e that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talk

Those of us who work with sales organizations, especially with senior leaders, have an interesting vantage point of the ritual of sales, and how it unfolds in different organizations. From this perch we get to see these people in both “buying” and “selling” mode, and with that it has become very clear that with few exceptions, these leaders and their respective sales organizations sell very much like they buy.

This is no surprise as in most cases the nature and character of the whole sales organization is a reflection and extension of the VP of sales. After all they set the tone and direction, forming the foundation on which the culture of the organization is built. This can lead to both positive and negative consequences on their teams’ performance and success.

For example, I recently worked with a company that is a leader in their field, a provider of precision technology; six figure deals with six month cycles. The VP of Sales was looking to help his team maintain and improve their edge and increase their ability to engage and sell executives. He had worked with a number of sales improvement firms in the past and was keen to expand his teams’ knowledge and ability.

From the start, he was very clear as to how he was going to evaluate the providers he was talking with; what his key drivers were, how he would weigh and measure things; what he was willing to invest; what his must and nice to haves were. He was clear on his timelines for exploring, evaluating, deciding and committing. In hind site, when he did sign, he had very effectively executed his “buying process”. And it was no surprise that his team executed their clearly defined “sales process” consistently and efficiently. They were keen to improve, and worked hard to include the new methodology our program delivered. In fact this is the key reality behind why people DO sell like they buy. Many “sellers” do not have a “buying process”, many are not aware of the buyers’ process and its role in the sale. Some are not even cognizant that the important process at play is not their own “sales process”.

This is a common problem; many sales organizations pay only lip service to the prospects’ “buying process”. A study of information management product buyers, showed sellers are more often than not out of synch with their prospects’ buying process, timelines, decision criteria, etc. This is because most Sales VP’s do not have a buying process for their purchases, and therefore do not focus on its importance when they lead their teams. As a result, most are terrible buyers. I worked with another VP, nice guy, but terrible buyer; not terrible because he didn’t buy from me, he did! Terrible because of the way he went about buying. Unable to meet deadlines, constantly shifting priorities, procrastinating and hesitating throughout. Funny, because when he called us; he was concerned about the length of his teams sales cycles, he believed his people were letting the cycle linger, and lacked focus when they executed the “sales process”.

Another VP I met with last summer, a technology company; top quadrant in a crowded field, not quite a commodity play, but they were being challenged. They were experiencing difficulties acquiring, growing and maintaining clients. As you would expect they have a “sales process”. As is often the case, all the talk about the sales process was never balanced by an awareness or focus on the clients’ “buying process”.

When she was describing her challenge she knew what was “wrong”, she explained:

• Average deal was size $32,800, this was usually about 78% of list price
• Her staff is able to get the small revenue - - small margin deals, but is challenged as the deals get larger.
• Deals under $28,000 they were closing 56% of proposals, at between 80% - 85% originally proposed (list) price.
• Deals over $45,000, they were closing only 17% of proposals, and a great many of those at 60% - 65% of original proposed price.
• They were challenged calling the right people, high within companies in the target base.
• While they were seeing growth, year over year it was slower than their segment which was impacting market share.

When she first took the appointment she told me she has been working with a known global provider to achieve her sales training goals. She went to great length to reiterate this when we met; her current provider was “helping her achieve what they needed to once they were in front of a prospect”. This seemed to be at odds with the facts and stats she laid out a few minutes before. She did however acknowledge that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talki

n to expand his teams’ knowledge and ability.

From the start, he was very clear as to how he was going to evaluate the providers he was talking with; what his key drivers were, how he would weigh and measure things; what he was willing to invest; what his must and nice to haves were. He was clear on his timelines for exploring, evaluating, deciding and committing. In hind site, when he did sign, he had very effectively executed his “buying process”. And it was no surprise that his team executed their clearly defined “sales process” consistently and efficiently. They were keen to improve, and worked hard to include the new methodology our program delivered. In fact this is the key reality behind why people DO sell like they buy. Many “sellers” do not have a “buying process”, many are not aware of the buyers’ process and its role in the sale. Some are not even cognizant that the important process at play is not their own “sales process”.

