Richard Denny – Thoughts on sales and marketing

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

We are only days from the election now, and many will be pleased when the election is over. Yesterday the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a report on one of the main reasons. Fake claims. Fudging. Dishonesty.

It is stating the extremely obvious to say we all know that politicians cannot be trusted to be upfront, clear and honest about their plans, about where they will spend and where they will cut. The problem is particularly acute in this election, due to the damage caused by the recent recession, and the corresponding need for major cuts in public spending.

This lack of candour drives us all nuts, so why do they do it? A member of the public commented on Channel Four News yesterday that any politician who breaks the mould and gives us the facts would become very popular for their obvious bravery and honesty. So I repeat, why will they not come clean?

Again, the reason is blindingly obvious. Following the first debate we were shown the results of the official instant poll, and also of the ratings of the “undecideds”. If you missed it, a group of undecided voters were given the opportunity to rate how happy or otherwise they were, about what was being said by each candidate. They gave their ratings in real time. What the ratings clearly showed was, each time a candidate promised more spending, they were popular with the group of undecided voters. And conversely, when a candidate suggested less spending, they immediately became unpopular. 

This is the reality politicians face when targeting undecided voters. Elections are decided by people looking for easy answers. The politician who promises the most usually wins. And so they promise, and promise, and promise. They know their obfuscation annoys us, but they know telling the truth annoys the voters who, once all votes are tallied, decides who lays his head in No 10 for the next five years.

It’s ugly, yes. But give a thought to the politicians. In their ugly business they are doing what we tell delegates on our marketing and presentations skills courses to do; know your customer, know your audience, and deliver what they want.

 Then again, on our marketing courses we also tell our delegates to “under promise, and over deliver”. Gordon. David. Nick. Are you listening?

Kieran Bird

Walking by my local barber on the weekend I noticed it was as busy as ever. Packed with people sitting, looking bored. And I wondered, as I always do, why no-one was reading. I wonder the same thing in the doctors office. And on the tube. Why do people choose to be bored, rather than occupied and enlightened.

 When I ask myself what it is that has had the most positive effect in my career, both in terms of career progression and in terms of enjoyment, that answer is easy. Its reading. Its ongoing learning. Not only have I learned to become a better salesman and marketer, but I have enjoyed it. Reading keeps fresh ideas in my head, and keeps me motivated. It keeps me ENJOYING my job!

 Lots of people say to me “I don’t have time to read. I just never sit down”. Oh really? You never sit down? Well, sorry to be a bit crude, but everyone sits down on an oval seat every day. Read just a couple of pages a day (wherever you are sitting!) to keep getting better at your job. And to keep enjoying it.

What do you read to keep you stimulated?

Kieran Bird

Last Friday we sent out the first edition of our new Denny Business Development Digest. The topic was motivation, “The Candle Problem”. Interestingly, last week’s Economist, which also came out on Friday morning, covered the same topic. Click Here

We both looked at some work on motivation done by Karl Duncker and Sam Glucksberg, recently reexamined by Daniel Pink. But according to the Economist article Pink’s argument that “There’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does” “depends on a highly selective reading of the academic literature”. The Economist article goes on to mention four studies and discusses two in particular. It states that a study of an American glass installation company found that shifting from salaries to incentives increased productivity by 44%. It also states that research on workers at a Chinese electronics factory confirms that performance-related pay is an excellent motivator. But the article misses the point. What the experiments show is, with a simple set of rules, a single, clear solution, and a narrow focus – extrinsic motivators do work. And when only mechanical skills are needed, incentives work. But when cognitive skills are required, a larger reward equals poorer performance. And similarly, when real thinking needs to be done, higher standards equal poorer performance. A glass installation company and workers at an electronics factory. Surely this is mechanical work? As I say, the Economist article appears to miss the point. When setting incentives for work that requires cognitive skills, be wary. Bankers please take note.

 Kieran Bird

How positive thinking fooled America and the World The new book by Barbara Ehrenreich

This really sad and bitter lady who claims to have carried out scientific research on the subject does a great disservice to scientific research which is used as bedrock for credibility.

Ms Ehrenreich claims that positive thinking is a tyranny, it is a quack theory, it creates a cult like culture and positive thinking has made the world miserable. The book goes even further to denigrate motivation.

Positive thinking and positive communication needs defending. I don’t know of any successful individual in sport – in business – in parenting – in relationships – in human conflict or in any field of human endeavour who would not attribute positive thought to be a major contributor towards their achievements or happiness.

Being positive is a state of mind and a healthy one at that. Just a visit to the Selly Oak Hospital to the ward where our seriously wounded soldiers are being treated will demonstrate the power of positive thinking.

The medical world has for years never understood but willingly embraces the psychosomatic power of healing.

Hear me loud and clear, the most evil, disastrous and catastrophic attitudinal behaviour is negative thinking and negative communication. This is ten times more powerful than positive thought or communication. No claims here based on scientific research but just a wealth of experience in life’s laboratory.

If you think you can you are more likely to, but if you think you can’t, you won’t – cliché! Yes but so what.

Here lies the balance – REALISM. Positive thinking does not move mountains but does move people.

Richard Denny
Author of Succeed for Yourself and Motivate to Win

Is all this snow making you dream of a holiday in the sun? And did you happen to see the travel section of the Telegraph on the 3^rd of January? The headline of this blog was the headine of their article. A nice little article suggesting some challenges we might like to take on in 2010. However, from my standpoint there was one thing missing. And that’s the subheading, how to keep those resolutions. The article offered the cost of each suggested activity along with a suggested company to approach. What it didn’t offer was advice on how to stick with the resolution, and with all of your resolutions for 2010 and beyond. So here’s my suggestion for you. When we train people we use a variety of methods to make the learning ‘stick’. From this month we are using another simple way to help people stick with their goals. Take a look at pledgehammer.com . It’s a site that allows you to announce your goal, and to publicly state how much you will give to your chosen charity if you fail to stick to your promise to yourself. Get a friend involved to help motivate you. We use line managers in the corporate setting, but a friend will help you will personal goals. So why not take a look at pledeghammer.com . And make 2010 the year you… change your diet, give up smoking, save £X, volunteer for your favourite charity, or just take a lovely holiday in the hot, hot sun….

Kieran Bird

Earlier this year I gave up drinking beer (gluten intolerance, not choice!). So now, I enjoy a pint of cider. Not Strongbow or Blackthorn though, not to my taste. If there’s no local cider, I’ll have a Bulmers or Magners. As you probably know, they are marketed to be drunk with ice. So the bartender asks “Do you want ice with that?” And I answer “NO THANKS!” And they bring me a pint glass full of ice. Why? They don’t listen. They think they already know the answer, they ask the question and don’t listen for the answer. Frustrating! But how much more frustrating is it to find your prospect/customer has not been listening to your benefit statement, or your objection answers? How painful is it? How costly is it? Very! So, let’s remind overselves how to get our prospect/customer/boss/spouse/partner to listen. ASK QUESTIONS. Get your prospect’s mind engaged on his/her favourite topic… him/her self. Ask questions. Engage. Relate. Close!

Kieran Bird

Tesco are about to embark on a new staff training programme. Over the next 12 months they will be investing £3 million to improve the sales techniques of its store-front workers.

Retail is not an easy business. Low wages and high staff turnover. Because of this retailers are historically poor at staff training. And doesn’t it show! (Would someone PLEASE sell me a pair of shoes, I have been trying to buy a new pair two weekends in a row, with little help from salespeople!)

So, when we see a retailer investing in staff training, we should be thankful.

I repeat. Three cheers for Tesco!