Stating the obvious - the selling landscape has changed driven by 2.0 and the universal access to information. In the past, a sales cycle was generally based on quid pro quo – I the selling party give a piece of information that I control about the benefits of a product and you the identified buying party allows me into your opportunity. Each step is orchestrated in such a way that each side holds information and opportunity until the next step. This cycle continued until either a deal was made or a no was given.
Today, buyers, often holding themselves stealthily anonymous, insist that detailed information be provided without expectations. They maintain control of the conversation, choosing how and when to proceed. The response is that selling organizations must first seek to help these faceless individuals and unknown companies by providing pertinent information in formats and with access acceptable to the buyer. There is no guarantee of reciprocation.
This leaves the seller with two options: either produce valuable information and drive targeted prospects known and unknown to the opportunity or attract opportunities by giving away price. Simple enough.
But the complexities of 2.0 makes the lesson hard to learn and even harder for many of us to believe. Companies, even those supposedly leading in the social media space, continue to struggle with quid pro quo vs. first let me help. (More in a later blog but think coffee wars - Starbucks vs. Caribou and not so free and free Wi-Fi).
Enter Michelangelo and friends. My wife and I visited the Minnesota Institute of Art (MIA) http://www.artsmia.org/ this weekend and enjoyed “The Louvre and the Masterpiece” , a tour of several dozen pieces on loan from the Louvre in Paris. A great event if you like that sort of stuff. Interesting as it is to see works from the masters, I was just as captivated in learning how a Midwestern museum was able to lure this event from the world renowned Louvre. (One of only two American museums to do so, the other being Atlanta High Museum http://www.high.org ).
Turns out helping without any real assurance of quid pro quo made the difference. Two things secured the “deal”. First, the MIA committed to building a top notch environmentally controlled exhibition space – don’t want any paint peeling off a 300 year old masterpiece. This investment clearly signaled a serious commitment and took off the table what must have been a serious hurdle (Looking and sounding like a sales process – don’t you think?). Second and most importantly, long before any tour was planned and with no quid pro quo expectations, the MIA was looking to help. As Louvre Director Henri Loyrette put it, “The Institute (MIA) has been very generous with lending to us over the years. It seemed time for us to do the same.” See related story here Star Tribune -
Simple enough – give to receive. A sales truth older than any masterpiece I saw Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment