As I expected, there were many complaints about my post stating that the sales function should drive the company. In most cases, these complaints promoted a deeply dysfunctional view of how businesses work. For example, “Lee Feldman” wrote:
Business exists in order to produce a product or service which the customer needs, at a price which the customer is willing to pay in an “environment” which makes the customer happy to do business with you instead of your competitor.
There are two things missing in this description. The first is profit. The second is any mention of the sales function. He’s worded his definition so that selling is both unnecessary and non-existent. So I guess all you CEOs out there can now fire your sales reps. Problem solved, eh?
Lee Feldman wasn’t the only commentator to trot out a dysfunctional definition of business. For example, “thorlaser” wrote:
Sales should only have access to the gas pedal. They are generally shortsighted and should not be allowed to get their hands on the wheel. Thats the job of marketing (they get to play with the sat nav too). Obviously Finance should check the fuel gauge, Operations (engineering / logistics) should make sure the mechanics are in good order. Legal should advise which side of the road to be on and when there is a red light coming up. CEO gets to sit in the driving seat and make sure that they all work together smoothly whilst smiling out thewindow to the adoring customers and shareholders + take the glory (or flack when the gears start crashing).
There are so many problems with this analogy that it’s difficult to know where to start. Here’s what’s missing: customers, revenue and profit. He seems to think that a business is like taking a joy ride. He misses the point that if no sales take place, there’s no company. And if (as is often the case) the marketing group is navel-gazing, the people who find the customers, and make the revenue, and make the profit are the folk in Sales.
As for his remark that sales is “shortsighted,” the same viewpoint came up in a comment from “k2times,” who wrote:
Salespeople - good salespeople - are trained to build relationships, to maximize revenue (NOT profit - in most circumstances) and to, in two words, close business. This is often at odds with building profitability - as salespeople want to build relationships they also therefore want to provide their customers with the most competitive deals they can provide, the most desirable entertainment/gifts possible, etc.
I’m not going to answer this one myself, because another commentator did it for me. Here’s what “Peter” wrote:
If you base your commission schemes or reward packages on achieving revenue then that is exactly what the sales team will do - again a management driven outcome. Good sales people are not trained to achieve revenue they are trained to maximize the profitability of the accounts that they manage. If the company training is focussed on revenue generation again it calls into question the approach and focus of the management team (who dictate the content of the training programs)
You then go on to say that sales people want to build relationships with the clients and therefore they want to provide them with the most competitive deals or “gifts”. Again this shows a sales management approach that is 20 years out of date and belittles both the integrity and commitment of every single salesperson taking generalization to a fine art. It implies that no sales person has any loyalty or commitment to the company that employs them and this is blatantly not the case.
Well put, Peter! Thanks for weighing in!
Finally, there was the silliest comment of all, the one that conflated B2B sales with storefront fast food. “Mabloom” wrote:
Who are the salesmen at MacDonalds? The high school student at the cash register? The franchise representative who gets new stores setup? The advertising department who makes commercials drawing customers towards MacDonalds? homever you pick in the sales chain at MacDonalds, most probably doesn’t have a good understanding of what makes a good consumer food product, how it should be created, marketed, and sold. These are decisions made by strategic thinkers and tinkers at the home office.
First, clerks at MacDonalds do not “sell” food. They take orders, handle money, and distribute food. By contrast, B2B selling generally involves a complex sales cycle, where the sales rep must constantly add value in order to move the process forward. There are many, many B2B deals that involve millions of dollars. To cut those deals, sales reps must have extensive industry experience, as well as superlative people skills — even to get in the door. And yet, by this guy’s logic, B2B sales professionals should just shut up and listen to the “strategic thinkers” in the home office. Give me a break.
But Mabloom’s post is even sillier because there’s a perfect counter-example: Starbucks. Many of the best ideas at Starbucks originated from individual baristas working at local stores. Starbucks’ top management understands what most marketeers don’t: that it’s ALWAYS the person closest to the customer who knows what the customer wants… and will want in the future.
What’s really silly, though, is that marketeers keep accusing me of “bashing” marketing. That’s ironic, because sales professionals have been taking guff from the “strategic thinkers” for decades. As soon as one little blog starts giving them back a little of what they’ve been handing out for years, they react with eye-rolling alarm. As Edward G. Robinson said of his cowardly foes in the classic movie Little Caesar: “You can dish it out… but you can’t take it.”
