Same Side Selling Read online

  While the game metaphor has been passed along to generations of selling professionals, the metaphor has also transferred to the buyers. Many buyers now view the buying process as a game. The game mindset influences thinking and behavior before, during, and after the sale.

  In a game, one side wins and the other side loses. An adversarial mindset is implicit from the start.

  Making matters worse, many sellers, when faced with pressure to “hit their numbers,” seem more interested in selling what they have in their bags than in finding the best solutions for their prospects. Once buyers have been burned once or twice with solutions that did not fit their needs, they stop trusting the sales professionals. It should come as no surprise that some buyers have determined that the best way to protect themselves is to keep the salespeople at arms’ length and in the dark.

  That reaction from buyers brings us full circle. The selling-as-a-game idea has reinforced itself as it has traveled from thought leaders to salespeople to buyers and back to salespeople. The adversarial trap now appears virtually anywhere that products are bought and sold, and the dominant metaphor continues to be the game.

  Our aim is to replace the adversarial trap with a cooperative, collaborative mindset. We also want to replace the old metaphor of selling as a game.

  The New Metaphor: Selling Is a Puzzle

  We would like to bury the metaphor of competing in a game and replace it with the metaphor of solving a puzzle. Let’s compare the two:

  Selling is not a game.

  In a game, you are playing.

  In a game, there is a winner and a loser. Over time, you build a win-loss record.

  In a game, you sit across from your opponent, trying to win.

  Selling is a puzzle.

  With a puzzle, you are solving.

  With a puzzle, you create something. Over time, you build a history of value.

  With a puzzle, you sit on the same side, determining if pieces are a good fit.

  The puzzle metaphor is simple, but adopting it in practice is not easy. A puzzle-based, Same Side Selling approach has implications for every step of the sales process and the client relationship, as we detail in the following chapters.

  The first step of Same Side Selling is to embrace the idea of solving a puzzle instead of playing a game.

  A Deeply Entrenched Mindset

  You may be tempted to think “OK, they want us to collaborate; I get it” and flip to the next chapter. But before you do, it’s worth exploring just how prevalent game-based thinking is, perhaps even at your company.

  Competing Against Other Companies

  As you look at your own industry, it is probably standard practice to define your company in a competitive manner. Have you heard any of these phrases recently?

  • “We’re third in market share …”

  • “This is our win ratio for RFP responses …”

  • “Our main competition is …”

  • “We need more shots on goal …” or “more at-bats …”

  The thinking behind this language is fully reasonable. There are specific situations in which only one company can “win” the business. We will explore this concept—and how to rise above it—in Chapter 2, Be Unique, and Chapter 3, Narrow Your Market. In the meantime, let’s keep exploring how prevalent competitive game-based thinking is in your business.

  Competing Against Customers

  An overly competitive outlook often bleeds into relationships with prospects or customers. This outlook shows up in the language often heard in reference to a company’s clients:

  • “We’re competing against their internal capability.”

  • “They’re cutting into our margin.”

  • “If they were more informed, they wouldn’t need us.”

  • “If they don’t adopt what we provide, that’s their problem.”

  These statements reflect an attitude of us-versus-them, which implies a winner and a loser. That adversarial approach makes the selling process harder and less fruitful. In contrast, a puzzle-solving approach turns prospects into teammates.

  Imagine that you and someone else are jointly assembling a puzzle. Each of you has a set of pieces. Now imagine how challenging it becomes if there is a barrier between the two of you. The other person can see the puzzle, but you have to rely on the descriptions of the pieces she needs to complete the puzzle. In that scenario, it could be that the puzzle pieces are not even for the same puzzle. You might work together for days or weeks before realizing that your pieces do not fit the other person’s puzzle.

  In Chapter 4, Get to the Truth, and Chapter 5, Be an Educator, we apply the puzzle-solving approach directly to sales conversations and explain how to exchange information in a way that keeps the buyer and seller on the same side.

  Of course, the game mentality doesn’t always originate from the seller. Current practices in corporate purchasing and procurement often fuel the adversarial fire. Through Requests for Proposals, Requests for Quotes, reverse auctions, and other sourcing techniques, buyers and their agents aim to drive all manner of purchases to commoditized, apples-to-apples comparisons. These competitive structures seem to favor the lowest cost and offer little opportunity for authentic conversation and differentiation. We explore that specific trap — and its remedies — in Chapter 8, Sell Value, Not Price.

  A New Acronym, A New Focus

  The idea of selling as a game is exquisitely illustrated in a well-known scene from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. Alec Baldwin’s character, Blake, breaks from a torrent of threats and braggadocio to refresh his sales team on the classic mnemonic ABC: Always Be Closing. The film, released in 1984, brought this high-pressure sales concept from the 1950s to the attention of the general public. Let’s consider what it means.

  To Always Be Closing means that you constantly keep a laser-like focus on finalizing the sale. Nothing else matters:

  • What happens when you first meet a potential prospect? Always Be Closing.

