CEO's Commentary on Sales Intelligence
Ken Allred's advice for sales, marketing & product management success
Competitive Intelligence
Two Key Product Management Metrics
by Ken Allred, September 4, 2009
Saeed, in his blog post at On Product Management, posited the question, why is it difficult to measure the value and contribution of product management? To help us focus on the right metrics, he defined Product Management’s mandate as:
“Product Management’s mandate is to optimize the business at a product, product line, or product portfolio level over the product lifecycle.”
This is a great question and his definition of the Product Management’s mandate really got me thinking.
Webster’s definition of “optimize” is to make perfect, effective, or as functional as possible.
That means that the product manager’s mandate is to make the product as perfect (or effective) as they possibly can. If we then define a “perfect product” as completely solving our customers’ problem, I think we can start to think of creative ways to measure how well were accomplishing this mandate.
So, what are some of the ways we could measure how well we are solving our customers’ problems?
Product features or internal performance benchmarking? While I do think that measuring the internal aspects of product management is important, I would propose that measuring the actual results of product management is much more vital.
How about how much revenue the product is producing? Product revenue is certainly a result of our efforts in product management and certainly a good thing to monitor, but it probably isnt the best way to measure product management performance, as there are so many factors that are beyond the control of a product manager: sales process, sales channel, sales effectiveness, marketing strategy, marketing budget, etc. All of these factors will have a significant impact (negative and positive) on product revenue.
Instead of looking at these, I would propose two key metrics to measure your effectiveness in achieving the product optimization goal:
- Your product performance versus customer problems
- Your product performance versus competitors’ product performance
The first metric allows us to measure how well our solution is solving our customers problems. It will also allow us to identify gaps in our features and identify areas that need improvement all in an effort to “more perfectly” solve the customers’ problem.
The second metric is important because it allows us to see how well we’re doing as product managers in making sure our products are superior to the competitions’ products. This is only important insomuch that we define being superior to the competition as being able to solve customers’ problems better than the competitions’ solutions.
Measuring the first metric without measuring the second is a lot like a sprinter running a race and never checking in to see where the other runners are during the racethey just keep their eye on the finish line. You can still win races this way, but its a lot easier for your competition to sneak up and overtake you if you’re not monitoring their progress. You can be sure they’re keeping their eye on you.
If I’m measuring and monitoring these two areasthe ongoing results of my product management effortschances are the other things like product revenue, market share, sales enablement and bottom-line results are going to be meeting or exceeding expectations.
Im really looking forward to Saeeds follow-up post to see what kind of metrics he comes up with. What do you think? Are these two metrics that product managers should be monitoring? Or, are there others that are more important for determining the perfection of your solution?
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
- Sue Massey (September 1st, 2009 at 11:31 AM)
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I'm looking ...
Buyer-derived vs. Sales-derived Win Loss Analysis
by Ken Allred, August 11, 2009
Which Methodology is Best for Product Managers?
Recently, respected product managers have been discussing the value of win loss reports as they relate to product strategy and technology roadmaps. In an interesting blog post on Product Management Insights, Michael Shrivathsan argues, “Why Win/Loss Reports Shouldn’t Drive Your Product Roadmap.” In his article, Shrivathsan outlines why doing win loss reports with your sales team might be unreliable, including the fact that there might be hidden bias in the sales teams perceptions. He cites a humorous tweet from Mike Boudreaux, a fellow Product Management twitterer, to illustrate his point: “Typical win loss analysis from sales force: majority of losses due to product and price. Majority of wins due to relationship.”
As I read this article, I could understand Shrivathsans argument, but only if you define and develop your win loss program in a narrow and short-sighted way. By operationalizing your win loss in the way described, or by abandoning win loss analysis altogether, you’ll be missing out on perhaps the most important intelligence you need to validate your product strategies and road-maps.
To begin, an important distinction needs to be made concerning the win loss analysis methodology being discussed in Shrivathsans post. From his comments, we can infer that the win loss analysis methodology being utilized is to have the responsible sales representatives identify the reasons they won or lost a deal and report this information back to product management and other interested parties. I define this as a sales-derived win loss analysis methodology.
This is a common conception of win loss analysis. Based on our experience at Primary Intelligence, we know that approximately 1/3 of companies indicate that they perform win loss analysis; however, we have found that only about 50% of those companies that say they have a win loss program implement what we define as a decision maker-derived win loss analysis methodology as opposed to a sales-derived one.
The distinction between these two very different types of win loss programs is very important. In fact, to fully illustrate this point I went to our own win loss program and grabbed a recent real-world example. This is an analysis of a recent competitive win for us, but the principal holds true for losses as well (if there is interest, I can show a real-world loss example at a later date).
Lets compare the results between a sales-derived win review and a buyer-derived win review.
Selection Reasons
When our sales representative was asked why we won the opportunity, his response was:
The reason we won the deal is because I was tenacious and kept working on the deal and building relationships until I got in front of the right person. I then built my relationship with that person so that we had a great relationship. It was good that we had technology, but the primary reason they selected us was because of the relationship I was able to build with the decision maker.
Does this sound familiar? This response sounds similar to the kind that Shrivathsan laments in his blog post. However, lets compare our sales representatives response to the decision makers response on why they selected Primary Intelligence:
There were a number of reasons. One is their extensive experience in this business. [PI's sales rep] and [PI's account consultant]‘s personalities were a compelling factor, as were the quality of the work and the technology. We really liked the dashboard. We’re just now starting to tap into the power of the technology. Primary Intelligence also gave us the ability of integrating the win loss data into Salesforce.com, our CRM system. The others could not do that. Those would be the primary selection reasons.
We can see from the buyers comments that our sales representative’s relationship with the decision maker (along with our account consultant) absolutely had an impact on the decision. However, if that’s all the information we had, we would be missing valuable intelligence on how this customer actually arrived at their purchase decision.
More importantly, our product management team could be led to believe that the integration with our customers SFA tools we have been investing in may not be a high priority for our customers and we could begin to question our product strategy.
Competitor Weaknesses
An important element of every win loss program is gaining a better understanding of your competitors’ products. Lets take a look at the competitive intelligence gaps we had in the different win loss analysis methodologies.
Our sales representative was asked why our primary competitor lost the deal. His response was:
They weren’t pleased with the depth of the information [our competitor] showed in their samples. The decision maker was really looking for a strategic partner and they didn’t feel they could get that from [our competitor].
And the decision makers response to why they didn’t select our competitor:
Primarily it was the quality of their work. I found the quality of the work was not very good and the questions were not followed up on. The deliverable was fairly weak and looked very unprofessional.
Our sales representative did a pretty good job describing the situation, but the buyer’s response is a lot clearer when it comes to trying to understand our competitor’s weaknesses. The buyer identified three distinct weaknesses, while our sales rep identified only two weaknesses; one that was confirmed by the buyer and one that wasn’t.
Valued Solution Features
Now lets dig a little deeper and focus on the solution features to see if we can identify additional gaps between sales-derived and buyer-derived win loss programs. We asked our sales representative what features of the evaluated solutions were valued the most by the decision maker:
Quality of interviewing, because we do a much better job than [PI's competitor] and really uncover the things that affect the outcome of purchase decisions.
Quality of interviewing is definitely an important feature of our solution, but was it really the feature that the buyer valued most? In our win loss interview, we asked the customer to rate the quality of several product criteria for both PI’s solution and the solutions offered by the competition:
We can see here that while our sales rep was partially correct in that we did perform well in the quality of interviewing decision criterion, the buyer indicated that the quality of deliverable and tools and dashboards were what they valued most. The customer commented:
Primary Intelligences deliverable is very balanced between quantitative and qualitative information. The executive summary that’s produced saves me a lot of time and effort and I get a lot of value from the analytics we get like the competitive advantage scores and predictive analytics. And the value of delivering everything that is produced through the dashboard is really important.
If our current product strategy is to invest in specific technology features and we were to see several sales-derived win reviews like this one, we might begin to question our current plans. Seeing enough reviews like this might even cause us to halt development and redirect those resources to other projects. You can see how it would be easy to make some very costly mistakes if you are ONLY reviewing sales-derived win loss data.
Conclusion
The following table clearly illustrates the large differences between the two win loss methodologies we have been discussing:
| Sales-derived | Decision Maker-derived | |
|---|---|---|
| Selection Reasons | Relationship | Relationship Experience Quality of deliverable Tools & dashboards SF.com integration |
| Competitor Weaknesses | Depth of information | Depth of information Quality of deliverable Weak/unprofessional |
| Valued Solution Features | Quality of interviews | Quality of deliverable Tools & dashboards Executive summary Advantage scores Predictive analytics |
If you, or your organization, currently defines win loss analysis as a debrief from the responsible sales representative, I hope these examples can help shine some light on the big, risky gaps that are inherent in performing post-decision analysis via the sales representative.
To be perfectly fair, Shrivathsan does make a brief mention of including buyers in win loss analysis, saying, they’re often much more open & honest to a product manager with whom they have no relationship, than a sales rep who worked with them for a period of time. As he alludes to, and as we have found in our own experience, these same principals we’ve been discussing will apply if you are having your sales representatives interview decision makers, so its important to have a third party of some sort perform the analysis (Ill be posting on this subject in more depth at a later point).
