Jun
Qualifying Revisited

A few weeks back I posted a couple of pieces on how quantifying is a more practical approach in sales than qualifying. Quantifying is Qualifying 2.0 and Quantify – Don’t Qualify. But as I was preparing and presenting the life cycle of a sale using an integrated process through CRM Thursday, I explored a different angle on the issue. It was as we were talking about how you vet a lead sourced through social media before assigning it to sales.
It struck me at that point that the reason sales people at time have difficulty qualifying leads and prospects especially, is because it is not their job. It is very much the role of marketing, and once a lead has been properly nurtured and qualified, then it is up to sales to quantify and sell and in a word close the deal.
In preparing for the presentation there was a lot of discussion about who owns the process, more accurately who should and would be accountable for qualifying the lead on its way to becoming a prospect. It seemed that the marketing camp was happy to take credit when the process was successful, but not as ready to stand up and be accountable when the process did not yield the desired results.
As we broke down and parsed things further it became evident that by assigning ownership of qualifying to marketing, and quantifying to sales, you had much more optimal alignment of skills and to the process.
With all the focus and touting of Web 2.0, social media and more, it seems easy and perhaps logical to delegate qualifying of unvetted leads, nurturing them to threshold of readiness, to marketing, hold them accountable for the quality of that process.
This does not allow sales off the hook, in fact, by removing this function from sales, and having marketing deliver qualified leads, sales will have to extend the effort and consistently execute the process. Well it looks good on the white board, keep you posted about the real world.
What’s in Your Pipeline?
Tibor Shanto















This post has 2 comments
July 6th, 2009
Tibor, I am not going to lie to you…I left a similar comment on another post today but it applies here as well.
This statement was made by the author who was talking about the days before Marketing owned the lead till it was ready for sales: “They (sales) got to know their prospects and helped them navigate the tricky waters of considered purchase decisions. The salesperson with the best relationship usually won the deal.”
Based on today’s arguments, what I want to know is how many deals are being lost while they are in the funnel because the salesperson was not introduced early enough in the process to help the prospect navigate those tricky waters?
I am on the bus with giving more responsibility to marketing to create sales ready leads but it can be a slippery slope to lost deals if not well thought out. No matter how much energy is expended, whiteboard process doesn’t build a relationship with the buyer, it doesn’t handle objections, it doesn’t outsell the competition.
Here is the question each organization has to answer for themselves: Can automated systems and well thought out processes really take the place of old fashioned sales skills? Something to think about….
July 6th, 2009
Hi Trish,
Good hearing from you, to answer your question specifically, no automation and process are no replacement for execution; they are at best facilitators.
I am assuming you response was to Ardath Albee’s post, I had a similar reaction to yours.
Let me clarify my comments a bit, I was reacting to an experience with a group I was working with, where marketing ran a campaign across various media (web, publications, ghost bloggers, and some social networks). Any and all leads that came in were forwarded to sales immediately, and sales was held accountable for the conversion rate. It was my view that marketing should have had some form of triage plan in place to ensure some minimal level of qualification of the leads, and had some accountability for the base quality of the leads. Once a lead meets the minimal and agreed on threshold, yes bring on sales and have them do their thing.
Thanks for the feedback,
Tibor
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
June 26th, 2009
RT @ianbrodie: @renbor suggest splitting qualifying/quantifying between marketing & sales – agree? http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 26th, 2009
RT @StevenARosen: @renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 26th, 2009
RT @Renbor: Qualifying revisited and re-delegated #sales #STA #qualifying http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 27th, 2009
@renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 27th, 2009
Qualifying Revisited http://tinyurl.com/ow7wk3
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 29th, 2009
@renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 30th, 2009
@renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJune 30th, 2009
@renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterJuly 6th, 2009
RT @renbor says make sure right team is executing right function #SAT #sales #qualify http://bit.ly/7sJYQ
This comment was originally posted on TwitterTrackbacks