More on the Manifesto

I was going to write a continuation of my last post on The Guru Red Manifesto, but John Moore at OurHouse so eloquently stated what I was thinking that I'll just direct you to his post. Here's a snip:

I think there is always going to be some kind of tension between customers and other stakeholders though I balk at the idea that the relationship is built on that tension; I'd say that good marketing resolves these conflicts in ways that work for all parties... The confrontation word suggests a Mexican stand off, a game in which one side can only win by the other losing. That's not the ideal of conflict resolution which aims for win:wins. By focussing on the money, the RedGurus may well be giving a good pragmatic steer against idealism and fantasy on the part of entrepreneurs; but they may also be missing how people actually create real value in relationships.

And then I went back to the Guru Red Manifesto for more. Here's what I found:

Do not sell. Campaign. Reconcile current competency with current opportunity. Maneuver your forces. Exploit center of gravity. Calibrate time, space and energy. Combine segregated sales and marketing functions into an integrated campaigning function. Replace soft selling metrics like satisfaction, delight, recall and impressions with hard campaigning metrics like objectives, revenue and margin. Build revenue engines and not sales organizations. Focus on speeding up cycle time. Develop and amplify competitive instincts. Utilize logos, ads, commercials, trade shows, etc., as ammunition and weaponry, not as artistic expressions or award opportunities.

As with the previous post, there are parts I agree with and others I don't. Absolutely, everything should work synergistically (overused word, but effective) in an integrated campaign. I'd add that it's not only sales and marketing that must work together, but product development and customer service as well. And yes, marketing materials should be used as ammunition, not as award opportunities.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's keep 'soft' metrics like satisfaction and delight. In a recent satisfaction study for a telecom client, we found that 'very satisfied' customers were 60% likely to refer a friend, compared to only 28% of 'somewhat satisfied' customers. Here's another stat: 'somewhat' and 'very' satisfied customers were 2 1/2 times more likely to purchase additional products than neutral or unsatisfied customers. No real surprise here: customer satisfaction directly leads to additional revenue. Delight your customers and they'll stay with you, spend more money with you, and bring you new customers. Creating a free sales force within your customer base might be tougher -- but infinitely cheaper and more effective in the long run -- than putting all your efforts into paid distribution channels. Think of customer delight as yet another component of your 'revenue engine'.

Comments

[david foster]

What on earth would it actually *mean* to "build revenue engines and not sales organization?

"Replace soft selling metrics like satisfaction, delight, recall and impressions with hard campaigning metrics like objectives, revenue and margin." I have never heard of a sales organization that *didn't* have revenue as a metric. And, if this refers to advertising and other marketing activities, the problem of assessing revenue impact of an ad or other marketing program is nontrivial to put it mildly.