I'm an elephant hunter.
Have you ever heard a manager describe a salesperson as an "elephant hunter?" I have. In fact, I've been called that before. I've also been called a "peak-and-valleys" salesperson (not true). But when you sell to elephants (large prospects) you will have deals less often and when you do they will be huge. Metaphorically speaking, hunting elephants is great because elephants provide a lot more food than smaller game. I've had two elephant-sized customers feed me my entire quota for the year for three years in a row!
Being an elephant hunter can be dangerous for salespeople.
But, be careful - when you hunt elephants, you might starve in between kills. Companies love, love, love you one day then a few months later they might be on the edge of firing you before your next big win. That's the life of an elephant hunter. So, to remind myself that I must always keep the pipe full of a variety of prospects, I created a system I call "rabbits, deer, and elephants" to target prospects.
My solution: the Rabbits, Deer, and Elephants system.
For example, at a current opportunity, I call a prospect with 10 - 50 locations a "rabbit", one with 51 - 200 a "deer" and "201 - 2000+" an elephant. Someone recently suggested adding a category "bear" in the 200 - 500 category, but I think they forgot WE'RE THE BEAR! Ha ha! Or at least, the lion. Anyway, I feel rabbits, deer, and elephants works quite well.
I added "rabbit" and "deer" to elephants to remind me that you need to sell small deals and middle-sized deals in order to eat (i.e. not get fired) between the big deals. Yes, your company will love you and send you to "club" when you bring in elephants, but the rabbits and deer will feed you in between those big deals and make sure you hit quota. Don't overlook rabbits and deer - all prospects are critical to your success. The customer reference you use from the rabbits will help close the deer, and the references from deer help close elephants. In other words, experience matters. Elephants, as we know, help close everything! But, it is good to know we can address each prospect's needs on their level.
I remember in the movie SWINGERS when Vince Vaughn describes hitting on a girl much like being a bear with claws and fangs, and the girl is like a little rabbit, all soft and cuddly. I had so much fun thinking of rabbits that it made selling to rabbits more fun for me, rather than thinking "this prospect is too small and a waste of my time," I now think "This prospect is important to close on quickly" because that is how a lion or a bear would approach a rabbit - as a small meal. But a meal is a meal, right? You don't always see bears eating deer. Sometimes they eat rabbits, or other small animals, to stay alive.
"That's a nice DEER."
In one of my companies, we will even talk about a prospect and say "Yeah, that's a nice deer." By categorizing prospects in such a way it does several things:
1. You think like a hunter, not like a farmer. Ever notice the salesperson who builds relationships with everyone but hardly ever closes anything? I'd call that salesperson a "farmer" more than a "hunter" salesperson, wouldn't you?
The smart manager pairs that farmer with a hunter to make both more productive. I like using rabbits, deer, and elephants as a reminder that I'm hunting, not farming. Otherwise, I'd have used strawberries, cabbage, and watermelons or something.
2. It helps keep track of the size of deal. For some reason, managers like to quantify deals in their reports. When you have them on your page with "two deers" they have fun adding up the money to know how much you're bringing in for the month. They'll also leave you alone when you throw the meat in their cage every so often as that's what feeds THEM, too.
3. It keeps selling fun. Let's face it, making sales calls is a bit of a grind. Not only that, but we face plenty of rejection in selling. We might bat 2 for 20 at some efforts (a 10% success ratio) and that means hearing the word "no" or the words "yes, but not now" far more often than we'd like. Yes, we'd love to hear "yes" all the time. But by keeping sales fun, we make selling a bit more of a game, and that keeps it exciting. Oddly, it also increases the likelihood of a "yes" because people like to buy from people who are enjoying their job and having fun. Don't you?
4. Using rabbits, deer, and elephants also helps categorize sales prospects so that you can vary your pitch. For example, at my current company, an elephant will buy for different reasons for a rabbit. So, use the animals to help determine marketing strategies, too.
Now, back to elephants. If you're going to hunt elephants, you'd better bring a big gun. Or a bunch of people. That's my approach to hunting elephants - gang-hunting! In the corporate world, they like to call that "team-selling" but whatever. When I hunt, I hunt with one or two other sleek, well-ripped lions who know how to get the kill, just like me. So, enlist key people in your company to help you sell the elephant and bring it in. Both deer and elephants may require a team effort (sometimes, even rabbits need to be "herded" towards the trap) so make sure you use your pride (team) to help you sell!
By the way, make sure the other people you hunt with also know how to hunt, or you might look silly when the elephant gets away. After all, you never see two or three lions hunting an elephant with the help of a gazelle, right? Life isn't exactly like the movie, Lion King, after all.
