Category Archives: Marketing

The Holy Grail of Enterprise Sales: Proving a Repeatable Sales Process

(This is the second in a three-part restructuring and build-out of a previous post.  See note [1] for details.)

In the prior post we introduced repeatable sales process as the Holy Grail of enterprise software sales and, unlike some who toss the term around rather casually, we defined a repeatable sales process as meaning you have six things:

  1. Standard hiring profile
  2. Standard onboarding program
  3. Standard support ratios
  4. Standard patch
  5. Standard kit
  6. Standard sales methodology

The point of this, of course, is to demonstrate that given these six standard elements you can consistently deliver a desirable, standard result.

The surprisingly elusive question is then, how to measure that?

  • Making plan?  This should be a necessary but not sufficient condition for proving repeatability.  As we’ll see below, you can make plan in healthy as well as unhealthy ways (e.g., off a small number of reps, off disproportionate expansion and weak new logo sales).
  • Realizing some percentage of your sales capacity?  I love this — and it’s quite useful if you’ve just lost or cut a big chunk of your salesforce and are ergo in the midst of a ramp reset — but it doesn’t prove repeatability because you can achieve it in both good and bad ways [2].
  • Having 80% of your salesreps at 100%+ of quota?  While I think percent of reps hitting quota is the right way to look at things, I think 80% at 100% is the wrong bar.

Why is defaulting to 80% of reps at 100%+ of quota the wrong bar?

  • The attainment percentage should vary as function of business model: with a velocity model, monthly quotas, and a $25K ARR average sales price (ASP), it’s a lot more applicable than with an enterprise model, annual quotas, and a $300K ASP.
  • 80% at 100%+ means you beat plan even if no one overperforms [3] – and that hopefully rarely happens.
  • There is a difference between annual and quarterly performance, so while 80% at 100% might be reasonable in some cases on an annual basis, on a quarterly basis it might be more like 50% — see the spreadsheet below for an example.
  • The reality of enterprise software is that performance is way more volatile than you might like it to be when you’re sitting in the board room
  • When we’re looking at overall productivity we might look at the entire salesforce, but when we’re looking at repeatability we should look at recently hired cohorts. Does 80% of your third-year reps at quota tell you as much about repeatability – and the presumed performance of new hires – as 80% of your first-year reps cohort?

Long story short, in enterprise software, I’d say 80% of salesreps at 80% of quota is healthy, providing the company is making plan.  I’d look at the most recent one-year and two-year cohorts more than the overall salesforce.  Most importantly, to limit survivor bias, I’d look at the attrition rate on each cohort and hope for nothing more than 20%/year.  What good is 80% at 80% of quota if 50% of the salesreps flamed out in the first year?  Tools like my salesrep ramp chart help with this analysis.

Just to make the point visceral, I’ll finish by showing a spreadsheet with a concrete example of what it looks like to make plan in a healthy vs. unhealthy way, and demonstrate that setting the bar at 80% of reps at 100% of quota is generally not realistic (particularly in a world of over-assignment).

If you look at the analysis near the bottom, you see the healthy company lands at 105% of plan, with 80% of reps at 80%+ of quota, and with only 40% of reps at 100%+ of quota.  The unhealthy company produces the same sales — landing the company at 105% of plan — but due to a more skewed distribution of performance gets there with only 47% of reps at 80%+ and only a mere 20% at 100%+.

In our final post in this series, we’ll ask the question:  is repeatability enough?

# # #

Notes

[1] I have a bad habit, which I’ve been slowly overcoming, to accidently put real meat on one topic into an aside of a post on a different one.  After reading the original post, I realized that I’d buried the definition of a repeatable sales model and the tests for having one into a post that was really about applying CMMI to the sales model.  Ergo, as my penance, as a service to future readers, and to help my SEO, I am decomposing that post into three parts and elaborating on it during the restructuring process.

