There are all kinds of ways to get contact data but are you really serious about getting the best data or are you just looking for data so you can email or cold call? In today’s world just having data isn’t enough, today you have to do your homework and you need to know who it is that needs what you sell or who can influence the people that can buy what you provide.
It’s not about getting data; it’s about getting good data and then targeting those individuals so you hit a nerve with them. Bad data gives you bad results and at the same time wastes all the energy you put into it. Marketing has been conditioned to expect poor results from their campaigns and in today’s economy those expectations have gotten even lower. Sales people have been conditioned that most leads that come from marketing are worthless. This is primarily due to the use of traditional data sources that have been over used, the person receiving the email or phone call is preconditioned to delete prospecting emails or not return calls because of being overwhelmed by the quantity they receive from being in a database or on a list. Couple that with the large amount of data in these databases or on those lists that is incorrect, outdated or just plain wrong and you’re lucky to really connect with anyone.
When you combine these factors with the need to somehow connect with your prospect on some level instead of just blindly emailing or calling into a title, you start to see the complexity of the problem. I have heard it said that “Cold Calling is Dead” and that mass emailing no longer works and to some degree I have to agree. Cold calling without knowing something about your targeted prospect is a waste of time. You need something to connect you and this stranger so that they will listen to you. Whether it’s where they went to school, there past experience, hobbies, interest or whatever if you have taken the time to understand them and their business you are much more likely to get to talk to them or get a return email.
That is why general contact data, even if it’s correct, is not enough today but you also can’t spend all your time looking for that one piece of data that will connect you to the prospect. You need tools that can look in the right place for the right information for you so that when you review that data you have that little extra, that little tidbit that the others that are calling don’t have. You need tools that automatically look in all the places where that type of data resides and that bring it all together so all you have to do is review it and pick and choose what you need. You aren’t going find that in static list or databases, this type of information comes from dynamic sources like the Internet and it takes tools like those from Broadlook Technologies to get at it.
Like I said before, “Are you serious about your contact data or not?”
For more information contact Mike Pridavka at mpridavka@datasentials.com or (414) 406-8470 or visit our website at www.datasentials.com
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
It looks like efficiency really gets results!
I started doing some research after reading a Blog that I follow and in that Blog they were discussing how to increase revenue. I think we all think about this and discuss it on a regular basis. In this Blog the author discussed some information from a Harvard Business Review that he had read. I found the information interesting so I decided to find it and read if for myself.
The review is entitled The New Science of Sales Force Productivity by Dianne Ledingham, mark Kovac, and Heidi Locke Simon. In it they discuss “The data, tools and analytics that companies are increasingly using to improve their sales forces will not only help top reformers shine, but they will also help drive sales force laggards to the middle of the curve.”
Having run a number of sales forces in the past I was intrigued by this statement and what exactly it meant.
I’m all about efficiency and giving sales people what they need to do their job better. What I didn’t realize was how much that could really affect the bottom line.
In the past, like many out there, I’ve been told that we need to increase sales by a certain percentage and then we go through the exercise of spreading it out over territories and figuring out where we can add heads to get the desired results. What I never realized was that wasn’t the answer at all.
What the study shows is that you can increase your revenue much faster by building in efficiencies than you can by adding head count. It shows that you can increase your revenue 79% over a five year period with 21% less head count if you can increase efficiency only 8% annually. It shows how it is much cheaper and more effective it is to increase productivity as much as possible than it is to add headcount. This can be accomplished through targeted offerings, optimized automation, tools, and procedures; performance management and sales force deployment – and only after this would it make sense to add feet on the street.
In another study I read that most good sales reps spend 20 to 25% of their time researching their prospects on the Internet. If this is true and a good sales rep works 50 hours per week that would mean they spend 10 to 12.5 hours a week looking for information. I you could provide them a tool that would automate that process and cut their time by two thirds or so you could give them back 6 to 8 hour per week to spend contacting clients. This is at least a 12% increase in efficiency which should equate to over a 20% increase in revenue per year plus all the cost savings of not adding all those people. I don’t know any business that wouldn’t love to have that.
The review is entitled The New Science of Sales Force Productivity by Dianne Ledingham, mark Kovac, and Heidi Locke Simon. In it they discuss “The data, tools and analytics that companies are increasingly using to improve their sales forces will not only help top reformers shine, but they will also help drive sales force laggards to the middle of the curve.”
Having run a number of sales forces in the past I was intrigued by this statement and what exactly it meant.
I’m all about efficiency and giving sales people what they need to do their job better. What I didn’t realize was how much that could really affect the bottom line.
In the past, like many out there, I’ve been told that we need to increase sales by a certain percentage and then we go through the exercise of spreading it out over territories and figuring out where we can add heads to get the desired results. What I never realized was that wasn’t the answer at all.
What the study shows is that you can increase your revenue much faster by building in efficiencies than you can by adding head count. It shows that you can increase your revenue 79% over a five year period with 21% less head count if you can increase efficiency only 8% annually. It shows how it is much cheaper and more effective it is to increase productivity as much as possible than it is to add headcount. This can be accomplished through targeted offerings, optimized automation, tools, and procedures; performance management and sales force deployment – and only after this would it make sense to add feet on the street.
In another study I read that most good sales reps spend 20 to 25% of their time researching their prospects on the Internet. If this is true and a good sales rep works 50 hours per week that would mean they spend 10 to 12.5 hours a week looking for information. I you could provide them a tool that would automate that process and cut their time by two thirds or so you could give them back 6 to 8 hour per week to spend contacting clients. This is at least a 12% increase in efficiency which should equate to over a 20% increase in revenue per year plus all the cost savings of not adding all those people. I don’t know any business that wouldn’t love to have that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
