Friends,
I am off to Greater Boston today to facilitate a roundtable discussion. But please carry on without me.

For us consultants, we need to get a grasp on and to get much better at delivering sales results, if we want to have a place at the table. Share your best thoughts and ideas, and, as always, feel free to disagree.

Lewis, once again you hit the "nail on the head". Telmoxie responded to a post on the forum that addresses this. The question was titled "Marketing For Dummies' - Sales Presentation” and the first paragraph said this “I hope the title is going to bring a smile among those dealing with a very demanding sales team, who’s only concern spins around $$$ commissions.”

Telemoxie’s answer was complete and professional and pointed out much of what you are saying her. “Can’t says and marketing just get along.” Sorry just had to use a little Rodney there.

I produced sales meeting, for large companies for twenty five years, and heard a lot of “teamwork” speeches between sales and marketing and rarely saw it carried out after the meeting. It is not only a time for change it is imperative.

I've worked in sales, sales management, and marketing. (Currently in marketing) I've never worked in an organization that formally had them all in the same department, but I think they should. The typical mindset is that marketing is a bunch of "fluff stuff" and if the money spent on marketinng and advertising were used for price cuts, sales could sell more.

I think joining forces is a great idea because it would make each area more effective. It puts sales and marketing "closer to the action" and I think the learning, especially from a direct sales environment, would be invaluable. It would also promote greater understanding of the value of each area.

"85% report a postive impact on sales performance"--but wait, the average sales performance was lousy. Apparently the positive impact wasn't nearly enough. Sorry, but in my experience (both long and painful) formal processes don't affect sales other than causing a temporary blip.

The war between sales and marketing is not resolvable, thank God. It's an opportunity for marketing to take control of the entire process right up to the close (which sales does), then take control of the relationship back to move first time purchasers through the rest of the cycle to multibuyers, to standardization, to evangelist.

If you're a marketer and you don't take advantage of that opportunity, then your career depends on the performance of other people (who don't like you, and HATE to give you credit for anything).

The best news of all is that it's easy. Sales people don't want to deal with anything that isn't ready to close in the current quarter with enough heft that it affects their pay and gives them something to brag about at quota club. That cedes 90 percent of the opportunities to you. And that's where all the money is.

If you mature leads to the point that they are ready to close, and deliver all the big juicy ones to the sales force all cued up, they will love you as much as they are ever going to (not much). They won't care about the onesie-twosies and the long cycle leads. They won't care about incremental maintenance or added unit sales.

The smartest marketers today are betting part of their pay on the results of their marketing. A one percent commission may sound like a trivial bonus to your CEO for business you close outside the formal sales process. But with ninety percent of the lead base to work with, and the opportunity to optimize sales to people who are already customers it's easy to rack big numbers. One percent of fifteen million is a new Ferrari. It has the added bonus of making you clearly more important than any individual sales person.

And wouldn't it be nice if you weren't the first to go when there's a downturn?

Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.

The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?

I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!

The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”

We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

My work usually deals with one part of the marketing mix -- public relations. But I always try, when a client lets me, to have PR results truly integrate into the actual selling process. One client I worked with a few years ago did an excellent job of maximizing the return on PR by frequently sending out copies of press pickup to the sales force, and giving them specific tips on how they could use it as door-openers or deal-closers.

A key, I think, is to maintain communication with the sales force. But not just "rah-rah go out and sell" messages. Specific ideas for using the various marketing tools and their results is what can help.

Lewis:

It's an old question and somewhat zen-like in its ability to avoid an easy answer.

Re your three bullets, a caution:
. The fact that only 60% of salespeople are "hitting their numbers" is an empty statistic. "The numbers" is a subjective target; the 60% that are could be comprised of 75% sandbaggers and 25% stars.
. Only 37% have formal sales processes. This speaks to a very amateurish approach, often in early stage companies, which not for nothing outnumber bigger, more formalized companies, potentially explaining this point.
. That 85% with formalized approaches agreeing it's a good thing leaves me wondering who the yahoo's representing the last 15% are. Sounds like they need better salespeople.

In my experience, the only way marketing works effectively with sales is to make sure they -- marketing -- own a metric. Sales may own "revenue" but marketing must own "sell-through". The stuff that consumers buy from your channel. Run a program, see the bump over baseline, measure the ROI, but always quote sell-through as your benchmark. Otherwise, you're a second class citizen at the table.

In a B2B world, marketing can own close rates -- a function of the relative temperature of the leads brought in.

And lastly, a strategic approach to business evolution is the marketer's mandate -- take a look at Nirmalya Kumar's book, "Marketing as Strategy".

We've heard the buzz on a more holistic approach to marketing for years now, yet the silos still exist. In one of my previous jobs, I oversaw both the sales AND marketing staff in a mid-sized organization. Through team-building and mutual support, we were able to transcend the silos and work cooperatively on both stategy and tactics. I can't imagine it being successful any other way. After all, we were all paid by the same employer, trying to live the same mission and vision.

Elaine,
Great work on that job. I agree that both sales and marketing should be within the same department and work cooperatively.

Stephen,
Yes and yes! Marketing must own at least one metric and be held accountable (and rewarded) for achieving it.

David,
Great comment! Most of what we do fails and succeeds commensurate with our level of communications.

