Speakers gain celebrity status at conferences.  Attendees enjoy conversing with the speakers for their knowledge and point of view.  A consulting client shared with me a successful approach his firm uses to maximize the client development opportunities for their conference speakers.  As soon as they are informed that they are a speaker they begin planning a well choreographed dinner!  First they make a reservation for 8 to 12 people at one of the top restaurants at the conference city.  Secondly, they invite a few close clients who love them and who they know will highly recommend their work.  Then they invite another speaker or two whose topics are popular in the market but whose work does not compete with theirs.  Next, they invite some non-competing prospects who can be considered peers to their clients, appreciating that clients love to exchange war stories with their peers.  And lastly, they make sure that the number of people from their office is not overwhelming to the rest of the group, four people maximum.  You can imagine with this make up for dinner that all attendees have a great time  - – - especially their prospects who are now impressed.  Perfect! 

Marketing meetings have become more frequent now due to work slow down.  Senior management at professional firms are spending more time meeting with each other to discuss clients, prospects and pursuits in an effort to capture the limited project opportunities in the marketplace.  At many firms, marketing meetings have become as frequent as weekly.  Participants at most marketing meetings include senior practice leaders and managers.  What most firms don’t realize is that these meetings come with a significant cost to their firms and oftentimes don’t provide a return on their investment. 

Marketing meetings are expensive!  Typical marketing meetings include 5 to 15 participants.  If they meet every other week for one hour, the total number of hours spent in marketing meetings per year is 130 to 390 hours.  As an example, at an average billing rate of $300 per hour, the cost is $39,000 to $117,000 per year.  Assuming gross margin of 12%, these meeting must generate roughly $325,000 to $975,000 to break even.    Larger firms with several group marketing meetings could be looking at a cost of several million dollars.  Depending on the firm and project size, these fees are a tall order in this economy. 

After years of working with consulting firms, I’ve seen all kinds of marketing meetings.  I thought I would share with you the Top Five Traits for the Worst Marketing Meetings with some tips on how to improve them.

1. Have participants report only leads and activity.  Lengthy information reporting becomes boring to most participants.  Don’t make the marketing meeting only a reporting session.  Adhere to succinct reporting of only relevant information.  Gather and distribute relevant data in advance of the meeting.  
2. Minimize idea exchange among participants.  Two way reporting conversations between each participant and the meeting leader squelches peer dialog and team problem solving.  Facilitate group problem solving and brainstorming for client development initiatives and challenges.  
3. Meet regularly without specific objectives.  Having regular meetings may feel like there is a focus on getting more work, but to make things happen you must establish action-oriented objectives for each meeting.  
4. Assume that your people are helping each other.  It’s a nice thought, but in reality, many individuals in different practice areas need specific action requests and follow up to cross sell.  Relationships are made one person at a time and that includes with colleagues within the same company.  Bringing people together with specific goals and action steps help facilitate development of stronger relationships among themselves and with their clients.
5. Invite everyone to marketing meeting to hear what’s going on.  Evaluate the number of regular meeting participants.  All participants should have specific action items to accomplish.  If they are not a player don’t take them offline for every meeting, invite them to only periodic meetings and learning sessions. 

Hopefully this doesn’t sound too familiar.  If it does, planning more effective marketing meetings is an easy fix which takes a bit of extra planning, but with focus can yield significantly more results and more regular attendance!

By Ford Harding & Mimi Spangler

Over the years we have seen the leadership of many professional service firms frustrated by key account programs that don’t work.  There are, of course, many reasons that this happens, but one stands out: firms almost always start with too many key accounts.

A key account is one having such value or offering such potential to a firm that it warrants special attention.  Attention translates quickly into time devoted to the account by account team members, usually partners from a variety of practices and geographies.  The more key accounts a firm has, the more teams a partner is likely to serve on.

