He showed us the results of his spreadsheet. He had calculated the amount of oxygen currently used by the hospital, based on his questions and observations. “Now, on the map there are five light industrial and two heavy manufacturing factories nearby. One of them is a chemical plant, in fact. There are about 5,000 employees there. If there was a serious accident at any one of those locations—an explosion or a dangerous chemical leak, for example—then this hospital could see a lot of hurt people.”
He tapped a number on his computer screen with the cap of his ballpoint pen. “They could need as much oxygen as this, given that number of cases and their total number of beds.” Looking away from the screen and at us, he shook his head. “They don't have nearly that much now.”
Steven went on with his analysis, estimating the number of potential injuries and deaths that the oxygen shortage might create, and the potential risk of financial losses from resulting lawsuits. The number was tens of millions of dollars.
“And what's more,” he continued, “they have some significant safety issues, too.” Showing us the pictures he snapped, he pointed out a few problems, including the fact that security was so lax. “This is a crisis just waiting to happen, and I'll bet they don't even know it yet.”
Steven sent his analysis of the risks and safety issues to the hospital's chief administration officer (CAO), and soon got an appointment. The CAO was alarmed by the dreary picture of a possible future full of litigation and financial costs.
We want to emphasize that Steven was not using a scare tactic; he was genuine in his approach and he identified a real problem. He suggested a vision of how the hospital could avoid such a fate with an adequate and reliable supply from a firm that could provide expertise in delivering the right amounts while also doing so safely—his firm. Within a couple of weeks, he won a very sizable service contract, and a very satisfied customer.
Let's be clear about why Steven was successful. It wasn't because he sold “better” gas in “better” tanks. His products are a commodity sale in that regard. He won because he was willing to do research, identify a problem the buyers didn't know existed, and enable them to see their world free from the risk of a potentially difficult situation. This Visualizer made a difference to his customers in ways they had not yet considered before he entered their lives.
The Visualizer persona requires a combination of clarity, creativity, confidence, courage, and communication skills. Like Steven, those who develop these abilities can become adept at helping Buyer 2.0 envision a better future state—one enabled by the seller's unique or highly differentiated capabilities, which include how the seller interacts with the buyer. A Visualizer's conversation can be enough of a differentiator to win Buyer 2.0's business.
Buyer States and Strength of Vision
The previous example of the gas products seller illustrates how a Visualizer can initiate a new opportunity with a buyer. However, Buyer 2.0 typically engages sellers after they have begun to form their own vision. The Visualizer persona helps sellers to engage effectively with late stage buyers as well, by further enhancing or re-engineering their existing visions.
In one of our previous books, The New Solution Selling, we examined behavior from two different perspectives: buyers who are not actively looking for a solution and those who are.
The first type of buyer behavior we labeled “not looking.” The typical reasons for buyers being in this state are because of ignorance or rationalization. In other words, they are not yet aware of problems or opportunities that could be solved or taken advantage of, or they may be aware but lack a clear vision of what they can or should do about it.
The second type of buyer behavior we labeled “looking.” The typical reason for buyers being in this state is because they are aware of the problem or opportunity facing them; they have clear vision of what actions to take. They are actively seeking solutions to their problems or ways that they can capitalize on an emerging opportunity.
The reason for making this distinction was to help sellers understand these buyer patterns and to assist them with strategies and techniques for dealing with the different buyer behaviors.
While it is still possible to find buyers who are “not looking” and jointly develop a vision of what could be, it is becoming increasingly uncommon because Buyer 2.0 typically develops their own vision first, before engaging any sellers.
We previously thought that if a seller found a buyer who was already “looking” and the seller didn't help create the buyer's vision, the seller should assume that a competitor did. The logic was sound because it allowed the seller to choose a winning strategy; that is, the seller focused on changing the buyer's vision by introducing new criteria into the decision. Otherwise, the sellers had to compete against a vision they didn't create, which gave them little chance of winning.
Before the proliferation of the Internet, buyers developed visions of potential solutions primarily from information provided by sellers. Since most organizations cannot make a purchase without looking at multiple options, buyers contacted additional sellers so that they could complete all the required columns on an evaluation matrix. In other words, most sellers brought into an active evaluation were being used as “column fodder” and had a much lower chance of winning compared to the seller organization that had helped the buyer to first develop the vision.
However, Buyer 2.0 is no longer dependent upon sellers for information about potential solutions. Now buyers can find much of what they need on their own. As a result, buyers are less influenced by sellers and are more likely to develop their own vision of a potential solution before contacting any seller. Sellers should not assume that a buyer's vision is purely a result of competitor influence.
Further, the strength of the buyer's vision can vary significantly, depending on when a seller first engages with Buyer 2.0. The state of a buyer vision may range from barely existent to completely defined. The Visualizer persona begins with understanding the strength of a buyer vision—that is, how malleable it is, and how open the buyer is to having that vision shaped and refined further.
Therefore, engaging effectively with Buyer 2.0 now requires a more nuanced understanding of the buyer's state when first encountered by a seller, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Buyer States
Buyer 2.0 may be found in one of four states, corresponding with the strength of vision, from low to high:
“Not looking.” The buyer is not actively seeking a solution to a problem or a way to capitalize on a potential opportunity. Latent state. The buyer is unaware that a problem or an opportunity exists, or is aware but is willing to live with the status quo.
Admitted state. The buyer admits that a problem or an opportunity exists, but does not yet know how to address it.
“Looking.” The buyer is actively exploring ways to solve a problem or take advantage of an emerging opportunity. Vision state. The buyer has begun to form ideas for addressing a problem or an opportunity, but has not yet identified all the capabilities required.
Evaluation state. The buyer has a fully formed vision and has begun a formal review of potential alternatives.
Even if buyers in a “not looking” state are aware of a problem or potential opportunity, they may be so overwhelmed with data about potential options that they do not know whether or how they might improve their situation. Today, buyers who remain stuck in an admitted state are usually confused and paralyzed into inaction, because they do not fully understand the implications of continuing to maintain the status quo. In other words, they do not yet have a clear vision in their minds, and the Visualizer can help them to create one.
For buyers who already have developed an initial vision, the Visualizer should think of it like an elastic band. An elastic band has little value on its own; however, once it is stretched, it has many applications: to hold things together, to shoot across the room, or to secure an item in place. The self-discovered vision of a buyer is analogous to an as-yet-unstr
etched elastic band. The Visualizer's job is to stretch the vision of buyers—to let them see new or additional possibilities of what could be.
At no point should a Visualizer criticize buyers for their vision. The Visualizer does not openly challenge a vision or create conflict, but instead seeks to understand the buyer's current vision and then collaborate with the buyer to share and explore useful ideas for improvement. Only then can great things be achieved.
Visualizer Conversations
The kinds of conversations that a Visualizer has with Buyer 2.0 to develop a more complete vision of an optimized solution will vary according to the state of the buyer. For example, when buyers are in a “not looking” state, either latent or admitted, they need help in creating a clear vision of a solution. This is exactly what the gas products seller did in our previous example. He helped the buyer recognize a problem (i.e., risk exposure) and establish a vision of how the hospital could safely and affordably avoid those potential costs.
Buyer 2.0, however, generally engages sellers after they have developed an initial vision. But simply accepting a buyer's vision at face value provides no value to Buyer 2.0. If a buyer is still formulating ideas for a possible solution, but the strength of that vision is not yet fully articulated, the seller can capture and confirm that vision, and then enhance the vision and improve upon it. If a buyer's vision is well established and documented, the seller can acknowledge that vision, and then attempt to reengineer it in part or in total, in order to explore better or incrementally improved ways of addressing the problem or potential opportunity. Remember the elastic band—sellers who simply react to Buyer 2.0 are not stretching their thinking. They make no real difference.
The Visualizer persona enables sellers to:
See for themselves the possibilities of what could be.
Enable buyers to see this vision.
Make that vision compelling so buyers are willing to take action.
Visualizers accomplish this in their conversations with Buyer 2.0. Conversations are the principal form of communication between buyers and sellers. And, since buying behavior has changed, it makes sense that the nature of sales conversations must also change. Equipping sellers with a new conversation model and supporting tools becomes a priority for effectively executing collaborative conversations.
When engaging in collaborative conversations, sellers must keep an open mind, ask insightful questions, and bring an informed point of view to the table. The main objectives of the conversation are to understand their current situation (good or bad) and the reasons for the situation, and to explore the capabilities that will produce a better future state. Every conversation should start with the perspectives of the buyer, then introduce the perspectives of the seller, and then jointly collaborate to develop a mutually enhanced and agreed-upon perspective. The structure of a collaborative conversation is simple, and can be illustrated as shown in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Collaborative Sales Conversation Structure
There are multiple paths that can be taken through the collaborative sales conversation structure, depending on the state of the buyer and the strength of the buyer's initial vision. The three types of collaborative sales conversations, with their respective applicabilities to different buyer states (illustrated in Figure 5.3), are:
Vision creation—for establishing an initial vision jointly with the buyer.
Vision enhancement—for capturing and expanding upon an emerging vision of the buyer.
Vision reengineering—for exploring alternative options for an improved buyer vision.
Figure 5.3 Visualizer Conversations
A vision creation conversation is most useful when speaking with buyers in a latent or admitted state. It begins after identifying a potential problem, critical business issue, or opportunity, and gaining agreement with the buyer to explore the implications of the current situation. At that point, sellers can prompt buyers to share their perspective on the underlying reasons for the current situation. The sellers can then demonstrate their situational fluency by exploring any additional factors that may be contributing to the current state. The seller and buyer can then capture and agree upon a mutual understanding of the reasons for the current situation.
After the relevant reasons have been captured, buyers can then share their perspective about the capabilities they envision are needed to improve upon the current state. The seller can then share a perspective on those capabilities, or suggest new or different capabilities that might help, by asking, “When doing X, if you could do Y, would that be of help in addressing the problem or reaching your goal?” Once again, both the buyer and seller can then collaborate to arrive at a mutually agreed-upon vision that will address the underlying reasons for the problem, critical business issue, or potential opportunity.
A vision enhancement conversation is most useful with helping a buyer with a vision that is not yet fully formed, typically when the buyer is in an admitted or early vision state. Instead of starting with a potential problem, critical business issue, or opportunity, this conversation begins with first capturing an understanding of the current buyer vision, and the capabilities the buyer believes are required. The seller can then ask the buyer to share the buyer's perspective about the underlying reasons for the vision, and can then provide the seller's own perspective by exploring any additional factors that may be contributing to the current situation. After coming to a mutual agreement on the reasons for the current situation with the buyer, the seller can then suggest enhancements and expanded capabilities for the buyer's initial vision. The buyer and seller can then come to an agreement on an enhanced vision.
A vision reengineering conversation is similar to vision enhancement, except it explores options for improving upon a strong buyer vision. This is useful for conversing with buyers in vision or active evaluation states. As in vision enhancement, the conversation begins with capturing an understanding of the current buyer vision and the capabilities the buyer believes are required. The intent of the seller, however, is somewhat different. The seller may then suggest alternative visions, not just additional or enhanced capabilities, that solve the buyer's problem in a different but better way, or that will help the buyer to capitalize better on an emerging opportunity. In short, in vision reengineering, the seller is bringing a fresh perspective that is more comprehensive than simply adding to or improving on the buyer's initial vision. In this case, the seller is exploring alternative approaches that may change the vision significantly, but also produce better results.
Vision reengineering is the most difficult of the three collaborative sales conversations because it must be done tactfully, and from a very informed point of view based on strong situational fluency of the seller. Seller credibility is critical. Buyers should never feel that the seller is trying to force an alternative that is not in their best interests. Rather, the seller must be able to show the connection between the underlying reasons for the problem or potential opportunity and the improved capabilities of the suggested alternative approach. If the buyer and seller can agree on a reengineered vision, then the likelihood of the seller winning that business is very significantly improved.
Embracing the Visualizer Persona
As we said at the beginning of this chapter, the power of vision stirs people to action. The Visualizer persona enables sellers to apply their situational fluency to:
See the possibilities of what could be for themselves.
Enable buyers to see this vision.
Make that vision compelling so buyers are willing to take action.
However, even if the Visualizer develops a powerful vision of a solution in collaboration with a buyer, it is still possible that the buyer may not make a purchase decision. That is because Buyer 2.0 is also highly sensitive to risk, which may stall or completely paralyze the buying decision. As a result, there is one more essential persona required for collaborative sellers: the Value Driver, which we explore in the next chapter.
Vi
sualizer Competencies
The Visualizer persona requires sellers to possess or develop a number of key competencies—knowledge, skills, or abilities that enable them to perform the required behaviors for this persona. Managers implementing the Collaborative Sale should look for evidence of these competencies in any potential new hire, and examine what competencies need to be developed in existing sellers on staff.
Situational knowledge—understands the buyer's industry, job roles, areas of responsibility, and common business issues.
Capability knowledge—understands product and service solutions, and how they address customer business issues or capitalize on potential opportunities.
Communication skills—has ability to express points of view clearly, both orally and in written form.
Sales conversation skills—collaboratively diagnoses buyer problems or potential opportunities; creates, expands, or reengineers visions of solutions; develops mutual agreement with buyers on capabilities needed.
Opportunity qualification—applies guiding standards to assess the correct buyer state, strength of buyer vision, and quality of a sales opportunity, and then make engagement and prioritization decisions.
Competitive skills—evaluates competitive positions and executes appropriate strategies and tactics to win.
The Collaborative Sale Page 9