This blog is now located at http://blog.maine-associates.co.uk/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.maine-associates.co.uk/feeds/posts/default.

I recently sat in on a training session with a cold-calling guru that advocated scheduling just a "15 minute" meeting to get in front of senior executives.

15 minutes? Is it really worth it?

This isn't anything new; I blogged about this back in 2006 having witnessed this same thing in a classic "boiler-room" appointment setting company (see "The Meetings Game": Some truths about B2B Appointment Setting).

So, is it worth just going for 15 minutes?

Without doubt, the less you ask for the higher the conversion you'll get.

Going for a telephone call will pull more results than going for an more traditional 1 hour meeting.

Years ago when I ran a sales team with reps "in the area" we would always push for a "15 minute drop in" just to put a "face to a name".

Our pitch would go something like "Look, we'll both know in the first 10 minutes if this is something for you; let's put aside just 15 minutes and, if you think it's worthwhile then I'll stay longer".

That always worked a charm.

But, that was because we were "in the area", so it was actually a productive use of our time. Plus, the number of meetings attended was a metric.

For most of our clients, however, this isn't the case.

When we're booking appointments with senior decision makers we're usually committing our clients to a long journey which usually results in breaking up their whole day. We need to make absolutely sure that it's worth their time attending.

So, on balance, I prefer to play everything with a straight bat and only book appointments where there is a clearly qualify interest in meeting.

That means a lower conversion than if you shoot for "just 15 minutes".

I only advocate softening my stance on this if I had a very tight wish-list and found going for a longer meeting wasn't getting traction.

But then you need to think beyond those first 15 minutes.

Our clients would need a rock solid process to turn that 15 minutes into a second, longer and more productive meeting.

Otherwise, they really will be wasting their time.

Labels: appointment making, appointment setting

I had an interesting discussion the other day about the merits of so-called "black book" organisations who (claim to) use their networks to introduce prospects.

On one level my thoughts were "whatever works"... but then again, I wondered whether these models really are effective?

Certainly the concept is nothing new and it's used in a number of different ways by many businesses. But, I've yet to see the "gun for hire" model of referrals really work in any sustained way.

Let me explain.

Actively getting referrals into businesses is used by companies all the time.

Whether it's through partnering with another business or even assembling an advisory board, there are many different ways you can leverage existing relationships.

To me, a fundamental part of all these models is the building of trust and the alignment of both parties.

If you hire a key industry influencer to back your business (such as bringing them into a non-executive position or perhaps as an investor) then they have publicly aligned themselves with your business. They wouldn't do this unless they shared your vision and had build trust in your business.

Once they've got to that position, it's natural that they'll follow through by using their personal contacts.

But, I'm not convinced that people will use (or should I say abuse) their contacts on a "paid for" or "gun for hire" basis.

For a start, all contacts have a finite appetite for referrals. Call them too often and they'll just stop taking your calls. It's a balancing act.

Also, how persistent will someone be if there's no initial traction? Not very I bet.

I've seen these models come and go.

There were some great sounding online versions a few years ago which I thought would really take off. The proposition was simple: you post up who you want to meet and the 1000's of registered "introducers" put you in contact with people. The pitch to the introducers was "make money out of your contacts".

You know what... all those sites are now dead.

Equally, there are some businesses out there that aim to be intermediaries. Often this model falls down when you ask "who pays".

If the person being introduced pays (which is quite common) then the question is, who are they really acting in the best interests of?

In some industries, such as recruitment, it's clear who pays and who is the "client". In others, such as talent agents, there's an established business model and everyone knows who does what and who pays who.

The trouble is that, in more generic markets, these models don't really stack up.

If you want to get infront of prospects then someone has to "go out to bat" on your behalf. Sure, they're going to take some rejection along the way, plus they're going to have to be politely persistent to get through.

But that's all part of the process.

Of course, if you are trying to influence C-level executives for extremely large, high-risk pieces of work then you're in a different league. This is where having influence on the inside is critical and relationships such as advisory boards are essential.

And, in that case, you need a solid relationship, not someone who will simply "pimp" their trust to the highest bidder.

