Maine Associates

Is it really worth it for just 15 minutes?

2010-01-27T11:35:00.003Z

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.

Pimping trust - do paid referrals really work?

2010-01-18T09:42:00.004Z

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.

Outsourcing B2B telemarketing for complex products and services.

2010-01-06T11:59:00.004Z

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 :-)

3 reasons why you don't need a full-time Business Development Director

2009-12-02T10:13:00.007Z

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.

Prospects are located not created

2009-11-23T14:32:00.003Z

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.

Social rules for social media

2009-11-16T12:40:00.006Z

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.

Do you have a sustainable model to generate new business?

2009-11-03T12:41:00.004Z

I was speaking with a client recently and we were discussing how the business climate seems to be improving.

Budgets are starting to thaw and prospects will at least speak with you... but we both agreed that things are unlikely to go back to "the way it was" anytime soon.

New business in the current climate is best characterised as follows:

1) "Jumping through hoops" - decisions take longer and lower-level investments are attracting higher-level scrutiny.

2) "Show me the money" - ROI is paramount and you need to clearly demonstrate the value you will deliver.

3) "More for less" - clients are re-configuring or watering-down large engagements to mitigate exposure and demand more for their budgets.

Now, whilst none of this may be startling news to any of us running business services firms over the last 12 months, it does throw up an interesting question:

Is this just a passing phase and an example of tactical, survival-based decisions by vendors and clients... or is this "business as usual" for the next few years?

I guess that depends on whether you subscribe to a V-shape recovery or whether you think it's going to be a long slow climb up. If you're in the latter camp, you might see this as an opportunity to re-shape your business to a more sustainable model.

What do I mean by sustainable?

Well, for example, I know of a major consulting firm who, in the last six months, have been over resourcing projects at no cost to the client just to avoid pulling people back to the bench.

This may be a sound short-term tactic to avoid losing talent but it's clearly not sustainable? If business does indeed rapidly bounce back then it could be the right choice since it enables the firm to quickly fulfil demand once the floodgates open.

Otherwise, it's just delaying the inevitable and handing an advantage to leaner competitors who can offer a more sustainable alternative.

Whatever you believe, there's some merit in looking at your current model and thinking in terms of sustainability.

As an example, at Maine Associates, we've always had a shared-risk engagement model, with some fixed fees and some upside. Sustainability for us means delivering new business revenue for clients within a timescale that allows them to continue their investment with us.

In the current climate that's been tough.

The approach we have taken is to re-configure engagements so that they deliver more "quick wins" and shift more of our fee earnings to a % share new business won. This enables clients to both commit to working with us over a longer period (which is necessary to develop a new business pipeline) and generate short-term revenue from our activities.

Crucially, as a model, this is sustainable for both parties.

It's not a short-term deal that we'll whip away when business picks up. If we do get a V-shape recovery and business bounces back then we'll share in our clients' success.

But if it's a long slow recovery, then our model enables both parties to maintain a relationship that's sustainable.

ExecPitch - new LinkedIn group

2009-10-17T05:19:00.002+01:00

I've started a new group on LinkedIn called ExecPitch: "It's Dragon's Den meets the boardroom... on LinkedIn"

Our business is all about pitching targeted executives direct with new business ideas. Whether it's to get a meeting, a referral, or even funding, this outreach approach is the bedrock of business development.

But, with the rise of social media, I was wondering whether there was another way?

What if you could pitch a global audience of executives with your business idea and inspire some of them to take action?

I imagined something a bit like Dragons Den but pitching to a broader audience than investors and using an online platform rather than face-to-face.

From my experience of pitching senior executives, I know that they are open to hearing new business ideas; the problem is that they are time-poor.

Groups on LinkedIn (like a lot of social media and Web 2.0) are effectively crowdsourcing solutions; the pitches that get the most attention will get the most attention.

Great pitches will get followed most and, because this is social media, there is always the opportunity for your pitch to get accelerated globally both within the group's members' networks and outside of LinkedIn).

The cream rises to the top, as they say.

So, if you're open to discover new vendors with business ideas that could potentially transform your business... or you're a vendor who's willing to put your pitch out there... jump in and join ExecPitch.

Survey on B2B Technology Collateral

2009-09-25T07:07:00.005+01:00

I recently found an interesting survey on marketing collateral for B2B technology vendors. "Eccolo Media 2009 B2B Technology Collateral Survey Report".

There's alot of detail in here about trends, etc but a couple of key points are that white papers are still the most influential form of collateral influencing technology purchasers and that it's "highly viral" in nature.

The last point is very interesting when you consider that the survey found "nearly as many (85 percent) share case studies; 81 percent share brochures/data sheets; 80 percent podcasts; and 79 percent video"

This seems to echo our experience where we often use white-papers, case-studies and "thought-leadership" collateral as a tool to both engage and develop relationships within a prospect organisation.

Indeed, the survey makes it clear that "collateral acts as the 'front door' to the sales process.

Another interesting area is the channel preference: "A download from a direct response campaign was the second most frequently used channel for receiving a white paper, behind the corporate Web site. This implies both the frequency with which the white papers are used as direct response offers, and the respondents' preferences to receive them through this channel"

Just as this survey has seen the use of video rise in last years. I think this is one area where social media marketing will dramatically increase. At the moment it's behind direct response but I definitely see that changing.

After all, I found this piece of collateral via the Inbound Marketers group on LinkedIn.

Is this really the end of 'push' marketing for B2B?

2009-09-14T15:48:00.004+01:00

In a recent interactive poll for B2B marketing magazine, 80% of it's readers voted "Yes" to the question "Should B2B be focusing all it's efforts on 'pull' marketing (otherwise known as 'outside-in' marketing) therefore turning its back on 'push' marketing techniques (known as 'inside-out')?"

I find that staggering!

80% of B2B marketers think they should be focusing all their efforts on 'pull' marketing.

Whilst I'm not surprised to find myself in the minority with all the buzz and hype around how on-line and social media has changed the B2B landscape, I still find it amazing that so many B2B marketers are prepared to throw out proven push marketing tactics such as DM and telemarketing.

I totally agree that the landscape has changed, and that returns on some traditional direct marketing tactics are falling, but equally, many of the stars of 'pull' marketing, such as social media, still have to deliver tangible and robust ROI.

Like many things in life, it's seldom a "either-or" choice; it's about how you choose the best of all available options to deliver the results you need.

OK Twitter, you win - I've given in

2009-09-08T17:56:00.003+01:00

The jury's out but, with some degree on scepticism, I've decided to start a twitter account.

As I've posted on my blog before, see Is Twitter a B2B marketing channel? I'm still trying to work out where the return is (truth be told, I'm sure everyone else is too!) but I've seen a growing number of clients, associates, prospects and organisations I know join so... who knows?

If you're interested in my 140 character musings - follow me here

Do you need a telemarketing sprinter or endurance athlete?

2009-07-24T10:05:00.003+01:00

I'm currently in the middle of a campaign with one of my associates that reminds me how tough telemarketing can be at times.

It also underlines my view that you need different types of telemarketers for different campaigns (which is also one of the advantages our associate model).

Just like different sports, I think that there are different styles of campaigns that demand a different approach and temperament of telemarketer.

Using the analogy of cycling, since I've been following the Tour de France recently, in one camp you have the "sprinters".

These are people are best to deliver power over short distances, much like a short, very targeted telemarketing campaign. Think here about niche campaigns with a small list of targeted contacts that require a specialist touch.

Great sprinters, from a telemarketing perspective, are specialists with deep domain expertise. This enables them to maximise results over a short distance (which means a small list). It's all about power; they're typically referred to as "heavy hitters".

We've got a number of associates that fit into this bracket. Typically, though, they're not that good at longer campaigns which require more stamina to complete.

For that, you need an endurance expert.

These telemarketers are the ones that legends are written about. Calling into functions such as IT, HR & Marketing has become a herculean task.

Most of these people have put in place systems and protocols to stop you getting through. It's an often hostile environment that requires a think skin and determination to keep going. Dial rates of 120+ a day are not uncommon, and expect to only actually pitch less than 10 decision makers a day.

Attributes of telemarketers in this category include perseverance and a dogged determination to keep going. They know their numbers and watch metrics such as dial and pitch rates since they know that if they speak to enough people they will deliver.

Again, we have some excellent associates who are endurance specialists. They are a rare breed are are the real deal when it comes to old school cold calling.

So, as ever, it's all about horses for courses, as they say.

If you have a niche proposition with a small target universe, invest in a heavy-hitter who can make every call count. Just don't expect them to put in days on the phone or bother about how many dials they did.

If you have a more generic offering, possible targeting SME's or the mid-market, then you are going to need someone who can crank out the calls and keep going when others give up.

Occasionally, you can get people who can do both. Jonathan Vaughters, team manager of Garmin (in the Tour de France), says: "In athletics, you can turn a miler into a marathon runner, but you can't do it the other way round."

I'd agree with that in telemarketing too.

A heavy-hitter, which the right attitude, can pound the phones like the best of them. However, in my experience, the traditional endurance telemarketers struggles with the short campaign as their style often relies on a high % of blow-outs before they strike.

With small campaigns you just don't have that luxury.

Using telemarketing to re-engage dead leads and convert more stalled deals

2009-07-15T13:38:00.005+01:00

I read a recent article featured on DemandGen Report, Four Keys to Converting Stalled Leads into Closed Sales During A Downturn, which looks at approaches you can take to recycle "dead" leads and convert more of those stalled deals.

As Dave Green says in his article, "the slowdown in the economy has created longer selling cycles and smaller deal sizes", which is something I certainly agree with.

Dave suggests that one way to recycle those dead or stalled deals is to run a professional telemarketing campaign to understand what the problem is. This could be done as a market research project and the resulting information can be used to offer incentives that address the problems of delay.

This is an excellent way of re-engaging with leads that the sales team have lost traction with. In my experience, sales will too easily write off deals which, with a different approach, can be possibly brought back to life.

Telemarketing can be used either to re-engage or, at the very least, further qualify whether the opportunity can indeed be salvaged.

I also like Dave's comment that "no matter how sophisticated the automated nurturing process is, there is no substitute for human interaction."

It's good to hear that coming from a well respected demand generation guru.

Telemarketing Lead Generation: when is telemarketing the best lead generation tactic?

2009-07-06T14:09:00.004+01:00

If you're thinking of running a lead generation campaign, telemarketing is still an effective B2B marketing tactic to consider.

Obviously it's not the only lead generation tactic and, if you read the marketing press, you'd think that everyone had dropped telemarketing lead generation in favour of "social media" or "twitter". But, when it comes to ROI, telemarketing is still a solid direct marketing tactic for lead generation.

So, when is it best to use telemarketing for lead generation?

Here are 3 situations which make telemarketing an ideal tactic for lead generation:

1) In early stage markets - if you're selling new technology, or are in an early stage market, then you can guarantee that your prospects are not looking for you. That's not to say they're not looking for solutions to their particular problem, it's just that they don't yet know your product or service exists.

In these circumstances, you need to educate the market. A telemarketing lead generation campaign is ideal for this situation as it is all about starting a dialogue.

2) Against established competitors - unlike above, here there's an established market with existing "players". Very often these competitors are the "usual suspects" that prospects turn to when they are looking for RFP's or solutions.

In this situation, you need to break in and get their attention otherwise they'll simply continue with the people they know. Again, using telemarketing as a means of opening a dialogue is ideal.

You should note that each of the above examples needs a slightly different approach and objective. A campaign to build awareness for your business against incumbent competitors will be different to one where you are educating the market.

3) Targeting a "wish-list" - a third way to consider whether telemarketing is a suitable lead generation tactic is when you have a highly targeted "wish-list" of companies. Typically this implies a small list of businesses, less than 200 companies for example.

Why is this a good fit with telemarketing?

Well, if you know that your proposition is ideal for a very small target market (perhaps based on a number of firmographics such as turnover, ownership, etc) then you need to make sure that you maximise every possible opportunity available.

Essentially, you can't afford to sit back and wait for them to come to you.

In all three examples there's a common theme: control. Telemarketing is all about pushing out into the market and taking control of the lead generation process.

As I said at the beginning of this post, telemarketing is not fashionable at this time. Read the press and you'd believe that marketing today is only about "permission-based", "online" and "social media".

Google may be great, but if you're selling something that your audience is not looking for (yet) then all the adwords budget in the world will not deliver the leads you need.

Likewise, if you want to break into a competitive market with established, better resourced incumbents then you need to engage before the buying process starts.

In the right circumstances, telemarketing still remains an effective lead generation tactic.

Telemarketing & Digital Agencies Acquired

2009-06-24T12:31:00.003+01:00

Interesting news from Brand Republic that Blueview has acquired digital agency Glass and B2B telemarketing firm Logicall.

It's looks like a logical (no pun intended) move for Blueview since they're building an agency offering "multi-channel customer management" solutions.

I'm particularly interested in the news because, if you read any of the B2B marketing press for the past 12 months, you'd be forgiven for thinking that telemarketing was dead and everything was about "digital".

Telemarketing still remains and effective part of the B2B marketing mix and, as Blueview seems to believe, if it's integrated with other marketing channels it becomes even more effective.

I believe this will be a trend that continues.

Whether that means further integration with the industry or an expansion of multi-channel services from traditional telemarketing agencies, we'll have to see. Or maybe even both.

I know from our side we are running more email marketing (digital) campaigns backed up with telemarketing. Throw in micro-sites built specific to campaigns and you can see how the two disciplines are becoming more integrated.

As I said, it's certainly a trend that will continue.

Seth Godin says telemarketing is in trouble

2009-06-08T12:36:00.005+01:00

I've recently finished reading the excellent Meatball Sundae by Seth Godin.

In his book Seth maps out 14 trends that are shaping the business world and suggests that the winners will be the companies which align their business model with what he calls "New Marketing".

Unsurprisingly, since this book is from the guru of permission marketing, Seth says in the executive summary that Old Marketing tactics such as telemarketing and cold calling "are all in trouble"

I didn't exactly spit out my coffee at that point but it did make me sit up :-)

The thing is that Seth's talking about telemarketing as a "mass marketing" media, since he compares it with Network TV and newspapers.

And in that sense, he's absolutely right.

Mass-market telemarketing, which is typically B2C, is dead. As I've posted about previously (see Ethical Telemarketing Companies? Now I know we're in trouble!) unsolicited cold calling to consumers just doesn't work any more.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Telemarketing can still be extremely effective as a marketing tactic and, in certain situations, can deliver far better results than other, often over-hyped, digital marketing tactics.

As long as it's highly targeted and relevant then outbound telemarketing can not only be effective but it can also be well received (I posted about this a year ago Google ads show us the future of cold-calling).

My view is that telemarketing is already shifting to higher value, more complex sales propositions where it can still deliver a strong ROI.

Will telemarketing ever become extinct as a marketing tactic?

I guess that if it no longer delivers a return-on-investment then the answer's yes. Or if legislation comes out to ban it's use in business-to-business.

At the moment, though, if you need to reach senior decision makers and key influencers in business, high-targeted telemarketing can still deliver.

Telephone Sales - that's so 1999!

2009-06-05T09:19:00.007+01:00

Even though I've been in the telesales business for over 20 years (I ran a telesales team back in 1989 for an IT services company), I'm always interested in reading books on the subject. You never know, you just might pick up a real gem of an idea.

Anyway, I was looking Art Sobczak's Telesales Blog and saw a recommended book that's not in my library called Successful Sales Managers Guide to Telephone Sales.

Cool, I thought, let's have a look at this one. But, then, something stopped me dead in my tracks - it was published in 1999!

Now, in some ways, 1999 isn't that long ago. But in the world of telesales it's an eternity.

In a way, the title of the book gives it away - "Telephone Sales".

I was chatting the other day to one of our associates who worked in one of the first telemarketing companies back in the 80's. We were talking about how the game has changed so much in that time.

For a start, there was no voicemail. Not to mention the fact that people were actually happy to chat with you :-) No email. No web.

Today, at some levels within an organisation, you can call all day and not reach anyone. And that's exactly why the tactics that worked in the 80's, and even back in 1999, just don't cut it anymore.

Back in 1999 I was a regional sales manager for a company selling IT solutions for manufacturing (the fact we were selling to manufacturing dates the story for a start!) In those days, you would ask a prospect, "do you have an email address?".

The game has changed.

The description "Telephone Sales" just isn't accurate any more.

Telephone, voicemail and email are all daily tools. Today, we set up as many appointments by email as we do by phone. Social networking sites like LinkedIn and web based research tools have become critical in positioning your approach. Web demos have become the norm for software telesales.

But in a few years time we may be saying... that's so 2009!

Inside Sales Metrics

2009-05-08T10:20:00.004+01:00

I came across an interesting piece on Inside Sales from the Bridge Group based in the US.

They've published a "Periodic Table of Inside Sales Metrics", which is an interesting way of presenting many of the metrics they've researched.

The Bridge Group specialises in consulting on Inside Sales for technology vendors and their president, Trish Bertuzzi, is founder and manager of the Inside Sales Experts group on LinkedIn.

Looking at the metrics they present, there are some interesting ones from a telesales perspective (what we would typically refer to "Inside Sales" as in the UK)

Under lead generation, the average quota for appointments per inside sales rep is 16 per month. Also, the average hours per day on the phone for lead generation is 4 hours.

Now, I know from reading other articles published by The Bridge Group that many of the inside sales people surveyed are also responding to and qualifying inbound leads so this doesn't mean that 4 hours a day, 20 days a week generates 16 appointments from outbound cold calling.

To me, that's not a million miles off our experience in lead generation and appointment setting for technology vendors.

We figure that one of our team (focused purely on outbound lead generation) can generate a qualified appointment every 1 to 1.5 days for a technology proposition.

Based on The Bridge Group's figures their on quota average is 1.4 per day but, as I said, that will be a mixture of inbound and outbound lead sources. Which means I think we're broadly on the same page.

Also, I liked the metric that that average ramp-up time for an inside sales rep was 4.5 months.

If only we had that long :-)

Build or buy: what's the best option for telemarketing data?

2009-04-20T16:58:00.003+01:00

For many companies, data is often an after-thought when planning a telemarketing campaign.

If you think that you can pull out a file that's sat on a PC for a couple of years, dust it down and off we go - think again.

Data is a key element in the success or failure of any telemarketing or telesales campaign. Telemarketing is a high-cost marketing medium, so it's critical that you give yourself the best possible chance by investing in good data.

When it comes to data, the best way to think about it is whether you should "build" or "buy".

"Build" means researching online and creating a bespoke database for specific companies. "Buy" means, well just that - buying (or more accurately renting) data from a list-broker or data provider.

Here's some things to consider:

1) Cost - building bespoke databases costs more than buying your data. However, if it means that you have a highly targeted list then you'll save time (and money) actually contacting the list.

2) Job title - if you need to reach a specific job title or area of responsibility within an organisation, you may not always be able to buy that data. Some data providers will supply contact names at a very granular level within all main functions. However, if you need to reach a very niche job title you may have to research it or try the approach in point 3 below.

3) Buy & Qualify - sometime a good approach is to buy data with an entry point and then use that contact to qualify and find the correct one. This works well where you're hunting for someone with a specific area of responsibility rather than a clearly defined job title. Typically you'd go for a more senior contact within the desired function and get referred to the right person.

4) Trigger Events - if your ideal prospect is best identified by specific circumstances that are happening within their organisation, such as mergers or acquisitions, you can subscribe to lists that will update you every month with new prospects. Other trigger events can include new appointments, people leaving, or new product announcements.

Essentially, the more niche your market the more value you'll get by investing highly targeted lists. If you have a much broader proposition, then it's often more cost-effective to buy more generic data and qualify by phone during the campaign.

Either way, the data you use will have a great impact on the results you get.

Ethical Telemarketing Companies? Now I know we're in trouble!

2009-04-13T08:08:00.003+01:00

I've noticed a few telemarketing companies have started to brand themselves as an "ethical telemarketing company".

As soon as I saw that I just knew that we're in trouble :-)

I mean, how bad has an industry got to get before your main point of differentiation is that you're "ethical".

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I start from the principal that you should be ethical in business full-stop, not just for the purpose of marketing spin.

It's not just telemarketing either. I recently read a report that said many players in the email marketing business have started to position themselves as the "best practice" specialists.

Best practice? Surely applying best practice should be a fundamental principal of any marketing agency?

Of course, what we're seeing here is what happens to any marketing medium that gets abused.

Go on YouTube and search for telemarketing and you'll see hundreds of videos showing recordings of idiot telemarketers being abused by the general public (all good fun). In B2C telemarketing they effectively broke their own market by over-use, to the point that they are now locked out by TPS and "Do Not Call" registers.

Email's going the same way. If the latest advances in anti-SPAM software doesn't kill it then you can bet some legislation is heading our way.

Can you remember when faxes came out? You'd get into the office in the morning and there'd be a mile of fax paper on the floor. That's why we got the FPS.

Direct marketers love cheap a marketing medium.

Getting back to the point about "ethical telemarketing", to me, I think it's just marketing spin.

There are good and bad companies in any industry. Over time, the good ones grow and the bad ones disappear. Telemarketing, as with email marketing, is one of those areas that is in demand and can be set up with very little overhead (just a phone in the case of telemarketing).

There are clear regulations which should be adhered to in different markets (such as the CTPS register in business-to-business) and I would suggest that most (if not all) telemarketing agencies already do that.

Despite all what I've said about abuse of cheap medium, there will still be a place for telemarketing or telesales. It'll be niche, highly targeted, and integrated with a multi-channel approach that links opt-in lists, email and other web services, but there'll still be a need to speak with prospects.

Can you remember "junk mail"? How much mail do you get through the post now? But guess what, there are still plenty of B2B DM agencies pulling good responses with highly targeted and personalised campaigns.

At the end of the day, ethics are more about the people you're dealing with. And the people who are making the calls on behalf of your company.

Personally, in my experience, when someone feels that they need to tell you they're ethical - it usually means that they're not.

Telemarketing or Telesales - what's the difference?

2009-04-06T18:54:00.004+01:00

I must admit, I'm not a purist about this one.

For many people "Telemarketing" and "Telesales" are inter-changeable descriptions for the role of sales lead generation and appointment setting.

I suppose, strictly speaking, you could describe them as:

Telemarketing - conducting marketing research, surveys, data-cleaning and generating marketing leads by telephone.

Telesales - actually closing business over the phone.

These are two extremes with telemarketing being the softer end of the spectrum and telesales being the sharper end (we clearly see ourselves at as the latter)

However, I've found that when most people are talking about "telesales" they're thinking about someone who's making calls to either generate leads or set up sales appointments.

Essentially, telemarketing and telesales are both seen as part of the sales process.

Interestingly, Wikipedia currently describes Telemarketing as follows:

Telemarketing (known as telesales in the UK and Ireland) is a method of direct marketing in which a salesperson solicits to prospective customers to buy products or services, either over the phone or through a subsequent face to face or Web conferencing appointment scheduled during the call.

I thought the "known as telesales in the UK and Ireland" was interesting.

Certainly, I know a number of US based "telemarketers" who would always consider themselves salespeople, so maybe Wikipedia's got that one right.

Either way, whether it's telemarketing or telesales, it's always about the same thing - opening doors and closing deals.

Why telemarketing professionals don't use scripts

2009-04-05T18:33:00.011+01:00

Script or no script? That is one question that I think divides opinions about telemarketing.

If you've read my blog before then it'll be no surprise that I come down firmly on the "No Script" side (see my post "Stop reading & start listening!" as an example).

But there's still a lot of people out there who will tell you that to be successful with telemarketing you need a "killer script". Just google "telemarketing script" and you'll find plenty of people hawking that holy grail.

There are a number of sales trainers that I agree with on almost every aspect of cold calling and prospecting but when it comes down to scripts I just don't buy it.

The thing is, I've never met a seasoned telemarketing professional who actually uses a script.

If you're working with telemarketers in a traditional call-centre (where they've been dragged off the street, sat down in front of a phone and told to start dialling) then a script is probably necessary. For anyone new to telemarketing in fact, it's probably a good starting point as it gives you an idea of the structure of a call. But that's all it should be, a starting point.

Because, if you've ever received a call from someone reading a telemarketing script - I don't need to tell you why they just don't work.