Try using a technique like "rabbits, deer, and elephants" in your own selling to help you sell more of your products and services. You'll have more fun selling, and find yourself thinking about prospects like a hunter, not a farmer. The way I see it: if you're going to hunt you might as well have fun doing it.
________________________________________
Copyright © 1999-2009 by ARRiiVE Business Solutions. All Rights Reserved. SUBSCRIBE. Images from Wikipedia. Swingers video from YouTube is most likely copyright Miramax and not used with intention to violate that copyright, just to make a point here.
Like it? Share on del.icio.us or Stumble Upon!
Jan 22, 2009
Rabbits, Deer, and Elephants: Make Selling More Fun
Jan 23, 2008
Teams: Mother Natures Master Class, on ARRiiVE: Innovations In Business Show
ARRiiVE: Innovations In Business Radio Presents TEAMS: MOTHER NATURE'S MASTER CLASS, with Ken Thompson, CEO of www.Bioteams.com and www.SwarmTeams.com companies and websites.
Ken and Scott will discuss how we can make our teams and groups and communities much more satisfying, more productive and more agile by adopting some simple principles which Mother Nature has successfully evolved over millions of years to organize her teams (such as bees, ants and geese...).
The Show AIRS: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 2:00 PM PST / 5:00 PM EST
Description: Ken is a master of virtual communities and business/social networks. Ken has just published a major book through Megan-Kiffer Press (http://www.mkpress.com/) entitled ‘BIOTEAMS - a blueprint for building organizational teams, mobile workgroups, virtual communities and business networks that will prosper in the 21st century.’ Ken is also the founder and CEO of a new high-tech venture Swarmteams (http://www.swarmteams.com/) which is a mobile community engagement system developed on bioteaming principles.
Join Scott Andrews, Host of the show, as he interviews Ken regarding this exciting topic. This show promises to be educational, fun, and easy to participate.
How To Listen & Participate:
1. Visit Talkshoe (http://www.talkshoe.com/): Enter Talkshoe show ID 37798 to text comments and listen to the show from your computer.
2. Call in to join the show: Dial (724) 444-7444, enter show 37798 # 1 # if you wish to ask questions of the host or guest.
Also, you may click here to visit/follow the show: http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/37798 or http://www.arriive.com/arriive_liive.htm or listen in after completion of the show.
Some useful comments have been added to this show, if you missed it:
http://www.bioteams.com/2008/01/23/teams_mother_natures.html#comments
__________________________________
Copyright © 2008 by Scott Andrews, CEO of ARRiiVE Business Solutions. All Rights Reserved. Build better teams: SUBSCRIBE to learn more.
Jan 7, 2008
Made Not Born Part I: Sales Masters
Made, Not Born is a series based upon top qualities, techniques, and abilities of the very best professionals in many industries.
PART I: Traits of Sales Masters. Part I of Made, Not Born is focusing on the traits of the super-successful salesperson. What sets the best apart from the rest? Learn more in this article!
I recently read a business headhunter's list of top qualities of an all-star salesperson:
Work Attitude
Integrity
Adaptability
Influence
Interpersonal Relationship
Social Interactions
Positive Self-Esteem
Confidence
Persistence
Organization Skills
Prioritization of Goals
I like each of these, and believe each of these traits will help a salesperson succeed. However, when I interview salespeople and probe my memory for the best salespeople of all-time, my list includes other traits and talents that you might otherwise not consider:
ARRiiVE's Top Sales Masters of All-Time List of Traits and Skills:
1. A master of selling process: able to create a system of selling that builds rapport with clients and prospects very quickly.
2. A master of knowing the buyer's hot-buttons: adept at thinking like a buyer. Researches buyer's industry until they are a master of current issues facing typical buyers in each vertical industry.
3. A master of asking the right questions: the best selling gurus ask intelligent questions about prospects needs. They will quickly move from early fact types of questions into questions that probe deeper into implications of cost, pain, emotional value, and implication.
4. A master at directing the buying process to successful solution. The most masterful salesperson focused on expanding the need, then asking if-then questions to lead to yes. Able to expand the need by probing deeper. This is the quality of the ability to LISTEN and then take that information and expand even deeper. They are able to ask questions throughout the selling process that gains commitment to the salesperson's products and services and that results in each RFP (request for proposal) being driven to favor the salesperson's company.
5. A master at relating the company solution from their company to the customer's perceived emotional needs and logical needs. The best salespeople sell to the emotion, and support their emotional argument by providing irrefutable facts backing up their claims.
6. A master of disguise. The best salespeople are not always obvious to the customer. Many of them have already figured out the client before the client even knows they're being sold to and as a result the salesperson's sales results are considerably higher.
7. A master of proposing the company's products and services, yet able to come across genuine and down-to-earth. The best salespeople are not arrogant. They usually are extremely approachable and very good at presenting the company in the best light. They are quick on their feet, and always able to take a negative and quickly spin it back to make the company look better.