  • If she has objections or questions? Always Be Closing.

  • When he brings a new stakeholder into the process? Always Be Closing.

  • If the company might not be your optimal client? Always Be Closing.

  ABC is all about making the sale.

  Same Side Selling is first and foremost about finding the fit. Rather than looking to win as an individual or a company, the goal is to work with the prospect to create a picture that makes sense and looks right to everyone involved. For the new puzzle metaphor, we also need a new acronym.

  FIT: Finding Impact Together

  Same Side Selling can be summarized with the acronym FIT, which stands for Finding Impact Together. Finding Impact Together is a mantra that can be useful at nearly every stage of the sales process and customer relationship. FIT will be our conscience check and guiding star throughout the book, so let’s unpack what it conveys, one word at a time. The implications of FIT are quite different from those of ABC.

  Finding versus Closing

  Finding means discovering. It often involves teaching, sharing, investigating, or diagnosing. It also means that the outcome is unknown: what you are seeking might be there or it might not.

  Closing means getting to a signature and a customer. We are not arguing that closing is unimportant. But closing often implies cajoling, persuading, manipulating, and making something happen. Closing implies that you might create something even if it isn’t there.

  Impact

  When you are solving a puzzle, finding the right pieces often takes considerable effort, but when they fit together, the result is clear and rewarding. The same is true when a well-defined need meets a well-crafted solution in the marketplace.

  Impact is not about your product or service. What you are selling matters, but what’s far more important is how your offering solves someone else’s problem. It’s not about you or your stuff. It’s about the customer’s problem and solving it. Impact applies to the issue worth solving, as well as to th
e solution you have envisioned. Finding impact means mutually agreeing on why the client needs help and what the likely results of your solution will be.

  Together

  Same Side Selling is collaborative and cooperative. Those are nice, friendly words, and they align with an integrity-based approach to sales. As we will discover, putting the client’s perspective first yields better results with less effort.

  Solving, Not Selling

  Ian speaks frequently at business networking meetings. He often asks the question, “How many of you came here tonight hoping to meet someone who might lead to a sale?” When pressed to be honest, usually more than half of the people in the room raise their hands.

  Then Ian follows up with question number two: “How many people came here today hoping that someone would try to sell you something?” Amid the laughter in the room, one or two jokers raise their hands (and are often then bombarded with business cards).

  As the crowd does the math and realizes the mismatch between people eager to sell and those eager to buy, Ian asks a third question: “Seriously, now; how many of you would be happy to meet someone tonight who could help you solve one of your biggest business challenges? Raise your hand, and keep your hand up if you would be happy to pay for that help.” Once again, the room is full of raised hands.

  Take a minute and re-read the last three paragraphs. Consider again the difference between the second question and the third question. While no one wants to be sold something, nearly everyone could use help to solve a problem.

  Being Helpful

  The difference between selling and helping has huge implications for everyone in sales. The reality is that most prospects will quickly classify us into one of two categories: 1) we are trying to sell them something, or 2) we are there to determine if we can help them solve a problem.

  Chris Brogan visits this theme often in his blog, which is consistently ranked among the most popular and influential business blogs. Brogan has summed up his philosophy of marketing success with these two words: “Be helpful.” The advice seems simple but is worth repeating and adopting as a foundation of Same Side Selling.

  To be helpful, you have to know where people need help. That means seeing the buyer’s problems from the buyer’s perspective.

  Buyer’s Perspective: Throughout the book we will present insights and quotes drawn from Jack’s experience working with senior-level company decision makers. Of course, all of us are buyers, so as you read this book, we encourage you to consider how you would respond to a Same Side Selling approach as a buyer.

  It’s About Their Problem, Not Your Solution

  To be seen as a solver instead of a seller, you must deliberately demote “making the sale” to a secondary priority. The primary focus is on helping to solve the buyer’s problem. This means that your product’s features and your company’s qualifications are relevant only so far as they solve the buyer’s problems. (For more on that, see Chapter 6, Focus on the Fit.)

  Elevating helpfulness above selling does not mean that you never sell or that you should run away at the first sign of an objection. However, if you have thoroughly investigated the buyer’s challenge and determined that you do not have the right solution, it is far better to be candid than to keep pushing.

  The following anecdote illustrates the difference between the ABC and FIT approaches:

  When Ian was the CEO of a software and consulting company, he accompanied Steve, one of his salespeople, on a meeting. They were meeting with a senior executive, Mary, at a large telecommunications company. Steve was trying to convince Mary that her company should purchase a $150,000 solution. Each time Mary asked if the solution could do something specific, Steve would start tap-dancing around the question and suggest that the solution could do anything the company needed. After hearing a few questions, Ian realized that the software was not right for the client.

