Comments

Appreciate it - sales is so all encompassing - it is trust - diplomacy - loyalty - profit - affluence - fun - people 1st - relationships --- and it is an ancient endeavor from the dawn of time. Must sell free enterprise lifestyle to those without.

Posted by Sean at May 3, 2006 11:21 AM

i knew someday it would happen... my message preached by tom:

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ski?id=202

-ski

Posted by Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey at May 3, 2006 12:17 PM

Bravo! I talk to younger sales people quite often and always mention that being a professional salesperson (which in my mind is a consultative solver of business problems) is an admirable profession, and that nothing happens until someone sells something. Think of all the amazing products and discoveries - useless until adopted by consumers.

Posted by Lori Richardson at May 3, 2006 1:08 PM

God Bless You! I have long believed that marketing gets far too much credit, and sales far too little (especially in a B2B setting).

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 3, 2006 1:41 PM

I have just finished watching Sir Alan Sugar's TV show 'The Apprentice'.It's the UK version of the US Donald Trump show. It was the last but one show and he had to fire two people. His reason for sacking the one guy was that he was "a one-trick pony". His main criticism was that the chap was "just a salesman". I have been training sales people for many decades and yes, it is a 'profession' and one to be proud of. I am so pleased that someone with Tom's credentials is going to tell it like it is, thank you. Who was it that said "If everyone has to eat, sure as hell someone's gotta sell"?

Mark Goodwin, UK. (Fellow Institute Sales & Marketing Management FISMM).

Posted by Mark Goodwin at May 3, 2006 6:03 PM

Harvard Business Review for April has a fantastic article/review about what B2B's want in a sales person. I highly recommend it. Being in sales, I have heard people say, "The other departments don’t realize that they wouldn’t have jobs if we weren't out selling." When a marketing organization doesn't exist, who is responsible for evangelizing a product? Most of the time it won’t do it on it’s own.

Thanks Tom for bringing that back into the light.

Posted by travis at May 3, 2006 9:35 PM

It's been my experience that most marketers couldn't sell hookers on a troop train.

I've been around professional sales people for 30 years, training them, leading them, and being one of them.

Selling isn't telling, it's helping smart people make wise choices.

Posted by Cessna Pilot at May 3, 2006 10:08 PM

Isn’t it the case that no one function is more important than another per se but that in different companies there will be different priorities? These priorities will change and so will the emphasis between them, e.g. budgets, headcount etc. If your business is about selling widgets to a relatively small number of manufacturers then I suspect that having a great marketing campaign is important but having excellent sales people is critical. On the other hand, if you’re an e-tailer selling to Joe Public then I suspect that having great salesmen will definitely help but in the overall scheme of things excellent marketing is more important because it will have a bigger and wider impact.

I’ve got nothing against raising the profile of sales just so long as it’s not a sales vs. marketing vs. finance vs. supply chain etc etc turf war. It should be as part of a business excellence project.

Posted by Mark JF at May 4, 2006 2:31 AM

I think there are some underlying issues with this stuff

I really detest statements like "The other departments don’t realize that they wouldn’t have jobs if we weren't out selling.". The truth is that every department can claim that the other would not be in work without them. That is the whole point of a business is to bring together DIFFERENT disciplines and capabilities that all need each other.

Does some of the image problem with sales actually start with sales themselves? Many people outside of sales believe that sales people really don't need any more trumpet blowing! I have met very few salespeople who were really humble and inclusive of other people/departments (ironically the ones I have met have actually been some of the highest performers)

I don't think that sales should be proud of their profession. Note this is a general statement. There are excelent sales people and they should be proud of the work they do. But they all belong to the same profession and until sales as a whole cleans up it's act their image will remain poor.

Personally I don't like being sold to, whether it be financial products, a car, a house and I think this is the problem. Everyone is on the receiving end of poor sales and the image of the profession as a whole suffers.

When sales treat others in business with a little more respect then perhaps they will find it returned.

Posted by PaulH at May 4, 2006 2:54 AM

I'd love not to respond to PaulH, but I can't do it. Let's agree that different disciplines coming together effectively does make for stronger businesses. But, "does some of the image problem with sales actually start with sales themselves?"