[2] Unless you’ve had either late hiring or unexpected attrition, 80% of your notional sales capacity should roughly be your operating plan targets.  So this is point is normally subtly equivalent to the prior one.

[3] Per the prior point, the typical over-assignment cushion is around 20%

The Holy Grail of Enterprise Sales: Defining the Repeatable Sales Process

(This is the first in a three-part restructuring and build-out of the prior post.  See note [1] for details.)

The number one question go-to-market question in any enterprise software startup is:  “do you have a repeatable sales process?” or, in more contemporary Silicon Valley patois, “do you have a repeatable sales motion?”

It’s one of the key milestones in startup evolution, which proceed roughly like:

  • Do you have a concept?
  • Do you have a working product?
  • Do you have any customer traction (e.g., $1M in ARR)?
  • Have you established product-market fit?
  • Do you have a repeatable sales process?

Now, when pressed to define “repeatable sales process,” I suspect many of those asking might reply along the same lines as the US Supreme Court in defining pornography:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced… but I know it when I see it …”

That is, in my estimation, a lot of people throw the term around without defining it, so in the Kelloggian spirit of rigor, I thought I’d offer my definition:

A repeatable sales process means you have six things:

  1. Standard hiring profile
  2. Standard onboarding program
  3. Standard support ratios
  4. Standard patch
  5. Standard kit
  6. Standard sales methodology

All of which contribute to delivering a desirable, standard result.  Let’s take a deeper look at each:

  1. You hire salesreps with a standard hiring profile, including items such as years of experience, prior target employers or spaces, requisite skills, and personality assessments (e.g., DiSC, Hogan, CCAT).
  2. You give them a standard onboarding program, typically built by a dedicated director of sales productivity, using industry best practices, one to three weeks in length, and accompanied by ongoing clinics.
  3. You have standard support ratios (e.g., each rep gets 1/2 of a sales consultant, 1/3 of an SDR, and 1/6 of a sales manager).  As you grow, your sales model should also use ratios to staff more indirect forms of support such as alliances, salesops, and sales productivity.
  4. You have a standard patch (territory), and a method for creating one, where the rep can be successful.  This is typically a quantitative exercise done by salesops and ideally is accompanied by a patch-warming program [2] such that new reps don’t inherit cold patches.
  5. You have standard kit including tools such as collateral, presentations, demos, templates.  I strongly prefer fewer, better deliverables that reps actually know how to use to the more common deep piles of tools that make marketing feel productive, but that are misunderstood by sales and ineffective.
  6. You have a standard sales methodology that includes how you define and execute the sales process.  These include programs ranging from the boutique (e.g., Selling through Curiosity) to the mainstream (e.g., Force Management) to the classic (e.g., Customer-Centric Selling) and many more.  The purpose of these programs is two-fold:  to standardize language and process across the organization and to remind sales — in a technology feature-driven world — that customers buy products as solutions to problems, i.e., they buy 1/4″ holes, not 1/4″ bits.

And, most important, you can demonstrate that all of the above is delivering some desirable standard result, which will be the topic of the next post.

# # #

Notes

[1] I have a bad habit, which I’ve been slowly overcoming, to accidently put real meat on one topic into an aside of a post on a different one.  My favorite example:  it took me ~15 years to create a post on my marketing credo (marketing exists to make sales easier) despite mentioning it in passing in numerous posts.  After reading the prior post, I realized that I’d buried the definition of a repeatable sales model and the tests for having one into a post that was really about applying CMMI to the sales model.  Ergo, as my penance, as a service to future readers, and to help my SEO, I am decomposing that post into three parts and elaborating on it during the restructuring process.

[2] I think of patch-warming as field marketing for fallow patches.  Much as field marketing works to help existing reps in colder patches, why can’t we apply the same concepts to patches that will soon be occupied?  This is an important, yet often completely overlooked, aspect of reducing rep ramping time.

