Where is the Money!
In the old days (which may be this morning), an account strategy was a result of the boss declaring “Company A” needs to buy a LOT of stuff from us, and it is your job to make that happen. So go build an account strategy to make that happen and present your account strategy to me.”
In today’s “Revenue Science™” world, there is a productive version of that called “strategic farming.” Today the boss says, “We have a great client partner, and we are sure we can add a great deal more value to their business, so how do we educate and support them to make that happen so both companies make a lot more money?”
The first example (the old days) has a very high “Cost of Chaos” engagement model with a very low return and a long time before any value to either party. The second is an example of a strategy developed from a Revenue RoadMap to continually add more value for the current customer.
Most of us know how to manage and execute the first example. We have KPIs, process maps, training programs and books we can share on how to do this.
It is only in the last 20 years “Revenue Science™” has shown us this first example doesn’t work well (probably never did), and in many cases, may actually make things worse.
“Revenue Science™” has shown us the customer-focused Revenue RoadMap where the customer buys, and the seller supports the buyer to solve some problem strategic or tactical by playing the role of vendor or partner to create the greatest value for both.
The Revenue RoadMap Strategy builds on the fact today’s world is transparent. Buyers can see everything and everyone in the market. The buyer will be the one deciding who to talk with about what and when. The seller can help make the buyer more aware, educated and compelled to decide to talk to the seller about those problems. Both parties care deeply about when the buyer is in enough pain to ACT.
Buyers are repulsed by sellers who have questionable ethics, selfish business practices (related to customers, their own employees, the community and the environment) and use win/lose negotiation tactics.
Buyers spend their time up front to sort out those sellers who are clearly selfish from those who are not clearly selfish. The buyers then create a short list of those who are “not clearly selfish” and MAY be able to solve the buyer’s problem, appear trustworthy and aligned with the buyer’s beliefs.
Based on this short list, the buyer will move forward to have a conversation (electronic or person-to-person) to further vet and explore the seller and the ability of the seller to solve that compelling problem.
In this new world (second example), the seller is able to interrupt the buyer’s research about the problem with a “pattern interrupting” explosion of thought leadership that screams “buyer you need to think about this different!” There is a “different way” to look at this, and the results of this “different way” are amazing – if you are willing to work with us to consider something new.
Regardless of whether the buyer finishes their research based on their traditional way to approach the problem or the buyer has been compelled to consider a “different way,” the buyer will make a decision. The decision will be to proceed now, proceed later (maybe) or drop the whole thing.
If the seller has developed a business model that has “all” or “most” of this conversation with the buyer in the digital world, the seller’s cost is VERY low, and the value is high (for buyer and seller) compared to an army of cold calling sales persons finding anyone to talk to and trying to force those who talk through the seller’s expensive “account strategy.”
To this point, the buyer has done the work to find the best possible sellers to talk to and approaches the seller in a digital or person-to-person way. From the seller’s standpoint, they get to qualify the buyer. The buyer knows the problem they need solved, and the seller (better) know what problems they solve (traditional or “different way”), and for the seller to spend even one minute with a buyer who has a problem the seller can’t solve produces no value for either party.
In example 2, both parties move forward into a joint SOW (Scope of Work) process they have agreed to because it makes sense for them to do the additional work to determine the details of working together and the true value of solving this problem. This joint SOW ends with a clear problem-focused contract developed by both parties for the benefit of both parties or a decision to stop.
With an example 2 engagement model, the buyer and seller trip down the Revenue RoadMap creates a win/win outcome for today and the foundation for a long-term partnership.
If you want the money and more, deploy a Revenue RoadMap Strategy so everyone wins (customers who win pay more than those who lose), and when the next buyer reviews this deal on the web (and they will), they see a seller who used a Revenue RoadMap Strategy to make sure everyone has a winner.