Is Shorter Better?

One of the problems with conventional sales models is that they focus on needs assessment, solution placement, and managing the resistance that the sales model creates.

Once we can enter the buyer's decision journey earlier - not with content, relationship, or any form of manipulation or solution-sale focus, but with a unique set of skills to help buyers manage all of the internal change that bringing in a new solution will create - we can at least halve the sales cycle.

The time it takes buyers to come up with their own answers is the length of the sales cycle: not answers re need and solution, but answers re who needs to be on the Buying Decision Team, how their current beloved vendor will fit into the equation, how the 'c' level team will agree when a vendor is new and a solution untried, how the status quo will change with a new solution and what it needs to manage beforehand to ensure there will be minimal disruption.

We can't do the above for our buyers, but until they do this they cannot buy. Sales does not handle this, and thereby sits and waits for buyers to do it themselves.

It is possible to use a Buying Facilitation model in ADDITION to a sales model to help manage the change buyers must address privately. We don't use any sales techniques, but instead we use a change management model. The intent is different, dialogue is different, outcome is very different. We become the neutral navigator - the GPS system if you will.

Using this model we have shortened the sales cycle dramatically - from 3 years to 4 months, from 6 months to 2 calls - with large ticket items and small.

Because buyers have to do this anyway, and we've sat and waited while they do it. We might as well add a new skill set to what they are doing off-line, and become part of their decision team -- and THEN sell. At that point we can do the real job of sales and not have to handle the resistance we get while trying to place a solution before the buyer has done these tasks.

I work primarily in the B2B world and while a shorter sales cycle may look better on the forecast and in financial reporting for the firm, it may be a trap.

In a complex sale, buyers need to go through an internal process which may be comprised of a loosening of the status quo, a commitment to change, organizational alignment around a solution, and technical readiness to adopt a new solution. While it's possible that some companies can short cut those stages, in my observations, firms that do may end up unsatisfied with the final product, the services offerings involved or the selling company itself, due in no fault to the vendor.

So be aware of the customer who comes out of nowhere, doesn't ask a lot of questions and buys more quickly than the mean -- they may be telling you something about their future service and support expectations, or their likely long term value.

There is no definitive answer ot this problem .

On one side I remember a study from IDC quoting that customers thought sales people made the sales cycle longer than it needed to be.

On the other hand I agree that pushing a customer to make short cuts through the decision cycle might end up with undesired outcomes. Yet helping to expedite the decision taking process with facilitation as Sharon Drew suggests is a viable method.

Just to confuse the picture a bit more, there are statistics that in complex sales the velocity with which a deal flows though the funnel is a good indicator whether a deal can be won. Deals with a a velocity more than 50% lower than average are usually lost.

So I get the part about the resistance, when it is there. But the question stands, is there a point beyond which a cycle can be trimmed too much, doesn't matter if it is two calls or two years, can you go too short?

Try as I might, I couldn't come up with any reason that a shorter sales cycle (would 'decision cycle' be a better term?) would NOT be advantageous to both buyer and seller.

McConnell's book "Rapid Development" describes a phenomenon in decision cycles, which he terms the "fuzzy front end." (great name!) That's the prelude to projects as they try to get off the ground--meetings, discussions, budget requests, requirements definition, more meetings, more requirements definition, etc. McConnell suggests that project managers don't have any more love for the 'fuzzy front end' than salespeople do. Such delays have negative impact for all of us.

Tibor,

I think Sharon and Alex are giving you answers from two ends of the spectrum. Having spent most of my life selling high ticket, complex solutions to banks and insurance companies, I know that Sharon is right... for that type of sale. Conversely, a small B2B or an SMB B2C company would dovetail with Alex's answer. I guess the real answer is, "It depends." It depends on the size of the buying organization, on the industry they're in, on the nature of their problem, on the prevailing economic environment, on the solutions proffered, etc. We live in an increasingly complex world and, I think, each business situation requires a bespoke sales process.

I don't believe there is an answer. Organizations whom view their vendor relationship as a true partnership tends to see sales cycles shorter but more involved and focused. Where the vendor is viewed as just another vendor we see longer, more stressful, sales cycles driven on price. Is one better then the other? I don't know as I've been involved on both sides.

“It depends,” that’s the only answer.

Just like in any complex sale, buyers need to go through an internal process and we need to ask what it is. A salesperson must qualify and understand their decision process, including any timelines and constraints. We and they do not want shortcuts. We have an obligation to them and us to adhere to our sales process, too.

Although customers want to control the selling/buying process, both buyer and seller need an open dialogue from the outset that gets every issue on the table.

There are still businesses selling products and services where the buying decision is driven mostly by price. I know, someone reading this is saying, "If I don't deliver as promised, I won't get the sale." Providing products and service as described in this category When working for and with firms in this category is a customer's minimum expectation; threrfore, I see little need for an extended sales cycle. If prospecting activity is included in the sales cycle, that’s about the only thing that accounts for a longer cycle.

Short or long sales cycle, always be wary of customers who don’t ask a lot of questions and seem to be in a hurry to get a solution without clearly understanding and agreeing on the problems and solutions

"Short" is a relative term. The way I see it a short cycle is only good if you can still uncover the real needs and wants of the customer. Until we know for sure what those are then there is no way we can ever begin to maximize the profit potential of the sale. A short sales cycle is also not going to give us enough time to set up the next sale. I belief I have is each sale should always be the set-up for the next sale.

From the standpoint of the customer... no. The sales cycle can not be too short. Our customers have a long list of things to get done and we are fortunate to be on that list. If the customer feels that the sales cycle is too long, then it is. Staples proves this fact with the success of their "That was easy" campaign. Don't think it is only true for retail. It applies to any industry because whatever is being sold is a means to an end, we're not as important as keeping momentum toward completing the project and moving on to the next one.