I agree that Marketing and Sales should cooexist within the same dept, but seen as separate in relation to their objectives; ie Marketing = Strategy and Sales = Impelmentation.
In my opinion, Kirstashere is correct in stateing alot of people see Marketing as "fluff". But if Marketing has a metric(s) they are tied to, and results are expected, fluff goes out the window. This puts the pressure on Marketing to help Sales get results.
While different depts in a compnay all rely on each other in serving the customer, no two depts depend on each other as strongly as Marketing and Sales. I try to mention Marketing before Sales because I believe the process of reaching a customer startes with Marketing, continues on with Sales and winds back up with Marketing.

Scott,
You are right: "the process of reaching a customer startes with Marketing, continues on with Sales and winds back up with Marketing." But how often does that happen?

Scott, don't many customers inevitably wind up back at the company's door post for other reasons, especially in B2B? So, realistically, they could end up talking to the macro or micro receptionists, customer service reps, accounting people, techincal support staff, etc. All of these people need to "get" the brand and practice optimal customer service, or it can sabotage whatever the sales and marketing people did to bring them in. Don't you think that customer retention relies on everyone?

Basically marketing is too internal, and sales too external for their own good. Funny when you also consider the feud between marketing and PR, where marketing gets seen as too focused on product and distanced from the realities of the outside world by the PR folks, and the PR folks are viewed as too fixated on the relationships and not invested enough in the product. Marketing interests just can't win, yet shoulder many burdens, no?

There's never any incentive to appreciate the scope of what each step brings unless (a) the functions are integrated (not simply coordinated); (b) the process is "streamlined"; (c) budgets cease to be "split"; more attention is paid to the people hired, environment promoted, and firm's goals/objectives at the strategic to tactical level.

There's different types of marketing, depending upon the type of product/service, company, and industry. I go with the school that holds the best and most effective tends to be more iterative than distinct. In other words, if it's treated as a "phase" to be handed off to "Sales" then you'll continue to see the clash at play to a firm's detriment.

If Marketing (now capital "M"), were better thought of as continuous or infused throughout, starting much earlier in the product/service cycle, however (see the battle erupting with PR now)-- it would have greater visibility and influence, and opportunities for less clash with Sales.

It's a question of positioning and seizing opportunities as much leadership will, if the skills and talent are there. Short time spent on the blog here has demonstrated the skill and knowledge among the growing marketing class is abundant...

I recommend review of Philip Kotler's work of how this has worked for other firms-- noting it comes in stages-- most notably the July 2006 Harvard Business Review piece, "Ending the War Between Sales and Marketing" with Neil Rackham and Suj Krishnaswamy.

http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0607E

P.S. Dr. Krishnaswamy was actually on a free WebEx webinar on the same subject on 3/21/07 for which a friend just sent the archived link:

https://webexevents.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do

(you'll need to hunt for it on Page 3, hit view, and register to access it in addition to downloading their WebEx client, grrr...)

I agree that sales and marketing should work together. Marketing should be held accountable and sales should understand why marketing wants to "go out on a limb" so to speak. Marketers see the big picture while sales seems to go through the 1, 2, 3 process and never seems to see it all at once. Also sales should understand what it may mean to their pocketbook if they could work with marketing and see the big picture.

I really wonder why there is a constant tug of war between marketing and sales every time. It is not so between say marketing and distribution. If sales feels the spend on marketing is better deployed for sales promotion and price cuts or offers, then its in a way bad marketing since sales has not 'owned' the marketing approaches. I think it is critical to co-create things to an extent - I mean co-create the marketing programs with the sales and distribution people. This ensures ownership of marketing ideas and approaches by all the stake holders. I have read somewhere that you should marry a person with whom you can talk a lot and be comfortable talking. I think this rule should be applied to sales and marketing marriages too!

Lewis,

I would say it depends on the size of the organization whether sales and marketing should be part of the same department. In many small companies, there is no other choice due to personnel constraints.

The issue is a very simple one: marketing creates the traffic (prospects, sales leads), sales creates the income for the company. Sure salespeople can self-market and should be generating some of their own leads, but marketing has nothing to do with the sales process (i.e. actually making sales) other than producing qualified traffic in a sufficient quantity for the business plan and goals of the company. If the traffic numbers and quality are good, and sales are not then look to the sales team and their sales skills and process. Both aspects are important to a company, but depending on the sales pace and the lifespan of a particular product before it is reinvented or rebranded, there may not need to be a need for "constant" marketing other than maintaining the sales message or branding that already has been created.

Steve

Lewis,

I would say it depends on the size of the organization whether sales and marketing should be part of the same department. In many small companies, there is no other choice due to personnel constraints.

The issue is a very simple one: marketing creates the traffic (prospects, sales leads), sales creates the income for the company. Sure salespeople can self-market and should be generating some of their own leads, but marketing has nothing to do with the sales process (i.e. actually making sales) other than producing qualified traffic in a sufficient quantity for the business plan and goals of the company. If the traffic numbers and quality are good, and sales are not then look to the sales team and their sales skills and process. Both aspects are important to a company, but depending on the sales pace and the lifespan of a particular product before it is reinvented or rebranded, there may not need to be a need for "constant" marketing other than maintaining the sales message or branding that already has been created.

Steve

I have found that the alignment issue is not unique to Marketing and Sales and that most of the approaches to alignment are based on wishful thinking. I have published a book titled "The Profit Maximization Paradox: Cracking the Marketing/Sales Alignment Code."
If you are interested understanding the root cause, this could be of interest to you.