Tomicide Solutions July 2007: Seven Considerations for Spam-Free Email Marketing

By Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan

There is also a podcast version of this newsletter but only for subscribers. If interested, you can subscribe through my free business development white paper.

When it comes to putting together a business development team, it requires some special skills above and beyond being a good salesperson. Similarly, when it comes to selecting horses for a team to pull a plough or a cart, it requires huge experience.

Puszta 5 formation

But when it comes to selecting five horses for a so-called "Puszta 5" formation, then there are only a handful of people in the world who can do that selection successfully.

Why?

The Puszta 5 is one of the most spectacular displays of horsemanship back in my homeland, in Hungary. It's probably the pinnacle of understanding horses and horse psychology.

In the Puszta 5 formation there are three horses at the front, two horses at the rear, and the driver stands on the backs of the two rear horses. One leg on each horse. The rein is between the driver and the individual horses, and is used to set the direction of the team. And it's kept pretty loose. But there is no harness on the horses. Actually there is no physical connection between the horses, and the driver has no communication with individual "team" members. The driver does not micromanage the team. The driver merely sets and maintains the direction of progress.

Nevertheless, the horses are running in perfect formation and are running in the same direction. The only thing that keeps the horses in formation is their character and self-discipline. And the Puszta 5 driver never uses a whip. He keeps a very loose control and relies on the horses to operate as a team and do what has to be done to get from A to B.

Business development is the same. You either hire an army of prima donnas and spend your life trying to control and manage them to keep them on track and on purpose, hoping that at least some of them pull the "corporate cart" in the right direction or you hire a few highly disciplined people of the right character and you can basically let them loose. They don't need constant checking and controlling for they keep the company's interest in mind and they do the right things.

Why the company's interest and not their own individual interest? Wealthy companies with healthy cultures keep their people wealthy. But just because the salespeople make good money doesn't mean the company is doing well.

So, how do you explain that five expertly selected horses can perform pretty well with minimum control, while a group of five salespeople are aimlessly cruising all over the place from one hope of quick buck to the next?

No it's not their fault. It's the sales manager's fault. The sales manager who was a top producing salesperson yesterday and then got appointed to be the sales manager. There is one problem. He has neither the talent nor the skills to be a manager.

Remember the horse example. Not even the fastest running horse gets appointed to be the driver. It's a different skills set. I can drive a horse and cart and can plough with horses. And in a previous career I learnt how to slaughter horses. But I can't drive a Puszta 5 formation.

Now the question may arise...

Why Team Selling?

Coming from an engineering career, I still love numbers. So, let's make the numbers speak for themselves. A team of three people can outperform three individuals by a staggering factor of 11. It's the result of the number of connections (synapses) they can make between their brain cells (Neurons).

Take one person, for the sake of simplicity, with four brain cells. This person can make maximum six connections between four brain cells.

Now take three people with four brain cells each. Since they work as a team, each member can connect both with her own and the other members' brain cells, increasing the number of connections to 66 (12 * 11) / 2.

So, the team of three can be 11 times more creative, effective and productive than three individuals.

Now, hire three $1 million top producers, and they produce total sales of $3 million (3 * $1 million). Great.

Now hire three $500,000 mediocre producers, and work them as a team. They have the potential of producing $5.5 million (11 * $500,000). Great. That's synergy big time.

With the three individuals, you're managing three entities. When you have a team, you are managing one single entity. You set the direction and the team will know how to get there.

The three individuals pull in $3 million, but a large chunk of that money goes into managing those three people.

But your team is pulling in $5.5 million. Even if you pay team members 500,000 a year (which I would in a heartbeat), you have more money left than from the three individuals peak performance.

One more consideration: The individuals will leave you as soon as someone offers them a better opportunity for more money. These are the so-called entrepreneurial people. They're seeking personal success.

Team people are different. They are seeking contribution to something that is bigger than themselves. They focus on the greater good.

