Many times the sales teams and the marketing teams are under different mandates and use completely different metrics as well as different forms of communication. Recently a number of very intelligent people spoken about how the marketing and sales teams at their respective companies function in a closed loop. Thinking harder about this closed loop, what would happen if it was decided to eliminate the two separate spheres, thus having a closed-loop system as a starting point?

With this model, there would be no “lobbing” leads over the fence in blind hope that they are good. This model would also eradicate the repetitive echoes: “Well, I did my part,” and “What am I supposed to do with this?”.

This one group’s goal would become client acquisition, and this group would be named as such: “Client Acquisitions.” This group’s one concern will be bringing in new clients. The newly formed group, now titled “Client Acquisitions,” will be challenged by the same MBOs, only in this scenario the individual will be measured for results. Our ability to produce actionable pipeline assessments would be greater, and the client’s ability to make quick changes would be easier. At any point in the funnel, a company can thus measure the success of a team and its members. In addition, gap analysis will return much more precise data. The dynamics would change from finger-pointing to finding the right contact point and person for a specific stage of the deal that is in the process of being worked out.

At a revival, the audience has to be ready to be converted. They know why they are there. At a mission, the audience’s primary goal isn’t getting converted. But, the mission manager is appealing to their hunger and cold in order to get them in the door.

I’ve met many salespeople who want to run their companies like a revival. Only those truly “ready” to consume their service get in the door. The good thing about this approach is that you’re likely to convert more people. But, you will have a smaller audience. In addition, those who convert are more likely to stay converted, because this is the reason they are there in the first place.

Others work like a mission. They use non-sales methods to attract their audience. Then, while they are consuming these ideas/services/etc., they try to educate and convert them. Lead nurturing is like this. The goal here is to meet people’s immediate needs/desires, and then work on serving their “real” needs down-the-road.

Lots of people don’t think the mission approach is worth it. It takes too much time and effort, they say, to deal with these people and eventually convert them. On the other hand, the revival approach seems perhaps unnecessarily limiting. If you allow only a few people into the tent, then you naturally can’t convert more than a few people.

So, which is a better approach?

I am a fan of the mission. Without being deceptive, I think it’s important to meet people where they are and move them along gradually. In our business, we can’t expect our future clients to be fully educated and informed and ready to convert. This is especially true in today’s climate of layoffs and overwork. Many of our clients just don’t know enough to find, never mind attend, a revival.

If it is necessary to link away from your site, be sure to a) have the link open in a new window so that your site remains live in an open window and b) bury the link if possible. In many cases, if your primary source of content is another web source (such as a news posting site), you can adjust your site to pull the content into your Web pages without showing your valued visitors the exit door.

Unless you are just looking to generate traffic or become a link farm, take the necessary steps to avoid becoming a trampoline site.

1. Internet. Pay-per-click advertising mainly. The trouble here is that he has no Web site to send people to, and he can’t really afford the site he needs. Still, the PPC charges would likely fit into his monthly budget. So, I thought, what if he just used lead generating landing pages and didn’t have a Web site. Crazy or brilliant?

2. Referrals. Chances are, he’s not using his current and past clients effectively enough. No newsletter, no follow-up interviews, no asking for referrals. He also has no printed materials to hand out. So, maybe a newsletter? Still, it costs money.

3. Partners and affiliations. I suggested talking to predecessor vendors, those that offer services just before his in the chain of work. A well-founded alliance can help ease the lead generation burden, too. But, is anyone going to associate themselves with a company with no Web site? I woudn’t.

So, those were some of the ideas I offered. I don’t think he’s going to buy. He needs a whole set of new materials and a rethinking of how he sells. And this is a very small company. The cost involved is just too high, even though it’s exactly what he needs.

The trouble is that almost every time, if you’re not already ready to buy, you don’t pay any attention. No matter how rational their argument, you don’t want to buy. Why is this? Are you irrational?

The salesperson thinks so. She says, increduously, “How can you pass up this offer?!”. Any, maybe the offer really is good. But, you still don’t buy. Here are two possible explanations.

One possible reason you still don’t buy is that you fear that there is something hidden, something the salesperson isn’t telling you. After all, you start to think, if it’s really this good of a deal, why is he offering it? Here, the salesperson’s enthusiasm works directly against him. The more excisted he gets, the more you start to wonder what’s really at stake. Why is he so giddy? Am I being scammed? So, the fear of some unknown catch prevents you from accepting what might sound like a good offer.

Another possible reason is that you don’t intend to buy at all. Either you’re not in a buying mood (frame-of-mind) or you just don’t want to buy anything from this person. No amount of rational argumentation is going to change your mind about those fundamental attitudes. In effect, you’re on a different level than the salesperson. She is trying to convince you about the offer, and you’re not even concerned with the offer. You’re concerned either with something else entirely or with the salesperson herself!

I suppose the salesperson might take a step back and try to address those concerns directly, instead of assuming them. Would that even work? What if he said “I can see you don’t wanto buy anything today. Am I right? Yes? Ok. What if I called you later?”. Again, the enthusiasm works against him. Why is he so eager?