Labels: networking, prospect marketing

According to a recent survey in January's B2B Marketing Magazine "telemarketing remains a key part of the marketing mix for most B2B brands".

Unfortunately, the report doesn't specify the size of businesses surveyed, although I suspect most are medium and large sized companies since only 15% of the respondents relied entirely on external telemarketing agencies and "the largest portion of respondents had an internal telemarketing team"

It was interesting that the most popular reason why telemarketing was retained internally was because "the complexity of products and services makes outsourcing difficult".

The best way of thinking about this is to consider why these companies see keeping telemarketing in-house for complex sales proposition easier than outsourcing.

In my view, the primary reason why it would be seen as difficult to outsource telemarketing is the quality of the telemarketers.

Let's be honest, even the best call centres struggle retaining their people. They have one of the highest rates of employee churn than any other industry. If you have a complex sales proposition then you need to invest in training your telemarketers plus they have to be a pretty high-calibre to start with.

Therefore, when you outsource your telemarketing you run the risk of having to train and re-train telemarketers. Retention is always the biggest issue.

If you're a large company you can avoid this simply by hiring your own telemarketers and paying them above the industry average. Most good telemarketers in call centres would jump at the chance to get out.

Why do you have to be a large company to do this?

As I've blogged about previously, Outsourcing Telemarketing vs In-house, the case for in-house telemarketing just doesn't stack up for small businesses.

Simply put, it is too difficult for most small businesses to manage and retain top-class telemarketers.

So if you have a complex product or service, what are your options?

The answer is to find a telemarketing agency that retains the caliber of telemarketers you need. Almost always, this will be a small agency rather than a large call centre.

If a telemarketing agency starts talking about having 100's of employees with account managers, systems, processes, etc then you can guarantee that they're a volume body shop.

However, if they're a small outfit who can provide you with personal direct access to the telemarketers making the calls, and will invest time in training their people to understand your proposition then you're on the right track.

But then again, if you're reading this blog post then you've already found us :-)

Labels: b2b marketing, b2b telemarketing, outsourcing telemarketing

I recently received a great testimonial from a client (you can read it on my LinkedIn profile).

It ended with "Wish he was my full time business development director!".

Now, whilst this is a very flattering comment (thanks, John)... I think it's completely wrong. It's wrong in the sense that for most of our clients, a full-time Business Development Director is actually the last thing that they need.

Before I explain why, let me just clarify who our clients are (this may resonate with some of you).

Our clients are typically smaller consultancies and agencies with flat structures and a high level of delivery by the principals. Sure, they'll have office support staff and also delivery augmented by associates and/or juniors, but the key attribute that they all share is that a large amount of the work is delivered by the owners or Directors of the business.

So, if that sounds like you, why shouldn't you hire a full-time Business Development Director?

Here are 3 good reasons:

1) You can't outsource the pitch. The first trap to avoid is thinking that you can get someone else to pitch for your work, such as hiring a Business Development Director. If you're providing a service which involves your personal expertise and creative input then your clients are essentially buying you. Sure, they accept that you have a team behind you for delivery but that's no substitute for knowing who runs the business.

This fact is true for all propositions which fall into the "smart brains" or "grey hairs" categories. Unless you're in a commodity market then you can't escape the reality that you should never outsource the pitch.

2) You can't afford a good one. What I mean here is that, in many cases, your business probably isn't big enough (yet) to attract the right level of talent you need. I just flipped open a marketing magazine and there are agencies advertising for a full-time Business Development Director with a £60k package. If you're a consultancy in the IT or HR space then you'll need someone who can open doors and pitch at the highest levels... an win the business. That's going to cost at least the same package if not approaching six figures.

And let's not forget, that's just the salary. Fully loaded costs will double these figures.

Now, if you've got big plans and deep pockets then don't be put off by this. However, you need to be absolutely sure that they will bring in the business otherwise this type of hire is notoriously the most expensive mistake you can make.

I find that most clients with a "Business Development Director" have essentially agreed that the role is handled by one of the founders/partners.

Which brings us to the third reason....

3) You don't need a whole one. What you need are bits of a Business Development Director. If you think about it, what does a Business Development Director do? Well, they work out the strategy, help develop marketing plans, network with prospects, make calls and open doors, keep in touch and manage the pipeline and (hopefully) land the big accounts.