The Key to Branding Success: Staying in Character

Decades ago I had the pleasure of watching a branding video, created by a San Francisco ad agency, narrated by an advertising executive with a familiar voice who’d narrated scores of commercials [1].  It was, I believe, entitled Staying in Character and while I’ve searched the internet for it many times over the years — and just spent another hour unsuccessfully trying again — I’ve never managed to find it.

The video talked about the importance of brands staying in character in their marketing and advertising.  Sadly, nowadays, when you search for “brands staying in character,” you’re more likely to come up with an article about mascots than one about brand character.

All these thoughts were stirred up the other morning when I read this story about Hugh Grant.

Staying in Character used actors as one example, arguing that most actors’ worst movies are when they were (as the Hollywood expression goes) playing against type, such as John Wayne as a Roman centurion, Sylvester Stallone in Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, or Macaulay Culkin playing a psychopathic murderer.  While defying type entirely, or successfully playing against it, is undoubtedly a great accomplishment for an actor, most audiences don’t like it.

We want John Wayne as the tough lawman, Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa, and the Home Alone kid as the Home Alone kid.   We want actors playing in type, not against it.

It’s a straight conflict of interest between the actor/product and the audience/consumer.  Hugh Grant wants to show the world that he can play a role other than the romantic Englishman.  However, just as we want our coffees customized at Starbucks and the restrooms clean at McDonald’s, we want Hugh Grant to be a romantic Englishman.  We don’t care if Hugh Grant is bored of being Hugh Grant.  That’s his problem.

Musicians have the same challenge.  They get tired of playing the same old songs and want to play their newer material, but the fans want to hear the classics [2].  James Taylor, ever humorous, put this well in discussing his hit cover of You’ve Got a Friend.

Taylor described the night he first heard songwriter Carole King perform the song. Taylor got so excited that, he said, “I literally ran to get my guitar and try to learn how to play it. Of course, I didn’t realize then I’d be playing it every night for the rest of my life.”

The other example I remember from the video was a discussion of Jack Daniels, who’s been credited with creating one of the longest-running advertising campaigns in history.  Here are two of their ads from the 1980s.

That’s branding.  It starts with the product and the packaging.  But it’s also as much about who you are as how you talk.  (By the way, isn’t that copywriting delightful?)

While storytelling is all the current marketing rage, and while these ads certainly tell stories, staying in character goes beyond the telling of individual stories to how you link numerous brand-building stories together over time.

Really, it’s about one thing:  consistency.

  • Defining who you are (your essence) and how you talk (your voice)
  • Consistently communicating your essence in your voice — always, never playing against type
  • Sticking with that come hell, high water, or — much more dangerously — a new CMO

It’s about you being you.  Or, for that matter, Hugh being Hugh.  And it’s why:

In the end, it’s about defining who you are, communicating it, and sticking with it.  That’s staying in character.  And it’s critical to any branding effort.

# # #

Notes

[1] Yesterday’s guess was Hal Riney, but I don’t think it was him.  The voice was too warm and not nasal enough.

[2] Even the Grateful Dead, despite their improvisational style, deep repertoire, and ever-changing setlists, fell subtly victim to the “what we want to play” vs. “what they want to hear” phenomenon.

Marketing Targeting: It’s Not Just Where You Fish, It’s What You Put on the Hook

Back in the day I was taught that marketers do three things, memorized via the acronym STP:  segment, target, position.

  • Divide the audience into different segments.  For example, dividing consumers by demographics or dividing businesses by size or industry.
  • Select the segments that the company wishes to target for its marketing.  For example, choosing small and medium businesses (SMB) as your target segment.
  • Position the product in the mind of the consumer, ideally in a unique way, providing differentiation and/or benefit [1].  For example, positioning your offering for the SMB segment as easy to deploy and inexpensive to own.

I’ve always thought of targeting as the answer to the question, “what list do I want to buy?”  Do I want buy a list of marketing directors at SMBs or a list of chief data officers (CDOs) at Fortune 1000 companies?

The list-buying metaphor extends nicely to events (what shows do these people attend), PR (what publications do they read), AR (to which influencers do they listen), some forms of digital advertising (e.g., LinkedIn where you have considerable targeting control), if not Google (where you don’t [2]).

For many people, that’s where the targeting discussion ends.  When most people think of targeting they think of where on the lake they want to fish.

While an angler would never forget this, marketers too often miss that what you put on the hook matters, too.  Fishing in the same part of the lake, an angler might put on crayfish for largemouth bass, worms for rainbow trout, or stinkbait for catfish.

It’s not just about who you’re speaking to; it’s about what you tell them — the bait, if you will, that you put on the hook.

Perhaps this is too metaphorical, so let’s take an example — imagine we sell financial planning and budgeting software to businesses and our target segment is small businesses between $0M to $50M in revenue.  Via some marketing channels we can communicate only to people in this segment, but through a lot of other important channels (e.g., Google Ads, SEO, content marketing), we cannot.  So we need to rely not only on our targeting, but our message, to control who we bring into the lead funnel.

Consider these two messages:

  • Plan faster and more efficiently with OurTool
  • End the misery and mistakes of planning on Excel

The first message pitches a generic benefit of a planning system and is likely to attract many different types of fish.  The second message specifically addresses the pains of planning on Excel.  Who plans on Excel?  Well, smaller businesses primarily [3].  So the message itself helps us filter for the kind of companies we want to attract.

Now, let’s pretend we’re targeting large enterprises, instead.  Consider these two messages.

  • End the misery and mistakes of planning on Excel
  • Integrate your sales and financial planning

The first message, as discussed above, is going to catch a lot of small fish.  The second message is about a problem that only larger organizations face — small companies are just trying to get a budget done, whereas larger ones are trying to get a more holistic view.  The second message far better attracts the enterprise target that you want.  As would, for example, a message about the pain and expense of budgeting on Hyperion.

I’ll close in noting that marketers who measure themselves by the number of fish they catch [4] — as opposed to the conversion of those fish into customers — will often resist the more focused message because you won’t set attendance records with the more selective bait.  So, as you perform your targeting, always remember three things:

  1. It’s about where you put the boat
  2. It’s also about the bait you put on the hook
  3. It’s not about the number of fish you catch, but the number of the right fish that you catch.

# # #

Notes

[1] The decision to emphasize differentiation or benefit is covered in The Two Archetypal Marketing Messages:  “Bags Fly Free” and “Soup is Good Food.”

[2] In a B2B sense, at least.

[3] Amazingly, a lot of large and very large businesses also plan on Excel, but let’s not confuse the exception for the rule or the point of the example — different messages attract different buyers.

[4] Either literally by putting KPIs on high-funnel metrics such as MQLs or, more subtly and more dangerously, by getting too much inner joy from high-funnel metrics (“look how many people came to our webinar!”)

Should Your SDRs Look for Projects or Pain?

There’s a common debate out there, it goes something like this:

“Our sales development representatives (SDRs) need to look for pain: finding business owners with a problem and the ability to get budget to go fix it.”

Versus:

“No, our SDRs need to look for projects: finding budgeted projects where our software is needed, and ideally an evaluation in the midst of being set up.”

Who’s right?

As once was once taught to me, the answer to every marketing question is “it depends” and the genius is knowing “on what.”  This question is no exception.  The answer is:  it depends.  And on:

  • Whether you’re in a hot or cold market.
  • Whether your SDR is working an inbound or outbound motion

I first encountered this problem decades ago rolling out Solution Selling (from which sprung the more modern Customer-Centric Selling).  Solution Selling was both visionary and controversial.  Visionary in that it forced sales to get beyond selling product (i.e., selling features, feeds, and speeds) instead focusing on the benefits of what the product did for the customer.  Controversial in that it uprooted traditional sales thinking — finding an existing evaluation was bad, argued Bosworth, because it meant that someone else had already created the customer’s vision for a solution and thus the buying agenda would be biased in their favor.

