Tag Archives: proposals

Blog

Bad Sales Presentation vs Great Sales Presentation

It was an unusual trip to Japan. I began the trip from San Francisco with a valid passport, only to find when I landed that it had expired as I crossed the international date line – even after two airline employees checked it! As a result, I had the privilege to spend the next four tedious hours with an immigration official. After a collaboration with an airline representative, I was eventually allowed to continue my business trip as long as my first stop was to the US Embassy for a new passport.

I didn’t get to my hotel bed until 2:00 am.

The next morning I was standing bleary eyed in front of the head of all electronic development for Toshiba Semiconductor. I pulled out my binder of about two hundred overhead transparencies (yes, it was a long time ago), and his eyes grew three or four times their size. “You’re not going to go through all of those slides, are you?” he asked while glancing at his watch. 

I smiled and let out a small chuckle. “No”, I replied, “That’s the marketing material. I only have four slides for you.”

He visibly relaxed a little, sat back in his chair, and said in perfect English, “This I have to see.” turning his head slightly up and away in apparent disbelief.

After I spent about 20 minutes on my four slides, he spent the following hour peppering me with questions, which prompted me to pull out ten to fifteen additional slides from the marketing deck. At the end of our meeting he declared that I was a presentation samurai, and demanded that we have dinner that night. That’s when I was introduced to a custom where the person on your right keeps your drink filled to the top for the entire dinner. Lucky for me, my flight wasn’t until four pm the next day.

After consulting with over 80 technology companies, I find the pattern is pretty standard. The typical marketing deck for sales has a predictable pattern (with minor variations):

  • We, We! (All over ourselves) This section talks about the history of the vendor’s company, their size, their locations, their market dominance or enviable spot on a Gartner Quadrant, and usually includes a customer logo slide for good measure. It’s all about the vendor. (I realize this is for credibility building, but its premature. The customer doesn’t care who you are until they conclude that you might be able to help them.)
  • More We’ing. Now they move into their product(s) overview. Lots of acronyms, complex slides, and pseudo framework pictographs intended to make it look like their products all work together. (Unfortunately, the problem is rarely defined, so the customer either can’t figure out if they need your solution or how you are different from the last vendor with a similar set of complex solution slides.)
  • Case Studies and Testimonials. Ranging from name dropping to detailed technical case studies, they are usually missing some variation of the most important details like the customer problem set, the impact on their business, and the result. 

In contrast, here’s what I did for my new found friend at Toshiba:

  • The Situation. I described a change in the macro situation that should interest them. In this case, there was a dramatic industry wide shift in the size of silicon inter-connects (the actual connection between devices on a silicon chip), going from microns down to nanometers. (A 1000 to one ratio) 
  • The Problem. Next I explored the problems the situation created for design teams like Toshiba. Everything they knew about circuit design and troubleshooting had just been disrupted. The inter-connects would now act like someone peppered millions of new devices into their design, causing fluctuations in performance outside of specification, leading to head scratching, trial and error problem solving on a massive scale across a chip that could have millions of inter-connects.
  • The Impact. Plain and simple, I talked about the competitive disadvantages if they didn’t make the shift, followed by how the new situation would impact design schedules, time to market, feature trade offs, and other relevant business issues. 
  • The Success of Others Just Like Them. This is where I share a story or two about other companies that Toshiba could relate to, and how we helped them overcome the same challenges. (Yes, this is the case study or reference story, but it comes after the situation, problem, and impact development, and reiterates the situation/problem/impact framework for the case study company.)

In my first twenty minutes with Toshiba, I didn’t talk about our company or our products. I talked about the problems Toshiba will be experiencing and how they would impact their business results.

The following hour I did answer questions about our products, how they worked together, how many support people we had in Japan, and lots of other details that were already available in the standard marketing deck. But in this case, the audience was primed to want the information.