This is a common problem; many sales organizations pay only lip service to the prospects’ “buying process”. A study of information management product buyers, showed sellers are more often than not out of synch with their prospects’ buying process, timelines, decision criteria, etc. This is because most Sales VP’s do not have a buying process for their purchases, and therefore do not focus on its importance when they lead their teams. As a result, most are terrible buyers. I worked with another VP, nice guy, but terrible buyer; not terrible because he didn’t buy from me, he did! Terrible because of the way he went about buying. Unable to meet deadlines, constantly shifting priorities, procrastinating and hesitating throughout. Funny, because when he called us; he was concerned about the length of his teams sales cycles, he believed his people were letting the cycle linger, and lacked focus when they executed the “sales process”.

Another VP I met with last summer, a technology company; top quadrant in a crowded field, not quite a commodity play, but they were being challenged. They were experiencing difficulties acquiring, growing and maintaining clients. As you would expect they have a “sales process”. As is often the case, all the talk about the sales process was never balanced by an awareness or focus on the clients’ “buying process”.

When she was describing her challenge she knew what was “wrong”, she explained:

• Average deal was size $32,800, this was usually about 78% of list price
• Her staff is able to get the small revenue - - small margin deals, but is challenged as the deals get larger.
• Deals under $28,000 they were closing 56% of proposals, at between 80% - 85% originally proposed (list) price.
• Deals over $45,000, they were closing only 17% of proposals, and a great many of those at 60% - 65% of original proposed price.
• They were challenged calling the right people, high within companies in the target base.
• While they were seeing growth, year over year it was slower than their segment which was impacting market share.

When she first took the appointment she told me she has been working with a known global provider to achieve her sales training goals. She went to great length to reiterate this when we met; her current provider was “helping her achieve what they needed to once they were in front of a prospect”. This seemed to be at odds with the facts and stats she laid out a few minutes before. She did however acknowledge that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talk

with their prospects’ buying process, timelines, decision criteria, etc. This is because most Sales VP’s do not have a buying process for their purchases, and therefore do not focus on its importance when they lead their teams. As a result, most are terrible buyers. I worked with another VP, nice guy, but terrible buyer; not terrible because he didn’t buy from me, he did! Terrible because of the way he went about buying. Unable to meet deadlines, constantly shifting priorities, procrastinating and hesitating throughout. Funny, because when he called us; he was concerned about the length of his teams sales cycles, he believed his people were letting the cycle linger, and lacked focus when they executed the “sales process”.

Another VP I met with last summer, a technology company; top quadrant in a crowded field, not quite a commodity play, but they were being challenged. They were experiencing difficulties acquiring, growing and maintaining clients. As you would expect they have a “sales process”. As is often the case, all the talk about the sales process was never balanced by an awareness or focus on the clients’ “buying process”.

When she was describing her challenge she knew what was “wrong”, she explained:

• Average deal was size $32,800, this was usually about 78% of list price
• Her staff is able to get the small revenue - - small margin deals, but is challenged as the deals get larger.
• Deals under $28,000 they were closing 56% of proposals, at between 80% - 85% originally proposed (list) price.
• Deals over $45,000, they were closing only 17% of proposals, and a great many of those at 60% - 65% of original proposed price.
• They were challenged calling the right people, high within companies in the target base.
• While they were seeing growth, year over year it was slower than their segment which was impacting market share.

When she first took the appointment she told me she has been working with a known global provider to achieve her sales training goals. She went to great length to reiterate this when we met; her current provider was “helping her achieve what they needed to once they were in front of a prospect”. This seemed to be at odds with the facts and stats she laid out a few minutes before. She did however acknowledge that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talk

s describing her challenge she knew what was “wrong”, she explained:

• Average deal was size $32,800, this was usually about 78% of list price
• Her staff is able to get the small revenue - - small margin deals, but is challenged as the deals get larger.
• Deals under $28,000 they were closing 56% of proposals, at between 80% - 85% originally proposed (list) price.
• Deals over $45,000, they were closing only 17% of proposals, and a great many of those at 60% - 65% of original proposed price.
• They were challenged calling the right people, high within companies in the target base.
• While they were seeing growth, year over year it was slower than their segment which was impacting market share.

