Ever-increasing sophistication: Sales forces have been on a long, steady march to increase our sophistication. In the old days (you know… the 20th century), sales forces first transitioned from a landscape with little organizational rigor to an era of sales process. It became common knowledge that there was a ‘best’ way to sell to customers, and formal sales processes became the norm. A legion of sales training companies rushed to coin catchy acronyms that would guide sellers through the steps to a successful sale.
Then marketing concepts began to creep into the sales force, perhaps because of marketing’s increased role in supporting the sales function. Suddenly, customer segmentation became a thing, and salespeople started to engage their prospects uniquely depending on the potential customer’s industry, size, geography, or other demographic characteristic. Salespeople went to market with sales presentations, case studies, references, and other collateral that appealed to distinct groups of similar customers. Things never felt better.
Then sales ascended to the current plateau of sophistication: buyer personas. It’s no longer good enough to know that your target customer is a mid-sized, regional manufacturer of industrial equipment – now you also need to characterize each buyer’s individual role. Are you selling to the company’s CEO, CFO, CMO, CSO, or some other type of C? Is the buyer motivated by technical specifications, financial returns, implementation plans, or some other business issue? Our sales enablement shelves are now stocked with collateral that is sliced and diced in as many ways as we perceive our buyers.
Are We There Yet?
So here we are in the 21st century with sophisticated sales strategies and tools to help us select the right sales approach for the right type of buyer. We’ve reached the logical destination of customer-focused selling. But there’s just one problem… We’ve gotten it all wrong!
New research conducted by Florida State University’s Sales Institute provides an insight that is both obvious and revolutionary. The insight is this: It’s not the customer persona that should determine how a salesperson should sell to a buyer… It’s the type of buying situation into which he is selling.
You see, the Chief Sales Officer of a mid-sized industrial manufacturer can buy in many different ways for many different reasons, depending on the situation. For instance, she issues a Request for Proposal to purchase a new CRM tool because she currently has none. Or she might simply want to upgrade her existing CRM platform through her incumbent vendor. Or she might just be snooping around to learn about new CRM products, with no real intention of purchasing anything. Same persona, same product, different buying situations.
In the first situation, the buying process will probably be long and methodical with several competing CRM vendors in play. In the second, there will be only one vendor involved in the sale, which should move relatively quickly. And in the third, perhaps no vendor will make a sale, unless the seller churns up enough discontent with the status quo to turn the tire-kicker into a serious buyer.
If you were to use a sales approach that mirrors the RFP process, you might have a good chance of winning the RFP-based deal. But use that same strategy when you’re the incumbent in second situation, and you might frustrate the buyer by moving too slowly. And in the third situation, you might fail altogether to motivate the buyer to action. The same buying persona is purchasing the same product in all three scenarios, but only one strategy is likely to win. To have a chance at winning all three deals, you really need three different strategies – an RFP sales strategy, a product upgrade strategy, and a tire-kicker strategy. Then your buyers in each situation would encounter a responsive salesperson capable of meeting them at every stage of their purchasing process.
Think about it… Don’t you have some sales cycles that are long, as well as some that are short? Don’t you encounter buyers whose assumptions you to need to challenge, and others whose favorable opinions you want to reinforce? Don’t you engage with buyers who are highly motivated to buy, as well as others you need to convince. Now ask yourself this: Does your sales methodology accommodate all of those situations?
A Better Way to Sell (and Train)
This is why it’s folly to train our sellers in a single, rigid sales approach and then expect them to use it in every situation. Sales strategies are best determined by the buying situation into which the salesperson is selling, not the demographic of the buyer he targets. Stated differently, buyer demographics rarely change, but buying situations frequently do. It’s better to address the unique situation than the generic demographic.
So, this will be the next iteration of sales methodology – methodologies that are agile enough to acknowledge and accommodate different buying behaviors. And no, you don’t need several distinct sales methodologies to accomplish this feat. Multiple methodologies will overwhelm your sellers, as well as the folks who train and enable them. You need an adaptable methodology that enables your sellers to bob and weave as their sellers do. A methodology as agile as your buyers. Classic customer segmentation schemes were good stepping stones to get us where we are. Now it’s time to continue the climb.