8. A master of describing solutions in terms of benefits and other user's or customer's experiences. The best salespeople are talking about third party and first party references throughout their entire sales process. Nothing is more powerful than a reference from someone the client trusts. The best salespeople know this and use it to their advantage.
9. A master at getting a yes while staying within the buying curve. The best salespeople know their is a buying window. When the buyer goes past the time curve on that window, they may lose the sale. Each industry's window may be different, but the best salespeople stay inside the window and deliver the deal in the most efficient manner possible.
Want to learn more? Sign up for Cold To Gold: Advanced Prospecting Methods To Overcome Fear, Get In The Door, and Build Long-Lasting Successful Relationships - a modern selling program with slides, screen prints, telephone courses, audio downloads, e-book, and bonus downloads and links. The author of this program has a long history of building successful sales relationships and blowing away quotas. Learn more from a master you can trust at Cold To Gold.
__________________________________
Copyright © 2008 by Scott Andrews, CEO of ARRiiVE Business Solutions. All rights reserved. Cold To Gold and ARRiiVE Business Solutions are trademarks of ARRiiVE Business Solutions.
ARRiiVE Business Solutions helps executives improve sales, launch products and services, and build dynamic, cross-functional collaborative teams. For more information, contact info (at)ARRiiVE (dot) com or call us at 1 (805) 459-6939.
SUBSCRIBE to get more helpful information to help grow sales and build better teams.
Sep 5, 2007
Team Selling in Enterprise Environments
Companies have been selling in teams since the dawn of IBM. But, with today's dispersed and global environments, an executive recently asked me: "Does Team Building work within enterprise selling environments, today?" My answer was "Yes, team selling can work, but you can only create the explosion of sales success by blasting away outdated systemic issues that block the natural flow of selling your organization to the client's organization."
I'm not providing statistics in this article. But I can tell you the challenges of selling in teams, and ways to overcome some of them.
Common problems with selling in teams include:
1. Structure of selling organization.
2. Problems with functional organization rather than team organization.
3. Job descriptions and the role of Human Resources aligning (or mis-aligning) human capital.
4. Compensation based upon functional output rather than team or cross-function output.
5. Focus on short-term results rather than long-term benefits to customer.
Now, if you drill down into each of these areas, I did a few searches on team building, and for kicks and giggles, came up with a few that I think illustrate my point well.
1. Structure of selling organization. Most problems in the business world, today, are systemic. You'll notice I said the structure of the SELLING organization, not BUYING organization. Why? Because the company you're selling to can structure however they want. A good sales team will be flexible and able to adapt to a variety of environments they sell within. The real issue is in how YOUR organization is structured to go to market.
Here (http://www.internetviz-newsletters.com/PSJ/e_article000415636.cfm?x=b11,0) is a URL with an article that is well-written, focused on team selling, and mentions key roles within the sales force team as:
- Specialist
- Market Researcher
- Business Developer
- Rainmaker
The author of the article went on to suggest bi-weekly meetings without stating an objective for the meeting. Rainmakers abhor meetings without purpose! This type of article is the reason for the problems in the current business environment with building cross-functional teams. They're only looking at the "sales" silo and missing the bigger picture. The author makes a good point about training the entire sales team, it just seems that training ought to expand outside the sales silo boundaries across the entire cross-functional team.
I've addressed this concern with my Sales Diamond Model which you can find at: http://www.arriive.com/sales_diamond_model.htm
2. Problems with functional organization rather than team organization. I came across this PDF, which is a reprint from a Sales and Marketing Executive Report from Darnell (http://baygroup.com/Articles/TeamSellingIsTodaysReality.pdf).
This article hits upon two problems I see: 1) Silo by organization function (sales, engineering, administration, etc.) when organizations try to get cross-functional, they haven't blended or created any type of system that enables teams across functions, (2) Lack of pay based upon team results. People are paid individual salaries based upon their job description. And the job description is, again, based upon function (sales, HR, Operations, Strategic Planning, etc.) without inclusion or consideration of payment for team performance or impact upon team's productive results. The other inherent problem within this is the fact that job descriptions are based upon general individual contribution within the function group rather than job description for unique capabilities and contribution to the whole, with a nod to the functional aspects. If companies were to shift this payment structure in their compensation plan, they will drive team-performance and create better cross-functional teams.
But if organizations create teams only within their functional groups, then they miss their opportunity to truly build an empowered environment. I once participated in a contest, and the Director of the project was brilliant to notice that EVERYONE wanted to participate in the contest. He made sure that each functional group got enough "points" from the contest to assure them a potential prize (i-pod, gift certificate) so that every employee felt the benefit of the contest. Yes, sales people had more opportunity to win than administrators, because they had more impact and pay scale, but every person came away with something for helping grow customers as a team. What I found interesting about the contest is that administrators started calling me with leads, operations people started to discuss ways to better help certain clients, and managers worked overtime with me to help me get certain deals structured to win for the customer. In short: it worked to drive more cross-functional performance, at least for a short period of time.