  In a moment that shocked Steve, Ian said, “Mary, I don’t think that our software is the right platform for what you are trying to do. I fear you’ll have a one-off solution that will not scale enough. Can we discuss your needs a bit more so we can make a recommendation that is appropriate?” After an extensive discussion (Ian seems to remember Steve needing oxygen at this point), Mary said, “Based on everything we’ve discussed, have you built something like this before?” As much as Steve hoped that the answer would be “Yes,” Ian said, “Not exactly. We’ve built similar solutions for insurance companies, manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies, but not this exact telecomm solution.” Mary said, “Three vendors have told me they have something. But I’ve been doing this long enough to know that if it existed, I would have seen it. You are clearly looking out for us. What will it take for your team to build it?”

  Ian told Mary, “It would cost about $750,000 just to build a pilot. Based on how you described your user community, I would not be surprised if the eventual solution cost between $2 million and $3 million. Just so you know, maintaining a system like this, with the number of users you described, costs our other clients more than $1 million per year.” Mary thought for a moment and said, “How soon could you start?” The client ended up doing over $15 million of business with Ian’s company over the next decade.

  Several elements of this story relate to different chapters in this book. The bottom line, however, is that Mary and Ian were working on the same side of the table to find a solution to a problem that was costing Mary’s company about $5 million annually.

  Steve was thinking ABC, and Ian was thinking FIT. Thankfully, FIT prevailed.

  The Game-Based Mentality Has to Change

  The adversarial selling mentality is not just inefficient; it’s quickly becoming ineffective. As the information age continues to advance and the function of buying becomes more mature, a game-based approach to selling will leave the seller with lower margins and the buyer with fewer options. We learned more about this from David Clevenger, VP of Corporate United, which helps hundreds of large companies manage suppliers and expenses:

  The strategic sourcing revolution appears to be at an end, with large corporate procurement departments finding it impossible to drive savings the same old way, and suppliers having no room left to move. The way of the future is collaborative sourcing, where the buyer and seller come together, share information, innovate, and find ways to economize. The companies that take this path will identify, quantify, and implement meaningful solutions, and those that don’t will struggle to compete.

  On the buyer’s side or the seller’s side, the future will be brightest for those who are Finding Impact Together. Are you ready to move to the Same Side?

  Put Same Side Selling to Work

  Both the buyer and the seller have traditionally viewed selling as a game. This us-versus-them mindset results in a far less efficient sales process. A better metaphor for selling is a puzzle. Instead of Always Be Closing, a better reminder is FIT—Finding Impact Together. By being helpful first and focusing on the buyer’s challenge, a seller can stay on the same side as the buyer and avoid the adversarial trap.

  How did you learn about selling? Did your most important influences or trainers define selling more like a game or like a puzzle?

  Identify two of your clients with whom you have an adversarial relationship. On a scale of 0–10 (where 0 is stressful and 10 is comforting), how would you rate the experience of working with each of them? How would they rate the experience of working with you? Did the outcome of their purchase achieve its potential or fall short?

  Identify the last major sales opportunity that you lost. Did your team approach it as a game or as a puzzle? How might your actions have been different if you had treated that opportunity more as a puzzle?

  Identify two specific activities of your sales team that reinforce the game approach. Could either of those be changed to reflect a puzzle approach?

  Can you think of a situation when you worked with your client to find impact together, instead of just trying to sell something? What was
the nature of the dialogue? Was it adversarial or cooperative? Was it more focused on price or less focused on price?

  Make a list of problems that your solution is exceptionally good at solving.

  CHAPTER 2

  Be Unique

  In the first chapter we introduced the puzzle metaphor, the idea of solving a problem instead of pushing a sale, and the acronym FIT—Finding Impact Together. Of course, the word “fit” has a literal meaning that is just as relevant to Same Side Selling: the buyer’s pieces and the seller’s pieces must fit together. To arrive at this fit, sellers must know what pieces they hold and what makes them distinctive.

  In this chapter, we discuss why it is crucial to differentiate your offerings. We’ll also discuss how to define and present your uniqueness in the marketplace—even when you sell something that doesn’t seem much different from what your competitors offer.

  Standing Out from the Crowd Is Essential

  The most successful sellers know exactly what they bring to the marketplace. They zero in on the areas where they can have the greatest impact for clients. Their offering is not shifting or vague; it is as clearly defined as the outline of a puzzle piece.

  The Unique Positioning of the Cadre Networking Group

  There is no shortage of networking groups in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It’s a region that appreciates the importance of being connected, and there are hundreds of organizations devoted to developing relationships that can be professionally helpful. In that context, the odds would seem to be against Derek and Melanie Coburn, who started a new group in 2011. Yet in less than two years, their group—called “cadre”—grew to capacity and became one of the most successful groups of its kind in the United States.

  How did cadre stand out from the others? Derek and Melanie had a vision of how their group would be unique, and they clearly presented the vision to prospective candidates. To start with, cadre was labeled an “un-networking group.” Then the founders explained why it was different: new members should not expect to close sales with other members of the group in the near term.