C'mon, man. Sure there are horrible salespeople that damage the image of the profession as a whole. But no more so than horrible CEO's, horrible CFO's, horrible marketing managers, horrible human resources managers . . . etc who damage their profession as a whole. Some people had bad expereinces with Ebbers and Lay. Does that mean the function of CEO is tainted? Let's pray not. (sales is a function, right? being performed by different people in varying ways, some good, some not so good)

Of course no one likes to be sold. Those tactics have been ineffective in sales for decades, and almost no one subscribes to or teaches them anymore. Even your car dealer will now make you sign a statement that you weren't mistreated when purchasing or leasing a car (maybe not your car dealer, but mine does).

I know you don't like to be sold, but do you like to have your product or service sold to others? Does your salesforce do so respectfully and honorably? Mine does.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 4, 2006 6:31 AM

Mark G - I took Sir Alan's remarks a bit differently. The "just a salesman" line was a criticism only in the context of, "What other skills and potential do you bring to the party?" The real, substantative criticism was that he certainly seemed to be a one-trick pony, which in the context of the general management job on offer is a perfectly valid concern / criticism.

PaulH - it seems to me that half the problem is that not many people know how to buy, and when you get a poor buyer and a poor seller together... I'm not for one moment suggesting this is you and I know it's not an excuse for poor selling, but when you see folks in shops treating sales staff like dirt, being aggressive, swearing, pushy, expecting a huge discount and generally behaving like they're the centre of the universe, you wonder where the problem really lays. Let's re-work your last sentence: When people treat others with respect then perhaps they will find it returned.

Posted by Mark JF at May 4, 2006 6:54 AM

On the money, as usual. In a world of consultants, associates, account executives and marketing this or that's, we've become a culture of people afraid to even proclaim our contribution. It's pretty simple Paul H., no sales, no money, no money, no Paul!

Posted by Charlie Nicks at May 4, 2006 7:40 AM

Tom, as always the subject of bettering the image of sales people creates a controversy. And well it should. I think the problem is that there are such a wide variety of sales types, or what we call sales people. Is a telemarketer, who has no idea who you are or what your needs are and calls at 8:29 PM on a Wednesday night just as they are to announce the next constant to leave American Idol really a sales person? What about non stop calls from “stock brokers” who saw an article about your company and think you have lots of money to invest and actually have not done one bit of research on you or your company really sales people? My opinion is they are not.

A real sales person takes the time to get to know your company and then you. They provide you with valuable information and cultivate a relationship that creates a win/win situation. These are people you want to work with, who actually see your situation through your eyes. To me that is a sales person.

Posted by Harry H at May 4, 2006 7:43 AM

I think you misunderstand me (or more likely I didn't express myself very well) I am on the side of Sales here! What I am saying is that one of the issues is everyone has personal experience of poor sales (door to door etc) in a way that they don't have experience of CFO behaviour unless they meet them in business. Because of this the sales profession is battling against an image problem from the start. I am talking the reality of the situation here not what is right or wrong

I do think it is worth examining types of people here as well. I realise that this is a gross generalisation but sales people tend to be different from other parts of the business - This can lead to friction. This is true of other parts of busines (I work in IT and that is a prime candidate as well!) but we are talking about sales here and ways to improve their image

Posted by PaulH at May 4, 2006 7:45 AM

Remember this part of my Post: "Everyone lives by selling something." My bigger point--which I passionately believe--is that we are all in sales. An IS person seeking line support for a process-improvement project is a salesperson at heart--if she/he wants to make a difference. "Sales is life, the rest is details" is as close to a motto as any I have.

Posted by tom peters at May 4, 2006 9:06 AM

I'm with the overall idea being thrust forward in this conversation. The "without salespeople, the rest of you guys wouldn't have a job" argument I can do without. It's like the heart telling the brain "Without me, you'd be dead."

Talking about degrading marketing... is it just me or do corporations need to do a better job of drawing/keeping marketers with good sales skills? Seems like the majority of marketers who can sell ideas end up in agency gigs. Maybe executives are happy with their yes-men?

Shame.

Posted by DUST!N at May 4, 2006 10:45 AM

I totally agree with you Tom and Charlie.

The issue you have is not in being right! It is in convincing people to want to relate to sales and to understanding that we are all in sales and that they need to make it a part of their skills set when "sales" has such a lousy reputation.

The fundamental question is WHY "we've become a culture of people afraid to even proclaim our contribution", to turn our back on this fundamental part of business.

I believe this is, in part, because sales has a bad reputation and people want to disassociate themselves with it.

I have worked as an IT consultant (pre and post sales so I have worked with both sides of the equation) and people who are not in sales often believe that they would have to compromise their integrity to do the sales job. I am not saying this is right - simply fact.

My argument is whilst this perception exists you will have a hard job Selling Sales (sorry!). So my question is:

What needs to happen to change this perception?

Posted by PaulH at May 4, 2006 10:56 AM

Tom,

I love your focus on sales. I'm currently writing a book entitled, The Warrior Sales Monk and have a blog site at www.men-at-pause.com. The book offers professional and non-sales people (entrepreneurs, etc.) a process and philosophy combining emotional aspect of sales combined with a philosophy to seperate your individual self-identity from approval or rejection.

One of my favorite quotes I came across and discuss in my upcoming book is,
“Marketing puts the ball in play;
Sales puts the ball away.”
Chuck Peck, CEO of the theglobe.com

Tom please continue to raise awareness of this skill set all of us as leaders must have!

visit www.men-at-pause.com for more info.

Posted by Matthew Scott at May 4, 2006 11:07 AM

Tom, how do 'YOU' sell 'YOUR' services??
I've read your powerpoint on sales.. :-)
Thanks in anticipation!

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at May 4, 2006 12:01 PM

Tom, I would modify to say efficient sales is God. In tech, many vendors end up spending 40+ on selling and marketing (mostly in selling expenses). That revenue is important. Revenue at 20% selling and marketing is even better

BTW you may enjoy this post on the Salesperson and the Accoutant...

http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2006/04/the_salesperson.html

Posted by vinnie mirchandani at May 4, 2006 12:05 PM

PaulH asks how we change the perception. Great question . . . I'd like to ask the follow up question: How do we change the perception of accounts payable, finance, human resources, marketing, operations, etc. to undertand that THEY ARE in sales (or at least they should be).

Tom: I believe that is your point, and I'm on board.

Vinnie: Great link. I am crying . . .

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 4, 2006 1:13 PM

Seems we agree on SALES importance - closing the sale is a main deal to me - seducing and closing is an adventure - some have the heart for it - so they end up with 1st rate sales always - or they walk.

Yesterday I closed a "sale" on landscape maintenance - 40% of what I expected in cost - got it in writing - too lazy to do my own yardwork [pollen count avoidance is the excuse and/or am creating wonder with ideas during non yard time].

Posted by Sean at May 4, 2006 1:27 PM

I go along with the idea we're all in Sales and I put it into practice: I work in Supply Chain but I encourage and welcome the opportunity to go out with sales folks and meet customers, understand their requirements, talk about what we can do for them etc. (And I'm honest enough to admit it's also about building my own personal credibility amongst those I meet!)

But equally, aren't we all in Finance (we have a responsibility to know how much we've generated / spent)? And in Customer Service (don't you just love the Sales person who takes the order but then runs a mile when you've got an after-sales query)? And in HR (it's all about people)? And in IT? Etc etc?

Posted by MarkJF at May 4, 2006 3:18 PM

Having trained B2B sales teams for a couple of decades, I can honestly say that there aren't too many PROFESSIONAL sales people--those who take the profession, and their skills in it, seriously.

What makes a professional? Being honest with the prospect (and not letting the prospect lie to you either), following up (with summaries, notes, suggestions), having a process (so the prospect has hope that you can solve his problem), and creating an atmosphere where the buyer is buying (to solve a problem) rather than you selling (to make quota).

I'll keep workin' on 'em. Tom, thanks for the site.

Posted by Bill Caskey at May 4, 2006 7:11 PM

“Marketing puts the ball in play;
Sales puts the ball away.”

Yes but who produced the ball? who build the stadium? who cut the grass?

This is a great discussion but so far we are talking in a series of generalisations and tag line statements.(and I am probably more guilty of this than anyone!) So here are some thought/discussion provokers:

I am with MarkJF - saying "we are all in sales" is too general - what specific, different behaviour are you looking for the finance, IT, HR person to do?

"Everyone lives by selling something." Sorry Tom you have to do better than that. You can equally say everyone lives by producing something which then needs to be sold! - both are required. I want to understand the significance. The statement is obvious. So again lets talk about specific behaviour differences you are looking to encourage.

Do we really want everyone to be salespeople? Granted a degree of this is important but if I am working in a company with the Network down I want the IT guy to spend his time fixing the damn network not selling me on his ability to fix the network. Now there are occasions when that IT guy has to sell his skills and promote his brand him but 95% of the time I want him to do his job - that's what he gets paid for.

So my challenge to this wonderful group is this - what SPECIFIC behaviour differences are you looking for

Posted by PaulH at May 5, 2006 2:14 AM

I was never great at school, but I love to read. I am always stumped that books like Re-Imagine!, Purple Cow by Seth Godin, The Little Red Book of Sales by Jeffrey Gitomer, Funky Business, The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell - and the list goes on - are not mandatory reading at the MBA level. Why don't they teach courses on sales and networking (relationship building)?

BTW, This is a great post. I Blogged about it here - The Real Reason Blogs – And Tom Peters – Rocks - http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/000560.html

Posted by Mitch Joel at May 5, 2006 5:00 AM

PaulH,

Here is a short list of quick thoughts (before coffee, so I need some latitude) that the group may do better at stating than have I:

1). Take time to make every interaction with a client an excellent experience, not limited by the self-imposed limitations of your function within the enterprise. No reason the client can have the expereince with AR, AP, IT, etc.

2). Design every function around how the customer percieves the enterprise (I'm wondering out loud if human resources hires to fill their open positions on the org chart, or if they ask: "How will this hire effect our clients and prospects?" I'll move on, but the same is true of finance, etc.).

3). Design every interaction/function as an opportunity to generate additional revenue or loyalty from clients.

4.) Make every interaction an opportunity to glean something about a client's needs that can allow an innovation that may be rolled out to other clients--and solve this clients critical business issues.

That short list is already pretty ambitious.

Tom: Isn't it dangerous to limit this conversation to selling within the organization (I know IS has to sell for support within the organization, but isn't it more than that? Shouldn't the whole enterprise be engaged with the client?

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 5, 2006 5:37 AM

It depends what you call marketing ...

Marketers reflexively talk about "media," i.e., stuff between you and the customer. To me, media is always a compromise. Sometimes necessary, but always a compromise.

Maybe if we don't accept the idea of marketing as ad-agency-pretty-picture-database-analytic-mediated-customer-targeting then we'd see that great marketing and great sales are pretty close to the same thing.

The best marketing and the best sales are all about persuading the customer to act in a way that improves your busines results. Immediate, unmediated customer encounters are much more effective than mediated ones, whether you call them sales or marketing.

I have had very good results helping sales people use marketing concepts like Brand Harmony to help them sell better. And, at the same time, I tell them to ignore and avoid the "brute force" idea of marketing that traditional marketers focus on. It means nothing to their jobs.

And, I've spent a lot of energy getting marketers to look at marketing as a process of generating sales and creating profitable customer relationships, not just as a means for "getting the word out." The traditional marketing concepts they have been taught can distract them from the real job at hand: improving their business.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at May 5, 2006 8:14 AM

Anthony - re your comment, "I'm wondering out loud if human resources hires to fill their open positions on the org chart, or if they ask: "How will this hire effect our clients and prospects?"

I don't want to denigrate HR people but recruitment is far, far, far too important to be left to them. If I've got a position to fill, I want my HR colleagues to help with drafting a job ad and any necesary paperwork. But I'm going to choose the person to fill the role - not them! I want them to support the process, do the leg work, give me input and insight into the candidate selection, challenge my decision and then do all the admin. But it's me that takes the big decision and then lives with it!

This is what I mean by I'm in Supply Chain but I'm also in HR; and how I want my HR colleagues to be part of my team too.

Posted by MarkJF at May 5, 2006 9:26 AM

Ah, one of my pet peeves/soapbox issues. Why do we persist in trying to separate these things? "Marketing" is what a company does (or should) - from operations to finance to reception to - yes - sales. Marketing is what you do, how you do it, walking your talk, telling your story (not PR spinning, mind you.) It isn't "just" a department or group. If you've got a problem with your supply chain, that's a marketing problem. Surly receptionist? That's a BIG marketing problem. Sales people who drink too much at the business dinner. Another mondo marketing problem.

Two comments really resonated with me:

"The other departments don’t realize that they wouldn’t have jobs if we weren't out selling."

Sadly, this type of adversarial thinking is all too prevalent. Somehow, sales is a "dirty" thing to do. I see this problem in particular with scary smart technology start-ups. The founder breaks out in a cold sweat if he/she is expected to "sell" and really thinks they shouldn't have to.

"Of course no one likes to be sold. Those tactics have been ineffective in sales for decades, and almost no one subscribes to or teaches them anymore. Even your car dealer will now make you sign a statement that you weren't mistreated when purchasing or leasing a car (maybe not your car dealer, but mine does).

I know you don't like to be sold, but do you like to have your product or service sold to others? Does your salesforce do so respectfully and honorably? Mine does."

Key words here: respect and honor.

Me? I advise my clients to send the operations/marketing/engineers/finance folks out on sales calls. Have sales people sit in planning meetings (and be fair to them in taking away selling time on the road.) We're all in sales. We're all in marketing. And, yes, nothing happens until something gets sold. That said, I've got to get back to - um - selling.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at May 5, 2006 10:59 AM

Everyone wants to talk about profits when they are the "result" of activities [read selling products that customers WANT].

Business 101; Get the business; Do the business; Get paid for the business.

Surprised at the starting point? I THINK ... not!

Posted by Barry Cogswell at May 5, 2006 1:17 PM

Ok - So far what I am seeing in the behaviours that you are talking about is lot of is what I would describe as customer focus or commercial awareness and opportunity awareness but very little that tells me that all people should be "salesy".

The problem with this kind of debate is that we make the use of terms so broad that they become meaningless. "Everyone is in marketing" I am sorry but this kind of statement is too glib, too easy. What do you then call the very specialist jobs that marketing professionals do that others don't.

"I see this problem in particular with scary smart technology start-ups. The founder breaks out in a cold sweat if he/she is expected to "sell" and really thinks they shouldn't have to."

Perhaps the founder realises that he simply isn't very good at it - that's why he employees people who are?

Shouldn't people play to their strengths?

So how far should this go? Are we talking about awareness or involvement or that all employees should carry quota?

Posted by PaulH at May 5, 2006 2:19 PM

Quite intrigued by this discussion, sharing an old simple proverb on SALES with you - "Sell something to eat, something to drink, something to wear, or something folks have to use, and you'll always be sure of a living." Cheers!

Posted by VK Narayanan at May 6, 2006 11:02 AM

I'm not really sure where to go with this. Tom you really stirred up the hive this time. I agree with you and disagree with you, maybe I'm just confused.

Sales, like marketing, like finance, like warehousing, like logistics, etc is really part of an overall project aimed at doing two things making money (including cash flow) and providing the customer/client with a good overall experience based on need fulfillment. Sales alone can’t do this nor are they equipped too,

Of course marketing isn't even close to fulfilling this either. Their role is to create initial product and brand awareness, and to provide substantive support for customer education, training etc. Upfront they need to be there in the initial acquisition process providing they understand that they need to be team players and not the show.

The idea of “total customer experience management” from my perspective takes all of the above issues and makes sense out of the whole damn thing.

Hey! I'll be the first to push sales to the top. They are the primary contact point in most business processes that are aligned with first time customer acquisition. However, the problem is that most sales people like most marketing people (our indicators show 60% to 80%) are highly focused on their own sales methodologies and fail to see the overall perspective of what this whole issue is all about.

Tom over the last few months has addressed this as I have on a number of occasions. My experience shows that sales organizations are primarily product focused, as are their goals and use of metrics data. The customer experience and its focus go beyond this delivering customer need fulfillment with sales as a byproduct of a sustained process.

This is especially true in repeat sales over an extended period of time. Sales organizations are primarily heavy in first time sales and lack sustained customer retention. This of course raises the cost of customer acquisition substantially.

Sales? Hell yea we need them, but then in any size organisation that is customer focused everyone plays an important part. In smaller businesses this is especially true. It is the "totall customer experience that makes this work. Sales and marketing alone can't create or govern this. By the way, not everyone is a sale person all the time.

Posted by Tim Whelan at May 7, 2006 10:26 AM

A sale is a done deal - the rest is mainly fluff.

Posted by Sean John at May 7, 2006 5:49 PM

I think the Sales/Marketing tussle is a lot like the Manager/Leader issue. There was a time when people suddenly wanted to be leaders and not just managers.

The word 'sales' is kind of connected in our minds with 'salesman', which is not a very glorified image. The word 'marketing' on the other hand conjures up this creative and intellectual endevour that aims to understand consumer behavior, psychology and what not.

Secondly, sales is largely a monotonous, repetitive activity, unlike marketing which on the face of it is full of innovation and creativity.

Thus it's no surprise that marketing gets to be on the pedestal, while the sales guys aspire that after a few years of sales they too can reach the pedestal.

Posted by management by matrices at May 8, 2006 12:02 AM

It's healthy to remember we're all in the business of selling something. But this approach also views marketing as a very flat concept, almost as purely right-brained, fluffy and fuzzy thinking. Marketing should be strategic--the umbrella over all business activities. Selling effectively is tactical, and the offshoot of good marketing.

Posted by Monica Powers at May 8, 2006 9:05 AM

Halleluiah So frustrating.

Posted by Andre Googe at May 9, 2006 4:35 AM

Very sad to be missing out so much on discussions in the last two weeks because my Internet connection has crashed. NEVER USE WANADOO AS YOUR PROVIDER IS MY ADVICE - SORRY BUT TRUE – IN MY EXPERIENCE THEIR TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE IS CRAP. Next time I promise I will be less diplomatic.

canadian pharmacy for viagra I miss my daily fix of visits to Tom Peters Blog but we hope to be fully up and running13 days from now. In the meantime I visit my local libraries to keep on top of urgent and important business e-mails. Today I have just had time to look at the TP Blog.

I am sorry to have missed out on this sales discussion. It is another example of making something complicated that is simple. I hate the thought of turning the art of ‘sales’ into some sort of ‘academic’ career.

Give me someone with no sales ‘training’ but sells his or her product with nothing more than passion for the product every time over someone who has had sales ‘training.’

I am not the cleverest person but I can usually tell the ‘trained’ sales person from the ‘passionate’ sales person from at least one mile away and I guess most of us can.

To me it is that simple.

Must go - my 90 minutes is about to expire and I will be on the way to my next lbrary :-)

Posted by Trevor at May 9, 2006 6:13 AM

what a load of rubbish!... it's symptomatic of narrow minded business-types that they automatically 'fall for' sales v marketing... ok, listen up bird-brains, it's sales AND marketing, both are necessary; to start a stupid debate on sales takes more intellectual prowess than marketing (tom) is about as useful as an ice-cream pair of pants... let's stop talking rubbish about this and get back to business - sales and marketing

Posted by onehandclapping at May 9, 2006 8:04 AM

I believe the point is being missed.

We all sell something. I sell ideas. I sell them to clients, to employees, to my partner, to colleagues, to my blog readers, to my wife, to my kids and to my church. I have learned ideas are my most prized 'product'. That's what I sell.

We all sell something. HR sells companies to employees and candidates to companies. PR sells news to media outlets. R&D sells projects and products to managers and executives. Managers sell goals to their departments. Executives sell visions to managers.

We all sell something. Most of the time, we don't even realize it.

Onehand tries to sell his thoughts as superior but marginalizes himself with cynicism. An observation, not a flame. alternative viagra

overnight delivery for viagra

Posted by DUST!N at May 9, 2006 5:46 PM

viagra samples overnight

Hi onehandclapping: I'm not sure anyone here has said sales takes more intellectual prowess. And I'm not sure Tom was trying to get anybody to fall for a sort of us v them debate (in fact, I'm quite certain he wasn't). I belive the message from the board participants has been more of a "sales is not esteemed like marketing." Tom's point is in the comments, paraphrased: We all sell something.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 9, 2006 5:51 PM

As Dustin picks up I think much is lost in the definitions. I believe the original point is on Sales in a wider context, everybody is selling whether its persuading your Professor to fund your work in the study of grey ants or you are doing the $1M outsource deal. As for the narrower "sales and marketing" debate for me sales is an honorouble profession but in todays "less is more" society its become unfashionable to stand up and say "I am in sales" or do anything for that matter!!

Posted by Richard Wheatley at May 10, 2006 3:21 AM

How many times have you and/or your colleagues said something along these lines: "If we stopped all this internal bickering and focused this much effort on doing stuff to please our customers, we'd be world-beaters?"

It seems to me that leadership, be it at the top or at functional level or in the regional office or wherever, is often about creating and fostering this kind of enterprise thinking.

Posted by Mark JF at May 10, 2006 4:58 AM

Antony, et al, i quote directly from tom's comment on the front page - "...I think marketing is incredibly important, but I think it intellectually comes second after sales."

I never spouted this tosh, tom did!

Posted by onehandclapping@madasafish.com at May 10, 2006 11:33 AM

I want to pick up on something that Onehand has raised

One of the things I find curious about this entry is the assertion about intellectually being greater than marketing. I have worked with a lot of sales people and intellectual is not the first word that comes to mind.

Please do not take this the wrong way - I am not saying that sales are stupid! I am really trying to understand the thinking behind this.

You can argue that there are many types of intelligence and maybe my reaction to this is narrow minded based on thinking about intellectual in the academic sense.

So I think it is worth exploring what types of intelligence are required for sales. To start with I would say a high degree of emotional intelligence and resilience.

Any other thoughts?

Posted by PaulH at May 11, 2006 2:07 AM

PaulH, is it problematic that a comparison of Sales/Marketing automatically prompts us to compare Salespeople/Marketers?

I'm not sure we're talking about job position here. More about priorities and values corporately.

Posted by DUST!N at May 11, 2006 2:16 PM

Comparing sales to marketing is like comparing a pediatrician to a surgeon. Yeah, they're both doctors, and both strive for the same basic end result, but each requires a certain set of talents, personality traits and skills that are intrinsic to their day-to-day work.

Unfortunately, a lot of companies lump the two together and end up being good at neither. Whenever someone tells me they're the "Director of Sales & Marketing," that's a huge red flag.

Posted by Super J at May 12, 2006 10:36 AM

Here is an illustration of "marketing" vs. "sales", and why sales comes first:

The marketing dept. wants each store manager to listen to all the numbers for catalog, walk-in conversion, refunds and returns, layaway, etc. for all other stores, during a conference call.

This useless information does not inspire or encourage the store managers, who are in reality wasting time on a mostly worthless, dragged out conference call. It merely annoys and frustrates them.

Each store is different, has different customers, and different items, so these comparisons hold value for corporate planning, but cannot be relevant to each store's operations.

The time spent listening to irrelevant data on other stores could be better spent serving customers.

Marketing thinks all store data is fascinating, even to other store managers.

Sales knows that such data is meaningless and boring.

Posted by Steven Streight aka Vaspers the Grate at May 14, 2006 11:38 PM

Super J - just to be controversial, why should a Sales and Marketing Director job title throw up a red flag? I agree with you that each function requires different talents and skills but why should one set preclude the other? Maybe the Sales and Marketing Director got the position precisely because he understands the difference and can manage both functions to meet the business requirements, without engaging in a debilitating turf war?

Posted by Mark JF at May 15, 2006 2:40 AM

Mark - I'm just basing that comment on my own experience. Anytime I've encountered someone in that dual "sales & marketing" role, they tend to have a background in one half (usually sales) and very little in the other. I've sat across the table from "sales & marketing" managers who have had, literally, zero marketing experience prior to being hired.

I've seen this a lot in smaller companies. I think the logic from management is that they think they can hire one person to handle both roles, so they just lump them together.

Posted by Super J at May 18, 2006 4:38 PM