CSO Insights Blog Posts

Sales 2.0: Science or Art?

Last week I was scheduled to present at Selling Power's Sales 2.0 Conference in Chicago. I look forward to these events and have attended each of them since the first was held in San Francisco two years ago. Unfortunately, my back had other ideas and not only did I need to cancel out of the trip last week, I'm writing this segment while lying on my back. However, since I had already put together what I thought was a pretty interesting little presentation, rather than waste it I'm posting it here.

At each Sales 2.0 conference (last week's was the sixth), there are dozens of presenters giving examples and evangelizing the concept of Sales 2.0. I don't believe there is yet a single agreed-upon definition of Sales 2.0 any more than there is of CRM. But the general notion is a next generation of sales that is, as Gerhard Gswandtner describes it, "co-created" by both the buyer and the seller. This co-creation process is enabled by technology-principally though by no means exclusively the Internet, and attempts to leverage new phenomena such as social networking, all available channels (i.e., inside sales, e-Commerce, channel partners, etc.) and huge data gathering and analytic capabilities to more accurately identify prospects and predict outcomes.

In effect, the problem all these resources are being applied to is selling or its more au courant cousin helping buyers buy more efficiently and effectively. Aren't these systems really just crunching a ton of data to try to mimic what the best reps have been doing all along? And, at the end of the day, it's still about relationships. Our research data and Sales Relationship/Process Matrix clearly support this. Can all this number crunching supplant a skilled sales rep?

Invariably, the question is raised whether all of this is really necessary, leading to the philosophical question of whether selling is (or should be) more science or art. In fact, at the Boston conference, several panel members offered their personal assessment of the appropriate balance: 50% science/50% art; 60/40; 30/70; etc.

When we say "science" in this discussion, we most often are referring to technology, process, rigor, discipline. "Art" on the other hand, conjures passion, creativity, talent, inspiration.

The video included here is my answer to this question. It is a synopsis of the time trial, the final leg, of the 1989 Tour de France. The result of 3 weeks and more than 2,000 miles of riding separated the leader Vignon from second place Greg LeMond. Both had previously won the Tour de France, the talent of each unquestioned in the super elite levels they competed. The Frenchman Laurent Fignon wanted nothing more than to once again win the famed yellow jersey in and for his country. The American LeMond was trying a couple seemingly simple new technologies (prone tri-athlete style handlebars, streamlined helmet).

Even if you know the outcome it's still riveting video watching passion, dedication, technology, talent and all out guts on both sides compete for a single winner. (Watch the video now)

Art versus science? In my opinion, the right answer is as much of each as you can possibly muster.

Sell well,

Barry Trailer

< Back