I suggest you conduct a quick inspection. Pull out the most recent deck you’ve used in a customer presentation, or if you’re a sales leader, ask one of your sales people for one. Most important on the list for retooling, check to see if the situation/problem was defined by slide three or four (at the most). If not, simply add a situation/problem definition slide followed by an impact slide and you will have upped the horsepower on the compelling aspect of your presentation by 100%.

Kevin Temple guides sales teams to be more agile and improve revenue outcomes. He can be contacted at kevin@enterprise-selling.com. The Enterprise Selling Group is a leader in delivering sales training, coaching and project oversight to improve the agility of sales teams around the world.

Blog

Six Buyer Questions Relevant To Every Culture

Years ago, I worked for a great sales manager named Pete who told me selling was different in different parts of the country. He grew up in New Orleans, while I was from Los Angeles. After I teased apart his perspective, I came to understand his point was that customs are different. For example, he would have a hard time closing a large sale in the south if he failed to take a client out for dinner. Whereas, for me on the west coast, getting a buyer to dinner is a challenging task and not usually viewed as a requirement. My clients in Japan have told me that getting a meeting with a senior buying executive in their culture requires having a same level executive or higher from the selling side. In many other cultures, that helps, but its not a requirement. After having conducted business in over 40 countries around the world, I have no argument with Pete’s observation, however, what I have found is that buyers have consistent behaviors regardless of culture or customs. (As I write this article, I’m in client’s office near  London, reviewing opportunities from Russia to South Africa and places in-between.)

Over the years, I’ve literally asked thousands of people from around the world to share the questions they would need answers to before funding a large purchase. Translated from many languages, the core questions are universal among buyers around the globe regardless of culture:

  1. Why should we change?
  2. Why now?
  3. Why this alternative?
  4. What’s the impact?
  5. Who does it impact?
  6. Who can we trust?

The first question is really about impetus. It includes the identification of people/process/technology problems and the connection to the current business issues the executive staff is trying to overcome. When connected together, they form an effective argument for change. Left unconnected, the argument for change can be overshadowed by more effectively articulated options – resulting in no decisionoutcomes for the poorly articulated purchase requests. I’m reminded of a sales person who told me his software sale was delayed because the client wanted to build a parking lot. In that case, someone successfully argued the scaling of the company was being hampered by a lack of employee parking, easily overshadowing the weak plea from engineering for a better code development platform that was not connected to the scaling issue, but could have been.

The second question is about aligning priorities. This is achieved by connecting the people, process and technology problems identified to a business issue that has the attention of the executive staff. If it connects to a business issue that isn’t on the minds of senior leaders, it’s at risk for being delayed until the business issue elevates in priority (if ever).

Weighing alternatives is a multifaceted question. At first glance, it seems like a simple differentiation question, which it encompasses, but can go even further. As pointed out above, it can also be about alternative uses for funds. Or it can be a “make versus buy” question. And lastly, its a test of the current approach, assessing if they can get by with the current solution, albeit potentially lacking. 

Impact is about value.  The return on the investment will need to align with the metric that has their attention, so it’s context relevant. While one company may be focused on improving revenues, the next company may be more concerned about reducing costs. Developing a value proposition that will motivate action requires attention to the customer’s current business issues as the focal point, and it’s their metric, not the seller’s metric that matters.

“Who does it impact” also has multiple levels. The first implication is about sizing the solution. For example, does the problem set impact one person or a hundred? The second implication can be a funding question. For instance, if it impacts sales and marketing, who is going to pay for it? And finally, there’s a political implication; if it does impact sales and marketing, can they collaborate to succeed with the new solution.

Lastly, the question of trust comes in many forms and includes many time consuming activities on the part of buyers and sellers. On-site product evaluations are educational for the buyer, but overall they are a test of trust and credibility. If your product has severe bugs or other quality problems, your credibility suffers and so does the trust.  Reference checks and now social media posts are a test of trust and credibility. Your existing customer list is a testimonial to the trust others have put in your company. Most buyers execute multiple credibility checks to evaluate your trustworthiness.