When she first took the appointment she told me she has been working with a known global provider to achieve her sales training goals. She went to great length to reiterate this when we met; her current provider was “helping her achieve what they needed to once they were in front of a prospect”. This seemed to be at odds with the facts and stats she laid out a few minutes before. She did however acknowledge that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talk

e that her team could benefit from more meeting with real decision makers higher in their client/prospect organizations. Based on the way we cold called her, agreed to let us interview her team to gain a solid understanding of the “ground truth” as a basis for a proposal for a prospecting regiment program.

She did like the program we presented, but right away informed us that the price was too high. I asked what had led her to that conclusion, she told me the other provider was charging half the price, and since they were a “global leader”, our price must be out of whack.

We discussed the team’s results, her awareness that the team was not engaging either with the right people or in sufficient numbers, and while her team has been reduced to price selling, a bigger challenge was the fact that they could not consistently even get in the game to be able to present a price that they would ultimately cut to get the deal. Still she could not get past the price.

Let’s give this some perspective, the cost of the program for the team of 11 reps was less than one new sale; in terms of net margin, just under two additional new sales. (We are talking by the whole team, not each!)

This type of scenario is not uncommon; just speak to anyone who regularly sells to heads of sales organizations. I have heard this from CRM, lead generators, and recruitment professionals. No clear buying process is a clear indicator of a team that has problems with their sales process and related activities.

The real damage here is to her team, not because they are not getting the training they need, not because the training they are getting is a CYA exercise delivered by a “global leader” (full coverage). The real damage is the message it sends to her team, and the resulting culture it produces.

When she was evaluating our proposal, she started and ended with price. She acknowledged the worth of the program; recognized that reference companies we provided had successfully implemented the program, and are now consistently finding and converting sufficient prospects to grow both top and bottom lines. Yet her focus was strictly price; we offered to tie aspects of compensation to specific metrics, but no, she wanted a discount. Sounds a lot like the way her team sells!

What do you think her team is thinking?

The not so subtle message is you can’t beat the status quo unless you discount. While “we talk value, but we buy on price” must be the way everyone buys. “You can discount unconditionally, without reciprocal concessions from the prospect”. Their “sales process” drives this, and the lack of a “buying process” reinforces it. Of course she, like many, would deny that this is the case, and would never articulate in such terms to the team. But it is clear their culture is one of aim low and discount higher. The team sees this in action every time their VP does anything; she says one thing and acts another.

These are but some examples, but over the years the trend is clear and unfailing, they sell the way they buy.

We can predict early in the game as to how things will unfold by asking and understanding early how they went about buying things in the past. Other training, CRM, incentive management systems, what have you. Their answer to those questions gives us immediate insight to how the sale is likely to unfold.

Time after time it has been confirmed to us that if your sales leader does not have a proper understanding of it’s own “buying process”, that is how decisions are made, why, and how they will measure the impact, then we will have to work much harder to earn our money. Not only because the cycle is likely to be longer and harder, but more importantly changing their culture and behavior of the team, the managers, and the VP, will require much more work if we are to make that change lasting. The reason for that is we have to change the way they sell because of the way they buy.

On the other hand if they have a clear methodology for evaluating, buying and measuring their acquisitions, we have a much easier time selling and delivering quality and value. No matter how rigid the system, if it is clear and logical it makes our task easier, both to sell and at times disqualify the opportunity. And as stated above their teams are generally much better to work with, this is equally true in high end solution sales teams or teams selling commodity goods. Sales leaders spend a lot of time “talking” about the “sales process”, the steps needed to build a proper sale, but then undermine their message with their actions. “Results at any cost, more results at a discounted cost”.

Unless these leaders change and come to understand how to “buy”, they will always have a challenge selling. Until they understand the art of “buying” they will continue to make their job and that of their reps more difficult than it has to be. It is the Ying Yang of sales: You sell the way you buy, and you cannot succeed at one without succeeding at the other!