Sales and Marketing Integration for Best Practice Execution (T. Vancamp & A. Guinn)

It’s that nagging, age-old challenge for every Senior Executive. Proactive cooperation between sales and marketing seems to be possible only in utopia at most companies. Sales and marketing search out their own directions, generally according to the agenda set by senior management.

Communications, cooperative execution, and so on, are only buzz words that travel in people’s minds. But in today’s financially-starved marketplace, bundling efforts is becoming a necessity; actually it’s a necessity if one wants to seize successful competitive advantage.

What are the missing links between the sales and marketing departments that lead to the existence of silos, or segmented work areas?  Although several reasons might be developed as the basis of the foundation for a seemingly derailed relationship, a closer inspection will demonstrate that they’re not impossible to overcome.  When senior management at companies want their sales and marketing departments to become streamlined and synchronized, they need to invest in that convergence.

First, there must be a specific understanding that there exists a difference in upstream (or strategic) marketing and downstream (or tactical) marketing. We would maintain that the same story can be shared about the sales side. Certain aspects of sales lean toward strategy and other aspects lean toward the tactical side.

Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric has illustrated and implemented this thinking in what he calls the ACFC (“At the Customer, For the Customer”) concept. Being “at” the customer generates intelligence that leads to new (innovative) products or service (strategic) or improvements of products or in services (tactical).  Acting on this concept helps to define how the sales and marketing departments – and, in really, every department – need alignment to the same targets and goals, with a customer-centric goal as the core. Companies should devote their resources more on growth projects in a much larger context.

Ram Sharan’s writings in “Profitable Growth is Everyone’s Business: 10 Tools You Can Use Monday Morning” focus on the fact that “growth is everyone’s business.” Taken to its extreme, this means that every area in a corporate entity must focus on the growth development goals of the corporate entity. Further to the point, Sharan negates simply aiming for those reliable revenue generation “home runs” and keys on the simple fact that the company must also make a point of addressing “singles” and “doubles”. Singles and doubles as used in baseball parlance define an aim for smaller revenue growth, but their sums total for larger overall revenue. Incorporating growth into company culture is everyone’s business and is an ongoing process. One must be certain that every single employee embraces and works together toward growth goals. This helps to define teamwork at its best.

Within company structures, people tend to work in silos. Specifically we’ve noted that sales and marketing departments have this tendency. Working in silos segregates the Sales and Marketing areas to fight for their own budgets and their own goals as opposed to working to the common good of greater revenue and profits. Breaking down walls between these areas should be a first priority to reverse these isolating processes.

Next comes the inevitable question …    "How do we do that?"

One must consider changing the information flow and changing teamwork. Teamwork, although everybody talks about it and says they’re doing it, is much like the weather…everyone talks a good game, but no one does much about it. It is achieved only up to a certain level. Teamwork is traditionally incorporated in departments and, like some pharma compounds, is sometimes not well tolerated when introduced on an inter-departmental level. Inter-departmental teamwork is essential to stay ahead of the competition and, in the end, leads to being customer-focused. To be able to change teamwork from departmental flow to inter-departmental flow, a company needs to change the requirements, expectations and flow of information in both directions – from top down, and from bottom up.Traditionally, information flows through several defined canals within a company. This also implies that information may be filtered and can be most likely distorted, if it ever even reaches its destination due to the bureaucratic systems established within most companies.

Crucial information must be sent directly to, and received and confirmed by, the people most impacted. Email not directly impacting the recipient can be forwarded, since email has now been established as an effective communications system with a written proof of receipt. This kind of information flow makes sure that the necessary people---the ones who need to execute--get the “real deal” and that information is neither distorted nor blocked by the egos of either sender or receiver. 

Ego of those involved can play a large role in whether successful integration can or will be achieved. Worldwide, “corporate personalities” will often reflect the combined egos of the senior management staff. And let’s don’t forget that by the very nature of its composition, a corporation thrives on senior management who—shall we say—are not shy in their decision-making and executional skills. And rarely are afraid to let you know they feel that way.

Changing information flows implies that the company psychology about information—and the use of said information-- has to change. Egos must be put aside to allow free flow of naturally relevant and crucial information. Management at the highest level needs to make this occur and make sure that they set the example. After all, the sharing of information in communication dictates more than just a one-direction flow. Information has to flow top-down and bottom-up regardless to whom it’s directed, and no matter what the position if it’s thought to be important for the necessary people.

Think about this: “why should sales people be forbidden to share information directly with the sales executive, if information is gathered that has strategic importance to the whole company?” It just might be that every second lost on information flow through the “right channels” might be one too many to stay ahead of your competitor(s).

Linking the information interdepartmentally has several benefits: 1) it makes sure the correct people get the correct information, 2) it assures that the information doesn’t get distorted or blocked on its way, 3) time is saved in the process, and 4) execution definitely is faster and more accurate.Another possibility is adding a centralized team to gather for example competitive intelligence (CI). This information can then be processed and distributed to different stakeholders. The catch here is “time” and “processing”. The time factor is crucial again to act and react swiftly and appropriately. The processing factor may be impacted by bias and distortion. Furthermore this team should posses the right knowledge and skills about the subject(s), as they need to understand a variety of information streaming towards them. Data collected could be objective and/or subjective and they’ll need to connect complex relations between the received information in order to enable analysis and conclusion drawing, as well as to understand the bigger or full picture. Linking Sales and Marketing implies several changes in the company: attitudes and actions of people, walls must be broken down between the departments and new processes must be implemented for change. Relationships must turn around from undefined into defined. Recruitment must follow a defined set of rules. These are key managerial tasks. After a phase of defined relationships, they should become streamlined relationships that encourage disciplined communication. Sales and marketing both need a joined mission.

Appointing someone to be the link between marketing and sales may be necessary to bring both worlds together into one. The Sales force needs to give feedback to the Marketing Department, and vice versa. Further down the road, the streamlined relationship should grow into an integrated one. The Marketing Department can be split into two functional organs-- one upstream and one downstream, nonetheless facing the same company directions and goals.

Defining and operating within an integrated relationship can also mean that common financial targets must be defined. Finally, and much to the satisfaction of the CFO, these suggested changes can lead to a positive change in the reward system (e.g. the payment of specific commissions for reached objectives). A common financial reward system will ensure that all involved parties have to take ownership of their responsibilities and execute in a way that all arrows are pointed at the same target. If aimed at different targets, for whatever underlying reason (individual need, political, economical, etc), the target may be missed. Furthermore the individual as well as the overall incentives may be missed. 

"Sales & Marketing Integration"

Finally, it is our believe marketing and sales would be better off as an integrated entity. In the end isn’t marketing supposed to support sales and sales some marketing activities? Like Philip Kotler once mentioned: “The sales department isn’t the whole company, but the whole company better be the sales department.” Far too many times we have witnessed departments and executives neglecting real time input due to hierarchical politics or by failing to put feet in the real world, by staying inside and taking decisions based on spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations inputted with bias and/or distorted information. After which the pinpointing and blaming will start if it turns out to be a negative outcome. Umbrellas are opened and the games begin. “Wrong” we say! The whole company failed as an organization, not just a few people. Due to wrong processes, wrong culture cultivation, and more have ensured the whole structure failed to deliver the right result. Who has ever, on an executive level, received information, took a decision and before pushing this down the hierarchy and spreading it out, took this under the arm and went to someone very close to the daily reality as for example sales people and asked if this makes sense to do? And why should this decision be blindly adopted and executed on globally if it may no be the soundest thing to do on a more local level?

It’s time to adjust to the changing environment demanding for a more integrated approach as well as customers are demanding a broader perspective on their business before they’ll turn it to you. But that’s another topic we’ll discuss in the near future.

About the Authors:  

Tim Vancamp, PT, MBA, is a sales/marketing and education executive. He is currently a consultant for the Brain Research center Antwerp for Innovative and Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation.     

Alan Guinn, MBA, is currently Acting Dean of Graduate Studies at Rushmore University. He is Managing Director of GCG Worldwide/The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc., a USA-Based multiple core-competency Consulting group, based in Tennessee.

This collaborative document arose from the work done by both authors in the area of International Sales and Marketing, and expresses views from both the Corporate and the Entrepreneurial side of business.