Although you may have thought of a question that’s not on my list, I’ve typically found its either simply stated differently but aligns with one of the questions above, or its a packaged combination of two or more of the core questions. For example, “what’s the ROI?” is really a concrete example of the “impact?” question. And, “why should we buy the premium provider?” is really a combination of “why this alternative?” and “whats the impact?” providing a means to weigh the added value of their differentiated capabilities. (But please add yours to the comments below if you’d like to dialog about it!)

I’ll leave you with one last thought. This list is potentially the most important list a sales professional can keep front and center. If you are helping your buyers to answer these questions effectively, you are enabling them to buy faster, buy bigger, and insure a measurable return to their business. Conversely, if you are not helping them answer these questions effectively, you’re leaving your opportunity open for risk. Just one unanswered question on their part can lead to a delayed decision, a no decisionoutcome, a loss to a competitor or a loss to a better use of funds.

Kevin Temple guides sales teams to be more agile and improve revenue outcomes. He can be contacted at kevin@enterprise-selling.com. The Enterprise Selling Group is a leader in delivering sales training, coaching and project oversight to improve the agility of sales teams around the world.

Blog

The Confused Buyer Leads To Higher No Decision Outcomes

There were four people on the other side of a blind web meeting. As the call unfolded, I knew I had a confused buyer on my hands.

While I rarely run into a confused buyer, my clients experience it on a daily basis. The reason I don’t witness it often is that I typically engage the VP of Sales as my first contact. It’s rare to find one that is confused about what he or she is trying to achieve and the problems that are contributing to their challenge. On the other hand, most of my client companies sell to IT or some other technical organization where their first point of contact is usually at an implementer level and unaware of the business challenges or objectives for the organization.

I was put in contact with this task team charged with finding a sales methodology for their organization. When I asked them to describe the sales challenges they would like to overcome with this initiative, it was like one of the current presidential political debates. No one could answer the question directly, but they all had something to say.  Most commonly it was a complaint from their individual perspective about some other organization: marketing material is bad, internal approval process is horrendous, our customers are competing with us, and the like. When I tested for challenges like selling across the product line, facing new competition, getting to more powerful stakeholders and the like, there weren’t any takers. (And believe me, I did my homework on this organization!)

Not having clarity on the problem definition would seem bad enough, but then one of the team members dropped a bomb on my lap that my customers also run into every day. He asked if they could spend half a day with me to dig into the depths of our offering. On the surface, a request to engage in a deeper evaluation can sound like there’s genuine interest in a solution, but in reality, it’s the death spiral of the snake and prey about to begin.

Lacking a cohesive agreement on the problem definition, each stakeholder is likely to prefer a different solution based on their individual perspective, resulting in a chaotic buying process. Further, the invisible problem statement also makes it impossible to develop the value proposition to weigh against other uses for the money, leading to a drawn out process, or more likely, a no decision. When I brought the lack of a cohesive problem definition to their attention, one of the stakeholders recognized the implication and suggested a step to develop the problem definition.

My strategy is to encourage the development of the problem definition by including the ultimate decision maker and myself in the process. If they can’t or won’t, I will consciously limit my exposure to a potentially huge time sink.

For those of you selling to infrastructure or operations organizations, I suggest a checkpoint before you begin the evaluation process. Try to answer these two questions:

  • Can you clearly articulate the problem definition and would the buying team agree?
  • Would the decision maker agree?

If the answer is “no” to either of these questions, be cautious about engaging in an evaluation process unless you have time and money to burn. This unproductive buying behavior is rampant and is the biggest contributor to the common 40% to 60% no decision results most professional sales organizations tolerate.

Kevin Temple guides sales teams to be more agile and improve revenue outcomes. He can be contacted at kevin@enterprise-selling.com. The Enterprise Selling Group is a leader in delivering sales training, coaching and project oversight to improve the agility of sales teams around the world.

Blog

Sales Agility: How To Tailor A Sales Message

The first quarter of the year is usually a slow start for most enterprise focused sales organizations. But it also tends to kick our behinds into gear as we grasp the required ramp to reach the year end goal. If this resonates with you, I’d like to focus you on one initiative that will produce better sales results, and provide the fuel for your accelerated ramp requirements. The best part is it’s easy to implement, especially for time strapped sales people and sales leaders.

We’ve been hearing it for a few years now. CEB’s research says the top performing sales people tailor their sales messages to their prospects. If you’re not tailoring your messaging, there’s a potential windfall waiting for you.

On the other hand, if your team is using the “spray and pray” model, where one message fits all audiences, you’ll find the result of not tailoring sales messages is a high ratio of “no-decision” outcomes. I’ve run across numbers as high as 60% of the pipeline in some businesses, while the norm is about 40%. As a subset of this, delayed decisions are also costly when it comes to improving sales productivity, and also relate to a lack of tailored messaging. Bottom line, if the prospect has trouble understanding the need to change given their situation, or can’t clearly articulate it to their colleagues, they either can’t make a decision to change, or it gets delayed. Tailoring the sales message around their specific situation is critical for delivering better sales results.

Before we get started, let’s narrow the task down to a manageable and productive thrust. There are several levels of tailoring: You can tailor to the industry, tailor to the company, or tailor to the job title or function. You can also tailor to the individual, but that requires insight into their personal values, focus, passion and more. For this article, I’ll focus on tailoring to a company. This level of tailoring helps with the first step, getting in the door. It also helps the contact identify and more clearly articulate the reasons for change to their colleagues, resulting in fewer no decision outcomes.

The place to start is with the Internet. I start with three basic research tasks:

  1. Identify any recent changes to their operating results, good and bad.
  2. Take a look at their press releases for good or bad news.
  3. Perform a specialized Internet search on their company name combined with a few chosen adjectives.

Recently, I conducted this exercise on a prospect and it took a total of about five minutes. But the results were invaluable.

I’ve decided not to disclose the name of the company that I’ll use to illustrate my results as they are an early stage prospect for my business. I can only imagine the number of my competitors calling them after reading my post, and since I don’t have the contract nailed yet, I’ll take the safe route.

The first place I visited was their “Investor Relations” section of their website. Like most public companies, they post their financial results for their shareholders. Not three days before, they released their 2014 annual report.

I quickly scroll down to page 33 where I find their operating results. The first thing that catches my attention is they have almost quadrupled revenue from $12M to about $44M in one year. That’s impressively good news, but I didn’t stop there. Looking further down, the next eye catcher is operating expenses. The cost of sales has almost doubled from $32M to $62M, outpacing their revenue generation. This also indicates they’ve probably hired a lot of sales people from one year to the next. Their General and Administrative (G&A) costs have also doubled from $9M to $19M: Another indicator of hyper growth and an expansion of employees in other departments.

Since an annual report is a comparison of one year to the previous and may already be out of date, my curiosity compels me to check their current job postings to see if their hiring pace has changed. As it turns out, they are still in a rapid expansion mode. There are over 20 open sales openings listed in a variety of locations with around 100 postings in all categories combined.

I scan the remainder of the annual report to see if anything else catches my attention. As with all public companies, they are required to compare their shareholder return to a general investment in the stock market. The graph catches my eye. It shows their IPO price of a year ago, $40 per share, compared to the current price of $7.81. This causes me to conclude there’s probably a good deal of pressure on the executive staff to address this problem. (Even Elon Musk has to pay attention to this fundamental eventually.)

Next I turn to their news center. This doesn’t turn up anything useful to me. Like most companies, this is more of a marketing take on the trends and opportunities in their industry. It’s not really focused on their issues or problems. However, I never overlook it because sometimes something useful pops up like a recent merger or new regulatory requirements that may impact their business.

Lastly, I perform a problem and opportunity oriented Internet search. I like to use their company name and combine it with positive and negative adjectives. I’ll use words like “problem”, “issues”, “concerns” and the like. If that doesn’t pan out I’ll try some opportunity oriented business words like, “merger”, “partnership”, or “regulations”. I typically look only on the first page of results as any past this point are probably dated. This time, an article dated a few months earlier pops up. It details their announced partnership with a complimentary leader in their market. Although not too interesting to me, it would be interesting to other sales professionals selling collaboration tools. I make a note to pass a lead on to my customer, Polycom.

Not a bad return for a five minute investment. I now know they have a shareholder return issue, which is probably putting pressure on cost management or revenue growth, the latter being my hope. I also know they are spending more on sales than the company is generating in revenue, so I’m confident they should be open to ideas about reversing this ratio. I also found they have scaled the sales organization rapidly and are continuing on a fast clip. Combining this with the diverse locations of their job postings, I’d venture to bet they have a ramp up challenge, something I can help with in many ways.

This simple step arms me to have a productive conversation with their Chief Revenue Officer. Although I could have easily put this person on my standard email nurturing cycle and check in with them after they followed a link to some valuable content on my website, I find a much higher hit rate if I find something compelling and use that to start a conversation directly.

But I don’t stop there. I’ll use this information throughout my sales campaign. In the event I’m invited in to deliver a presentation to a larger stakeholder group, I use it to frame my presentation and drive a dialog to uncover related or additional problems. I also use it to frame my proposals. Even though I specialize in teaching sales professionals how to access decision makers more effectively, I’m also impacted by geographic separation or the calendars of overwhelmed CEO’s or other decision makers. In this event, I want my proposal to sell for me, framing my solution around the global, high level problems every executive in their organization would like to see addressed.

In short, I tailor my message to the issues they currently have on their table.

So why don’t more sales people make this simple investment and improve their results? I think it has to do with habit and an ill placed value on the shortest path to closure. They mistakenly believe the sooner they can talk about their product or service, the faster the decision will be made. However, as in Aesop’s fable, going slower can make you the winner.

If you’re a sales leader, I suggest a simple assignment to prove the value of this minor change in modus operandi. Ask your team to perform this level of research on just three prospects each and share the results at your next staff meeting. Chances are, most will find something compelling which puts your solution in a more strategic light.

LIMITED OFFER: I am offering to demonstrate this process for a select number of sales leaders and their teams using your own prospects. If you’d like to have a web demonstration at your next staff meeting, please contact me with the information below.

Kevin Temple guides sales teams to be more agile and improve revenue outcomes. He can be contacted at kevin@enterprise-selling.com. The Enterprise Selling Group is a leader in delivering training, coaching and project oversight to improve the agility of sales teams around the world.

Blog

3 Ways To Increase Your Average Contract Value

The first quarter of the year is traditionally and seasonally the lowest producing quarter for most B2B sales organizations. We thought this would be a timely subject for many sales teams.

One of the easiest ways to improve revenue production in sales is by increasing the order size for each transaction. Research indicates that it takes less effort to sell more to a committed customer than a new prospect. Over the years, I’ve helped many companies measurably increase their average contract value with some simple steps. Here are three profitable options for increasing your average contract value with examples from companies you may recognize.

1. Upsell/Cross Sell. Although this is a commonly known strategy, most sales people struggle with this skill set. The reason they struggle is capability knowledge saturation. If the demand isn’t naturally there for secondary products or solutions, they won’t spend the time or energy learning a new set of capabilities as a way to optimize their brainpower. Consequently, these additional revenue sources lay untapped.

We’ve found if the seller is focused on the problem set versus the solution capability details, they can be much more effective in cross selling and upselling while minimizing their neuron load. For example, consider the software sales professional that has professional services as an additional revenue source. Rather than push a data sheet describing their professional services capabilities, arm them with three simple problem probing questions that create the need for professional services.