There’s the rub.  Partners at professionals must sell work, deliver services and administer the firm.  They are always stretched for time.  The more they are given to do, the more fractured their efforts become.  Assigned to too many accounts, they rationally devote their attentions to the one they are in charge of or the one or two where they see the greatest potential for their practices and ignore the rest.  As a result, many account teams lack the attention of key team members, so key relationships go undeveloped, opportunities to cross sell are missed and the account team falters.  Also, there is often a lot of finger pointing at those who let down a team that can cause lasting ill will, when the real problem is structural.

We believe firms fall into this trap, because management lacks the fortitude to tell a partner that his best client will not be designated a key account or to limit partners to membership on two account teams.  They pay for this weakness.

When Cortez landed on the coast of Mexico, he famously burned his ships before marching inland, focusing all attentions of his followers on the need to succeed.  Partners will always want to go after any account where they can make quick and easy sales.  Letting them do so, is akin to what Cortez would have done had he left his ships unburned, preserving retreat as an option.  If you want to focus time and attention on a client by making it a key account, you mustn’t make retreating from it too easy.

We have all had to deal with anti-sponsors, people in a client organization who don’t want you to get work at their companies.  Dealing with them tests a professional’s rainmaking prowess.

One rainmaker I know advises his people to “nuke’em,” by going to their bosses and pointing out that they are obstructing progress.  I have no doubt that this man does just that and does it successfully.  It’s not an approach for all professionals in all situations.

My colleague, Gary Pines, a proven rainmaker, took a different approach with an anti-sponsor, whom I will call Marie, who was blocking our chance to work at an old client.  For some reason, she took a dislike to Gary and Harding & Company.  We are not sure why, but perhaps it was because on our original assignment we were brought in by the Managing Partner of her firm, without Marie’s knowledge or approval.

Whatever the reason, she was trying every tactic she could to make sure we got no more work.  She said that the members of the committee she was working with didn’t want us, though we knew from moles on the committee that this wasn’t true.  She said that we were more suited for a small piece of work, awarding the larger share to a competitor.  Even when the competitor failed to produce results, she continued to resist hiring us.  She threw up barrier after barrier.

Gary, a cheerful, likeable, gentlemanly person, might have been able to nuke this anti-sponsor, because of his relationship with the Managing Partner and several key committee members assigned to selecting consultants.  Instead, he chose to win her over.  Over the next eight months he wore away her resistance.

He remained irrepressibly sunny and helpful to her.  He included her in most of his communications with the firm, demonstrating that he wasn’t trying to go around her.  He was helpful above and beyond what was required, in spite of her sour responses.  During one meeting with her at which she was raising objection after objection, he leveled with her, saying, “Marie, somewhere along the way we got off on the wrong foot with each other.  I don’t know why or how and I don’t care.  From today, as far as I’m concerned, we’re starting fresh.  I want to work with you, I want to help you and I want you to be a success.”

She absorbed the message without comment, but from then on things began to change.  In communications with others at the firm, Gary made a point of mentioning Marie positively, if she provided him even the remotest excuse for doing so.  He stayed in touch with her and continued to be positive, polite and helpful.  And he wore her down.  Today, she is a strong sponsor for Gary and our firm.

Turning around an anti-sponsor is one of the toughest challenges a professional can face.  It takes emotional intelligence and maturity to resist taking personal affront at someone like Marie and to do what Gary did.  It also takes a lot of hard work.  But the return on the effort can be huge.

Transferring a relationship from one professional to another is best done while the client is working with your firm, because the work, itself, provides the professional seeking to pick up the relationship plausible reasons for staying in front of the client.  There are two principal strategies.  The rainmaker can step away from a relationship with a client, while a colleague moves in or the rainmaker can maintain her relationship with the client, providing a colleague the opportunity to develop a relationship with the client’s probable successor. I will call the former The Classic Transition and describe it here and the latter The Generational Transition and deal with it at another time.

The Classic Transition

A rainmaker starts a transition in account leadership by assigning a colleague to manage all other of the firm’s professionals working for the client company.  Once the colleague knows the company’s issues and people, the rainmaker starts bringing him to meetings she has with her senior contact at the client.  She plays the role of the senior representative of the firm at the meeting, letting the colleague do most of the talking with the client.  If the client seems comfortable with the colleague, the rainmaker steps away from the account by:

• Never going to a meeting with the senior client contact without the colleague.
• Deferring to the colleague as much as possible and becoming increasingly quiet at meetings.
• Advising the client that she cannot attend a meeting and recommending that the client and colleague go ahead with the meeting without her.
• Letting the colleague schedule future meetings without her.

