Cold Calling Related To Blogging Solutions

Motivated a little by my prior post on using blogging to imbue culture, I have a post over at my 21Publish blog to try to imbue some culture (in the public eye) on people performing inside sales and marketing functions at 21Publish. As I’ve mentioned before, the sales process and the role of cold calling (if any) depends on what type of product or service is being sold. There is also a lot of detail on optimizing sales operations which I do not go into on this post. Yet some may be able to imagine how things need to be segmented out so that skillsets of employees are used properly and so that customer prospects are engaged the way they want to be engaged.

Update (9/30/05) – Here’s a snip of a blog post I did about a year ago that sheds some light on different sales processes as related to the type of product being sold. I believe sales operations is something that every entrepreneur and general manager should better understand …

Where things can go awry is in the implementation of marketing and sales operations, and I’ll only address two activities for brevity: cold calling and networking. A popular saying is that networking is the most effective way to generate sales. While I think this is true, I think that such thinking ignores some underlying core concepts. Better understanding the core concepts is helpful because a spectrum of marketing and sales techniques may be used in an organization.

On one end of the spectrum, cold calling operations are generally better for those types of offerings that are more commoditized, common, and well-defined. Cold calling operations are also better for those cases where the customer’s problems are not that confidential. Thus, as you can imagine, since customer prospects can be contacted at any moment by telemarketers (aside from do not call regulations), if the prospect has a common and well-defined problem, there is very little risk to having an unknown, telemarketer give the sales pitch to them.

On the other end of the spectrum, problems of an infrequent nature and with a confidential slant to them (e.g., merger integration, company turnaround, new business launch) – these types of problems are better matched to sales and marketing processes involving networks. Use of networks and trusted people are the people that get invited to the party. Since problems faced by customer prospects are more confidential and infrequent, networks serve as feelers into the marketplace for suppliers.

So this is just another way of thinking about sales and marketing. At which end of the spectrum do your products and services sit? Do you have multiple products that require different operations? Does a blend apply? What should the balance be?

A New Look

New look here. Playing around with some TypePad stuff that I haven’t played with before, just so that I can stay on top of one of the market leaders in the blogging space. The other guiding principle is that I am looking to simplify my life by migrating my blog back to something that I originally intended it to be – more of my version of an electronic newsletter and a way for people to get info about me and for me to share info in niche areas. This is in contrast to something where I am trying to both grow the reader base (which has stalled out somewhat) and follow cultural norms on blog format. Going to a stock template so there less technical stuff to mess with, and this may be at the expense of readability. If it hurts readability too much, I may move to 2-column format instead of 3-column. This may mean ditching some of the sidebar stuff that is traditional to blogs – my visible blogroll links have already disappeared.

With the new look, I am also trying to make some adjustments in my professional life (no plans to leave 21Publish). Not comfortable with disclosing specifics here, but all of my clients now know that I am transitioning out of certain projects in hopes of concentrating on new things which have not yet been determined. Could be non-profit, commercial, consulting, or venture-related. The future isn’t written yet, but I need to consolidate my efforts. Feel free to contact me if you have thoughts.

Does Your Start-up Or Small Business Need A COO?

Ran across this 2004 article in Entrepreneur.com by Asheesh Advani that poses the question as to whether your start-up or small company needs a COO. Of course I’m going to be somewhat biased on this question since my past three assignments have been in an operations role. From the article:

At my company, the COO (what
we call vice president of corporate development) is in charge of
managing business relationships with key suppliers and ensuring that
our products and services meet standards of quality and cost
effectiveness. He frees up my time so I can focus on investor
relations, business planning, media outreach, and major sales and
marketing efforts. How would having a COO help you?

The job description of a COO varies by company, but in almost all
cases, it doesn’t include sales, marketing or external public relations
duties. Typically, the responsibilities of the head of operations are
comprised of quality control, order fulfillment, employee/HR matters,
and managing internal systems and business processes.

Now in two of my past three "operations" assignments, I will say that business development, sales, and anchor account management have been major functions of the job in addition to handling backoffice functions (e.g., legal, finance). I agree with the article that such a span is probably more the exception than the rule though for an operations person. Many companies are probably better off splitting the outward-facing and inward-facing functions if only to prevent task swapping (e.g., seeking a lower-level resource for inward-facing functions if controllable costs not highly leveraged). In partial defense of my past functions, however, I will say that some companies can benefit a great deal when those in business development functions have better than average facility with legal, finance, and product management issues.

Update (9/29/05): Zoli Erdos has some additional thoughts and personal experiences here
in a more focused context of a start-up contemplating VC funding. Zoli
makes some interesting points about distinguishing real business
reasons for having CXO/VP/President roles and the needs to structure
things properly with a (potential) VC in the picture. Regardless of VC
money, most parties that want to win want clear accountability and
metrics to keep a company on track – no convoluted organizational
structures or incentive structures. To take this on a bit of a tangent, I will say that I had about 4-5
sets of business cards in one venture. First I was Director of
Operations and Strategic Intiatives (the concept being that I filled a
sweeper position to unclog whatever bottleneck [other than R&D]
that the company needed to move forward). Then I happened to close a
large enterprise deal and secure corporate venture capital financing
(from targeted cold calling based on a magazine article related to a
company in the integration space). Was able to choose whatever title I
wanted from there having earned my stripes as a non-founder. I didn’t
care, I could have been called Assistant Toilet Scrubber if it helped
to build shareholder value. From there, I became VP of Operations. Then
VP of Finance and Business Development (a weird one, OK). Then finally
stayed as VP of Business Development roughly coincident with trade sale
of certain intellectual properties. Bottom line: still wore many hats in a start-up. Title and role got narrower over time as drew down money.
I will briefly say that title can have some real impacts as to how one
treated by customer prospects, partners, prospective VCs, wild dog negotiators, etc. outside of the firm. Some
of the title and role changes tried to deal with that partially,
especially as the tactical focus of the business shifted over time. Maybe more on this
for another post.

Note To Self: Out On The Street Where You Live

Given that I live in Dallas and try to work in entrepreneurial settings wherever I can, I do not like to read articles like this, which recounts one of Inc.com’s authors email correspondences with venture capitalist Fred Wilson’s buddy Jerry Colonna. The author of the article recounts an email from Jerry, who was then a Dallas-based CEO:

What’s the equivalent to the Ivory Tower for consultants,
columnists, and ex-VCs? I need to know because the e-mail from a
Dallas-based CEO made me realize that I’ve been locked away.

[Jerry] sent me this e-mail detailing his difficulties in finding capital for his company:

First, I live in the land of no VCs — Dallas, TX (excuse me…firms that call themselves VC but don’t actual provide capital) …

Now the article is not surprising to me as I am somewhat familiar with the overall distribution of capital and entrepreneurial activity in the US. But seeing something like this written out by a person like Jerry, whose reputation precedes him … well it is a bit sobering.

Where Would I Be Without Internet Language Translation Tools?

Where would I be without Google translation tools and Babblefish? Here’s a blog-style thank you coming from a 21Publish customer (Church of Northern German). Here’s a translation of this blog page in German. Here’s a translation of the church blog page in English. (original page here).

Well if there’s one other thing I can say about these technologies, it does not help me to stop perpetuating the image of being a lazy American and by failing to learn the languages of other countries.  🙁

Note: On Carnival Of The Capitalists

The Carnival of the Capitalists is *not* at the CIO Weblog. The co-authors are trying to figure out what is going on as neither of us signed up the CIO Weblog to host the Carnival this week. I noticed one post about the hosting of the Carnival on either Friday or Saturday. I should have taken a closer note in trying to root out what was going on, especially after someone just yesterday evening mailed me information about posting. My apologies to those expecting the hosting to be at the CIO Weblog.

Q&A With Deloitte Consulting On The Industry And Career Guidance for MBAs

This post has been reproduced from my BusinessWeek MBA blog. Comments and trackback only taken over at the original post.

I had an excellent opportunity to phone interview management consultant, Mike McLaughlin, about the overall management consulting industry today and about employment opportunities for MBAs in the field. Mike is not only a blogger at award-winning Guerrilla Consulting but also a principal at Deloitte Consulting LLP and the former Managing Partner for Deloitte Consulting Chicago, where he had market responsibility for a practice of 800 consultants.

Steve: Mike, it’s been awhile since I worked as part of a larger, management consulting firm. Please talk a little bit about how strategy consulting has shifted over the past five years and where things are at.

Mike: Strategy consulting has been the bedrock of the industry. There are some firms, like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, etc. that are branded as strategy firms. The market has been cyclical for other firms that are not branded that way. But there has been a market uptick, e.g., for the former Big Four consulting firms. The difference in the overall industry, however, is that there has been a slight shift. It has to do with what strategy consultants do.

Strategy consultants do more on executable strategies these days – less credenza-ware.

Steve: I like that term. I know exactly what you are talking about, but I’ve never heard a term that evokes such imagery.

Mike: Lots of management consulting firms have negligible implementation capabilities. Clients are looking for the implementation tail and a roadmap of how to execute. As a result, what we are finding is that some of the best strategy teams are those that have a mix of strategy and implementation backgrounds, whether those be in operating roles in companies, IT groups, etc. The successful consultants these days are those that have a good mix of strategy and operations background.

Steve: Consulting seems to be beginning to boom again. What’s your take?

Mike: A handful of reasons come to mind. In the decline phase of prior years, companies were battening down the hatches. Management consulting fell into the discretionary fund pool. Lots of companies got swamped. Many consulting firms were not bringing good ideas to the table. Operating companies got tired of the strategy prescriptions where one or two firms dominate. Now there are a lot of new developments around managing a company, whether this be offshoring, managing a workforce, or fostering an environment of innovation. Management consulting engagements are not coming back as mega projects. Shorter projects. Smaller teams. Plus there was an awful lot of consultants back in the operating company workforce. After 2001, consultants went out into the streets. Many of these people are buying services from consulting firms, in part because they can get high-caliber people. Current growth in consulting now is probably 7%-9% these days as opposed to the 25%-30% growth rates of the wave.

Steve: How would you recommend business school students look at opportunities in consulting versus an operating company? Would the internal consulting arms of operating companies be another good place to look if people like consulting? I saw some of these crop up post some of my engagements in the profession.

Mike: One fundamental question to answer is whether people like industry or professional services. If you like services, then people should look at things like consulting and investment banking. If one is looking at industry, then one should be looking at a functional role like brand management or finance, say. I haven’t seen internal consulting arms work. Maybe one or two companies come to mind that could pull this off. There is a lot of backwater in most of the internal consulting groups in that they either have no budget or are understaffed. Not a high probability bet to go down the internal consulting path.

Steve: What dark sides do you see to consulting?

Mike: None of this is going to be new to you, I’m sure. The upside is that one can make a lot of money in consulting. You can get about tens years of normal industry experience in about two years. You can run the risk of an extensive lifestyle focus.

Steve: You mean travel?

Mike: Travel is a good catch word for something much broader. It’s about where you are living your life. You could have consulting projects in the armpit of the world. Or there could be family issues.

Another dark side is that the longer one stays with a consulting firm, the more important the number game becomes. A drive to sell, execute, make sure that partners get paid emerges. There can be ethical challenges. Not a problem with firms like Deloitte or firms like your past firm (PRTM), but there becomes a point when the interests of the client and the management consulting firm diverge. If you cross the path of not acting in the interests of the client, you’ve compromised yourself, and you are done. No one will work with you again.
 
Steve: Since this post is geared for the BusinessWeek MBA Blog community, can you give some tips for current b-school students on interviewing.

Mike: Consulting firms like Deloitte are looking for talent. We don’t care what course you took. Be yourself. Let the talents come through but not in an arrogant way. We want to see how you think on your feet. How this is done at Deloitte is through the case interview. A decision is pretty much made on the spot. There are diminishing returns for multiple interviews. The importance of using business school frameworks and practicing for the case interview are more for the purposes of freeing yourself so that your talents can show through. Not so much for the process itself.

The other aspect of interview is what I call, "passing the airplane test". This is the cultural stuff. As an interviewer, can I bear to be with this person ans sit next to him/her on an airplane? Can I put this candidate in front of a client?

Steve: How does Deloitte manage to make sure that interviewing does not fall into the trap of the Pepsi sip test, where the short interview and trial does not reflect how the person will actually work out in the long run?

Mike: The trends are way up at Deloitte in terms of only making offers to people that have done internships with the firm. If you didn’t intern with Deloitte, then we will make these candidates jump a higher bar.

Steve: Was great talking with you live for the first time as opposed to exchanging emails. I’ll let people know that if they have any questions, they should feel free to post comments to my blog, and I’ll pass on to you so that you have an opportunity to respond.

Mike: That will work great.

P.S. by Steve: If you don’t use a newsreader, consider using something like NewsGator and add Mike’s RSS feed to your reading list or subscribe using Bloglines. High value and free cost!