Archive

Posts Tagged ‘atlanta’

B2B Sales Video: Consultative Selling – The Mack Hanan Formula

by Victor Antonio

Mack Hanan wrote Consultative Selling in 1970 and in my opinion is one of the best, if not THE BEST, book on the B2B sales process.  Some may disagree,…and that’s okay.  In his book, Hanan outlined a simple 3 part formula that outlines what specific value the client is looking for when you’re trying to sell them your product or service.

Don’t be fooled by the formula’s simplicity; that’s why it is powerful.  You don’t have to memorize complicated selling schemes; just follow Hanan’s formula next time you present to a client and you may find yourself closing more B2B deals!

Advertisements

IT Study – Motivating Factors as to Why Client’s Buy

by Victor Antonio

Sales Consultant, Victor Antonio, Value Centric SellingLast week I posted a video titled “Reduce Costs or Increase Revenue” which highlighted the three primary motivating factors for a client to make a buying decision:

– Increase Revenue (sales)

– Reduce (cut) Cost and

– Avoid Missed Opportunities

I stated that the most impactful of the three was showing clients how they could ‘reduce cost’ because clients can quantify, control and make permanent those cost reductions.

I’ve had a few people question whether leading off a presentation with Reduce Cost scenarios has more impact than Increasing Revenues projections.  So I dug a little deep and found this IT survey done on small and medium size businesses (SMB) that further validates this point.

A sample of 500 SMBs where asked to list the top 3 motivating factors for buying new technology.  As you can see from the graph, second to “Increasing Productivity” (which is a cost cutting measure to increase cash flow) is ” Cut Cost”.  You’ll note that “Increase Revenue”  (sales) comes in sixth in terms of motivating factors.

(Click on image to enlarge)

 Value Centric Selling - IT-Buyers
Survey of IT Buyers

source: marone-lunsford (2005)

It’s important to emphasize once more that addressing cost cutting, increase revenue and avoid miss opportunities are all relevant and warrant a discussion with the client.  The only point I wish to make here is that putting more emphasis on how your product or service can help them reduce costs will probably resonate more with your client.

B2B Sales Video: Reduce Cost or Increase Revenue?

by Victor Antonio

When we’re presenting to a client, there are generally three areas where our product or service solution might be able to help:

  • reduce the client’s costs
  • increase the client’s revenues
  • help the client avoid missed opportunities

Which of these (3) do you think will carry more weight (i.e., is more believable) with the client?   This video answers that question.

]

The Value Conundrum: Cost Savings v. Revenue Increases

by Victor Antonio


create value by cutting costWhen selling a client on value, you’re left with either showing the client how you can reduce their cost or increase their revenue.   Either way, what you’re proposing is a way for the client to improve their profit margin.  Convincing a client that you can help them reduce cost is a far easier sale then convincing them you can help increase their revenue.

Which creates a ‘value conundrum’ when it comes to selling value.  More often than not, clients value a company that can show them how to increase their revenue more than they do a company who can help them reduce their cost.   That said, leading off with a strong cost saving strategy for the client will give you more sure footing than trying to convince the client that you can help them increase sales.  Three reasons why this is so:

1) In general, cost savings are always easier to quantify as compared to a potential revenue increase.  Because they’re easier to quantify (i.e., more objective and tangible), the client is more inclined to believe what you the salesperson (or Business Development) is proposing.

2) Clients know that they have more control over reducing cost than increasing revenue.  Showing the client how your product(s) can help them control their cost give the client a sense of control and ownership of the results.

3) Cost reduction are perceived to have more permanence compared to increase sales/revenues.  When a cost saving measure is implemented, it’s more permanent compared to an increase in potential revenue.

So although cost savings take a backseat to increase revenues when it comes to positioning your product, having the former gives you a stronger position from which to present from.  When selling the advantage of your product or service, lead with cost saving metrics because they’re easier to justify and defend compared to promises of increase revenues if they buy.

Value Centric Take-away: When presenting to your client, lead with cost saving proof and then introduce potential revenue increases they’ll derive from buying your product or service.


Value Attribution – The Discount Deception

by Victor Antonio

Victor Antonio Value Centric Selling Sales consultant and trainer, atlanta georgiaUniversity of Ohio did an interesting study that I thought you might find interesting especially if you’re a proponent of giving product or service discounts.  The school had a theatre department that sold season passes for 10 shows that were put on during the semester.  The folks at the university wanted to test the effect of discounted ticket prices on the show’s attendance for that particular semester.

When a person approached about buying season tickets for $15, they were offer one of three types of season passes.  Out of the 60 students in the test group, one group was sold a season pass at full price.  The second and third groups were sold season passes with a discount of $2 and $7, respectively.  The two groups receiving the discounted passes were told they were receiving a promotion discount from the theatre company.  All three groups had access to good seats.

The folks at the University wanted to see if offering discounted passes as opposed to full price passes would make a difference in the attendance for the ten shows.  The results would be as one might expect.  Those who paid full price showed up more often than those who received discount passes.  Now on first glance you might attribute this attendance effect to sunk cost; those who paid full price wanted to recoup their investment (i.e., get the most out of their passes by going to the performances) after having spent $15.

The proverbial fly in the empirical ointment was that those who received the $2 and $7 discount missed equally as many performances.  If the sunk cost was truly in effect, those who only received a $2 discount should’ve attended a few more shows than the group who received a $7 discount.  But that didn’t happen.

What happened is something called Value Attribution; which simply means the inclination to superimpose or imbue a thing with certain qualities or characteristics based on our initial perception.    Our initial impression of a thing causes us to view that very thing in such a way that is consistent with our initial impression.  Simply stated in the case of the discounted season passes, if it’s a cheap ticket, then it must be a cheap show.  Therefore, buying something cheap causes us to devalue or view the object as having little to no value.

In selling the tendency sometimes is to provide the client a hefty discount as an inducement to buy our product.  But given the University of Ohio’s study I think it’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how the buyer might view your proposal.  We’ve all been in a situation when someone offers us such a good deal that we wonder, ‘What’s wrong with this picture?’  So it should come as no surprise that your buyer upon receiving a very low price (big discount) may think, ‘Why are they selling it so cheap?  What’s wrong with it?’   Even if the buyer does make the purchase, they may choose not to use it thinking it’s not worth much since the price was so low.

For example, I remember buying a leather jacket that was selling for only $55.  At the time I wondered why it was so inexpensive.  Was it the quality?  Something must be wrong with it!  Whatever the reason, the result was that I hardly used the jacket and after a few months I decided to donate it to Goodwill.  What happenned?  From the very moment I made the purchase, I had already devalued the jacket in my mind.  That perceived devaluation guided my behavior in such a way that I never used the jacket.  Now imagine how my attitude, hence my behavior, towards the jacket would’ve been different if I had paid $250.  I’m sure I would’ve used it more often and it would probably still be hanging in my closet today.

Buying something at a price that’s too good to be true may setup in the buyer’s mind a discount deception.  Just like the season ticket pass holders (or my leather jacket), the buyer may choose not to use the product even after the purchase (i.e., devaluing the item from the beginning).

Value attribution is about controlling perception and the last thing you want is a buyer to associate you (or your company) with selling cheap products or services.  The unintended consequence of heavily discounting a product may be that the buyer, sensing little value, chooses not to buy any other products in the future.  Be careful!