While I think Bosworth made an interesting point about the potential for wired evaluation processes and requests for proposal (RFPs), I never took him literally.  Then I met what I could only describe as “fundamentalist solution seller” in working on the rollout.

“OK, we we’re working on lead scoring, and here’s what we’re going to do:  10 points for target industry, 10 points for VP title or above, 10 points for business pain, -10 points for existing evaluation, and -10 points for assigned budget.”

Wut?

I’d read the book so I knew what Bosworth said, but, but he was just making a point, right?  We weren’t actually going to bury existing evaluations in the lead pile, were we?  All because the customer knew they wanted to buy in our category and had the audacity to start an evaluation process and assign budget before talking to us?

That would be like living in the Upside Down.  We couldn’t possibly be serious?  Such is the depth of religion often associated with the rollout of a new sales methodology.

Then I remembered the subtitle of the book (which everyone seems to forget).

“Creating buyers in difficult selling markets.”  This was not a book written for sellers in Geoffrey Moore’s tornado, it was book for written for those in difficult markets, tough markets, markets without a lot of prospects, i.e., cold markets.  In a cold market, no one’s out shopping so you have no choice but find potential buyers in latent pain, inform them a solution exists, and try to sell it to them.

Example:  baldness remedies.  Sure, I’d rather not be bald, but I’m not out shopping for solutions because I don’t think they exist.  This is what solution sellers call latent pain.  Thus, if you’re going to sell me a baldness remedy, you’re going need to find me, get my attention, remind me that I don’t like being bald, then — and this is really hard part — convince me that you have a solution that isn’t snake oil.  Such is life in cold markets.  Go look for pain because if you look for buyers you aren’t going to find many.

However, in hot markets there are plenty of buyers, the market has already convinced buyers they need to buy a product, so the question sellers should focus on is not “why buy one” but instead, “why buy mine.”

I’m always amazed that people don’t first do this high-level situation assessment before deciding on sales and marketing messaging, process, and methodology.  I know it’s not always black & white, so the real question is:  to what extent are our buyers already shopping vs. need to be informed about potential benefits before considering buying?  But it’s hard to devise any strategy without having an answer to it.

So, back to SDRs.

Let’s quickly talk about motion.  While SDR teams may be structured in many ways (e.g., inbound, outbound, hybrid), regardless of team structure there are two fundamentally different SDR motions.

  • Inbound.  Following-up with people who have “raised their hand” and shown interest in the company and its offerings.  Inbound is largely a filtering and qualification exercise.
  • Outbound.  Targeting accounts (and people within them) to try and mutate them into someone interested in the company and its offerings.  In other words, stalking:  we’re your destiny (i.e., you need to be our customer) and you just haven’t figured it out, yet.

In hot markets, you can probably fully feed your salesforce with inbound.  That said, many would argue that, particularly as you scale, you need to be more strategic and start picking your customers by complementing inbound with a combination of named-account selling, account-based marketing, and outbound SDR motion.

In cold markets, the proverbial phone never rings.  You have no choice but to target buyers with power, target pains, and convince them your company can solve them.

Peak hype-cycle markets can be confusing because there’s plenty of inbound interest, but few inbound buyers (i.e., lots of tire-kickers) — so they’re actually cold markets disguised as hot ones.

Let’s finally answer the question:

  • SDRs in hot markets should look for projects.
  • SDRs in cold markets should look for pain.
  • SDRs in hot markets at companies complementing inbound with target-account selling should look for pain.

 

Foreword to The Next CMO: A Guide to Marketing Operational Excellence

The folks at Plannuh, specifically Peter Mahoney, Scott Todaro, and Dan Faulkner, asked me to write the foreword for their new book, The Next CMO:  A Guide to Marketing Operational Excellence.  (Free download here.)

Here’s what I wrote for them.

CMO is a hard job. Early in my career I worked for CMOs, in sort of an endless revolving-door progression, at one point having 7 bosses in 5 years. I have been a CMO, for over 12 years at three different companies. I have managed CMOs, working as CEO for over a decade at two different companies. And I have guided CMOs, serving as an independent director on the board of five different companies.  Let’s just say I’ve spent a lot of time in and around the CMO role.

In the past two decades, no executive suite role has changed more and more quickly than the CMO. Marketers of yesteryear could focus on strategic positioning and branding, leaving such banalities as lead generation to sales-aligned field marketing teams, managing scraps of paper in cardboard boxes.

Sales and marketing automation systems changed everything. Concepts like pipeline, conversion rates, and velocity were born. From lead generation sprung lead nurturing. Attribution emerged to solve one of the world’s oldest marketing problems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) arrived at the scene, helping with areas like lead scoring and prioritization. The demand for analytics followed suit. Marketing ops arose as the cousin of sales ops.

Digital marketing changed everything again. Spend became even more accountable. Pay-per-click replaced pay-per-view which replaced just-pay. Targeting became more precise both via search and the rise of social media. Content marketing emerged to supplement declining traditional public relations. If yesterday’s marketing was leaflets dropped from airplanes, today’s is A/B-tested, laser-guided, call-to-action missiles.

Technology came at CMOs faster than they could keep up. Software could power your website, run your resource center, generate your landing pages, test your messaging, drive repeatable SDR processes, identify your ideal customer, drive account-based marketing, and even record and analyze prospect conversations.

What’s more, as CEOs and boards knew that entirely new classes of questions were becoming answerable, they started asking them.

  • What percent of the pipeline are prospects within our ideal customer profile?
  • What’s the stage-weighted expected value of the pipeline?
    Forecast-category weighted?
  • What’s our week 3 pipeline conversion rate for new logo vs upsell opportunities?
  • What’s our cost per opportunity and how does it vary by channel and geography?
  • What’s marketing’s contribution to our customer acquisition cost (CAC) ratio and how are we improving it?

And dozens and dozens more.

The hardest job in the C-suite got harder. Today’s CMOs need to be visionary strategists by day and operational tacticians by night. Operational marketing has become the sine qua non of modern marketing. If the website is optimized, if the demand generation machine is running effectively, if marketing events are executed flawlessly, if quality pipeline is being generated efficiently, if that pipeline is converting in line with industry benchmarks, and if and only if all that is being done within the constraints of the marketing budget — spending neither too little nor too much — then and only then does the CMO get the chance to be “strategic.”

Operational excellence is thus a necessary but not sufficient condition for CMO success. So it’s well worth mastering and this book is the ideal guide to building and managing your own integrated marketing machine.

There’s no one better to write this book than the leadership team at Plannuh, Peter, Scott, and Dan. With their experience running marketing teams from startups through multi-billion dollar public companies, teaching and mentoring generations of marketers, and now building a platform that codifies their thinking into a scalable SaaS platform, this guide is certain to raise the IQ of your marketing function.

– Dave Kellogg

How To Get Sales and Marketing Working Together (Presentation)

I spoke this morning to a private equity (PE) firm’s gathering of portfolio company CEOs, CROs, and CMOs.  Our topic, one of my favorites, was how to get sales and marketing working together to drive business results.  While I talked about the predictable subject of alignment, I covered it with an interesting three-level angle (philosophical, strategic, operational).  I prefaced the alignment discussion with examples of what typically goes wrong in the sales/marketing relationship, later revealing that I believe most of the commonly-observed “problems” between sales and marketing are, in fact, symptoms of four underlying problems:

  • Unrealistic plans
  • Function-led mentality
  • Blame culture
  • Non-alignment

I’ve embedded the presentation below and it’s also available on Slideshare.