As I mentioned in my
last post, sales arranged reference calls or site visits were ranked by the
technology buyers we surveyed at the bottom of most influential sales
interactions. This was very surprising to me given the long history of “I
need references” as part of buying processes. Additionally, case studies
continue to rank as one of the top 2 most valued content types. What
gives?
I think it is probably
a few of things:
1. Interpretation – The
respondents may have viewed “sales arranged” as “moderated”. As a
result, their skepticism about the authenticity of the discussion might be
higher. With this interpretation or viewed at face value, the message to
technology marketing and sales is clear. If you connect a prospect to the
customer, get out of the way. Allow them to have a discussion without
anyone from your organization present to moderate or influence the discussion.
2. Social Networking –
The rise in social networking makes it much, much easier for buyers to find
your customers and connect with them without you even knowing. If
buyers are doing this and ask you for references, it could very well be a
test–to see if the references you provide are consistent with the customers
they found on their own.
3. Delays – References,
in many organizations, tend to be one of those gatekeeper type events I mentioned in my last post.
Sales tends to withhold references until the timing is right (often for
what have been good reasons–not inundating references with calls from prospects
that aren’t likely to buy), and finding the right reference takes time. To
the buyer, any delay (not in the actual connection, but in getting reference
information) raises doubts.
Viewed in combination,
it all boils down to trust. Anything you do that creates a spector
of skepticism is magnified in today’s buying environment. Trust levels
are the underlying current that drives buying. And providers are usually
starting from a weak, un-trusted position. Everything you do needs to be
about building trust between the buyer and you, your product, and your
organization.
With that in mind,
perhaps it is time to rethink reference approaches.
The most common approach puts reference ownership in the hands of
marketing. But to get those references, marketing needs to ask (or is beg
a better word?) sales to provide them with client names that are willing to be
references. Often, the story that comes back is “the time is
not right”, “I have a big deal working”, “we have a service issues”, or
something similar.
Some organizations
have looked to shift this behavior by making reference activities part of their
standard contract (language that is often negotiated out early in the deal
discussions). More sophisticated organizations have reference management
systems that track reference activities and seek to balance requests, so references
are not overwhelmed with calls. This is a nice step, but does not address
the core problem. Which is, in my mind, if marketing is responsible for
references but not empowered and trusted to engage with customers directly,
then they have responsibility without true authority or empowerment.
Mainstay
just published a very interesting report on B2B reference programs, not
just technology companies (Please note: Mainstay is asking for some contact
information to receive the report. Don’t let this put you off–it is well
worth completing their landing page form to see the report). Despite
supporting sales (with materials like case studies and identifying customers
for calls), 83% of the respondents that managed reference programs did not know
the revenue impact of their reference programs. Similarly 90% of the
respondents were unaware of customer satisfaction levels. Part of the
cause of this was low staffing levels in the reference function. It is
typically a difficult responsibility to own, since authority is often
limited and the marketing group that handles references can’t get sales
insights or visibility into service issues. (I’ve seen cases where even
companies with a robust CRM system that is well used don’t provide user
accounts to the reference team). The report is definitely worth a read for
anyone in technology marketing and sales that cares about references.
With the above
context, what are some options for change. Here are a few:
1. Make references
programs a shared responsibility–with shared metrics linked to compensation-
across all major customer facing groups (marketing, sales, service). Have
full time participation from each function, with either marketing or sales
operations leading the team (depending on organizational dynamics).
2. Shift to Advocacy
Marketing – I’ll be reporting on the advocacy marketing case studies I have
been collecting later in the year, but one big claim from all of them is that
after moving to an advocacy approach, they were able to dramatically
increase the number of reference customers.
3. Totally change the
game. Rather than focus on a reference program, invest in building
customer communities. This could start on a public platform like
LinkedIn, but as it grows move to a purpose built customer community solution
(run on premise or in the cloud). Actively moderate the community—not to
eliminate the discussion of bad things, but to encourage discussion and
identify strong supporters. Have the moderators own traditional
reference responsibilities and goals, but allow them to focus more of their
efforts in achieving the on working with community participants.From a selling
perspective, when a prospect asks for references, consider just sending them to
the community. Imagine being able to say, “Rather than me arrange a call
for you, why don’t you join our community and ask our customers your questions
directly. I’m confident you’ll get answers quickly and be able to request
individual discussions as well. If you don’t or it takes too long, let
me know and we can connect you with a customer.” That type of discussion
totally shifts the trust equation (and likely raises your stature).
While the primary
purpose of the community should be enabling customers to interact and help each
other, reference development is a clear side benefit that should be mined.
What do you think?
Anyone trying the community based approach? Any other tips that
you use to both make managing and collecting references easier AND more
valuable for prospective clients.