In our experience, clients are excellent face-to-face and, as I stated in point 1) they are the best people to put in-front of prospects. It's logical really, since we work with clients who are actually in business, so they must be doing something right.

The parts of the whole biz dev process that they struggle with are a) getting in front of prospects and b) keeping in touch. This latter part is particularly true of clients who are closely involved with delivery.

Be honest, it's not your strong point either, right?

And, truth be told, most Business Development Directors also struggle with the former part of actually getting in front of prospects, because once they're up and running they're usually focused on managing relationships rather than hunting new business.

So the solution is simple, don't try to hire a whole Business Development Director, full or part-time. Outsource the elements that you most need support with - the prospecting and pipeline management.

For many clients, the real value we deliver comes from having someone who is nurturing those prospects until there is a real opportunity.

Labels: business development, new business agency, new business development

This is one of my favourite sayings from Bill Good (read his book "Hot Prospects").

Even though the book's been updated (it includes a chapter on Google) Bill's an old school trainer on prospecting systems. I first read one of his books when I ran a sales team back in the early 90's and his pragmatic style and no-nonsense approach influenced me greatly.

"Prospects are located not created" is a fundamental fact of prospect marketing.

And when you think about it, prospect marketing is basically the opposite to search marketing. It's the Yang to Google's Ying, if you will.

Search has undoubtedly changed the face of business-to-business marketing. Compared with just 10 years ago; it's now easier for prospects to find you.

Or should I say, it's now easier for prospects to find enough vendors to give them what they want.

Because there's the rub.

Searching Google (and let's face it, in the UK that's 90% of searches) will give you some alternatives, but it'll not show you everything.

If you're not in the handful of suppliers a prospect looks at (either through organic or paid search) then you're not in the game. And, of course, the term search implies that prospects know what they're looking for.

Many times, when we open doors for clients, the prospect is aware of a need but hasn't yet decided how they were going to fulfil that need.

They were looking for ideas.

Are they busy searching Google to find get new ideas? Sometimes.

But they're also going to conferences, chatting with their peers and meeting new and interesting suppliers.

When someone actively seeks them out and engages them in a conversation about these issues it's a welcomed call. And typically leads to new business with little competition (compared with a prospect that found you on google along with the other usual suspects).

Another reason I like the "located not created" phrase is that is implies a search, which is what prospect marketing is.

Our campaigns always start with sourcing data and names and then scoring and segmenting the data-set; we're searching before we pick up the phone or send an email.

And when we speak with a prospect we're asking questions to qualify their interest.

Sometimes we strike gold and the timing is perfect. More often, we identify a future need which requires nurturing.

Either way, our focus is not about creating a need; it's about finding a qualified opportunity.

Labels: b2b telemarketing, direct marketing, prospect marketing, search marketing

I recently attended Social Media 09 in London, which was a face-paced tour of social media comment, case studies and demos.

As usual at these excellent mashup event, there are always some nuggets of information which change your perceptions.

For me, a couple of speakers nailed it.

Mat Morison talked about how "social norms", rather than "business norms" are applicable within social media and Andrew Grill made the point that it's the same rules which apply to any social gathering, such as a networking event.

Now these may seem obvious, but if you look at how many people behave within social media you can see how the point isn't always grasped.

It's a bit like seeing someone at a networking event who's rushing from group to group, working the room and gathering business cards rather than engaging in meaningful conversations.

In a networking environment you'd just call them a jerk; on a linkedin group you'd call them a spammer.

Many of the speakers used a simple 3-step approach for brands using social media. I think that it's equally applicable for business development.

Firstly you listen. Next you respond. Finally you engage.

It reminds me of much of the advice about "networking" in the 90's so it makes perfect sense in the context of social media, such as a Linkedin group that you've just joined.

Listen to what's happening and wait for an opportunity to respond.

Finally, once you understand the tone of the group you can initiate a discussion.

I kind of think that if more people took this approach then every LinkedIn group wouldn't have those "featured discussions" laying down the rules.

Labels: business development, social media, social networking sites