Richard Denny – Thoughts on sales and marketing

The headline of this blog comes straight from an Economist article of the same name. As usual from the Economist, its fascinating stuff.

The article is about a study undertaken by Stanford University to work out if it is possible to tell when company bosses are lying on conference calls. It found that when lying, bosses tend to:

-          make more general rather than specific references

-          use more extreme language (‘fantastic’, rather than ‘good’)

-          talk in the third person rather than say ‘I’

-          swear more

-          verbally hesitate less (i.e. less ‘ums’ when speaking)

The first three points are fairly self-explanatory. Swearing more is not. But what really interests me is the lack of ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’. Logic suggests more ‘ums’ might be likely when lying. The article offers a reasonable explanation why this is not the case – the deceptive bosses may have been coached in how to lie persuasively!

When we train clients in presentations skills, we do aim for a deception of sorts. We try to cover-up any nerves the presenter is feeling. If we look nervous when we speak in public we dent our credibility, and so we aim to appear confident. We also try to reduce the number of ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’, simply to help the presenter appear more polished. 

The article suggests in the future PR firms will coach lying bosses to swear less, hesitate more and use less enthusiastic language.

Of course, just telling the truth is a lot easier, and requires less training. And perhaps lying bosses should be aware it’s good for peace-of-mind too!

Kieran Bird

Nancy Lubin, head of the American non-profit DoSomething.org has released a book arguing that many non-profits are as efficient as for-profit businesses. The book, “Zilch: The Power of Zero in Business”, points out that non-profits typically have to run on little money which can force high levels of efficiency. Lubin examines a number of successful non-profits and suggests the cause they are related to works as an excellent staff motivator. She advises that more companies should hire workers who really believe in their products in order to get some of the same effect the non-profits benefit from. Interestingly she suggests that companies need not be involved in “doing good”. Lubin believes that the company need only have a very clear mission, even is the mission is purely commercial, in order to engage its people.

Lubin goes on to point out that non-profits tend to be good marketers, and focus on building long-term relationships with donors though keeping in touch regularly. Another thing for-profit companies can do a little better!

Other things the non-profits do well? Flat management structures. Fun atmosphere. Fancy titles. OK, the private sector is pretty good these days at giving out important-sounding job titles, but what about the other areas?

What does your company do to keep staff motivated and feeling involved with the company’s mission, without breaking the bank?

Kieran Bird

Last week one of our researchers telephone calling companies was told ‘We don’t sell anything, we are a construction company’.

This mindset (apart from being mind blowing) is still rampant in British commerce, the abhorrence to selling and sales people. Here we are living and working through probably the most challenging economic climate. The news media dishing out daily recessional fears, high unemployment, cut backs, business liquidation, and the massive 25% trim down in the public sector.

We don’t sell anything is the mindset to adopt if you want annihilation. Every sane business leader and entrepreneur knows that nothing happens anywhere in the world until a sale takes place and they are also prepared to admit that a sales person brings in the money that everybody else can live off. In this challenging and exciting business environment the successful companies will demonstrate that to win, succeed, grow, provide employment and have happy customers the mindset is to be customer led but sales driven.

So here are just a few thoughts/challenges

1. Does everybody in your company know that their jobs are dependant on somebody winning some business – because that is sales?
2. Is your company truly customer led and delivering what your customers really want?
3. Is your company really sales driven from the boss to the cleaner?
4. Has everybody in your company experienced some rudimentary sales learning?
5. Is there an enthusiasm to adopt the latest techniques in winning business?
6. Are your front line sales people, sales people or solution specialists?
7. So what’s so special about you and your company?
8. Does everybody in your company know the two major reasons why businesses fail? –
   1. They can’t, won’t or don’t sell.
   2. Not getting paid on time.
9. Are you providing your customers the cheapest, or value?
10. So what are you going to do differently tomorrow?

It seems almost everyone has an opinion as to how and why the English Team put up such a dismal performance in the World Cup. The criticism is intense but we can all be so wise after the event, and in all honesty you don’t have to have a great brain to find fault and criticize.

On several occasions I have been asked to forecast the eventual winner in South Africa, my reply “It will be the team with the greatest motivation – attitude – passion, not the team with the greatest talent”.

Our English Team never had a cat in hells chance from the start. Yes they were a little bit jaded at the conclusion of the season, but so were a lot of the other European Teams, but our English Team right from the time they departed clearly showed that they were not going to be winners. Their body language, their facial expression, their communication and overall demeanour was devoid of that vital ingredient to win. One could easily point the finger at the Manager, but realistically he was severely handicapped by his command of the Team’s language – English. I can tell you from experience it is extremely difficult to motivate and inspire others unless you have a really good command of their language and how to use the right inflexion in the voice. The Team Captain was hampered by his obvious lack of Leadership and Motivational skills. Yes I hear you say, that’s not important for the Captain in football, bulls***, if that is the thinking and the wisdom, BIG, BIG, BIG MISTAKE.

So some great lessons to be learnt but sadly this great national sport appears not to be run by people with common sense.

Sorry, but I need to use the F word. It’s ‘the day after’ and I can’t quite get yesterday’s game out of my mind. Yes, the football.

I’m not going to whine. I’m not going to ask AGAIN? I’m not going to ask why Capello brought on Heskey instead of Crouch. And I’m certainly not going to ask why the centre-backs apparently forgot what the job entails.

I am instead, going to reach for the positive message that came from the weekend’s football. Back in January Richard Denny wrote a blog about Barbara Ehrenreich’s book attacking the power of positive thinking. Basically Enrenreich says it doesn’t work.

Well Barbara, perhaps you should watch your fellow Americans play football. (World football, not American football!) On Saturday night during the US v Ghana build-up the ITV commentator mentioned that all teams that buy American footballers say their technical skills are only one of their benefits. They say US players are a bonus due to the relentless belief they will win. ‘Americans certainly believe in their capacity for coming from behind. They have proven it more than once.’

Sure the US got knocked out. But for a team that is not in the world’s top ten they did themselves proud. Positive thinking. US footballers are a good example of its power.

Maradona seems fairly positive, wouldn’t you say?

Kieran Bird

The uncertainty is over, we now know the best, and the worst is not too bad really. The media of course will hype the negatives and do their best to demoralize us, but sadly that’s their job and the only way they can survive.

Uncertainty is a little like worrying, which is probably the most debilitating use of our brain, worry is best summed up “simply as negative imagination”.

In business uncertainty also creates the ‘NO DECISION’ syndrome which itself is so counter productive. The uncertainty is over, no more excuses and let’s get going, we now know the position and we could all do with a little belt tightening.

In every adversity there is the seed of an equivalent or greater benefit, so how about adopting the mind set of:

• How can you turn this situation to your advantage?
• What can you do that you haven’t done before?
• Most importantly, what are you going to do differently today?

The headline quite comes from Juvenal, a Roman. Rather fond of hair apparently.

As I understand it, he’s not the only one.

A lack of facial hair has been a rule in business for many years. The reasons why are pretty solid. I remember as a child being told by a neighbour never to grow a moustache or a beard, as it indicates vanity. That was the mid 70s, and the neighbour was an elderly woman.

Since then studies have shown that some people associate facial hair (on a man, of course!) with vanity and eccentricity. Facial hair even makes some people think of dishonesty – as a beard can hide the mouth to some degree. So for me, that’s a good enough reason to be clean shaven.

But according to a recent article in the FT, beards are making a comeback amongst the upper echelons of business. Specifically, a few company owners and CEOs are sporting beards in London these days. Apparently they now see beards as a sign of social standing. That is, people like you and I might need to shave (unless you are female of course!), but the wealthy don’t need to.

A wee confession. I wore a goatee for a few years while promoting my PersonaPR book in the U.S. I decided it was worth it to look different, to cut through the clutter of competition from hundreds (if not thousands) of other professional speakers. Not really sure whether it was the right decision, but as I went back into corporate life I lost the beard.

So, can CEOs afford the luxury of looking eccentric? Richard Branson’s breaking of the rules of business deportment has never harmed him. When training executives in personal branding I always advise a conservative appearance for business. At this stage, I have no intention of changing my advice.

But are the rules changing? What do you think?

Kieran Bird

From the Body Shop to Trader Joes, companies across the world are getting the hang of doing well by doing good. There’s never been a better time to do so. On the one hand, the recession, international price-led competition and regulation and taxes all make doing business in 2010 difficult.

But on the other, research shows that 75% of Generation Y’ers say they might change brands based on ethical factors. These 10-24 years olds care greatly about ethical causes, particularly the environment.

You might ask what this has to do with the business you are in. I am in the business skill training business – not much to do with the environment. But we have found a way to prospect for new clients using the environment as a hook. It’s working well for us, so I won’t be broadcasting the nature (pun intended, sorry!) of our approach to our competitors just yet. But I do suggest you consider ethical issues, and the environment in particular, when you draw up your marketing plans.

Kieran Bird

As M.D. of Denny Training, I rant a lot about the need for, and value of, training. But I just love it when someone outside the training industry says it better than me. So allow me to quote Lord Digby Jones from yesterday’s Sunday Times.

 “We live in a world where China wants your lunch, and India wants your dinner. This century belongs to Asia, and if we’re going to trade our way out of this economic malaise, we can’t rely on price to do it.

 There are four words companies need to compete: Quality, Value-add, Innovation, and Brand. By innovation, I don’t mean invention; it might be taking an idea to market like ‘how do you check people in at a hotel’. By brand, I mean building a reputation in your sector for doing things like training your people better every day.

 Everything comes back to these four words, but you can’t crack it unless you’ve got skilled people.” And he finishes by saying “skill our people and beat the world.”

 Well said, Lord Jones, well said.

Kieran Bird

I was walking out of the supermarket yesterday and the elderly woman in front of me dropped her shopping bag. The bag had a garish design and so was easily recognizable. That’s why I didn’t expect the reaction I got when I handed the bag back to its owner. It happened in a second, but as I handed her the bag I saw the look in her eyes – trepidation, confusion, and then recognition. She did not know me, and so her initial reaction was wary, almost fearful. It took her a second or two to process what she was seeing – a stranger, handing her something, and that something turned out to be hers.

Even though the bag was hers, she needed to process me as well. Who was I? Was I a threat? The judgment came quickly. I was wearing a suit. I was not wearing a tie though. I asked myself if a tie would have made a difference. Could a tie have slightly reduced the time needed to decide I was no threat?

Does it sound silly to suggest a tie could make that much difference to my credibility? During the 70s some interesting experiments were carried out in New York. Americans tend to be good about waiting for the WALK light before they walk across the street – jaywalking laws ensure that. But this series of experiments found that it was possible to encourage waiting groups to cross illegally against the DON’T WALK light. All it took was a person breaking from the waiting group, and crossing the street illegally, and others broke their usual behaviour pattern and followed. But here’s the interesting part. The effect was strongest when the person crossing the street first was male, tall, white and, crucially, well dressed. A suit and tie made all the difference.

Let’s put aside height, which we can’t do much about. Ditto gender and race which hopefully are less of an issue in the 21^st century! Business dress makes a difference to credibility and to trust. IBM knew this of course. Back in the 1950s Buck Rogers Jr.  had not only the IBM sales force, but also the service technicians, dress in dark suits, white shirts and ties.

The white shirt rule no longer applies. But overall, conservative dress helps people immediately process us as being trustworthy. Forget fashion. Think trust. And next time I see an elderly woman drop a bag, I’ll think personal branding.

Kieran Bird