Making Things Tougher Than Need Be

Let’s play a thought experiment. Imagine you are the CRO, possibly the CEO of a company offering complex B2B solutions.

Let’s imagine we had a game show, a group of CROs and we are giving them the choice to select what’s behind Door # 1 or Door # 2.

Our host, Monty Hall, yells, “CROs come on down…..” Then Monty says, “Johnny, tell our contestants what’s behind Door #1 and Door #2!”

Johnny comes on, in his deep voice says, “Thank you Monty! CROs which will you choose….?”

1. Door #1: Behind this door is a GTM strategy focused on leading with products and services. Content would focus on product capabilities, features and functions. All conversations would be oriented around product superiority versus the alternatives. We seek to get the prospect to a demo then close them. Knowledge of the customer, in fact clear definition of the target customers are minimal, the strategy is a product led (though not necessarily a PLG strategy.) This strategy focuses on high volume outreach, product knowledge.
2. Door # 2: This strategy focuses on Business Focused Selling. Sellers would engage prospects and customers in discussing challenges they face in achieving their business goals. For customers unaware of those challenges, sellers might insight the customer to consider a change. For those committed to a change, the focus will be on defining the problem, learning about it and it’s impact on the company, learning what others are doing, identifying the people that need to be involved in deciding what to do about the problem. In this case, since sellers recognize customers don’t know how to buy, the seller would help the customer navigate that process. The product and services are only presented once we’ve helped the customer think about the problem and they come to the seller with a request, “Can you help us….?”

After presenting what’s behind Door #1 and Door #2, Johnny goes on: “And here’s what you win with each choice! If you choose:….”

1. Door #1: Win rates are roughly 17%. Selling cycles are increasing. To attract interest in talking about the solutions, we now have to touch 1000-1500 people to get a meeting, up from 200-400 touches 5 years ago. And it appears this will double in the coming 2 years. In implementing this solution, you can expect at least 60% of your deals will end in no decision made. For those that make a decision and buy a solution, a high percentage will express Decision Regret. Which may adversely impact customer loyalty, retention, and renewals. And, based on the data from others using this approach, roughly 40% will achieve quota.
2. Door #2: Trust skyrockets, customers view your sellers as a partner in their buying process. Win rates will at least double over current 17%, but are normally in the 50-80% range. No decision made reduces by at least 30 percent, driving incremental wins and revenues of over that experienced in Choice One. And sales cycles are 30-40% less than prior sales cycles. Significantly more of your sellers will make quota, further driving revenue growth and profitability. (Selling expense does not increase over Choice One, in many cases it could decrease.)

Imagine presenting both approaches to selling and the expected results to a CRO, asking them to choose–“Do you want to take what’s behind Door #1 or Door # 2?”

“Well Dave, it’s obvious! Only a fool would choose Door # 1! This is a silly discussion!”

It’s obvious, it makes so much sense. Why would any one consciously choose the alternative that produces significantly worse results?

Putting the thought experiment to the side, coming back to the “real world,” one question arises: “Why are so many committed to the strategies and results produced by choosing Door # 1?”

And as we dive in deeper, as we see these trends of continually declining results, increasing investments, why do we keep doubling down on what’s behind “Door #1?” Why do we fail to even experiment or test what we might experience with “Door # 2?” Why do we refuse to change?

I suspect it’s an understatement, but why do we so consistently make our jobs tougher than they really need to be? Why do we settle for such poor outcomes?