Value Proposition or Value Assumption?

'Value Propositions' are a feature of virtually every Seller's playbook.

Not mine, though.

They are too presumptuous for my taste because they are usually general-purpose statements with little or no sense of who the Buyers might be. Whom are they aimed at?

If the answer is a Value Proposition, what was the Question?

Seems to me that they are principally for internal consumption to help vendors feel they are a source of value.

?? I say that because until I have met and discovered what the unique set of Buyers in?each sale?values, how can I craft a proposition relevant to them?

That said, we can sometimes know that a thing might be of value based on a generic understanding of a person's circumstances, e.g., water if they are thirsty or food if they are hungry. A wheelbarrow if they are toting rocks etc.

Our assessment is based on our personal experience. If we were in those situations, we would value the water, food, or wheelbarrow and assume that others will also value them.

And therein lies the problem. We assume that what we want is what others want too.

Value Assumptions

You know the saying about assumptions making an ass out of you and me? I admit that some assumptions, like the ones above, are safe. However, most are not (hence the saying), and that is the problem with proposing value, or for that matter, adding, creating, and especially selling value.

When Sellers propose or 'sell' value, they assume that what they sell will be of value to Buyers. I say that because 99/100, they say it is without first discovering what those Buyers value.

Therein lies the failure of Value Propositions. How can Sellers know they are valid without first understanding what the Perections of Value (POV) are for the Buyers in?that?sale?

And even if they understand Buyer POVs, Sellers only propose products or services, not value. Buyers only get value if and when they use those productively. You could say then that…

Value is received?after?the sale.

…leaving aside helpful advice Buyers might gain by simply interacting with a Seller pre-sale.

You get what I mean though.

Without precise knowledge of Buyer Perceptions of Value, Sellers can only make Value Assumptions, not Propositions.

So, what if it is an Assumption?

Lest you consider me a semantic pedant, the distinction is critical.

Sellers run on assumptions, the most obvious being the conviction that Buyers need or want what they sell even before interacting with them. The assumption is that my product/service is of value to Company A, so it must also be of value to Company B, as it is the same type of business in the same industry.

Indeed, that could be true. However, the Seller assumes that B's Buyers, i.e., the people, think the same as A's people. And that they value the same things too.

A Seller cannot know that unless s/he performs a Value Discovery. If all Buyers did value the same things, then there would be far fewer products on the market than there are. The wide variety is evidence of the high variability in Buyer POVs.??

Now here is where it gets interesting.

Notwithstanding the criticality of value perceptions, Sellers almost exclusively focus on Needs Discoveries rather than Value Discoveries.

Why? I suspect it's because need appears to be more tangible than value. Needs Discoveries are helpful. However, they only reveal generic requirements, the type found in RFPs. Sellers gain no critical insights into Buyer POVs i.e., the stuff that's in their heads!

?????? It is tough to find a compelling competitive advantage focusing on needs. Take RFPs, for example; they level the playing field when what you want is a field tilted to you. Value Discovery is how you get that!

For Buyers, what separates Sellers is not their understanding of Buyer Needs, but of Buyer Perceptions of Value.

Further, as all Sellers are working to the same requirements, they propose similar offerings (and call them 'solutions') and make the shortlist. No competitive edges there!

The problem with that…

There is only ever a single solution.

In any sale, only one Seller will win, the one who offers what Buyers consider a solution. All other offerings that meet requirements are simply options, not solutions. Yes, they 'solved' the functional requirements, but they didn't meet (solve) Buyer POVs.

And that is all that counts in winning sales. The goal is not to be the best fit for requirements but to be chosen by Buyers.

????If they are to win sales, Sellers must have the mindset that solutions are not sold but bought.

When you adopt that mindset, you materially improve your chances of winning.

Consider this:

When first engaging with Buyers, Sellers can quite unwittingly display an inherent arrogance by assuming that Buyers need what they sell. Witness Value Propositions. The inference is that they somehow know Buyers' minds even before they have met them. After all, that is why they contacted Buyers in the first place.

I am not suggesting Buyers are offended by that; they know Sellers are simply doing their job. That is not the problem. What is, is the way that Seller's attitude undermines their credibility. Regardless of the Seller's industry knowledge, Buyers think, 'well, you don't know?me.’?And that is?true, of course, as the unsuccessful short listees go on to demonstrate by not winning over those Buyers!

However, consider what happens when you adopt…

The 'I don't have a solution' mindset.

Value-focused Sellers engage Buyers having 'no stake in the game,' which ensures objectivity. They are not looking for a sale but rather to understand the results/outcomes each Buyer wants and their value of getting that, e.g., recognition, advancement, reduced stress, promotion, or whatever.

Once Sellers understand the value for those Buyers,?they transition from Discovery to collaboration to explore what needs to happen for Buyers to get that value. The collaboration is Sellers co-inventing with Buyers their (the Buyer's) solution instead of offering the Seller's product/service as a solution.

This step is similar to a Needs Discovery or requirements definition, but within the specific context of the Value Discovery, so every need is tied to a specific value outcome.

When there is consensus about the Buyers solution. Sellers then match their product to it.?And that is the first mention of the Seller's product, which naturally fits the solution as the Seller was involved in the solution creation process. If, at any stage in the process the Seller assesses that their product/service will not likely fit the eventual solution, the Seller would qualify out without offering anything.

Summary

The approach I have described positions Sellers as a potential ‘Source of Value’ and the way a value-focused Seller might describe that is:

‘Look Mary, I cannot create or add value for you, but what I can do, if you will help me understand what value looks like, is collaborate with you to help you create the capabilities you need to have that value'.

And what is Mary then likely to say?

‘How will you do that?’

…and the Seller is then into a Value Discovery Conversation.

?

I will be exploring more value-focused approaches in my next newsletter.?In the meantime, if you would like my free tips on value-focused methods, you'll find plenty on the?Resources page of my website .

And if you would like some insight into how value-focused your sales processes are, try this FREE self-assessment. There are two versions.

Individuals or Sales Teams ?and one?especially for MSP's

If you got value from this article, please like or share so others might get value too.