0 com

Seller-based or Buyer-based Sales Process?


Have you ever wondered why for some deals, sending a proposal means you're a few days away from closing the deal. But for other deals, the customer usually come back three or four times requesting for more information? And decision making is no-where in sight?

The most common sales processes I've seen are all seller-based. Typically this means the following:
  1. Prospecting
  2. Qualifying
  3. Meeting
  4. Proposal
  5. Close
  6. Win/Lose
Very common. In fact at least two sales CRM I've seen uses something similiar to this. This seller-based sales process is like a to-do list for the account. Have you done the prospecting? Have you qualified the account? Have you set up a meeting? Have you sent a proposal? Are you trying your absolute best to close the deal now? What is the outcome?

The question is, why does sales management track sales person on this process? It conjures an image of a team of farm animals sales executives not trusted by management to do their professional duties. Is this necessary? Is this effective?

Can I propose the buyer-based sales process?

  1. Why do I need to buy?
  2. Who can I buy this from?
  3. How is buying from you different from buying from your competitors?

Or very simply:

  1. Needs.
  2. Options.
  3. Concerns.

Every buying decision goes through these steps. And matching the sales process to these buyer-based stages is a more accurate estimate for the management team than using the seller-based process.

Here's why.

Say a sales person reported that for this particular account, he is at the Proposal stage. Under this model, it is very easy to assume the sales is already at the late stage. Management would think that the decision to go ahead or not would probably happen within the next two weeks.

Unfortunately, a proposal can be sent to the buyer during any of the three buyer-based stages, Needs, Options, Concerns. A proposal sent during the Needs phase will not see decision making any time soon.

Another important thing. A proposal sent during different stages of the buyer-based model must sell different things.

In the needs phase, the selling is on displacing the status quo of the buyer. The buyer must be sold that what he is doing now is not good enough. Or there exist a simply better solution than what he is doing now, at a cheaper price.

In the options phase, the selling is on the solutions itself. This is the part where the sales person has to displace competitors solutions, or "products" not sold by him. An irrefutable conclusion that this one particular solution will meet the needs of the buyer.

In the concerns phase, the selling is on convincing the buyer that you are the right partner to work with. You can meet their payment terms. Their global processes. Their service-level. You are available to support them based on their requirements. Your company will not fold down next year. You will still be around next year, or someone else will be there.

Only after these three phases, can the buying decision happen.

And in B2B sales, the sales person may have to follow through to the implementation stage. I know I do. I very often do the sales, pre-sales, set up the project kick-off, and sometimes even do some project management.

Digressing a bit further. I think I can safely claim that I have yet to close a deal solely based on the proposal alone. Almost all of my selling is done face-to-face, online with the customer. And often, a very long period of time is spent addressing their "final" concerns.

A seller-based sales process does not tell you when will the deal come in. It does not let you know at which stage of the customer's buying process the deal is in.

A buyer-based sales process lets you know exactly where is the buying process. It also tells you what you should be focusing your sales effort on.

What is your organisation's Sales Process?

0 com

Avaya's New Android Tablet


Avaya announced it's new Android-based tablet device for business.


Cisco's version of iPad for business, Cius, is going for around $1,000. Avaya's device, and the software Flare, costs $2,000+. My iPad, $750. No doubt my iPad is not optimised for Video, Voice and Web conferencing. It'd be great to see one of these in action. I shall reserve judgement until my next visit to their demo centers.


The design of these devices are obviously based off the popularity of the iPad. I'm already using my iPad for many things. Doddling, DJing (yes!), taking meeting notes, trying to maintain a GTD system, games, and of course, reading news, and magazines. I've even tried (sucessfully) making a phone call with it! The experience of video over 3G was however, horrible. Even with a WiFi connection, I find the resolution-to-speed performance undesirable.


Assuming these two giants really pulled it off and optimised the device for Voice, Video, and Web conferencing, whilst integrating their existing UC suites of solutions, there's still this question: What is these devices looking to displace? The $200 IP Phone? Or the $2000 personal video confc? Spending $1,000 to buy a personal "toy" is one thing. How many companies can justify it's company expenses on these devices?


0 com

Brocade rumor

Is someone looking to buy Brocade? According to this post, it seems that Dell, IBM and Juniper are.

Brocade Communications Systems is a US company with an annual revenue of about $1.5b. Brocade specialises in Networking solutions and management applications. Almost 2 years ago, on 21 July 2008, Brocade acquired Foundry Networks for $2.6b.
0 com

Cisco brings WebEx to Blackberry and iPad

Cisco brings WebEx Meeting Center to Blackberry and iPad. I even found a link to a PDF quickstart guide.

Here's the classic dilemma. Do you spend R&D budget on product development on a platform that has wider adoption, or one that has more appeal? The Blackberry phones have wide enterprise adoption, with more than 20% market share on smart phones and probably somewhere in the range of 20m -30m units sold yearly. However, even on the latest model, the Blackberry only has a screen resolution of 480x360. The iPad has a screen resolution of 1024x768. Here's the real dilemma. If I have both devices, which one would I use for a WebEx web conference? Probably on the iPad. However, which device would I tend to have with me? Probably the Blackberry, for mobility. Also, if it is just an audio conference, the choice is probably going to be the Blackberry as well. Fact of the matter is, I don't see many day-to-day business calls which utilise the web conference facilities. Most calls are audio calls.

Regardless of the case, thumbs up to Cisco for implementing Meeting Center on both devices.
0 com

Mitel IPO


Mitel went public last week.

In the midst of my hectic month-closing, I missed this big news. How could I miss this big news? Mitel closed at $14 per share, below the expected $18 per share, raising close to $150m.

I've spoken with a couple of Mitel people over the past year. Their presence in Singapore isn't really that strong. Most of their APAC activities come out of Australia and Hong Kong.

With this IPO, Mitel joins ShoreTel and Interactive Intelligence as the only pure-play UC public companies.

This IPO definitely caught my attention, not just for Mitel, but Avaya as well. Avaya went private in 2007 when it was bought out by private equity firms TPG Capital and Silver Lake. Earlier this year, it completed is acquisition of Nortel. An Avaya IPO could be around the corner.