I have to agree with Shrivathsans assessment that you shouldn’t allow sales rep-derived win loss reports to drive or affect your product roadmaps, but only if you are performing sales-derived win loss analysis. Even in our organization, where we specialize in helping companies implement win loss programs, if our product managers relied on win loss reports from sales reps alone to drive product strategy, we could quickly get ourselves into trouble. Fortunately, we have learned to incorporate a superior source of information–customers and prospects–that provide us with data we need to make a product roadmap we can trust and that will ultimately allow us to serve our customers needs more effectively.
In my next post I will write about how you can get a tremendous amount of value from sales-derived win loss reports and how to appropriately use them.
Note: If you’ve never had the opportunity to review a buyer-derived win loss report I would like to change that now and extend an offer to do a couple win loss reviews for free with no expectation or obligation on your part. Contact me if you’re interested in taking me up on this offer.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
Understanding Competitors
by Mark Larson, December 16, 2008
For an experienced salesperson, it is natural to navigate many potential hazards in a sales scenario because they have seen them before. They understand how competitors position themselves and how the market perceives their solutions.
The problem is, how does the inexperienced sales rep learn these valuable lessons? When it comes to understanding competitors, most salespeople learn in two ways: experience in competing against vendors over time and anecdotal comments made by colleagues. This isn’t good news for someone new. They end up losing plenty of potential business as they learn on the fly.
Primary Intelligence created Competitive Navigator to give all salespeople access to the competitive intelligence that would normally take years to obtain on their own. With a central intelligence location, all sales people receive the same training and information that helps them compete against any competitor.
Primary Intelligence does this by interviewing prospects and clients from your previous sales scenarios, regardless of whether they were wins or losses. In doing so, Primary Intelligence receives perceptions of vendors and their products directly from the person who is evaluating and buying them.
Whenever a competitor is encountered, Primary Intelligence asks key information about the prospect’s perceptions of the company, its solutions, and its sales team activities. As more instances of competitor activity are encountered, the picture becomes clearer on the market’s view of the vendor’s products, reputation, and sales practices.
Primary Intelligence is also gathering intelligence about your own company, solutions, and sales practices at the same time. Therefore, it is possible to compare your strengths and weaknesses against those of each competitor. By doing so, Competitive Navigator points out strategic methods you can use to beat any competitor in any sales scenario.
For more information about Competitive Navigator, click here.
Mr. Top Skill? I’d Like You to Meet Mr. Top Effort.
by Mark Larson, October 16, 2008
I’ve always thought about the difference between professional athletes. Granted, this is extremely stereotypical and over-generalized, but I want you to consider that there tends to be two types of behavior among elite athletes. You either have your overly-gifted person who doesn’t seem to really work at his craft, or the hard worker who overcomes his physical limitations with smarts and planning.
Too often, extremely talented people rarely had to work at anything. They are singled out at a very young age, given perks since their early teens, and never had to really work for what they achieved. They just believed they deserved what they got. Therefore, when they make it to the professional ranks, they have not built that self discipline to constantly work at their craft. After all, they’ve never had to, and look where they are? They’re making millions of dollars just being themselves. These are the ones who excel for a while, then suddenly drop off the charts when they begin to age. Remember Shawn Kemp in the NBA? Take a look at Andruw Jones of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
In contrast, the athlete that had to work from day one to stay on the team has molded his mind to expect to earn what he is given. He has always felt that he’s one or two plays away from being out of the league. Therefore, by the time he is a professional, he has it embedded in his head that he must work extra hours, study twice as hard, and constantly prove he deserves to stay on the team.
So, what happens when superb talent meets a relentless work ethic? Think Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning. These are the ones that just seem to have that extra element, that “it” factor, that makes them stars among stars. The only difference these men have over other top talents is their incredible commitment to preparation. They take nothing for granted. They are rare because they fit that top level of talent, but haven’t adopted the same attitude. When you put top talent with a driving work ethic, you take that person to a different level that can’t be reached by others.
Okay, so why do I bring up sports again in a sales intelligence blog? Because I believe sports mirrors business, and especially sales. Sales and sports are meritocracies. It doesn’t matter how well you are liked, if your performance doesn’t translate into wins (e.g. dollars in sales), you’re not going to survive.
We’ve all heard the 80/20 rule. I don’t know why there is the 20 percent that is pulling in 80 percent of the work. I’m sure some are supreme salesmen: the ones with that innate ability to network and portray confidence and professionalism. They exude that magnetism that leads people to buy from them. And I’m sure some are those hard-working, nose-to-the-grindstone salespeople that may not have the innate ability to close business, but their sheer work ethic brings in the revenue.
What happens when a natural salesperson has that hard-driving work ethic? Naturally, they become superstars. No one can touch their numbers.
So, the question remains, how do you make it possible for that talented salesperson to reach the stratosphere? Sales is always so ambiguous. It seems that you either have it or you don’t, and there’s nothing more you can do other than talk to more people. Well, at Primary Intelligence, we have analyzed sales practices for over a decade now, and we have seen that a systematic review of decision makers gives anyone, including that star performer, the ability to fine-tune their efforts and make dramatic improvements to sales results.
The question is, do you want to be known as Shawn Kemp or Michael Jordan? If you aren’t sure who Shawn Kemp is, you’ve proved my point.
For systematic analysis and training tools, take a look at Horizon, Primary Intelligence’s comprehensive intelligence tool.
Sales Explorer: A New Path For Sales Training
by Mark Larson, September 16, 2008
I have a neighbor that has been in sales his entire 20-year career. He spent much of that time in a high-volume, relatively lower cost sales environment. Because this was the sales environment on which he essentially cut his teeth, he understood the nuances of job. Because he matched his understanding of his sales arena with a high work ethic, he was very successful. However, when his company changed hands and compensation policies changes, he felt the need to move on. In doing so, he went to a company that sold very expensive products, and therefore had a much longer sales cycle. My friend, who is a good salesman, had a very difficult time adapting to this change in tactics and expectations.
In my conversations with him, we discussed his frustration at adapting to his new environment. When he joined the new company, he had little training to help him understand what to expect, what objections he may face, and what were the successful methods for handling them. What he was handed was a phone and a phone book. After a few months of trying to do the job as he understood it, he finally moved on to a different company.
This is not an uncommon scenario. Sales is a volatile workplace with 40 percent turnover yearly at most companies. It can feel like a cattle herd where you drive them in and wait to see what happens. The pure meritocracy of sales tends to put more emphasis on finding your way than effective training. Although there are many in that 40 percent that just aren’t fit for sales, others match my friend’s situation where they have the skills, but don’t have the information that can make them successful quick enough to retain them.
Primary Intelligence has just launched a new product called Sales Explorer which gives companies the intelligence they need to help any salesperson get the direction they need for any sales scenario they face. Sales Explorer takes real sales situations in which your company has competed and extracts key points of the decision process for any sales scenario that matches the demographics of a new sales situation.
When a salesperson enters in the company demographics, deal parameters, and competitors of a new sales opportunity, Sales Explorer extracts previously reviewed sales deals that closely match the new deal. By aggregating past deal experiences, Sales Explorer can expose key points in the decision process that will make it more likely to win the opportunity.
To see how Sales Explorer can accomplish this, click here to see our on-demand demonstration.
- Nick Moreno (September 27th, 2008 at 6:19 PM)
So true! 40% turnover and 20% earning 80% of the commissions. Nice article and my best to you. Nick
Newsletter Changes
by Mark Larson, March 19, 2008
Starting with this issue of our newsletter, we have made some alterations. In trying to push more topical information, we have started producing new A-List reports. This will highlight new deals going on in the business world and give new insights into the reasons decision-makers choose one vendor over another. These deals are ones that are announce to the public sector by way of press releases. We are also consolidating our other articles into BlogCentral. All articles that would have made it to our Cover Story section in the past will instead be part of our blog schedule. Certain of those articles will make their way into our newsletter.
The A-List: Embry-Riddle Worldwide creates new classroom experience with Sabas Centra (New!)
Embry-Riddles faculty had determined that it was possible to create an effective interactive classroom experience that could reach students worldwide, increase enrollment, and minimize course cancellations. However, the current small online course system, Breeze (currently known as Adobe Connect), was only selected by a few people, and was not able to effectively facilitate the desired classroom experience.
BlogCentral: Implementation, are you building Customer Loyalty or opening the door for your competition?
Recently I have been working with a one of my customers on a post implementation study that has been very successful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses in their software implementations. This organization has several different divisions selling different types of software along with support services.

Follow Ken on Twitter
In order to create a customer-driven product development process, we must be consistently listening to our market to identify and validate the key customer problems that our solution will solve and measure how well our solution is solving those problems.
This process allows me to understand the big picture for our target markets, and analyzing the way each customer communicates their problems gives me fantastic insight into areas that we can/should be focusing on to better meet the needs of our customers. It is comments like the following that help me frame the newly identified customer problem of improving a current win loss analysis program:
please provide a link to the post you quote and that will be fine. Follow our CEO on Twitter at ...
I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter?