Three Myths about Consultative Selling
Consultative Selling means different things to different people, so each of us comes from our own space. “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are”. (Anaïs Nin and Steven Covey).
My intent is dispel three myths about Consultative Selling. But the written word is something of a blunt instrument, so this blog post suffers from the same limitations which probably lead to these common misconceptions in the first place. Apologies to those I may misjudge or misrepresent.
1 Another Pseudonym for “Selling 101”
Let’s start with the premise that all good selling should be rooted in a clear understanding of the customer’s needs, should start with insightful questions, and should craft specific solutions which add value for the client.
I am going to call this “Selling 101” and the skills required are absolutely fundamental. Well-credentialed and respected sources like this post from Hubspot eloquently lay out the steps required to implement this robust approach.
But don’t make the mistake of calling this Consultative Selling. It’s Selling 101. You can call it “solution-based selling” or “value-added selling”, but it is actually the base-case skill level required. Selling 101.
Consultative Selling is both a philosophy of business, and a specific and systematic approach to customer relationships. As a philosophy, it can be defined as "Cooperation between customer and supplier for sustainable competitive advantage and profitability of both parties". The consultative relationship is built by offering continuous incremental profit, over a long-term period. To be able to do this both parties must be aware of the financial goals and measurements of each others’ business, and should then prepare and present joint Profit Improvement Proposals to each other and their respective managements. It’s a partnership.
Click to review a recent post on the five key success factors required for Consultative Selling.
2 Buyers are either Transactional or Consultative
There will always be situations in which Consultative Selling, or even Selling 101, will not work, especially in markets characterised by “commoditisation” and “transactional” buying behaviour. In some cases you might almost feel that the only tools of trade are a price list and the ability to haggle! But the notion that buyers (in terms of their behaviour) are either transactional or consultative is an over-simplification. So is the idea that company purchasing environments are similarly polarised.
As stated by Roy H Williams around 10 years ago, “Every person has a transactional mode and a relational mode of shopping. And the right thing to say can be determined only when you know which mode the buyer is in”. In an interesting post, John Tabita proposes that it is possible to encourage a transactional purchaser to adjust their style. Read his blog and resultant comments to see if you agree.
At the other extreme, models such as Reed and Ewing’s “Heirarchy of Effects”, have identified up to seven different purchasing modes along dimensions such as: involvement, degree of consideration, initial vs repeat purchase, emotional engagement, time frame and others. Clearly, situational and environmental factors are also important.
Our work on Key Account Management shows again and again that accomplished Account Managers understand the different roles played in B2B purchasing processes. “Creating Stakeholder Value” and “Mobilising Stakeholder Commitment” are predicated on this insight; these models promote the extension of the Account Manager’s influence into all levels and facets of this “Buying Centre” (Webster and Wind).
When you come up against the transactional buyer who has been trained in “strategic procurement” and seems hell-bent on extracting a final 5% at the eleventh hour of negotiations, forgive them, “for they know not what they do”. Actually they do – they have a KPI for it!
So avoid the temptation to polarise your own views and blame the customer. Whether you believe you can adjust their perception or not, it is your responsibility to give it your best shot. And, as Henry Ford said: “Whether you think you will succeed or think you will fail, you are right”!
3 Consultants Have no Accountability
I’ve left the trickiest one to last, because last year’s punchy article by Geoffrey James had me thinking hard about this. As he states:
“No customer really wants an ‘adviser’ or a ‘consultant.’ Customers want somebody who will take responsibility for a crucial part of their business. If all you have to offer when you sell is ‘consultative,’ you might as well not bother.”
On close examination, I agree with pretty much everything in the author’s post. His emphasis is on management capability, rather than a description of a selling style (“consultative”). That is why we put “Key Account Manager” on your business card rather than “Consultative Sales Person”. It is indeed about managing the relationship; and in certain cases, assuming responsibility (even accountability) for that portion of your Customer’s business on which you have an impact.
If you look at the competency specification of an Account Manager hired to use a consultative sales approach, it is clear that there is a swag of operational and management duties to be carried out if you are serious about building joint profitability and/or competitive advantage.
So in the end, I think we can distill this discussion to one of terminology. We’ll leave the issue of whether Management Consultants lack accountability for another day!
Consultative Selling means different things to different people, so each of us comes from our own space. “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are”. (Anaïs Nin and Steven Covey).
My intent is dispel three myths about Consultative Selling. But the written word is something of a blunt instrument, so this blog post suffers from the same limitations which probably lead to these common misconceptions in the first place. Apologies to those I may misjudge or misrepresent.
1 Another Pseudonym for “Selling 101”
Let’s start with the premise that all good selling should be rooted in a clear understanding of the customer’s needs, should start with insightful questions, and should craft specific solutions which add value for the client.
I am going to call this “Selling 101” and the skills required are absolutely fundamental. Well-credentialed and respected sources like this post from Hubspot eloquently lay out the steps required to implement this robust approach.
But don’t make the mistake of calling this Consultative Selling. It’s Selling 101. You can call it “solution-based selling” or “value-added selling”, but it is actually the base-case skill level required. Selling 101.
Consultative Selling is both a philosophy of business, and a specific and systematic approach to customer relationships. As a philosophy, it can be defined as "Cooperation between customer and supplier for sustainable competitive advantage and profitability of both parties". The consultative relationship is built by offering continuous incremental profit, over a long-term period. To be able to do this both parties must be aware of the financial goals and measurements of each others’ business, and should then prepare and present joint Profit Improvement Proposals to each other and their respective managements. It’s a partnership.
Click to review a recent post on the five key success factors required for Consultative Selling.
2 Buyers are either Transactional or Consultative
There will always be situations in which Consultative Selling, or even Selling 101, will not work, especially in markets characterised by “commoditisation” and “transactional” buying behaviour. In some cases you might almost feel that the only tools of trade are a price list and the ability to haggle! But the notion that buyers (in terms of their behaviour) are either transactional or consultative is an over-simplification. So is the idea that company purchasing environments are similarly polarised.
As stated by Roy H Williams around 10 years ago, “Every person has a transactional mode and a relational mode of shopping. And the right thing to say can be determined only when you know which mode the buyer is in”. In an interesting post, John Tabita proposes that it is possible to encourage a transactional purchaser to adjust their style. Read his blog and resultant comments to see if you agree.
At the other extreme, models such as Reed and Ewing’s “Heirarchy of Effects”, have identified up to seven different purchasing modes along dimensions such as: involvement, degree of consideration, initial vs repeat purchase, emotional engagement, time frame and others. Clearly, situational and environmental factors are also important.
Our work on Key Account Management shows again and again that accomplished Account Managers understand the different roles played in B2B purchasing processes. “Creating Stakeholder Value” and “Mobilising Stakeholder Commitment” are predicated on this insight; these models promote the extension of the Account Manager’s influence into all levels and facets of this “Buying Centre” (Webster and Wind).
When you come up against the transactional buyer who has been trained in “strategic procurement” and seems hell-bent on extracting a final 5% at the eleventh hour of negotiations, forgive them, “for they know not what they do”. Actually they do – they have a KPI for it!
So avoid the temptation to polarise your own views and blame the customer. Whether you believe you can adjust their perception or not, it is your responsibility to give it your best shot. And, as Henry Ford said: “Whether you think you will succeed or think you will fail, you are right”!
3 Consultants Have no Accountability
I’ve left the trickiest one to last, because last year’s punchy article by Geoffrey James had me thinking hard about this. As he states:
“No customer really wants an ‘adviser’ or a ‘consultant.’ Customers want somebody who will take responsibility for a crucial part of their business. If all you have to offer when you sell is ‘consultative,’ you might as well not bother.”
On close examination, I agree with pretty much everything in the author’s post. His emphasis is on management capability, rather than a description of a selling style (“consultative”). That is why we put “Key Account Manager” on your business card rather than “Consultative Sales Person”. It is indeed about managing the relationship; and in certain cases, assuming responsibility (even accountability) for that portion of your Customer’s business on which you have an impact.
If you look at the competency specification of an Account Manager hired to use a consultative sales approach, it is clear that there is a swag of operational and management duties to be carried out if you are serious about building joint profitability and/or competitive advantage.
So in the end, I think we can distill this discussion to one of terminology. We’ll leave the issue of whether Management Consultants lack accountability for another day!