  • Now that you’ve decided on the software solution, I’m curious, does your IT team have the resources to install and configure this solution in the timeframe you need to have it up and running?
  • If they do have the resources, do they have the skills and knowledge required to install or configure this software in such a short timeframe?
  • Should your IT staff be burdened with this installation, or should they be focused on more strategic initiatives?

Dell used this strategy to introduce a much broader solution portfolio including servers, storage and services. They tracked a 26% increase in their attach metric, and ultimately built a new revenue stream measured in billions.

2. Deliver a real proposal with two options. Most proposals are not proposals. They’re more accurately described as a price quote with a gracious cover letter or an overview of the vendor’s capabilities, history and success. I’ve heard this referred to as We- We’ing all over themselves. A vendor centric overview does nothing to help the sponsor sell the initiative more effectively and worse, often drags out the sales process while the decision maker seeks answers the sponsor is not prepared to address.

In lieu of the less effective price quote approach, we recommend delivering a real proposal that includes an executive summary of the business issues facing the customer, the underlying people/process/technology problems impeding the resolution of the business issue(s), and the impact of taking action (or not taking action). We also suggest including the configuration requested by the sponsor as well as an optional configuration recommendation based on the business issues, problems, and/or impact identified. What happens is interesting. This type of proposal can actually sell for the seller when it’s presented to the decision maker. Contrast this to the sponsor that is ill prepared to persuade a decision maker to part with some money using a simple price quote. And moreover, if the business issue identified is actually compelling to the decision maker (meaning they are under scrutiny to address the business issue), they will usually lean toward the configuration that will do a better job of resolving the business issues at hand causing the purchase size to increase.

Cadence Design Systems, a leader in Electronic Design Automation, used this strategy to boost their revenue growth from a yawning 6% to an enticing 30%.

3. Disqualify Opportunities More Often. Although this seems counter intuitive, the science behind this strategy is straightforward. In short, working on prospects that can’t buy robs the seller of time that could have been spent on an opportunity that can buy, and can buy bigger. Alternatively stated, putting some engagements on hold frees up the seller to pursue other opportunities that can produce higher revenue.

One of our clients, Imprivata put this strategy into play and tracked a 19% increase in average contract value AND a 20% increase in the number of transactions closed per rep.

Here’s how it worked. When a lead came to the seller from their marketing automation process, the rep was instructed to ask three simple pre-qualifying questions:

  • Could the contact articulate the problem that could be solved by the vendor?
  • Could the contact articulate the impact of the problem in dollars or time?
  • Would the contact be willing to bring other stakeholders into the conversation?

If they received negative responses to all three of these questions, they were instructed to send some information and put the prospect back into the marketing automation nurturing process.

A negative answer for any of the first two questions could be overridden by a positive answer to the third question. The logic being that other stakeholders might be able to provide the answers to the first two questions, but the process had to be repeated with each additional stakeholder.

From a transactional perspective, the answers to the pre-qualifying questions armed the seller with more powerful information to make the case for a larger purchase. Combining this with the focus on prospects that were in a position to make an effective case for a purchase, the number of transactions increased as well.

As you look to improve your pipeline for Q1, consider implementing one of the strategies. These strategies work. But we advise you to implement only one at a time. Over burdening your team with more than one strategy can backfire.

Kevin Temple is the founder and President of The Enterprise Selling Group. Kevin has consulted for companies like Cisco, Dell, Polycom, Gartner, VMware and many others. His specialty is helping companies achieve a measurable improvement in key selling metrics like average contract value, largest transaction size and others. The Enterprise Selling Group specializes in sales training, sale enablement and sales effectiveness to improve the sales agility of sales teams worldwide. www.enterprise-selling.com

Blog

The Proposal that Sells Itself

Image

Even the best sales people can’t get to every decision maker. But your proposal can. Do a check up on your proposal format. Does it convince a sign-off authority to sign the purchase requisition and place an order, especially if you can’t be there?

After reviewing literally hundreds of “standard” proposal formats sent out by a large variety of big and small companies, it’s not surprising why so many sales teams have a hockeystick quarter end. From my perspective, most proposals are little more than a price quote.