As the rainmaker steps away, the colleague must serve the client so well that he accepts the transition.  He must, in the words of one rainmaker, get the client to forget the rainmaker’s phone number.

A couple of years ago, I attended a retreat for all of the new partners at a consulting and accounting firm.  The CEO packed a lot of wisdom about the ways to be a successful partner into a twenty-minute, before-dinner speech. I have been turning one bit of advice over in my mind ever since.  “Some of you know that when you started on one of my accounts, I always told you to make the client forget my phone number. And some of you did service the clients so well, that they did forget all about me.  Now it’s time to encourage the people working on your accounts to make the clients forget your phone number.”

The CEO was addressing one of the perennially difficult aspects of selling professional services and building a practice, the safe transfer of a relationship between a client and a professional to someone else within the professional’s firm.  Firms and their senior professionals need to do this for several reasons:

• Retirement: Most obviously, you can’t take a client with you into retirement—at least not if you truly mean to retire. Helping the firm keep your client will help it earn the money it will need to buy out your share of the ownership.
• Upgrading: You will sometimes develop an account that is not the most strategic use of your attentions.  Turning the account over to someone else allows you to move on to bigger things.
• Specialization: Fewer people are good at developing new accounts than are good at managing and expanding existing ones.  Smart managers of professional firms do all they can to keep the “finders” finding. To have the time for it, finders have to turn over existing accounts to minders.
• Organization Designed for Growth: Some firms build this kind of specialization into their organizational design. Partners mind accounts.  To become senior partners, they must pass on these accounts to new partners and then go out and bring in new clients.

The process is commonly referred to as “handing off of a relationship,” a description so inaccurate, it can do harm.  A relationship exists between two people and is the product of time spent together, of sharing thoughts and experiences.  I cannot give my relationship with a client to you, even if the client were willing, because you weren’t there when the client and I shared those thoughts and experiences.   The best that I can do is introduce you to the client and get out of the way while you and she share thoughts and experiences, so building your own relationship.  Because “handing off” suggests something simple that I can do for you, it may lead you to sit around and wait for something to be given to you.  It will never happen.

The words used by the CEO are much more accurate.  I can set you up to meet my client one or more times, but then it is your responsibility to service her so well that she forgets my phone number.  Rather than handing you something, it’s then my job to get out of the way, to disappear while you develop your own relationship with the person.  How strong that relationship becomes has nothing to do with me, as long as I don’t interfere.  It’s up to you and the client.

In a subsequent posting, I will provide some suggestions for doing this.

Professionals who have developed skill at selling work in their areas of expertise, often find it hard to sell a broad solution to a problem that extends into areas about which they know relatively little.  Yet, rainmakers do this all of the time.  In an earlier post, I described a change in mindset needed to become an adviser on broad sets of issues.  Clearly, a change in mindset is not sufficient.  The professional must learn to conduct a discussion about a broad business issue.  Used to having command of a subject, they often say that they don’t know what to say and ask about issues where they have limited expertise.  It is a legitimate concern.

When talking with a client in their areas of specialty, professionals ask relatively narrow questions.  Borrowing from Chomskian linguistics, I will call these surface questions.  The surface questions used to learn about a client’s desire to redesign her company’s pension program differ greatly from those required to learn about her need for a new headquarters or her need to make a merger or for any other specific problem.

However, regardless of the issue, surface questions in all specialties gather information in the same categories, such as information about the nature of the client’s issue, its source, its size, its complexity, its urgency, its risks and opportunities, and so forth.  With that understanding, it is relatively easy to construct questions, which I will refer to as deep questions, that are more generic in nature and that will allow a professional to converse with the client in areas that go beyond the professional’s area of detailed knowledge.

Here is a comparison of some surface questions with some deep ones.  For the surface questions I will assume that a location consultant is interviewing a client about moving its corporate headquarters.  The deep questions, of course, can handle a much broader set of issues.  Note that these are just sample questions, not a definitive list.  Also, keep in mind that the same question can be worded many ways.  For example, Why would that be a problem for you?  is essentially the same question as I can think of several reason why that would be a problem.  Which ones stand out to you?  I have chosen brief versions of most questions to make a point.  If you don’t like the specific words shown, see if you can reword the questions to make them more palatable.

To determine the nature of the problem:

• Surface Questions:  Why are you thinking of moving your corporate headquarters?  What kinds of talent are difficult to recruit at this location?  Why is being in a peripheral location problematic?
• Deep Questions:  What is it that you wanted to talk about?  What seems to be the issue?

To establish cause:

• Surface Question:  Why are you thinking of moving now?
• Deep Question:  How did the problem arise/develop?

To establish urgency:

• Surface Questions:  How soon does your lease expire?  If you continue to fall short in the number of researchers you recruit, how soon do you end up in competitive difficulties?
• Deep Questions:  What kind of time pressure are you under?  Why the rush?

To establish goals:

• Surface Question:  What do you want to accomplish from a move?
• Deep Question:  What does success look like?

Top establish size:

• Surface Questions:  How many people are based at the headquarters?  How do they break down by job type?  How many would you expect to move?  How many square feet do you occupy?  Do you expect space requirements to go up or down?
• Deep Questions:  How big is this issue?  How many people does it affect?

To establish scope:

• Surface Questions:  Is the current location under consideration or are you definitely going to move?  Would you consider a long distance or only a local move?  Are there certain other locations that must be considered?
• Deep Questions: What are its parameters?  What areas will be affected?  How broad a set of solutions are you willing to consider?

To establish risks:

• Surface Question:  What happens if word of the move leaks out prematurely?  What if insufficient members of the research team choose to transfer to the new location?  Are you subject to political pressures in making this choice?
• Deep Questions:  What are the risks?   What could go wrong?

To establish opportunities:

• Surface Questions:  If you move to a new location and your recruiting problem goes away, what difference will it make?  How would easier access to your customers help the business?
• Deep Questions:  What are the benefits of making the change?  How much would you gain from the change.

To establish barriers:

• Surface Questions:  Why are you considering staying put?  Why not explore alternatives directly with economic development authorities instead of working through a consultant?
• Deep Questions: What stands in your way?  Why are you considering doing this with external resources, rather than in house?

I could go on, but suspect the point is made.  Professionals who are used to showing off expertise in the questions they ask, sometimes fear deep questions are too general and so highlight their lack of content knowledge.  But clients almost always answer deep questions without hesitation.  When they are focused on talking about their problem, information that draws attention to the professional can be a distraction, even if that information is posed as a question.

Jenny, a young professional at a big firm, had spent four years in a specific practice area.  Because of her smarts and interpersonal skills, she was seen as having high potential for rapid advancement.  This assessment was confirmed when a senior executive at a client where she was working invited her into his office to talk about another issue he was facing.

Jenny quickly realized that the issue was outside of her area of specialty, though well within her firm’s capabilities.   After a ten minute conversation, she offered to identify the right person at the firm to help with the matter, but by the time she had done so and could get back on the executive’s schedule, he had found someone else to work with.

It is doubtful that the executive expected Jenny to have a ready-made solution to his problem; he knew what she specialized in.  He was, more-likely, looking for someone who understood his organization, could understand his problem, participate with him as a thought partner about it and marshal the right resources to help him.  If that was the case, Jenny didn’t demonstrate the confidence and technique to serve as this kind of trusted adviser.  She lost the opportunity to advance her relationship with the client and to provide him greater value by cross selling a number of her firm’s services.

This is a limitation of many narrow specialists, including many who are older and more experienced than Jenny.  They don’t know what to say and do when presented with a problem outside of their specialty, other than to off-load it to someone else as quickly as possible.

