I was evaluating some marketing
automation software recently. I saw a couple of demos and also
had some brief email interaction with one salesperson.
Here's the sequence:
- @ Morning demo (in-person)
sales guy: "One of our competitors is Leadlander."
me (thinks): "I guess I better check out their offering as
well."
- @ Office, online: I check out Lead Lander's website and submit
a request for information.
Email Response: immediate, automated
Me: quick skim and then trash
- Actual email answer with demo link
Me: Interesting. Looks ok.
- Post-demo automated followup: "What did you think?"
Me: Interesting... I wasn't going to ask, but since you emailed and
this email looks compelling (and comes from a real person's email
address), what is the price?
- Real email answer
What surprised me was my choice @ step 4. I was interacting with
a website and getting automated emails, and that automated
nurturing (as it's called) caused me to ask an important question
along the buying path. A question that I probably wouldn't have
asked otherwise.
In my mind, I was done evaluating but, seeing the real person's
name on the follow-up email, encouraged me to ask my question that
I otherwise wouldn't have asked. Leadlender earned its chance to
continue that sales conversation.
Flipside: Not conversing
A co-worker recently bought his 2nd home. He used a different
mortgage provider this time than last. He liked the first mortgage
provider - it was his bank. He's still with the same bank and likes
them. So why the switch? They wouldn't talk to him.
I mean, they provided a mortgage quote to him, but he got a
better quote elsewhere. Today, he mentioned to me (not to his bank)
that he had tried to negotiate on his mortgage with his first home
- and got a flat "no."
That "no" cost them a future conversation. Maybe that is policy,
but it seems to me that a sales conversation is a good way to build
the relationship with a loyal customer. Let's assume* that
the bank can't make money at the alternate rate and that it would
be a bad business idea to match it. Here are some ways that first
conversation could have gone, in my mind (that would have changed
today's path, if not outcome):
Starting with "That seems like a pretty good deal that they are
offering. Let me check with my manager." later:
- "We can't match it. What I can do: I'll throw in _____ for
sticking with us. It's not much and, personally, I'd take the other
deal, but we do appreciate you as a customer."
- "We can't match it - but I can lower the rate by 1 point. I can
also remove all your banking fees for a year. Does that work for
you?"
- "That's an amazing deal. Let me show you what rates I've handed
out to other customers in the last few months: I can give you the
best rate that you see here, but as you can see it doesn't match
what you have on the table."
- "We can't do it. But I can offer a reduced rate that isn't as
good. The things I'd watch for is ____, _____, and ____ with the
other guys: those wouldn't be an issue with us. But, if you're
comfortable with those, then that deal is clearly the way to
go."
He would have left trusting the bank. Whether or not he went
with them, his loyalty would have increased and the bank would have
been part of the future sales conversation. That's how you acquire
brand equity and sales: conversing with customers.
Links
- For the sake of argument, I'll put
aside my belief that a good mortgage risk investment is worth
"earning" at a lower interest rate than losing (since the marginal
cost on that business is dramatically lower than acquisition costs
on new business) and instead, just take for granted that the bank
should say "no" (which I think is unlikely the right choice).
- Aaron Hoos' tip 14 (and others) in 88 strategies for 2008: http://aaronhoos.com/88strategiesfor2008/