3. Job descriptions and the role of Human Resources and the utilization of human capital. As referenced in the article above, if job descriptions don't describe the accurate work that you expect people to do, then you'll get what you've asked for. It is about the law of attraction. If you point people at a tall building, tell them they have to sell your business services to the organizations in that tall building, then why would you be surprised when the deals they bring in are from the companies in that building? That's the whole idea, isn't it? Now, today's customers aren't all located in one tall building, they may be spread out over multiple cities, states, or even countries. In addition, it isn't just the customer's organization we're selling to within enterprise organizations, there also is the impact of outsourcing within the enterprise that affects how to go after deals. But, nevertheless, if your organization's job descriptions describe how people will interact with organizations you seek to do business with, then you're likely to produce a better result. I'm working on a software tool that will deliver a better team structure and enable organizations to track "jobs" or team projects by key words. That way, job descriptions may be re-written to include key phrases of the team and build better results.
4. Compensation based upon functional output rather than team or cross-function output. Now, this is always where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? If you have someone that you're paying to move a brick, and he grabs a hose and pours water instead, you'd ask him "Why didn't you move the brick?" Wouldn't you? I would. Yet, how many organizations are using the same re-tried compensation models promoting individualism, private results, and functional results? Almost ALL of them are using compensation models based around the results of individual or functional programs.
I tried to find an article discussing the impact on sales that EVERY function needs to own (administrative roles, operations roles, management roles, etc.) but couldn't find one. You know why? Because people have come to associate "salespeople" as the people who "sell" and the other people "just doing work" contributing to the company. It's a fallacy that has been created over time by sales v. operations battles, and as a result of bad habits. For example, it is a bad habit to think you don't have an impact upon selling by processing billing in accounts receivable. The billing people often find some of the greatest opportunities for a sales development. It's a bad habit to think upper management need not be part of the sales team. Upper managers want to meet with other upper managers. Use the cross-functional team but more than that ALL employees need to be actualized in the compensation process to also show the benefit to creating complete win-win solutions across the enterprise.
I see a need for compensation overhaul. If the client is measuring our success by delivering the benefits we promise them, then wouldn't it make sense to build our OWN compensation programs by delivering BENEFITS to the CLIENT? It's a whole new way of looking at compensation. I'm developing a payment description model and compensation model that rewards based upon client goals, rather than seller goals. It's exciting, and drives a considerably larger result to production with each employee.
5. Focus on short-term results rather than long-term benefits to customer. I dug around and found an article on sales teams that hit this problem square on the nose: the problem is FOCUS.
I think of the Buddhist and consider FOCUS to be part of the RIGHT THOUGHT structure of RIGHT THOUGHT, RIGHT ACTION, RIGHT SPEECH. Without RIGHT THOUGHT, none of the other desired results can happen. So, if you focus upon the right things, you ought to have the right results. This article (http://www.ivey.ca/publications/impact/vol3_22.htm) discussed the challenge that sales organizations are focused on hitting numbers. Those numbers are not numbers of benefits clients receive, but numbers of revenue dollars coming in from that account to the SELLING company's coffers. Focus on numbers might impact numbers, short-term; however, for the long-term it is the wrong focus. Yet, you'd be surprised how many meetings I've had with upper managers where all they look at is the NUMBERS! Crazy idiots, if you ask me. They ought to be focused on CUSTOMER BENEFITS. Because, if their organization delivers a high value of customer benefits, they'd likely hit MORE sales numbers as a by-product. Makes sense, doesn't it?
The quote that stands out to me from this article is:
"Developing a sales team can be very difficult in an environment unfamiliar with the team selling approach. The hurdle is shifting the mindset of an organization and its salespeople from lone rangers selling products to selling teams providing solutions for customers. 'Results from organizations who try this change actually show some organizations facing up to a 30 to 40 per cent turnover in their sales force,' says Barclay [the author of the article]. According to Barclay, organizations who implement true team selling must change to move from a short-term focus to a "continuous, evolving relationship with customers with the relationship building under the guidance of a selling team."
This is, in my experience, correct. Turnover may happen. But that type of turnover is healthy turnover if it results in a longer-term, more honest and responsible approach with the customer. This is the objective I've been working to implement with organizations through ARRiiVE Business Solutions (http://www.ARRiiVE.com). It's about the customer, it's about their needs, and the benefits they receive. Ah-ha! I've found a modern mantra for the modern businessman. Say it again with me: "It's about the customer, their needs, and the benefits they receive."
