Still a dark art...

As Francis Buttle notes in his article for CRM guru ‘who is educating the next generation’ – ‘So, what's going on? Why is a fundamental and widely applied business discipline – CRM - not being taught in our universities?'. I’d take that further - why does the whole issue of selling full-stop, feature so little in our syllabuses. Perhaps it’s an English thing, but I think we still look down our noses at selling as a profession – it’s not quite something to brag about - which is perhaps why the ‘sales representative’ has been re-positioned as the ‘account manager’ or the ‘business development manager’. Since sales are the life-blood of every business, perhaps we need to devote more resources to promoting the science of selling rather than treating is as a dark art.

No silver bullets

I came across a couple of posts on a similar theme - the absence of magic bullets. One from Steve Yegge, and the other from Joel Spolsky.

They resonate with how I see the CRM industry. Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent promoting CRM software as providing instant gratification. Buy the software, load it up, and away you go. As one senior executive - who is working through the re-implementation of a failed system - recently commented to me ‘We saw CRM like we saw the email system – it was essentially just a case of switch it on and it would work.’

There’s no doubt that progress has been made on the technology front. There’s a whole range of user friendly cost effective applications out there that don’t need an army of IT staff to run them. But there’s only so far you can simplify things, because technology is only one factor in the equation, the other’s are process and people – and they aren’t about to get any easier. The whole area of defining what improvements you want the technology to generate, defining the business processes that are required to support them, and then persuading staff to follow the processes in a consistent and structured fashion will remain a major challenge regardless of progress on the technology front.

We suck less...

One of the presentations I give (when I occasionally get invited out to some independent perspective on the market) is ‘15 keys to a successful CRM implementation’. I’d put a link in to a copy, but I’ve adopted a minimalist approach on my slides – al la Beyond Bullets – all pictures and very few words – so I suspect it wouldn’t make too much sense. Anyway one of the points I make relates to the need to nurture the relationship with your chosen vendor. The gist is anything to do with technology is complex. It’s not a question as to whether problems will occur – take that as a given – it’s a case of addressing them in a way that allows the relationship to live through and beyond the implementation phase. To illustrate the ‘technology is complex’ point I like to recount the story of Brad Feld who positioned his whole company on the basis that ‘we suck less’. To quote him –‘Inspired - I called a 9 AM company meeting and announced our new motto - "We Suck Less." I explained to my bewildered team that computer consulting (well - actualy - anything having to do with computers) is difficult, most people suck at it, and we can succeed simply by sucking less than everyone else.’

A rather good point I thought – I wonder if this refreshingly candid perpective will ever catch on in the computer industry.

On RFP's...

As poacher turned gamekeeper I’m only too aware what a pain preparing responses to requests for proposals (RFP’s) can be. However I get to read a lot of responses these days, and it can be tough on the other side of the table as well, so I want to set out some thoughts on what distinguishes a good from a bad response.

The first point I’d make is that companies issue RFP’s for a reason – they need to make a purchase decision. The quality of the RFP response forms part of the purchase decision. I make that point because some vendors seem to pursue a strategy of preparing a response, which, while not of great quality, is what they believe to be enough to make the short list. The problem with this approach is that it’s predicated upon the notion that once the short-list is finalized everyone starts afresh on a level playing field. In reality this isn’t the case. The vendors with the strong response, are already ahead on points once the next round starts. We tend to rank the responses we receive, and this initial ranking is visible through the entire decision making process. A high ranking can sometimes also confer additional benefits, such as first choice in selecting a presentation date. So the stronger the initial response, the better the chances of winning.

So what’s the difference between a good response and a bad one? A few thoughts:

A good response answers the questions. Customers pose questions in RFP’s for a reason – they want answers. Not answering the question, or the more common practice of answering a question, just not the one that was posed, gets a big red cross in the margin.

A good response answers the question without direct recourse to an appendix, as in ‘please see appendix Z’. While this practice is marginally less irritating than not answering the question at all, when you have a pile of responses to plough through, the need to hunt around to find the required information is an undesirable diversion, particularly when the referenced appendix is invariably an opaque piece of techno-babble. That said a succinct answer, referenced to an appendix should the reader require more detailed information, is more than acceptable.

A good response makes little use of the cut and paste function. Inserting seven pages of marketing waffle in the midst of the response because it seems to be generally on-topic, again only scores highly in the irritation stakes.

A good response is candid. If the product doesn’t exactly meet the requirement, then the respondent is going to earn points for being open and honest about the situation, thereby positioning themselves as people we can work with, rather than trying to hide the fact. The latter strategy is likely to be rumbled at some stage anyway, either straightaway because we already know the issue or at some stage in the selection process.

A good response pays at least some level of attention to spelling and grammar. While we wouldn’t expect a masterpiece of English literature, we would figure on some level of attention to detail. It doesn’t matter how well the product and vendor are respected in the market, or how great their track record, prospective customers will judge responses as the prima-facie evidence as to how they will be treated should they become a customer. If the response is riddled with errors then the prospective purchaser is likely to conclude the vendor will be as error prone when implementing their system.

A good response follows the requested format. Comparing apples with apples can be complex at the best of times, particularly in respect to pricing. This can be made an order of magnitude more difficult when respondents take it upon themselves to demonstrate their creative side and ignore carefully prepared templates.

Finally, good responses don’t forget that their ultimate purpose is to sell. Some vendors overlook this. In a world where the differences between products and vendors are often slight, and we’ve tough choices to make, we like respondents to clearly explain ‘why us’.

I guess the recurring theme here is about making it easy for the prospective customer. When you get to work your way through a thousand or so pages of responses, clear concise honest communication really does stand out.