Insights on Sales & Market Intelligence

Advice for sales, marketing and product management success

Win Loss Analysis

7 Steps to Identifying & Validating Market Problems

by , September 1, 2009


Market ProblemsThis week, we kick off our series of blog posts focused on showing how win loss analysis can help you become an expert on your market and gain a deeper understanding of the problems inherent in your target markets. Pragmatic Marketing teaches that the Market Problems activity is the cornerstone of their framework, defining this activity as discovering problems in the market by interviewing customers, recent evaluators, and untapped potential customers, as well as validating the problems identified to show their pervasiveness and impact on your market.

New product failure rates are high. Studies indicate that we can see new product failure rates of nearly 90 percent. A study done in the food industry showed that the failure rate for new products was between 70 and 80 percent, but that the U.S. Top 20 food companies were enjoying a success rate of 76 percent for their new product introductions, while the other 20,000 food companies had only an 11.6 percent success rate for their new products. The biggest difference between the top 20 and the bottom 20,000? The lack of market research.

Studies also show that a third or more of a companys revenue is likely derived from products that did not exist five years ago. There is no question that if a company is to grow and survive, they have to be able to create and launch new products, or at the very least enhance and upgrade their existing products. Take a look at Motorola, a company that led the cell phone industry. At its peak in 2000, Motorola had a market cap that was 8 times larger than their market cap today. Motorola has been struggling for the last couple of years; in fact, their last new cell phone product launch was in 2004. The market has changed tremendously over the last five years, and given the current state of the company, its pretty safe to say that they havent been listening to their markets.

I just realized I used the word product nine times in the preceding two paragraphs to describe the landscape that is product development, management, and marketing. The truth is, it isnt about products. People dont buy products; they buy solutions to their problems. In The Business Battlecard, author Paul ODea quotes Harvard Marketing Professor Theodore Levitt to illustrate the importance of understanding your customers pain:

People dont want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.

If we want to create value for our customers, ensure our products success, and secure our companys future, we have to understand our customers needs and problems better than our competitors. There is really only one way to do thatwe have to talk to our market, and more specifically, the decision makers in our target markets.

Based on the new product failure rates that I quoted earlier, we can assume that most product development and management is done using activities performed inside the companyi.e. founders and executives drive product development based on their experience and gut, while occasionally checking in with customers. This is typically the place where everyone has to start when we are creating a new product, but at some point (the earlier the better), the process needs to change from an internally-driven development process to a customer-driven, external process.

Listen to Understand Market ProblemsIn 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. Pragmatic Marketing defines three groups within our target markets that we need to be actively listening to:

  1. Existing Customers: this group includes customers that recognized they had a problem and purchased your solution to solve that problem
  2. Evaluators: this group includes both your customers (competitive wins) and those customers that have selected your competition (competitive losses)
  3. Potentials: the group of potential customers that havent purchased your type of product, but have tried to solve the same problems through internal efforts

Over the last decade, we here at Primary Intelligence have spent countless hours figuring out how to best listen to the second group identified by Pragmatic Marketingthe Evaluators. Based on that experience, we have found the following seven-step process is an effective methodology for improving your understanding of your markets problems:

  1. Make sure you are asking questions that will reveal the problems the customer is trying to solve.
  2. Before you begin gathering and evaluating our win loss data, write down your target markets three to five most important or pressing problems.
  3. Examine demographic information for the recent wins and losses you are going to interview in order to make sure they are in your target markets (you dont want to identify market problems for markets that you dont want to be in).
  4. Perform the win loss analysis and gather the data.
  5. Build a repository of the problems identified and validated.
  6. Analyze the data to identify problems you may have missed. You also want to validate that the problems you wrote down are real for your markets and not problems that you hope they have.
  7. Remember that identifying market problems and validating those problems is a program and not a project. You want to build this process into your weekly/monthly activities to make sure that you are able to stay on top of your markets

STEP ONE: Ask the Right Questions

Make sure that you have your questions prepared before you perform the interview with the decision maker. It will be tempting to just pick up the phone and wing it, but being prepared with the questions you want to get answered before-hand will dramatically improve the probability that you will accomplish your objectives.

Based on our experience, we have found that you need to ask the following questions to both identify and validate market problems:

  1. What were your business needs that prompted this evaluation?
  2. What were the primary reasons you selected the winning vendor over the other vendors you evaluated?
  3. What were the primary reasons you did not select the other vendors you evaluated?
  4. What could the vendors you didnt select have done differently to win your business?
  5. What could the winning vendor have done differently to better meet your business needs?
  6. What did you value most about the vendors solutions you evaluated?
  7. What were the biggest solution weaknesses you identified based on your business requirements?
  8. What important features were missing from the solution?

There are also several quantitative questions that will help you validate market problems and quantify how well your solution is solving those problems, but Ill need to save that for a follow-up discussion to try to keep the length of this post down.

The first question (what were your business needs that prompted this evaluation?) is your money question when it comes to identifying and understanding your target markets problems. In our experience, the other questions will also identify and validate your customers problems. They wont do it consistently, but they will regularly give you insight into whats important to your customers and why. All of this translates into how well youre solving your customers problems and helps you along the path of becoming stronger experts on your target markets.

STEP TWO: Write Down Your Target Markets Problems

An important part of this ongoing process is validating what you currently think about our customers problems as well as qualifying the impact those problems are having on our customershow important is it to our customers to solve these problems?

An interesting exercise that you can do in conjunction with this is to send an e-mail out to others in your organization (sales, operations, executives, etc.) and ask them what they believe the top three problems are that you solve for your customers, and ask them to rank them in order of importance to the customer.

In preparation for this article, I reached out to our sales, operations, and executive personnel and asked them to identify the top three problems we solve for our customers. I asked them to rank them from most important problem to least important problem. I then took the responses and weighted them to come up with the following list of problems our organization believes we solve for our customers:

Top Three Problems We Solve

According to Us
Weighted Importance
Better Competitive Intelligence 41
Understanding why they win and lose 30
Sales Process (SWOT) 24
Better understand target market needs 14
Understanding market perceptions 11
Improve sales performance and win rates 8
Product (SWOT) 7
Marketing program and messaging effectiveness 7
Identify previously unknown areas of improvement 4
Non-biased win loss analysis & expertise 4
Identify sales best practices 4
Better understand buying process 4
What happened in this deal? 3
Disseminate W/L intelligence throughout organization 3
Identify sales training opportunities 3
Understand pricing impact on decisions 3

You will notice that the list above isnt necessarily organized as problem statements. However, organizing things in this way allows us to figure out which category of problems are most important to our target markets. This is perfectly acceptable, as long as you have a deep understanding of the problems your customers are facing and youre able to articulate them using the same words your customers use. The trap that you have to be careful of here is taking a short-cut and falling back onto your benefit statements instead of really dissecting the problems as articulated by decision makers in your target markets.

For example, when one of our decision makers was asked what business problem they were trying to solve when they selected our solution, he responded, We need to gain specific competitive insight on [One of their competitors]. They have been beating us with greater frequency and we need to figure out how to counter this. We can see that this is clearly a Better Competitive Intelligence category problem. In contrast, the following response really belongs in the Better understand target market needs problem category:

We need to get to a more refined understanding of our markets so we can figure out why there is a gap between what we think customers should be spending and what they actually are–we need to find out why this delta exists and use this information to make changes to our go-to market strategies, our product plans and perhaps even our business model.

According to this internally-derived list, the top three problems that I should be looking to validate, in addition to trying to identify new problems, are Competitive Intelligence-related problems, helping customers understand why they win and lose, and helping customers understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in their current sales process (Sales Process (SWOT)).

STEP THREE: Select Recent Wins and Losses to Review and Qualify Demographics

You want to examine the key demographic information of your recent wins and losses to make sure that they fit within your target markets. The best sales professionals and managers will tell you that there really are only two reasons you lose a deal (versus the more commonly voiced, but generally incorrect, reasons of price and product):

  1. You shouldnt have been in the deal in the first place (your solution wasnt a good fit based on the customers needs)
  2. You were outsoldthe competition did a better job selling than you did.

Because walking away from any deal is a very difficult thing to do for a sales representative trying to make quota, you will have losses in your database that are not in your target markets. It is very important that you do your best to remove these from the list of competitive wins and losses you will be using to perform your win loss analysis.

STEP FOUR: Interview Decision Makers

To help with best practices when interviewing decision makers, I went to our team of account consultants, the folks that spend at least half of every day talking to decision makers, and asked them for advice they would give. They provided both some best practice dos and donts that will help you improve your interviews and response rates:

Do these things:

  1. Pre-notify the responsible sales representative that you will be doing a win loss review on the deal.
  2. Let the sales representative know that you will share the results of the review with them so that they can learn from the effort as well.
  3. Ask the sales representative to notify the decision maker that you will be calling to do a debrief on how they made their purchase decisionthis will improve response rates significantly. Its important that you craft an e-mail message for the sales representative to send to the decision maker that emphasizes the following:
    1. You are not calling to try to win them back, or re-engage the selling process (this applies to your losses).
    2. You are calling to get their feedback so that you can improve your solution and sales processes.
    3. You are in product management and not sales.
  4. Listen. Listen. Then listen some more. There are really only three situations where you should be talking:
    1. Youre asking the interview questions.
    2. Youre asking a follow-up question.
    3. Youre answering a question about one of the questions you just asked.
  5. Keep the interview conversationaldont sound like a call center survey.
  6. Always know their title, correct spelling of their name and gender prior to the call. Only verify information with them (e.g. I have your title as CFO. Is that the most accurate title?)
  7. Make sure you have follow-up, or delving, questions prepared beforehand for each of your questions so that you can get actionable feedback
  8. Smile while you interviewit comes through in your voice
  9. Thank them for providing candid and informative feedback, especially when the feedback might be considered negative for you, at appropriate times in the interviewthis will encourage them to continue to provide candid feedback.

Dont do these things:

  1. Dont go into the interview with a predisposed view of what happened in the deal.
  2. Dont lead person you are interviewing, or ask leading questions. For instance, dont ask Did you reject the solution because the price was too expensive for you? Instead, ask something like, Why did you not select the solution?
  3. Never assume that you know the answer to a question because of their responses to previous questions.
  4. Dont interruptthis will be a challenge because they will say something that you can answer, and you will want to jump in and respond to what they just said, but if you do, you will miss out on critical information.
  5. Dont frustrate them with an overly long interview; keep your interview as succinct as you can and be mindful of their time constraints.
  6. Dont try to solve all of your problems in one interview.
  7. Dont add your own opinion or additional commentary to their responses.

STEP FIVE: Build a Repository

While individual win reports or loss reports are very important to understanding your target markets problems and how well your solution addresses those problems, having a database that you build over time will allow you to validate these problems and identify important trends in the market problems that your solution addresses.

When trending or aggregating information from a group of interviews, keep the following in mind:

  1. Try to maintain the integrity of your marketsif you are interested in more than one target market, try to separate your interviews into groups that each fit a single target market and do a trend analysis for each group.
  2. When trending, having an equal mix of win reports and loss reports will help avoid positive or negative bias in your overall findings. Being able to see how performance differs between wins and losses will also help pinpoint areas of greatest impact.
  3. Remember that certain questions work better for determine overall performance (e.g. performance ratings) and some are more individual-based, making them better for identifying a range of best practices (e.g. an open-ended question asking how the vendor could better serve the customers needs).

STEP SIX: Analyze Stated Customer Problems

Once you have our database set up, you can get to the fun partfiguring out what problems are most important to your target markets and how your solution can help them solve those problems. To help illustrate this, I analyzed ten recent opportunities that evaluated Primary Intelligence (6 wins and 4 losses) to identify the market problems that caused them to seek a solution. The results are very interesting, especially when you compare them with our internally-derived list of customer problems that we solve:

Top Three Problems We Solve

According to Our Evaluators
Weighted Importance
Better Competitive Intelligence 13
Improve current win loss program 12
Non-biased win loss analysis & expertise 10
Understanding why they win and lose 10
Product (SWOT) 5
Sales Process (SWOT) 4
Better understand target market needs 3
Understanding market perceptions 3
Marketing program and messaging effectiveness 1
Disseminate W/L intelligence throughout organization 1
Improve sales performance and win rates 0
Identify previously unknown areas of improvement 0
Identify sales best practices 0
Better understand buying process 0
What happened in this deal? 0
Identify sales training opportunities 0
Understand pricing impact on decisions 0

Keep in mind that this is only ten recent opportunities; however, we can immediately see that we missed an important market problem from our internal listevaluators indicated that improving their current win loss program was one of the most important problems that was driving them to look at our solution.

Identifying and ValidatingThis 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:

“We were doing our own loss reviews, and we were finding that we were not getting good, actionable information from them. Then we found out that Primary Intelligence’s services were available and saw that the level of information was much deeper than we were able to get by doing our own loss reviews. We felt doing our own reviews internally wasn’t as deep because it wasnt our area of expertise.”

“We were trying to gain a more robust process. We were strapped for resources in-house and we were looking for a solution that would allow us to be able to touch more deals than we currently touch, and therefore get a bigger wealth of information as to why we are winning and losing. We have an internal process, but we think we are getting rote answers. We had not gone with a third party ever before.”

We can see that while they definitely want to improve their current win loss analysis programs, our customers are framing this problem around the idea of deeper information, actionable information, wealth of information, etc. These, then, are the real problems underlying the stated problem of improving their current win loss programs.

Analyzing the data in this way helps me understand the problems and their impact, but just as important is the fact that Im able to get a good feel for which problems are most important to our target marketsthat is, which problems are the ones our customers are willing to pay to solve.

The importance ranking that we did internally was quite a bit different than what actually resulted from listening to evaluatorsas you can see when we look at the top ten problems side-by-side:

Top Three Problems We Solve

Evaluator Ranking vs. Internal Ranking
Evaluator Ranking Internal Ranking
Better Competitive Intelligence 1st 1st
Improve current win loss program 2nd -
Non-biased win loss analysis & expertise 3rd 10th
Understanding why they win and lose 4th 2nd
Product (SWOT) 5th 7th
Sales Process (SWOT) 6th 3rd
Better understand target market needs 7th 4th
Understanding market perceptions 8th 5th
Marketing program and messaging effectiveness 9th 8th
Disseminate W/L intelligence throughout organization 10th 14th

STEP SEVEN: Make Market Problem Identification and Validation a Habit

Remember that win loss analysis isnt a project; its a program. Your recent evaluators are one of the best places (if not the best place) you can go to validate the problems you believe you are solving with your solution.

The things that influence and drive your target markets are fluid and always changing. If there is one constant that we have seen analyzing purchase decisions over the last ten years, it is that markets will change. The problems that you are solving today, while important, may not be the most important problems your customers need you to solve tomorrow. If you are not listening, you can bet one of your competitors will be.

twitter_footer

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 Where Win Loss Analysis Will Help

by , August 26, 2009


95% of Product Management Activities can be Improved with Win Loss Analysis

This past week, my family and I spent some time on Lake Powell with some good friends on a houseboat. If you have never had an opportunity to experience Lake Powell, I highly recommend it: Except for a storm the last night (which claimed 13 boats, but fortunately no lives), the weather was fantastic for us.

Lake Powell Storm

The six days of absolute peacefulness (that is, before the 50 mph winds and 6- to 7- foot waves caused by the storm) allowed me to do some in-depth reflection on the impact that a win loss analysis program can really have on an organization. Recently, Pragmatic Marketing updated their product management and product marketing Framework and moved Win Loss Analysis next to what they have identified as the cornerstone of the framework: Market Problems.

As I studied the framework, I realized that win loss analysis can have a meaningful impact on nearly all of the key strategic and tactical responsibilities that product managers and marketers have. In fact, with Pragmatic Marketings permission, I have identified all of the areas that I have seen win loss analysis have an impact on over the past decadethese areas are the ones shaded in blue in the following graphic:

Pragmatic Marketing Framework

Thats right: in my experience, win loss analysis can have a positive influence on nearly 95 percent of a product manager/marketers responsibilities. That surprised even me.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will take each of the activities that I have identified where win loss analysis can have an impact and illustrate some best practices and real world examples of how this mission critical function can help you more effectively fulfill the key strategic and tactical activities that are necessary for the successful management and marketing of your products.

We will be working our way through the strategic activities first before moving through the tactical activities. For each activity, we will discuss the following:

  1. Specific questions and language to use to maximize results
  2. Best practices for ensuring success
  3. Real world examples where win loss has helped
  4. How to leverage the data gathered
  5. What benefits you can expect
  6. Potential obstacles and how to overcome them

This discussion should help to improve the results you are seeing from your current win loss program, shore up any gaps, identify additional opportunities to leverage your current investment, and help you realize an even greater return on your program.

twitter_footer

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.

No comments so far | Add Comment »

Buyer-derived vs. Sales-derived Win Loss Analysis

by , 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.

twitter_footer

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.

No comments so far | Add Comment »

Real-world Application of Win Loss Analysis Intelligence

by , August 7, 2009


Running a company means you are constantly evaluating how to make improvements for your customers, your employees, and your partners. With that kind of focus, you end up having a constant stream of new ideas, some great, some good, and some that need some work. The challenge then becomes sifting through all these ideas and implementing the ones that will have the most impactmaking sure that the very best ideas dont get left behind.

A case in point: a few months ago, after speaking with our sales team, I had been thinking about our sales process. At the time, I thought, I need to make sure that we get our Account Consultants involved early in the sales process.

Our Account Consultants are the folks that work hand-in-hand with our customers to implement and run their win loss analysis programs. When it comes to win loss analysis, these are the experts that are deep in the trenches, evaluating purchase decisions with our customers and helping them solve their business problems every day. I realized that if we had our Account Consultants involved earlier, we would potentially be doing a better job in helping customers evaluate how our solutions can help them achieve their goals.

As with my other ideas, this change to the sales process went on my list. Unfortunately, that is where it has remained. Then this morning, as I was reviewing a review we did on one of our recent losses to a competitor, I see a response to the question, What were the primary reasons you did not select Primary Intelligence? The decision maker commented:

The only thing I would say about Primary Intelligence was that in the initial part of the sales cycle I was talking with more of a client executive, someone who was more of a relationship manager. I understand that model. I understand why you have it. It’s not a bad model. But with [PIs competitor] I was speaking directly with the partner who was going to actually execute the work. There was no middleman. We were nose to nose on the discussions, and I felt that the sales cycle with [PIs competitor] moved a little more quickly because there was no middle salesman. That was really the one slightly negative thing that I had toward Primary Intelligence. I definitely would have preferred to speak with the person who would be working directly with me on the project during the sales process.

Ugh. Yeah, I had that sick feeling in my stomach. If I had only acted on the idea to improve the sales process earlier I would have positioned us better and given us a much better opportunity at this customers business.

I am pleased to report that I officially checked this idea off my list after a couple of conversations with our Director of Operations and our VP of Sales. They are in the process of formalizing the change to our sales process so that our customers will be working directly with our experts right from the beginning. Our customers will have full and immediate access to both their sales contact and our subject matter expertstheir Account Consultants.

The point here is that even after doing this for the past decade, we still consistently find important, even critical, intelligence on how to better meet the needs of our customers through our own win loss program. If it wasnt for our win loss program, I am fairly certain that this idea to improve our sales process would still be on my list and we would continue to miss opportunities.

twitter_footer

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.

No comments so far | Add Comment »
Next Entries »