Skip to content

Does Insight Selling Require “Scars?”

by David Brock on July 2nd, 2013

We’re supposed to bring our customers insight–opportunities they are missing, new ways to run their business, new ways to grow.  No one argues that. 

We make sure we have sales people with the right behaviors and skills.  We prep our sales people with training, information, case studies, data, teaching pitches.  We charge them to engage their customers in a different way, providing insight.

They do their homework, research, prepare for the call.  They are meeting the “C-Level” for that all important meeting.

The appointed hour comes, they muster the courage, meet with the customer , ready to provide insight.  Then the questions come.  The customer is curious, but wants more detail and drills down three, four, five levels.  Or they raise some objections, “That’s not for us,” or “We tried something similar several years ago,” or anything else.  And this comes if the call went well—we caught their interest and they want to dive in to learn more.

One of the real challenges about challenging customers or providing insight is we are talking to them about their business, their industries, their markets, their operations, their functions.  They spend everyday doing that, they spend everyday running their operations.  They are probably smart, capable, and experienced.  To be successful, we have to be credible in engaging them in conversations about their business.

So what does this mean to the sales person providing insight?  How do we equip them to go “one on one” with people who may be experts, or at least are certainly more experienced in their function, company, industry than most sales people are.  How do you get a sales person to call on a grizzled VP of manufacturing, a master of lean operations, and say, “There is a better way to run your manufacturing operations.”

Sometimes, I think we are a little cavalier about providing insight and challenging our customers.  Sure we can equip people to do the pitch, but then the blizzard of questions follows.  We have to equip our sales people to lead the conversations.

Recently, I looked at a series of calls a sales team was making..  The sales people were capable, well trained and well prepared.  They had very strong insights, well researched, good supporting materials, and case studies.  They had role played the calls and practiced with the materials.

 They started the calls well, caught the customers’ interests, then faltered.  Many came back with their tails between their legs, a few were able to hold their own and schedule follow ups. 

I started seeing some interesting patterns.  It should come as no surprise, business acumen was key—not the standard  “learned from reading about it, went to a training class, got my MBA type of business acumen.

People who had really studied the customer’s business.  They understood the industry structure, the markets, competitors, key strategies and business drivers.  They understood the customer themselves.  They had spent time learning their business, wandering around, meeting operational and functional level people. 

This is a kind of table stakes level.  In some cases, it is sufficient, but we saw many people challenged.  We started seeing some other things.  The people who had the greatest success, those who were getting follow up calls had “scars.”  You know what I mean, the “been there, done that” kind of experience.  Several of the sales people had come out of the industry themselves.  They had held, in this case, manufacturing management jobs.  While none had senior level manufacturing management jobs, they knew the challenges manufacturing executives faced, they could related to those challenges, directly, with experiences they had in the past, they could share those experiences and bridge them to the insights provided.  A few of the others had come out of services organizations.  They had actually implemented the solutions and knew the challenges and results.

The commonality, those who had the scars, who had some level of personal experience, not only were more comfortable in making the calls, but tended to have more successful outcomes. They could relate and the customer could related more easily.

It turns out, in this and a number of other cases we’ve seen, challenging and providing insight is not just an issue of intellect, training, and data. It’s more than just business acumen, it’s experience.  The ability to be credible and empathize based on experience was very important in gaining customer confidence and moving forward.

We noticed some other things.  In prospecting new accounts–those in which the organization had virtually no relationship, known expertise/experience was critical.  Not being able to leverage a relationship or “track record” with the account, C-Level executives were very skeptical, unless the sales person could demonstrate experience and expertise in the industry/function/markets.  Rather than starting the call with, “Our company has great experience with organizations like yours….” they had to build personal credibility, “I have worked as a manufacturing manager in companies like yours….”

So what’s this mean if we want to be providing insight to our customers, to challenge them to think differently?  Do we have to staff our organizations with “grizzled veterans?”

Absolutely not!  We’ve seen different strategies applied (actually, the grizzled veteran strategy has some drawbacks).  Some things that help, assuming all the right training, support materials, and so forth are taken as a given:

  1. Business acumen, as mentioned earlier is table stakes.  That’s the starting point, if your sales people don’t have this, they have no business making the call.
  2. Recruiting sales people with industry or functional experience helps bridge the insight gap.  It doesn’t have to be a lot of experience, but  some degree of having been exposed to the issues from the customer side and leveraging that experience is very powerful.
  3. Access to deep experience or availability of resources with that experience.  There are all sorts of possibilities here, including specialists (sales/presales), partners, or even the channels utilized.  These partners or specialists can bring the experience (scars) to complement the insight the sales person might deliver.
  4. One that’s often overlooked is the people doing the same jobs within our own companies.  For example, getting our manufacturing people talking to customer manufacturing people, or CIO’s talking to CIO’s.  Peers sharing mutual experiences are powerful—assuming your own company uses what you sell, practices what you preach.
  5. We’ve seen a couple of organizations challenging/providing insights in very special conferences.  They may bring a small number of prospects together, with some of the best experts, thought leaders in the world.  In essence, the beginning conversation starts in a larger group, getting the customer wanting to learn more.  The sales person, may then be capable of taking the conversation to the next steps.
  6. The lesser the relationship, the more you need to provide immediate credibility through past experience or known expertise.  So it is important to look at who is assigned to prospect new name accounts when you are leading with insight.  In many organizations, this is where newer or less experienced sales people are assigned.  But if we are leading with insight, you may be setting them up for failure, unless they have access to resources to support them in the prospecting calls.
  7. Marketing materials, collateral complement and reinforce the insight the sales person provides, but they aren’t a surrogate for expertise.  The goal is to engage the customer in discussing new ideas about the business.  The sales person has to be capable of carrying on the conversation–pushing, challenging, defending.

Insight is here to stay (I’m not sure it was ever gone, we’re just recognizing the importance.)   Sales people need to go beyond teaching, but engaging in deeper conversation.  Scar tissue does help.

From → Performance

  1. Absolutely great post, Dave.

    Going up 30,000 feet, I saw this post being about sales dialogue. And dialogue infers two-way communication, right? If it’s to be two-way, to have it be effective, the scales need to be somewhat balanced.

    In my experience, the more insightful that dialogue needs to be, and more it is likely to traverse a path that the buyer may not be expecting, the more likely “scars” are required — to either connect the dots in the first place (especially with something that an expert in their business hasn’t already considered), or deliver the message with credibility and have it be accepted.

    This works incredibly well in professional services firms, with a practice leader (and their scars and insights) going toe-to-toe with an executive in a client company. Although, it’s likely that executive brought in the firm, and expects to hear something quite valuable and possibly unexpected.

    Not always so easy, though, if the scales aren’t balanced (or equally scarred. 😉 or when you’re not invited with big expectations.

    Same with the deeper level of understanding of the insight. Because, as in your example, that executive is going to dig in, and you had better have the back-up behind the insight, or you will lose all credibility. Data alone, is not insight. Neither is quoting an article or research, if you can’t answer questions about it and how it applies.

    Same with business acumen. If you can’t talk about how your solution can provide real value, in terms of how the prospects perceives value, again, you become one in a million.

    We’ve had this discussion before, but there’s a lot of deja vu all over again, going on. These skills should have always been part of the sales utility belt. (They sure were for your friend Mack Hanan, right?)

    I think one of the differences this time around is the furor about how far the decision makers are down their research path before engaging sellers. I’ve recently seen some (industry-specific) research that conflicts with the 57% stat we hear so often, but generally, I believe the concept is accurate in most industries and wit most executive buyers (and did it myself as a buyer just 10 months ago). At the same time, it doesn’t mean that every single buyer at all your target companies or current accounts, are sitting at their PCs researching solutions on a daily basis, that complete with what you provide. Prospect! Watch trigger events! Act proactively whenever possible, but then BE READY for the buyer to be further down the journey, when you first approach them.

    While I’m passionate about this… Is this news, really?

    When the buyer recognizes a need, then dialogue skills, diagnosis skills, and generally-recognized “consultative selling” methods still work very well.

    If you see a need that the prospect or client doesn’t, providing data, information or insight to foster an “Aha moment,” can help create awareness of that need and generate an opportunity. But that still requires good dialogue.

    If your buyer is already headed down the purchase path without you (whether you approach them or they finally reach out to engage with you), your solid positioning of the situation, challenges, and your differentiating capabilities might pull the buyer back a step, allowing your entrance into the solution mix. Hmm. More dialogue.

    And I would add, given this post, that providing alignment between players on their side and yours, as you suggest in step 4, and bringing in “the scars,” is perfect advice. As are the rest of your steps.

    The other thing that always makes me want to cheer on your blog is your focus on business acumen. It may be considered a ticket for entry, but I still don’t see it growing on trees.

    More and more, I’m gravitating toward seeing business acumen, value creation, advanced dialogue and communications skills, problem-solving methods and skills, online research and social media savvy, as truly foundational skills for most professional sales reps.

    And except for those last two… deja vu.

    Keep the great stuff rolling, Dave.

  2. Good stuff Dave.

    There are numerous challenges here. The number of people who have the scars, who have the the considerable business acumen, is fair size. But the subset of that group that has real sales skills is pretty small; a grizzled manufacturing pro or supply chain expert isn’t likely to see carrying a sales bag to be a natural career path.

    Then, unless the rep has a territory of same/similar company industries, forget it. The supply chain expertise has little value in a conversation with a financial institution. We are working with a top-10 technology company that has “vertical” industry groupings. In the energy vertical are oil & gas, electric and gas utilities, oilfield service companies, etc. Variety? You bet.

    It seems to us that a big part of this equation is creating mechanisms to pump essential, timely, precise content from the subject matter experts, top performers and relevant experiences into a body of content that can be delivered to the rep. The right content at the right time for the industry calling on, company calling on, role calling on, business function calling on, etc. to articulate the approximate business, political, economic and other values being proposed.

    Give the rep the right stuff to study, and equip a sales pro to demonstrate a) that they have done their homework and b) to convert the first meeting(s) into mutual actions because they’ve delivered timely, relevant, provocative information. Then start bringing in the SME’s and best fit resources. Otherwise it’s a 4 or 6-legged call every time, and the sales pro doesn’t get much respect in the process.

    We’re seeing and working with some really interesting companies tackling this challenge. It’s invigorating because it makes a real difference…for the seller AND the buyer.

    Thanks for continuing to pound on the message!

    • Great comment Jim! I think you hit the nail on the head in suggesting “a big part of the equation is creating mechanisms to pump essential, timely, precise content……” I’d broaden it to the concept that organizationally we have to figure out how to provide insight to our customers. It may not be the sales person delivering the insight, the sales person may be the orchestrator of the insight delivery, leveraging specialist or other resources. Naturally, the sales person has to have tremendous business acumen, they have to lead the sale.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Separating The Challenger Sales Person From Insight Delivery | Partners in EXCELLENCE Blog -- Making A Difference
  2. Be the Value
  3. Improve your Sales Effectiveness with Insight and Dialogue
  4. Be the Value – The Sales Blog

Leave a Reply

Note: XHTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS