and consumption models to technology to methods of engagement. Some large organisations are embracing this new world (with mixed effectiveness), whilst others are burying their heads in the sand. Only time will tell whether this new model is here to stay and, if it is, how the dinosaurs of the industry will survive. It's an exciting time.
Nice article. I like the reasoning and it feels correct. Also like the comments of Jake Anthony
IT Director: Sub-Saharan Africa, LATAM and The Caribbean
8 年Spot on! Also enourages the need to take customer success and experience a bit more seriously.....post the sale or deal. You'll be surprised at how valuable that will become. ...
Principal Security Engineer at Exabeam
8 年I think the "post-pay" paradigm that you outline actually just serves to encourage earlier in the sales lifecycle customer engagement and focus. Too often the sales-cycle looks to exploit a customers specific weakness without considering where that weakness ranks on the customers own internal "health check". By moving to a world where client involvement and focus is a necessity rather than a "nice-to-have" I think you enable a higher conversion rate of successful projects, whilst lowering the overall growth in overall projects started. I personally, can only see that as a good thing! As long as you are the one able to engage customers...
Founder @ Earthbase | Deeptech Venture Partner | Food, Energy, Nature, Communities | Fellow, Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.
8 年Establishing mutual value is critical.