The reality is that anyone who's been prospecting/telemarketing for any length of time (and all our people have at least 10 years cold-calling experience) will tell you that they don't use a script.

However, that doesn't mean that they don't know what they're going to say.

All telemarketing pros start each call with a plan of what they want to get out of it. They've done their homework before they pick up the phone so they understand exactly what they're calling about.

At Maine Associates, we work through a client briefing process so that our people can understand your business, learn the key messaging and positioning and prepare themselves for the campaign.

They'll typically have notes tagged to their monitor or stuck on the wall in front of them; they'll create a cheat-sheet with key points and messages on it. All this preparation means that when they actually speak with a prospect they know exactly what they want to say.

This frees them up to focus on the real job in hand, which is their call plan.

A telemarketing call is just a conversation. And if you know what you want out of the conversation (your call plan) then you don't need to read a script.

You can boil down any telemarketing call to just three steps: get their attention, tell them why you're calling and then ask them for what you want.

I've read many telemarketing scripts and they really do boil down to these basic steps. Sure, they'll be padded with lots of conditional branching, etc but they all follow a similar format. Most telemarketing companies that prepare a script just pull out a boiler-plate and drop in the company name and a copy of "what they do" pulled from a the client's website.

The other thing about each call being a conversation is that there will be a number of questions back and forth. Questions are essentially about qualification; the telemarketer's asking questions to qualify the prospect and the prospect is asking questions to understand if it's of interest.

Which is why you need to really know your stuff, rather than just read it off a script. No amount of branches in a script with cover every twist and turn of a live conversation.

And here's something that every seasoned telemarketer will tell you. After a while (which could be after a few hours or a few days) gradually a "pitch" evolves.

Now, to be clear, a pitch is not a script.

A pitch is basically an approach, an angle, that the telemarketer has found works for them. Two telemarketers could have a completely different pitch and still get results. That's because a pitch is something that comes from within.

When you know your subject matter, know what you want to get out of the call, and have spoken with a number of prospects, a pitch just starts to come together. You begin to notice the words that hit home and start to find a way around the common objections.

All good telemarketing professionals instinctively know when they've got their pitch.

Now, of course, the script brigade will you you that you write down your pitch and then you've got a script to hand over to someone else. But, for me, that's missing the point (plus I still don't think it would work).

Probably one of the main reasons I don't like scripts is that they take away a persons natural talent. It de-humanises the process (both for the telemarketer and their prospect)

I've found that the reason people insist on telemarketers reading their scripts is because they just don't trust them.

In my experience, marketers are the most guilty of this; they usually think that they can write the script best as they know how to write copy. Guess what, a telemarketing call isn't a prospect listening to someone reading sales copy at them.

Telemarketing is all about people.

Teach your people about your business, your value proposition and what qualifies as a lead and then let them get on with it.

By all means, monitor the results early on to speed up learning and help refine the pitch (we have regular conference calls during the first few weeks of any campaign) but, if you're working with experienced telemarketing professionals, trust that they know what they're doing and will develop their own way of making it work.

In the end, you only use a script if you (or your telemarketing company) don't trust the people making the calls.

And if you don't trust them, do you really want them calling your potential clients or customers?

Is Twitter a B2B marketing channel?

2009-03-31T07:53:00.006+01:00

Maybe it was the blog title "If You're an Over 40 Marketing Professional You Must Wake up and Understand the Importance of Twitter" that caught my attention because I've pretty much managed to avoid the phenomenon of twitter so far.

I must admit, I still think of twitter as an inane stream of pointless "tweets" of a "just got my morning paper" style. Who wants to know that?

Well, 4M people apparently.

So, when Salesforce.com announce that they're integrating twitter, it makes me think again.

I can see it in a service or support function, kind of a micro-blogging user group. And for major brands it must be great.

If you're a consultant, coach, trainer or some "guru" then I guess you could use it to get potential clients to follow you. I see a lot of tele-seminar tweets flying about and, to my mind, it fits well with a personality led business.

Getting your thought leadership positioning into 140 characters may be a challenge for many though.

Like other social media platforms, no doubt an MLM element is in there as I can see it's a great medium for recruiting network marketing agents and affiliates. "Just made another Zillion dollars, you must get in on this".