What if he said, “I think you don’t want to buy anything from me. Is that right? Yes? Ok, how can I convince you to trust me?”. As we all know, people who tell you they are trustworthy are not perceived as trustworthy.

I think the solution, if there is one, for the salesperson to step back and calm down. She needs to realize that a frontal assault, no matter how rational, isn’t going to work. Only by taking her own interests out of the conversation (don’t be so eager) and by demonstrating trust over several meetings, will she be able to get back to the place where she can talk about the offer.

As far as I can tell, this happens because salespeople like creating their own tools. It’s a fun, creative exercise. They get to play at design, copywriting, and marketing strategy. And the tools to do it are easily obtained. You don’t even need InDesign, you can create an ad in Microsoft Publisher!

Perhaps salespeople don’t get enough creative outlets. Perhaps design work just seems like too much fun. Whatever the reason, it seems that salespeople often create their own sales tools because they want to.

Increasing selling seems like the obvious solution to wanting to increase revenue. The trouble happens when your selling is inefficient. If it’s already hard to make sales, then adding selling pressure will increase sales only marginally. On the other hand, if selling is made easier, then you could increase sales with the same salesforce.

So, how is this possible? Branding.

Branding is the grease of the wheels of selling. Branding does 2 important things that every salesperson needs.

1. Branding generates awareness in the market of the company. This smooths the introduction process when making sales calls.

2. Branding positions the company within the market in the mind of the client. This means that the client knows generally who are the competitors, what kind of work the company does, and what they will have to pay.

These things are crucial to a successful sales process. No one should be selling without them.

Too often, comapnies try to accomplish branding during their sales process. For instance, in the absense of marketing or branding effort, the salesperson him/herself can try to introduce the company and position it correctly for the prospect. Note that this has to happen before selling can even happen.

While this is possible, it’s very difficult. Only the most effective salespeople, working in the more effective companies with the best reputations, can hope to achieve this. For anyone else, it’s going to be near impossible.

So, this is what I say: when you’re selling, don’t forget the branding. Everything will be easier and more effective.

The impulse behind hiring new salespeople is that it seems like the easiest choice. You get 1 or 2 new people, buy them a list of target accounts, and send them out to call on the potential clients. Seems like it can’t fail, right?

It might not be a bad idea. And it might work somewhat. But, generally “turning up” your sales effort is going to have other effects, too.

First of all, you will expose the weaknesses in your marketing. As you increase sales pressure, the new sales personnel will have to be brought up to speed very quickly on your offerings and materials. Since they are new, they will have new questions and new requests. If your marketing is in good shape, this will work fine. If not, it’s possible to undermine the entire sales effort by not having a good marketing foundation.

Secondly, you might be tempted to try to (re-)create the marketing foundation as you ramp up the sales effort. For most organizations, this is too much to undertake at one time. It’s hard enough getting either started.

If you have a marketing foundation that works somewhat, you will quickly find the cracks in your marketing. Most likely, this discovery will take the form of finding that your audience, your messaging, and your materials are out-of-date. The risk here is that the only foundation you have for your new salesperson is exactly not what you want them to be selling.

So, is there a better approach? Next time, we’ll talk about alternatives.

Sales is often considered something of a numbers game. You make so many calls, email, etc. You get so many sales. When you want more sales, you make more calls. Brute force.

A better approach is to streamline the process and make it more efficient. If it’s easier to go from a call to a meeting, or from a meeting to a proposal, then you’ll get more results for the same effort.

So, how can this be done?

To be sure, some sales techniques already exist for this. Training is the most common. If a salesperson is better at making a call, then s/he will get better results. This again focuses on the person, and so training is expensive. You have to train each person individually. (Group training is possible, but it’s not as effective.)

Luckily, there is something that can be mass produced and that will improve salesforce efficiency: sales tools. These are typically marketing-generated materials that are used by the sales force. Powerpoint presentations, collateral, and so on. When produced skillfully, and when used effectively, these tools can greatly enhance the productivity of the salesforce.

I’m not talking about the usual bombardment of the sales team with ill-conceived collateral. Those days are gone. What I am talking about is intelligently conceived communications tools that make the salesperson’s job easier. When this is accomplished, you get good alignment between marketing and sales, and both become very efficient.

Next time we’ll talk about how to make sales tool more intelligent.

Good branding is built up over time supported by good delivery, good value, etc. So, for one, good branding alone is not what people buy. They buy a good brand. So, to ask for the value of a branding campaign is a mistake. You should ask for the value of the brand.

That aside, the most important goal of branding is to not lose you sales. When a potential customer is evaluating options, they are giving each provider a quick look. At the moment your company gets the look, you need to keep the customer from turning away. You don’t need to make a sale. You just need to stay in the running. A good brand will keep you in the running. A bad brand will lose you the sale.

At worst, your failure to make a quick good impression will take you out of consideration for good. At best, a bad brand will immediately create an unnecessary hurdle for you. Your marketing and sales will have to overcome this hurdle before you can close the deal. And why create more work for yourself?

Next time you’re working on your brand, ask yourself what you could be losing.