So, what causes the difference between individuals and team people? I'm not sure. They are "wired" differently. The experts call it group IQ vs. individual IQ. Let's look at chimpanzees versus baboons. Chimpanzees have the largest brains among animals thus the largest individual IQ. But their group IQ is basically borderline idiotic. Baboons have pretty low individual IQ but very high group IQ.

The conventional wisdom is to hire proverbial chimpanzees for sales positions. If you want team work, you have to hire the proverbial baboons and forget about their individual performance.

What Can Undermine Team Selling

In the 1960s, MIT Sloan School of Management professor, Douglas McGregor developed a theory that has been used in organisational behaviour ever since. He created two approaches to motivate people.

Theory X

Theory X assumes that people are inherently lazy and do their best to avoid work and cheat the system. What this means is that if we want to get performance out of people, we have to closely monitor and police them. And if we notice any drop of performance, then we have to cajole, whip, threaten them to so they can improve.

According to Theory X, people try to do as little work as humanly possible to qualify for their paycheques because their only interest is money. Theory X managers are constantly looking for scapegoats in case something goes wrong. They know they can't trust their people, so they implement rigid policies and procedures to mould people for better performance. Theory X managers know that they suppress morale and inspiration, so they try to compensate for the lost performance with threats and coercion.

Theory X managers manage in an autocratic style and use sophisticated punishment systems to get performance out of their people. Because of its oppressive nature, Theory X work environments are like a car that is zooming down the highway in second gear and the handbrake halfway on. It does make some minor progress, but the system is overheating, the engine smokes like a steam engine, and the brake pads are burning. All in all, even this pathetic performance can't be maintained for long. Even this low performance is running the system to the ground.

In total contrast to Theory X, there is...

Theory Y

Theory Y assumes that people are inherently creative, inspired to do great work and flourish in a collegial, collaborative environment. So, if this is the case, we have to put people into environments that bring out the best in them, but not by management's pushing them forward but by big bold goals' pulling them forward. Theory Y people have something more than money to work for.

They have aspirations and dreams of becoming the best they can. Theory Y managers improve themselves and the environment, so they provide better circumstances for the people to work in. Theory Y managers are exemplars not merely preachers. They preach only what they are willing to practise. For Theory Y people the ultimate job satisfaction comes from within the work itself. Theory Y managers know that the secret to higher productivity lies within people, and with good coaching and mentoring they can bring it out in them.

Unlike Theory X managers who use policies and procedures, Theory Y managers use culture, values and a Code of Honour to help their people to keep themselves to the straight and narrow. While Theory X managers manage the whole group, Theory Y managers know that real management is about helping people on a 1-to-1 basis, so they build 1-to-1 relationships with their people.

Time Line Illustration Of Destroyers Of Innate Virtues

Time Line Illustration Of Destroyers Of Innate Virtues

Other contributors to an X environment...

So, year by year and bit by bit, most of the "Y factors" are either killed off totally or reduced to insignificance, and, as a result of careful societal "nurturing" the "X factors" start getting stronger and stronger. Soon, curiosity is replaced with scepticism and collaboration with competition. Then the joyride on life's exciting highways becomes a rat race in the dark alleyways of a different kind of life from paycheque to paycheque and from one contest prize to the next for beating another colleague.

And whether management creates a Theory X or a Theory Y environment depends on how the managers were brought up. In the army, at basic training I had a brilliant unit commander. He demanded a lot but never yelled at anyone. Guess what? Later on, both the other guys in his unit and I became the same with our people. I never yelled. I had quiet commands, demands and expectations. And people lived up to them. The other unit commander was a yeller. And most of his people became yellers.

One interesting example for the different leadership styles was the Hell's Kitchen final a few weeks ago. Bonnie was yelling a lot and kept reprimanding her crew for seemingly small mistakes. She kept emphasising the message: "I'm the boss and you do as I say. I want to win and don't you dare to let me down or else..."

Every message she sent out was about "I," "me" and "my."

In contrast, Rock was walking around and talking to his teammates, inspiring them and helping them. His message was drastically different. My interpretation was his message was: "Great work, Brother. Whatever happens here tonight, I'm proud of you all, and it's been an honour and privilege to work with you."

Every message he sent out was about "we," "us" and "our."

Maybe a seemingly insignificant difference, but it won the competition for Rock's team.

The military has a great truth about teamwork. Generals lose battles but can't win them. Only the soldiers can win battles. This is what Rock understood but Bonnie didn't.

Putting it differently, no one goes to Carnegie Hall to see the world's best conductor without an orchestra.

Putting The Team Together

Here's another example. This time from the military. Imagine that you're the king of a rich and successful country of happy people, and the neighbouring king wants to invade your homeland and take away your riches and freedom. He has already lined up his army around the border of your country and his troops are just waiting for the dawn when they can start the attack against your army.

You have two choices here...

  1. Either you line up your outnumbered army and wait for the dawn to receive the attack face-to-face and suffer the consequences.

  2. Or, you call upon your trusty Special Forces commando and send it out into the night with one mission: Kill the king.

You know that the first option is no option. Your army is outnumbered pretty badly.

So, your commando folks go out, kill the king and, for good measure, cut the throats of the generals as well. One thing is certain... There has never been an army in history that would march into battle without a king and generals. Your commando virtually destroys that army by killing a few key people.

So, what's the lesson here?

In the main army you have a lots of specialists, such as fighter pilots, archers, submariners, heavy horses, tanks, ligh cavalry and other specialist groups. And they work in isolation from each other and they can't be replaced with each other. The tank commander couldn't lead a light cavalry charge and the heavy horseman would have more than a little problem in the F-18 fighter's cockpit.

In the commando you have a small group of specially cross-trained soldiers who can jump into each other's position at the drop of a hat. Each team member has his own job description, sniper, spotter or radio operator, etc. but each team member can shoot, dive, skydive, operate a radio, throw a knife, throw a hand grenade, use explosives, use a strangling cord and do first aid and CPR.

And what keeps the team together as a team? Not skills, but discipline. Innate talents. Something non-teachable. Something people either have or don't. Prima donnas can't operate in a team. They are too busy pushing their own agendas for personal advancement. Being a team person is an innate talent. The Puszta 5's success depends on the team of horses. And everything starts with the selection process...

Similarly, assembling a business development "commando" starts with the selection process. So, first we select the team and then start cross-training the team members.

The Selection Process...

I must admit I'm not much of a resume guy. After having helped to hire well over 150 business development professionals, ranging from salespeople to department managers, I've never read a resume or checked a reference. Resumes can show me the information this person has memorised over the years, but that's irrelevant. Besides over 50% of candidates, especially people with business degrees and MBAs, lie on their resumes.

Also, contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't believe that people's past performance is a predictor of their future performance.

And references are really... give me a break. All right, I have a dirty advantage. In the military I learnt how to "read" people. I ask a few questions and read people as they answer those questions. Some people may say this is not reliable, but for these people I recommend to read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He calls it thin slicing. So, I thin slice the person and instantly know what I want to know. So, I can't see why I should burden by brain with resumes or references.

People's performance depends on their natural strengths and how their managers bring out those strengths in them. So I start asking candidates three basic questions. These three questions were developed by Kathy Sierra, and I've modified them a bit to suit for business development folks...

  1. What were the last two trade/professional journals or books you've read relevant to your work? (Or the last two industry conferences, learning programmes or seminars). Most candidates fail right here. They don't bother learning. They're too busy chasing money.

  2. Name two of the key people in the business development field. Two people who have made some serious contribution to modern day B2B business development. Here most people name some sales gurus who had their heydays in the 50s, 60s or 70s, selling commodities, but ignore how much the world of selling has changed during recent years.

  3. What materials have you purchased recently with your own money which has improved the quality of your work and advanced you as a professional? This is a great filter. Most people would never spend their own money to advance their own careers. They wait for their employers to pay for it. Or they are too busy doing what they learnt years ago.

After this I assess people's innate strengths by using the Gallup Organisation's Strengthsfinder programme. This programme gives candidates 180 seemingly innocent questions, and assesses their top five strengths. To avoid misunderstanding, this is not a personality profiling programme based on traditional weakness-focused psychology.

In the early 1950s, Donald O. Clifton, also called the "Father of Strengths Psychology," recognised that psychology was almost entirely based on studying people's weaknesses and fixing them. What's wrong with people and eliminate those wrong things. But no one bothered discovering what's right with people and improving that.

Just listen to most managers when they're performing performance appraisal on their people. They are hell-bent on fixing people's weaknesses but have no idea how to bring out and maximise their innate strengths.

Based on this "strengths" approach, the Gallup Organisation conducted millions of interviews with various successful people to discover what makes the best the best, as opposed the traditional "What makes the rest the rest" approach. And based on that they created the Strengthsfinder programme. So far this is the best assessment tool I've found.

Strengthsfinder offers 34 personal themes, that is, strengths, and every person receives her top 5. Then I match and mix the top 5 strengths when I put the team together. We want to create cohesive teams with diverse strengths.

For instance, the team leader is a "Maximizer," who focuses on stimulating personal and group excellence. When it comes to staying in touch with prospects, I need a "Relator," someone who enjoys close relationships with others.

I also need a "Strategic," a person who can create alternative ways to proceed. This person is excellent at creating "plan B."

I need and "Analytical," a person who acts as a diagnostician. This person diagnoses the prospect's problems at a cause level, so the real problem gets solved not merely the symptoms get covered up.

Then I need an "Arranger," a person who can synthesise the individual pieces into one comprehensive solution. She enjoys putting together the individual puzzle pieces.

And themes like "Maximizer," "Relator," "Strategic," "Analytical" or "Arranger" have nothing to do with resumes and past performances. These are natural strengths not memorised data from classrooms.

If you put an "Arranger" into a "Don't think just do as I say" environment, she will hate it and won't perform. So, using the previous monkey example, I select my "baboons" with great care and make sure that no chimpanzee can sneak into the team.

So, now the next step is...

Assembling The Team

But even before that we must...

Establish Compensation Structure

And here we have to talk about the ugliest and deadliest and most short-sighted compensation structure: Sales commissions. All I can say is that you get rid of it because it will bring you lots of trouble.

Basically you can plop salespeople into one of three groups...

Group #1: These are the hotshot lone rangers who have no intention to belong to a team. They are situational opportunists. Basically, they go anywhere and sell anything for the right amount of money. They use your company until it suits them and then they move on and work at the competition against you.

Group #2: These are the people with a strong entrepreneurial streak. Unlike the people in Group #1, these people have a direction in their lives, and work at their employers as a means to the end. They earn as much as they can, take whatever they can take, and when the time is right, they move on, ultimately starting their own businesses and use everything what they've learnt against the companies they've learnt it from. For them the commission structure means independence.

Group #3: These people do what they love. They have huge passion for their work. They actually belong to the organisation. They just happen to do selling but they regard their work on a larger scale than merely selling. They regard selling as helping people who want to help themselves. They don't need external motivation, called commission, to work better because they are internally inspired to do great work. Yes, they want to be well paid, but most of all, they want a community they belong to. They are the class act team workers. When I help clients with recruitment, this is the only group of people we accept. They are committed, accountable, loyal, conscientious, disciplined and need minimum supervision. And, unlike the people in the first two groups, what they don't need is policing. They do the work regardless of whether or not the boss is watching.

But before we go and discuss the - I believe - correct compensation method, let's complete the picture and take a look at the damage traditional hiring and compensation practices have caused over the years.

A recent study conducted by the Gallup Organisation indicates that 59% of the workforce is disengaged, 49% of the workforce is actively disengaged and that a mere 27% are engaged. The bad news is that most work places have 3 out of 5 disengaged workers. According to Gallup, these people show up like sleepwalkers on the job.

Here is another piece of research from Stephen Covey's book, The 8th Habit. Harris Interactive surveyed 23,000 people and found that...

Then Stephen translates the above percentages into soccer language...

The business development folks have frontline communication with the outside world. But when these people turn around at an annual rate of 43%, it sends a rather gloomy message to the company's target market. As the first line of the old Nat King Cole song (Let's Face The Music And Dance) goes, "There may be trouble ahead." Well, not only may be. There is trouble ahead. Technology companies all over the world struggle to find good and loyal business development folks.

So, now let's see...

How To Compensate Your People

I've got some thoughts here that go against conventional wisdom, but my idea is to create a compensation system that encourages teamwork. I also understand that most people who read this article have never been members of real teams, and never experienced ral team dynamics, so for them this approach is probably too far-fetched or idealistic, and they may think I'm an idiot. Yes, it's idealistic until you implement it. After that, you'll enjoy the benefits. And yes, maybe I'm an idiot, but that's not a brand new observation. Lots of people have already established this about me.

In terms of compensation I like treating the team as one unit without breaking it down to individual members. So, the business development team members receive equal base payment regardless of seniority or other arbitrary differences. My idea is that I want 100% contribution from everyone, and I set my expectation of 100% contribution by offering equal payment for each team member. This way people work as peers as opposed to superiors and subordinates. Using American writer, John Steinbeck's words...

"It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him."

And this is where the shit hits the fan. People start pulling on their seniority and credentials. "I have a master's degree. He's got only an undergrad degree. I deserve more money." "I'm a professional. There is no way I accept the same money as the receptionist." and some other interesting points. And this is good.

This process screens out the "entitlement-minded socialists" who believe that the world owes them a living. My observation is that real team people have never had a problem with this compensation approach because they are not here only for the money. They regard the money as the effect of doing great work, and since it was the team that did the great work, the team should be rewarded for it.

So, people get their base pay. Then a certain percentage of the revenue is set aside for bonuses. Bonuses are equal too, and it varies with the monthly sales the business development team produces. The equal compensation totally eliminates rivalry among tem members.

Human behaviour expert Alfie Kohn wrote in the Harvard Business Review (Nov/Dec 1993)...

"The essence of PSF (Professional Service Firm) management: Pay your people well and fairly, and do your best to help them to forget about money."

And since any business development department is an Professional Service Firm within the organisation, the statement is rather correct.

You focus either on the work you're doing or on the money you're making. You can't focus on both. Something has to give. And that something is almost always the quality of work.

Now, some people may say that if the pay is equal, some people will just cruise without putting in 100% contribution. Yes, that can happen if you use a traditional, resume-based hiring process. When you hire for character and talent, this problem never comes up. These people put in 100% contribution because they truly love what they do. They don't work for the money but for something much bigger and more significant than money.

Also, some people say this equal stuff is a pretty communist approach. Well, I grew up in communism, and I can tell you there was no equality there. The politicians and the high-ranking members of the communist party (Hungarian Socialist Worker's Party) would steal the cream and the rest was left for the plebs.

There is one more important point here. Since every project can be split up into two parts, that is, 1) acquiring the client and 2) serving the client, the business development folks take 50% of the total revenue. This money provides the salaries and all the business development activities, marketing campaigns, continuing professional development, etc. And a percentage of this 50% is the monthly bonus for the business development team.

And here is one more issue. Some people may say that the business development department consists of only a few people whereas the rest of the company consists of much more. Well, it's all about effectiveness. We can keep the business development department small because people are using their full potential. There is no waste. There is no fat wiggling on the department's waist, thighs and belly. It's a lean and mean department. So, if a 20-person business development department can serve a 200-person production department, I still insist on the 50-50 revenue split. Why?

As the saying goes, cash is the oxygen to a business. If this is true, then it's only fair to say that business development is the respiratory system that allows the business to breathe and live. If business development is the very function that keeps a business alive, investing in it is not a bad idea at all.

Here is some interesting stuff...

Typical technology companies invest 4.5% of their gross revenues in marketing and grow about 5% annually. Great technology companies invest 13-15% of their projected gross revenues in marketing and can grow by as much as 50% annually or even more.

There is one catch though... You have to use the percentage of the projected revenue you plan to make. So, if you're making $25 million and want to step up to $50 million, then you need to invest 15-20% of the $50 million. And yes, it's 30-40% of your current revenue, but, using the farmer's language, the more you want to harvest, the more you have to plant. There is no other way around it. If you keep investing a mere 4.5% of your current revenue, then you are likely to stay around at your current revenue level.

According to a study by Boston Consulting, done between 1980 and 1995, companies invest in business development differently. When some hard times hit, the ones that stepped on the marketing brake grew by a mere 5% over the next 15 years. The ones that stepped on the marketing accelerator grew by 500% over the next 15 years. The difference is pretty significant. Even significant enough to start respecting the business development folks.

And now, back to...

Assembling The Team

In every great business development team you need three ingredients...

  1. Purpose is the umbrella term of the firm's environment, values and culture. And of course the basic question: What is our mandate?

  2. People with the right character and natural strengths. Recognise that sheer skills and impressive school grades are not enough. You need what your competitors don't have and can't have because you have them. Team members selected on natural talents and strengths.

  3. Process is the collection of all the automated and automatable bits and bobs, making up various systems. This makes it possible that a small group of people can make huge impact.

I prefer to keep each business development team to maximum five members. I've found that such small teams can run very effectively with bare minimum external control or supervision. Using the horse example, you can loosen the rein and get rid of your whip, but you still see amazing progress and performance. Every horse driver knows that pulling harder on the rein and whipping harder don't improve performance. I hope that some day even sales managers can learn this simple fact.

  1. The Team Leader sets the direction of the team as specified by the organisation's strategy

  2. The Diagnostician assesses prospects' current situations and establishes whether or not prospects are ready to change for the better

  3. The Follow-up person stays in touch with prospects who've expressed a somewhat serious interest.

  4. The Strategist person pulls the diagnostician's fragmented data into a concise description of the problem and then the solution.

  5. The Documentation person oversees and manages the document flow between the team and the prospects and makes certain that all documents are properly filled in before the first meeting, so the team meets only wildly committed prospects and not mildly interested suspects.

There is one more person, but this person works with multiple business development teams. This person is the Pricer. To maintain objectivity, the Pricer doesn't know prospects but works with the business development team to price out engagements based on perceived value as stipulated by prospects. The Pricer makes certain that value doesn't get given away beyond a certain extent, and the firm gets paid for every value component the client receives.

Then based on themes, we define the role of each team member. Then we start the cross training. So, we want to make sure that first enquiries come to a "Relator," but we want everyone to be skilled in taking incoming calls. In my world, salespeople don't chase prospects. As a result of good marketing, qualified prospects call the company asking for help. If you can't digest this basic fact, then this approach is as useful to you as a fart in a windstorm. I'm not much of a fan of the traditional cold-prospecting grunt work, and I'm far too old to change.

We all know the phrase, "If the mountain doesn't go to Mohammed, then Mohammed goes to the mountain." And you have to decide which one your company is. I prefer my clients to be the mountain, so Mohamed has to come to them. Therefore we never participate in bidding battles and never engage in cold-prospecting huckster type grunt work. We create, what Alan Weiss of Summit Consulting calls "Marketing Gravity." We create the circumstances so prospects seek my clients out as recognised experts.

Back to skill building...

And this is where my skill building process differs from most trainers' approach. It's not that I'm right and they're wrong. Just different. In the army we learnt everything using a method legendary football coach Don Shula called, "Overlearning." But let's hear the concept from Don himself...

"My ultimate goal for all of our players, given the limits of each one's talents, is performance at the highest level possible. I figure if our coaching staff can get maximum performance from each player, the team will give us everything it has to give. Because I know that perfection can only happen when mechanics are automatic, I insist on over-learning.
Over-learning means that the players are so prepared for the game that they have the skill and the confidence to make the big play. More than anything else, over-learning and constant practice constant attention to getting the details right every time produces hunger to be in the middle of the action. When players have no doubt about what they're supposed to do or how to do it, they thrive on pressure. If the heat's on, they want the ball to come their way. If the player is a half back, he wants the ball. If he's an end, he wants the pass thrown to him. If he's a lineman, he wants to make the important block and tackle.
I don't want my defensive half back to pray that the ball is thrown to the other end of the field; I want him to want the ball to come his way. Our staff works hard with players to instil pride in practice performance, giving everything they can in daily practice the part the crowd and the reporters never see. The concept of practice perfection is difficult for some players to understand. Many times when they are out on the practice field they're tired or beaten up from the previous week's game, there I am asking them to pick up the tempo, to be on the top of their game mentally and physically to be sharp in their practice execution.
Sometimes these players take the easy way. Like kids, they complain that none of the other teams practice this hard. Other teams don't wear pads at their practices. Right. And those are the teams that have disappointing seasons. It may be cliché but it's true. You play at the level of your practice. The best way is to practise hard all the time. I'm convinced that the coaches and players both must know that the over-learning system works."

General Patton once said...

"The more you sweat in practice the less you bleed in war."

...and he was dead right. Therefore the business development "commando's" work is two-fold. 1) Continual practice and improvement 2) doing the actual work. This is the only way they actually get better and achieve what's called in fitness the Triple Progressive Overload Technique...

In fitness the three areas of overloading are...

  1. Increase time under tension

  2. Increase repetitions

  3. Increase weight

In business development the three areas of overloading are...

  1. Increase the number of qualified sales leads from prospects who match your Ideal Client profile

  2. Increase the conversion rate to Ideal Clients

  3. Increase your fees by providing more value. And Remember that business is about margin, not volume

Increase The Number Of Qualified Sales Leads: Everything starts here. You must be able to create lots of quality sales leads and creating them on autopilot not through dirty filthy cold-prospecting drudgery. My favourite method is putting out valuable information and people come to the site to learn more. And some of them become clients.

Increase The Conversion Rate To Paying Clients: Here you focus on those leads that are ready for conversion. That is, ready for working with you pretty soon. They have specific problems as established by the diagnosis, and are ready to engage your firm for some help.

Increase Your Fees To Provide Your Services: Since you have preponderance of leads, but you also know that with the current size of human and technical resources you can service only so many clients. So, there is only one factor left to boost your profitability: Increasing your fees and prices. According to McKinsey study, a mere 1% fee increase can add 12% to your net profit. This is the greatest multiplier in business. I have no idea why companies don't use it. Instead, accepting conventional wisdom, most technology companies hire people, so they can do more work. But business is business is about margin, not volume. And net profit per employee is a better indicator than total gross revenue.

Can you now see how you can significantly increase the team's financial performance without adding one single new person to the team?

I know team selling takes a bit of upfront thinking and investment, but if you look at the potential return, you can clearly see how and why it trumps individual selling at any time of the day.

Attribution: "This article was written by Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan who helps privately held information technology companies to develop high leverage client acquisition systems and business development teams in order to sell their products and services to premium clients at premium fees and prices. Visit Tom's website at http://www.varjan.com.