Twitter has certainly got the media's attention and that, more than anything, could be behind Salesforce.com's integration plans.

But, maybe that's just an over 40's perspective :-)

F1 shows that change is an opportunity for new business

2009-03-29T11:55:00.003+01:00

Anyone who's followed my blog over the years will know that I'm a bit of a F1 fan (see Hooray for the smaller F1 teams back in 2007).

Today we saw a historic moment when Brawn GP, risen from the ashes of Honda, made it a one-two in Australia.

For me, it illustrates perfectly the opportunity for new business in the current economic climate as smaller, more nimble businesses can take advantage of change and outmanoeuvre more established brands.

Whilst Maclaren and Ferrari had their eyes on the championship race last year, Ross Brawn at Honda effectively scrapped their car and started working on building a race winner aimed at the impending rule changes for 2009.

He saw a change in the market and took full advantage of it while his competitors were focused on getting every ounce out of their current model.

Think about these elements in relationship to businesses in the current economic climate:

1) Change - just like the rule changes in F1, there are huge changes happening right now. For many it means a fundamental re-think of their business model. Larger, more established market players find change difficult are always slow to react.

2) Ownership - When Honda pulled out it presented Ross Brawn with an opportunity for a management buy out. No doubt, it wasn't easy, but it enabled a small private company to leverage the R&D might of a world-leading manufacturer.

An interesting article in the Sunday Times today "Picking Over The Scrap" forecasts that "huge numbers of firms and assets will change hands" in the coming months and years. That level of new ownerships will introduce changes that offer a excellent new business opportunities.

3) New Entrants - not only was Brawn GP a new entrant, it pulled in Richard Branson and Virgin into F1. Whilst ING and RBS wind down their sponsorship over the coming seasons, other sponsors will take their place (particularly as F1 looks to reduce its costs). New market entrants bring new opportunities.

So, whether you're a F1 fan or not, buckle yourself in as 2009 looks set to be both a disruptive and entertaining ride.

What's the ideal pilot for an appointment setting campaign?

2009-03-26T07:42:00.003Z

One of the things we always recommend when considering an appointment setting campaign is to run a pilot or proof-of-concept.

This is effectively a time-limited version of the intended campaign which enables us to test the waters.

To fully evaluate the success of a pilot appointment setting campaign it's important that you look at both the number of meetings that are booked as well as the quality of the meetings. To me, until you close that loop you can't effectively evaluate the success of any appointment setting campaign.

We've found that a 3 month period is the best period to make that judgement.

Here's why:

1) The first month of any campaign is about getting traction. For many high-level B2B propositions it's likely that it will take at least two touches to book the appointment. For example, as a minimum most people want something sent over by email and then followed up. All this takes time.

2) By the end of the first month you should start to see appointments being made. I say should because, after all, this is a pilot. Some pitches are just not that easy to nail and it can take us a number of iterations until we get it right. But, for the sake of this point, let's assume that we hit the ground running and book some meetings in Month 1. If they're with a senior decision maker (and, let's face it, who else do you want to see?) then they will certainly be around 3 to 4 weeks away. Which is Month 2, right?

3) So, in Month 2, if all is going to plan, you should have the opportunity to go on a number of sales appointments we've booked. This is your chance to judge the quality of the appointments. Are they with the right person? Are they correctly qualified? Will they progress to a proposal?

4) While you're attending the appointments, guess what, we're still working away to book more meetings for you. So, during Month 2 you should be not only be attending appointments, but you should be see a flow of new meetings. We also use the feedback from your initial appointments to help refine our qualification process.

5) Finally, Month 3 is all about replication of the process. If all is going well, we should be hitting somewhere near the run-rate for the campaign (this helps us determine the scope of any future or ongoing campaigns). If things were a little sticky in Month 1, we should now have a clear view of a working pitch and process. The pipeline of leads should be shaping up and we are usually in a position to predict results of a longer term campaign. Plus, some of the meetings you attended in Month 2 will be showing signs of life (or not) in the form of proposals, demos, 2nd meetings, etc.

For anyone used to B2B sales this process shouldn't come as any surprise.

Opening doors at senior levels isn't easy. It takes persistence and tenacity and, above all, time.