Conference 7.286::digital

    I've written this before:
    
    If you want to be in a selling role in a computer computer you had
    better be able to "get along" with computers, or people who love
    computers, and preferably both.
    
    The people that Digital attracted and hired for the last several years
    don't connect the word "enthusiasm" with the word "computer".  These
    are the people we retain as well.  It shows up in a lot of the
    customer/Digital interaction I see as well.
    
    The critical word for "computer" here in New York is "frustration" and
    a personal computer is what "my son/daughter uses" and "DOS isn't a
    serious operating system".
    
    Digital is managing numbers.
    Digital is not managing people and not managing to attract and retain
    customers.

	Friday I met with some people from a top-10 corporate customer.
	They were a program manager, a DP manager, and a project leader.
	Between them they effectively control several million dollars of
	business that could come right to Digital, or go elsewhere.

	These people have a track record of working closely with us. They
	have wall-to-wall VAX systems, and until corporate headquarters
	started pushing them towards open systems as a policy, they were
	inclined to go on working closely with us. Now, they need us to
	support them to the hilt if they are to win their battle to go
	on doing business with us.

	The first thing they wanted to talk about was their account
	manager. Essentially, they see this guy as an obstacle to their
	relationship with Digital. Bottom-line comment: "things were
	better when we could meet with someone who could understand what
	we want without an interpreter. This guy needs help". Another
	perception: the account manager is literally not interested in
	hearing from them unless they want to place an order - and a big
	one at that.

	If they had one wish, it would be to get a traditional salesman
	who understands something about hardware and software as well as
	their business. Next best would be a sales support person to work
	with the salesman.

	They were pleased to hear about the CBUs. I hope it helps.

	/Tom

re     <<< Note 2395.0 by THEBAY::CHABANED "SBS is a crime against mankind" >>>
                  -< Idiots III - The slaughter of the Nerds >-
    
>    I've noticed that a lot of technical talent has been leaving the field
>    both through TFSO and attrition.  The reason for this still confuses
>    me.  Perhaps it is related to the departure of KO.  I often hear nasty
    
    When a company indiscriminately throws away talent in efforts to control
    expenses, those prudent remaining employees start looking around in
    order to be prepared for when they get the "tap".  Often, they find
    that the "Not much out there." statements are incorrect.  Often,
    although they were not necessarily ready to jump, they get an offer
    that is too good to refuse; decent pay, decent benefits, no Sword of
    Damocles, etc.  Some of them leave.  I guess the only confusion I have
    is why anyone would be surprised.
    
    As always, For What It's Worth
    
    Dave

    This is old and I'm not the author, but with the
    TFSOs hitting where they have, I think it helps
    put the problem in perspective.
    
===================================================

IBM and DEC decided to have a boat race, on the 
Thames, following the famouse Oxford vx Cambridge 
course.

Both teams practiced hard, and came the big day, 
they were as ready as they could be.

IBM won by a mile.

Afterwards, the DEC team were very downhearted, and 
a decision was made that the reason for the crushing 
defeat had to be found, so a working party was set 
up to investigate and report.

Well, they had everybody on the working party, 
Sales, Systems Engineering, Marketing, Customer 
Education, Field Service, FABS, and the whole lot, 
and after 3 months they came up with the answer, and 
the working party co-ordinator gave his summary 
presentation.

"The problem was", he said, "that IBM had 8 people 
rowing and 1 steering, whereas we had 1 person 
rowing and 8 steering.

The working party was then asked to go away and come 
up with a plan to prevent a recurrence the following 
year, for DEC's pride had been damaged, and another 
defeat was not wanted.

Two months later, the working party had worked out a 
plan, and the coordinator gave his (customarily 
brief slide presentation) summary --

"The guy rowing has got to work harder"
    

	And the next year Digital still lost. So another investigative
	team was put together. This time they came up with a different
	conclusion. "We have to make the boat lighter". So they TFSO'd 
	the person who had been doing the rowing...


					Tom_K

   Re: Note 2395.6 by GLDOA::TREBILCOTT 
   

�    btw:  When I mentioned this incident to another sales rep, my answer
�    was, "He came from IBM, and that is the IBM style.  You asked for a
�    VS3100 and that is what you got, so why are you complaining?"
    
   It is?  I suspect the reason he no longer works for IBM is because he
   is that way.  When I was an IBM customer, the only time my IBM rep
   showed up alone is when he knew nothing technical would be discussed.
   (Drop off new product info, quotes, etc.) If technical issues did
   crop up, he would cut the meeting short and schedule for the next
   day.  Whenever a scheduled technical meeting happened, our IBM rep
   would show up with one or two (usually two) SEs to handle the tech
   stuff.
   
   IBM never tried to sell us what we wanted.  They always tried to sell
   more than we wanted.  We (and most other customers) noticed this, and
   it made us partial to Digital because Digital didn't try to cram
   anything down our throats.  But, whatever IBM wound up selling us, it
   worked before they declared it delivered.  Digital used to do this, I
   don't know about that anymore.

	re: .3

>    When a company indiscriminately throws away talent in efforts to control
>    expenses, those prudent remaining employees start looking around in
>    order to be prepared for when they get the "tap".  Often, they find
>    that the "Not much out there." statements are incorrect.  Often,
>    although they were not necessarily ready to jump, they get an offer
>    that is too good to refuse; decent pay, decent benefits, no Sword of
>    Damocles, etc.  Some of them leave.  I guess the only confusion I have
>    is why anyone would be surprised.


	Quite true.  I don't think I was a TFSO candidate, but the benefit
	changes really hurt:

	- Lost car
	- Disability went up
	- HMO went up
	- Promotions - what year ????
	- Raises - "Don't expect much, if anything, this year"

	My final day is Friday.  I hope Digital continues its apparent
	recovery, because I'd like to remain a customer.  But I can't afford
	to work here any more.

	I wish the rest of you lots of luck - I'm afraid you'll need it.

RE: .0, .1, etc

This entire note topic struck a cord with me. As I watch all the changes
occuring in DEC's structure, I am also watching first hand the way
Digital interacts with it's customers and prospects. I am very
troubled by what I see sometimes. I'm very worried that no matter
what changes organizationaly, we are strapped with a mentality that
we can't seem to break.

(NOTE: I wrongly stereotype the field in my observations below. I see
some folks temporarily break the mold, only to fall back into it 3 months
later. Others have broken the mold and are not looking back. )

        - It appears we do not want to listen, especially when the
          customers gets into a mode where they are explaining their
          problems. I have seen people interrupt and change the topic
          when the customer (prospect) begins to open up and discuss
          issues, opinions about how to solve them, etc. I interpret	 
          this as the sales rep not wanting to deeply understand the	 
          "problem", but instead move to talk products,pilots,demos.

        - I see us requesting sales support to do product
          presentations and PIDs when the next step really ought to
          be more listening, understanding and problem analysis.
          Instead, we end up presenting products and futures in a
          shot gun approach, never really sure if there is a fit or
          not. I see customers clam-up and not express themselves.
          I'm beginning to interpret this as they don't want to open
          up to us. We don't listen when they do.

        - I repeatedly find myself aking folks: 
		
             "We sell one of everything, why are we pushing a VAX, or DECxyz?" 

	  If you notice, in the late 80's/early 90's we have
          expanded into almost every type of computing solution
          (Intel, SCO, RISC, UNIX, OSF, Novell, LAN Manager, TCP/IP,
          etc, etc). We also have many many solutions to integrate
          amoung the environments. 

          Why do we continue to push the customer toward some DEC'ish
          solution when they are giving off all the signals that they
          are not really interested in moving from Novell or Oracle	
          or SCO or Macintosh?  It could be we are pushing VMS, it
          could be PATHWORKS, it could be Rdb. Why...we almost always
	  have hardware and software that will "do the job" no matter
	  what their current environment. IF we take the time to listen
	  and understand "their" environment and problems. 

I believe the answer is related to one or all of the following three:

       1) It goes back to the mentality of the mid-80's when "Account
          Control" was the buzzword. We are conditioned to take steps,
          tactical and strategic, to increase "account control". Get
	  this or that product into the account and we have them for
	  life. I think it is clear that the days of "account control" 
          are over. The goals now should be (I stole this from someone 
          so I can't take credit):
		- Understand the customer's problem
		- Propose a suitable solution

       2) Taking from .1 >>> "The people that Digital attracted and hired 
          in the last several years don't connect the word "ethusiasm" with 
          the word "computer". <<< Maybe this is a part of the problem. 
          It takes alot of time, energy (and interest) to stay current and 
          understand the computer industry, customer trends, products and 
          solutions AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, to know when and how to use each 
	  product or service against which customer problems. If you really 
	  aren't  "into it", you can't survive. I should say "we/DEC can't 
	  survive".

       3) Maybe just plain old "listening" skills. We all know we are good
	  or bad at this at different times. I suspect during times of stress
          ...when you are thinking about your budget...about your family... 
	  about you job...these are not great times to attempt having a
          real good "listening session" with your prospect.

Even seeing and understanding these things may not be enough. We need to
move through a major knot hole and look and act very different when we come
out the other end. 






	  

Re .-1

I think that it exactly makes sense, and illustrates the point the Palmer
made in one of his speeches about "unintended consequences" of decisions.

Digital has set up the rules under which sales folks live, and they are not all
very nice (the rules).  A major part of the current set of rules has to do
with what happens if you don't get credit for selling enough:
As of July, when variable compensation kicks in, you would get your salary cut.
If you are enough below your "numbers", you are prime TFSO-fodder.

Now, with that in mind, lets look at your observations:


>        - It appears we do not want to listen, especially when the
>          customers gets into a mode where they are explaining their
>          problems. I have seen people interrupt and change the topic
>          when the customer (prospect) begins to open up and discuss
>          issues, opinions about how to solve them, etc. I interpret	 
>          this as the sales rep not wanting to deeply understand the	 
>          "problem", but instead move to talk products,pilots,demos.

Some may not want to be bothered, but I bet a lot more either: Don't have the
time due to pressures to produce lots NOW, or want to steer the conversation 
away from technical issues which are out of their depth, when there are no
longer enough sales-support folks to go around.

>        - I repeatedly find myself aking folks: 
>		
>             "We sell one of everything, why are we pushing a VAX, or DECxyz?" 
>
>	  If you notice, in the late 80's/early 90's we have
>          expanded into almost every type of computing solution
>          (Intel, SCO, RISC, UNIX, OSF, Novell, LAN Manager, TCP/IP,
>          etc, etc). We also have many many solutions to integrate
>          amoung the environments. 
>
          Why do we continue to push the customer toward some DEC'ish
>          solution when they are giving off all the signals that they
>          are not really interested in moving from Novell or Oracle	
>          or SCO or Macintosh?  It could be we are pushing VMS, it
>          could be PATHWORKS, it could be Rdb. Why...we almost always
>	  have hardware and software that will "do the job" no matter
>	  what their current environment. IF we take the time to listen
>	  and understand "their" environment and problems. 

Sales is behaving in exactly the way current metrics dictate that they must
act.  Let me quote a recent (yesterday) example:

A salesman has structured a deal for a customer including third party hardware
to solve a problem in the way the customer wants it solved.  The quote has
already been given to the customer, who has it in their purchasing cycle now.
This salesman was informed that as of NOW any orders booked for third-party
components not in Digital's pricebook will be credited to him at a rate of 50%.
i.e. of his $130.000 sale, he gets credit for only $65,000 of it.  For an
organization which lives and dies on those particular metrics, that is very
severe.

Do you think that salesman is going to propose another non-Digital solution if
he can possibly avoid it? Not likely!!!


Don't be so quick to throw stones before you know what is steering folks'
behavior.

Kevin

    What a sad state of affairs.
    
    Jim C.
    

    RE: .10 Sounds a little like sales doesn't want to be held accountable. 
    How long have we heard about how Digital sales reps want to be treated
    like reps at other computer companies?  I've heard it for quite a while
    now.  The good has to be taken with the bad.  I don't think credit
    should be given for more than the $$$$ value coming into Digital.  This
    way we won't have 99% of the reps making DEC 100 and Digital as a
    corporation making a far lower percentage of budget.  I don't disagree
    with split CERTS etc, it's the shadow CERTS that really bother me.  
    
    Mike  

>    RE: .10 Sounds a little like sales doesn't want to be held accountable. 
>    How long have we heard about how Digital sales reps want to be treated
>    like reps at other computer companies?  I've heard it for quite a while
>    now.  The good has to be taken with the bad.  I don't think credit
>    should be given for more than the $$$$ value coming into Digital.  This
>    way we won't have 99% of the reps making DEC 100 and Digital as a
>    corporation making a far lower percentage of budget.  I don't disagree
>    with split CERTS etc, it's the shadow CERTS that really bother me.  
>    
>    Mike  

First of all, my comments should not be attributed to sales, since I'm not in
Sales.  I am a field software consultant (delivery).

The point of my discourse was that if you set up the metrics such that
you get twice as much reward for behavior A as for behavior B, you shouldn't
be surprised when people choose behavior A.

In the concrete terms of this example, that translates into:
"Digital the corporation has sent a message LOUD and CLEAR as to which
solutions it wants the salesforce to sell (all Digital if possible).
Responsible salespeople will do as the corporation has requested.
(and limit proposals of mixed or third-party solutions).

Kevin

    
    But if third party involvemnt is needed to sell the solution to the
    customer, does the person making the sale have a choice as to whether
    they will involve the third party?  I know things are tough throughout
    the corporation, I just get a bit tired of hearing how bad and
    difficult one group or another has it when most of us are suffering as
    well.
    
    
    Mike

>         <<< Note 2395.12 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER "c'mon springtime" >>>

>							 I don't disagree
>    with split CERTS etc, it's the shadow CERTS that really bother me.  
    
>    Mike  


And I find splits more bothersome...  Care to elaborate?

Just curious,

/other mike

    re: .12, .14
    
    Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  These two notes make
    no sense at all with respect to note .10.
    
    Let's use a simple example, one I'm recently familiar with:
    
    I need to sell a customer a 1200LPM printer with a Centronics
    interface.  We don't make one.  In fact, we don't make any of the line
    printers, we source them from Dataproducts.  The closest thing we sell
    is the LP37, but it does not come with a Centronics interface.  A call
    to Dataproducts gets you basically the same printer as the LP37 but
    with the proper interface.  Since we do so much business with them, I
    can get the printer, sell it for the same price as the LP37 and still
    make a very handsome profit on it, possibly more than the LP37 with all
    the corporate overhead tacked on.
    
    And for all this extra work, I get to collect 50% of the credit.  As
    punishment, perhaps, for not opting to sell nothing because we have 
    nothing to sell with our name on it.
    
    If someone can make some sense out of this I'd like to hear it. It sure
    sounds like the same old Digital - blame the sales force for the fact
    that we have a product and marketing problem.
    
    Al
    

    As a Digital sales rep, my opinion is that to really increase our
    revenue as a company we need to spend more time understanding the 
    customer's business problem and less focus on technical issues. 
    This is very difficult to do when you work with customers from several 
    different industries, like I do. 
    
    Many times with customers I have seen both Sales and Sales Support 
    strike up the technical conversation, when we really need to be talking, 
    and more important listening, to the business problem. We fall back on 
    the technical conversation because we are more comfortable with this.
    However, this typically does very little toward advancing the sale,
    especially when the customer is not technical.
    
    Fact is, I'd like to be more technical and spend more time staying up
    with the technology (because I can be more effective if its a technical
    call), but as inferred in this topic, my metrics drive my behavior. 
    These days big opportunities that make my yearly number are becoming 
    more difficult to find, there is more competition, and the hardware, 
    software, and even service is getting so inexpensive. You think you 
    got a $2M opportunity on your hands and then it nets out to be $250K 
    or less. Ouch. And this happens all the time. Either this or you have
    to find multiples of small opportunities that add up. Also difficult to
    do. 
    
    This is forcing me to more closely qualify my opportunities and how I 
    spend my time. With the pressures today in Digital to make that yearly 
    number, not listening may not be a function of caring, it may be more a 
    function of knowing this particular piece of business means very, very 
    little in terms of my big picture (finding that "big" opportunity, 
    keeping my job. [notice i am writing this note at 10:30 at night. No 
    way would I do it during the day, when I could be finding or working 
    opportunities]
    
    I see nothing wrong with sales reps not being too technical, as
    long as they understand sales support needs to do the consulting work
    up front, ask the problem analysis questions, do the listening, so
    sales support can come back later and do the PID or Product
    Presentation when it is appropriate in the sales cycle. This in my mind
    is both moving the sales cycle along appropriately and good delegation. 
    The problem that does occur, and I'm guilty of this from time to time, 
    is rushing the sales cycle -- jumping straight to product presentations. 
    Typically this is counterproductive. My take is that this is a function 
    of the "pressure."
    
    Finally, I would submit that its a better investment to train our sales
    reps on the basics of info technology basics and then spend the balance
    of training on business basics and knowledge of the industry that 
    they are selling to. We have got to get better at selling solutions and
    projects. To do this we need the business and industry knowledge.
    
    
    
    

    (This is turning out to be a decent note)

    re: .17

    I have always thought that selling information technology is balance
    between management consulting and technical consultant.

    Digital has been unbalanced in this regard often.  In .17, Mr. Veteikis
    argues that we're too technical.  I just find this hard to believe.

    When I look at the several opportunities we've had this year, the
    Digital-imposed blocks to closing the deal aren't a lack of
    understanding of the customer's business problem but an inability to be
    responsive with equipment, software products, technically-skilled
    individuals, or an internal decision.

    Digital's imitative of IBM's style of selling to the highest level of
    management is disconnected from the reality that most decision-making
    is now decentralized and the influence of a "enterprise-wide
    information strategy" even where it is defined is getting weaker and
    weaker.

    Sometimes I believe we're under a collective delusion that we're in
    possession of a "best in class" overall strategy that compensates for
    less-than-competitive products.

    Patrick,
    
    re. .18 
    
    Let me clarify. I meant to say we have a tendency to be technical with
    the customer at inappropriate times in the sales cycle. I did not mean 
    to say we are too technical. Having sales support people that are
    technically very competent, is definitely one of our strengths.
    
    I don't think you can really be too technical. However, having the good
    balance of business skills and technical skills is definitely an
    advantage in working with a customer.
    
    CV

    
    RE: Please don't confuse you lack of understanding with my not knowing
    what I am speaking about.  If you need clarification, ask and I will 
    try and help you understand.  
    
    
    If the profit margin on the third party gear i s equivalent to that of
    a Digital product, then I agree that sales should get full CERTS.
    
    RE: Shadow credits-I've seen credit give to sales which added up to
    180% of MLP.  We cannot be successful with this type of inflated CERTS.
    
    
    Mike

Well, I probably fit into all the bad categories.  I am a sales rep who 
gets shadow booking.  Talk about dumb overhead!

Seriously, I think the business model we are facing has changed 
significantly and that trying to OVER simplify is wrong.  I sell only a few 
products, PowerFrame, EDCS II and STEP tools.  These are rather technical 
software and consulting sales and are more closely related to EDA, MCAD, or 
data base sales.  In these industries, unlike the hardware world, the sales 
rep usually has an Application Engineer that is teamed up with him or her.  
Teams of two people is very common, not only because the skills are 
different, but also because the sales dynamic is very different.  People 
will tell AEs things they would never tell a sales rep.  

I have made a bunch of errors on sales calls, ( and I will make a bunch 
more, hopefully new onles...) both by being too technical and also by being 
too business oriented.  At some point in the technical discussion you have 
to think about what it takes to actually pick up a P.O.  Technical talks 
are usually more interesting, and often lead to finding that the solution 
you are contemplating is going to only solve a symptom, not the actual
problem.

I get shadow booking because my boss finds that making us have a sales job 
code keeps the focus on bringing in the order.  I was a consultant before 
the job code change.  Often the sales cycle covers several months and the 
assigned sales rep will have only peripheral dealings with the business I am 
working on.  If I do 90% of the work, I have no guilt about taking a shadow 
booking.  The sales group I work in does not have a booking center and we 
book all our business through the regular booking centers.

Perhaps doing a benchmark of how sales is done by the most successful 
companies in each of the industries we compete in should be done.  How are
Oracle, Sun, Anderson Consulting, GE Financial, HP, Cadence, 
Zuken, Racal, Seimens, Intel and EDS organized.  I think it is overly 
simplistic to think selling semiconductors for design in and business 
reengineering should have the same sales model.

Matt