I’m talking about the “proposal” that has a nice cover letter thanking the prospect for the opportunity and an overview about how this vendor is the leader in their field. This is followed by a price quote and overly generous discount with a time expiration coincidentally connected to the end of the quarter. Then some sort of terms/conditions agreement, license agreement, services SOW, and so forth.

Now put yourself in the shoes of the decision maker. You have a list of questions you need to have answered before you sign off on the proposal… maybe something like this:

  •         Why do we need this solution? (What business issues is the customer facing and what are the underlying problems that are not currently being addressed by the existing solution?)
  •         Is this vendor the best alternative? (Can we do it ourselves, or is there another vender with similar capabilities at a lower price? Or, what makes this vendor special?)
  •         Do we need to act now? (Versus other alternative uses of the funds or especially with other more pressing issues?)
  •         What’s the potential savings or reward for making this change? (ROI? Competitive advantage? Lower cost of ownership? Or, what disappointing metric will this help us to overcome? Etc…)
  •         Who will this solution benefit? (Are there other parts of the organization that could chip in? If we broaden the purchase could we save/earn even more?)
  •         Can we trust this vendor? (Will it work? Can they support us? What’s their track record look like? Did you try it out? Do others that we respect us it?)

The question is does your proposal help them answer these questions and make a decision? Worse, the first question they ponder that doesn’t get answered gives them the excuse to push back and ask the sponsor to do their homework.

I know what you might be thinking; these questions should have been answered during the discovery and evaluation process. I’d agree, but often times they are not, and even if they are, that doesn’t guarantee the final decision maker was involved in the transfer of this information. That means the seller would have to depend upon their inside champion to articulate the answers to these questions, but we all know hope is not a strategy! Your next thought might be, “the proposal should be delivered to the decision maker by the seller so all of these questions can be answered directly”. Again, I agree, but unfortunately, not the case most of the time.

If you’re sucking wind through your teeth thinking about your proposal format,  I recommend a set of simple changes.

The easiest and most effective way to address your current proposal format in this light is to structure the cover letter to address these questions. I recommend a format for the letter that includes:

  •         The business issues uncovered during discovery. (A quick review of their latest earnings statement or recent press releases can provide some insight if you missed this step during your discovery process.)
  •         The underlying people, process, or technology challenges that are currently impeding the business issue. Word these with problem oriented adjectives: difficulty with, challenged by, or lacking. i.e., “Difficulty with multiple manual processes that are error prone.”
  •         The impact of not taking action. Sizing the cost of, or lost opportunity for each challenge and the associated business issue. Or, identify the current state of the metric they care about, and the potential. i.e., “The goal is to reduce costs by 15%, but it currently stands at a 5% reduction.”
  •         Connecting your unique capabilities to actual challenges the prospect has acknowledged. The only way they can determine if you are the best alternative is to identify challenges they care about that can’t be solved by others as well as you can solve them.
  •         Identifying the stakeholders you have included in your analysis to allow them to confirm the organizational opportunity.
  •         Specific usage example, citing another similar but respected company with similar business issues, similar challenges, and actual accrued results. (This structure of success story is often shortened to simple name dropping, prompting the buyer to take a small pilot step first.)

As the sales leader, I also recommend that you inspect every proposal for this structure. Your inspection will underscore your commitment to making this a discipline, and if your sales people can supply the information for all of these components, they will have undoubtedly conducted a more thorough discovery process. You kill two birds with one stone.

You should see a decrease in stalled decisions or no decisions, a measurable increase in your win rate, and interestingly, a smoothing of your hockeystick. After all, if the prospect’s decision maker has all of their questions answered, and it’s a compelling proposition, there’s no need to sit on the proposal until the end of quarter.

The Enterprise Selling Group helps commercial organizations tune their sales and marketing disciplines to improve revenue results. Kevin Temple is the founder and President of The Enterprise Selling Group.