So, what are people in this position to do?  They need two things, the right mindset and good questioning technique.  I will address the first of these here and the second in a later post.

The mindsets of trusted advisers and specialist differ on several dimensions, including:

Goals:

• Specialist:  To prove my knowledge of the special characteristics and implications of the client’s problem.
• Trusted Adviser:  To help the client articulate his concern and its implications and bring him the resources that can help him solve it.

Role:

• Specialist:  Solver of the client’s problem.
• Trusted Adviser:  Thought partner, representative of the client’s interests and needs within your firm and with others who will assist in providing a solution, the one who marshals the right resources.

Method:

• Specialist:  Ask questions that, by their nature, reveal command of the specialty and allow scoping of the assignment in detail.
• Trusted Adviser:  Ask questions that help the client explain and develop his own thinking on the matter at hand by helping him amplify his own beliefs and judiciously challenging them.  When appropriate, empathize with the client showing a shared understanding of the stresses, costs and opportunities that he faces.

Resources:

• Specialist: Largely from within own practice
• Trusted Adviser: From wherever needed; inside the firm, inside the client organization or elsewhere

Duration:

• Specialist:  Often one, and seldom more than two or three conversations, prior to submitting a proposal.
• Trusted Adviser:  Often several conversations, in order to ensure that the right problem is being solved and the right resources applied.

Once you have the right mindset, you are ready to learn technique.

Dwight Davies said the following to me long ago:

“At any given time there are three to five things that a company is working on that are driven by the board and CEO on down, and everyone owns a piece of them.  They’re not always the obvious things.  If you are talking to people about  one of those things, you’re helping.  If you are talking about anything else,  you’re on the outside and you’re selling.”

I think this is true wisdom.

In an excellent recent post, Jeffery James writes of the mistakes experts make when teaming with a salesperson to sell a complex technical product.  They are all too true; so true that they make me cringe.  I could cite a few more.

In fairness, though, there are also mistakes that clueless salespeople make when teaming with a management consultant, accountant, engineer or other professional to sell a professional service.  These include:

• Believing that a good salesperson can sell anything and trying to sell a complex service as if it were a widget.  Some salespeople are good at selling professional services and some aren’t, however good they are at selling something else.
• Not respecting the expert’s expertise.  I have seen more than one salesperson try to structure a service without the expert or ignoring the expert’s advice.  This most often happens when the salesperson tries to negotiate a reduction in scope for a client that wants a price decrease without the expert’s input.  They may make the sale, but the results are seldom pretty.
• Not recognizing when it is inappropriate to sell.  Professionals are in an advisory role and there are times when it just isn’t appropriate to try to sell something.  A consultant whose firm was acquired by a technology company arranged a meeting with the skeptical CIO at one of his clients to explain how the change in ownership would improve his firm’s service.  Not recognizing that this was an educational meeting and probably never having met with a C-Suite executive before, the salesperson tried to sell the CIO something.  The CIO felt tricked into a sales meeting which was not what he had agreed to or expected.  I could cite several analogous cases.  This kind of behavior can cost the firm a client.
• Not respecting the expert’s relationship with the client.  The expert has a qualitatively different relationship with the client than most business developers will ever have.  Not necessarily better, but different, because it is based on the client’s respect for the professional’s knowledge and advice.  Some salespeople act as if the relationship between the professional and the client didn’t exist, even though the client and professional have known each other for years.  I have known cases where the client told the professional that he didn’t want to see the salesperson again.
• Not keeping the expert informed.  Business developers will sometimes run with an opportunity without keeping the expert informed, even when the expert is working at the client and turned up the lead.

Of course, many business developers don’t make these mistakes.  To avoid these problems with those who might, a professional firm should:

• Hire the right kind of salesperson:  Those who would sell professional services have to be smart, curious and eager to learn about the nuances of the service in question, and respectful of the professional’s expertise.  They should also be tactful on-the-job sales trainers.  When possible recruit some of your business developers from your professional team, using a few years in full-time sales positions, as a part of their career development.
• Set ground rules for every meeting.  Make clear what the client’s expectations are for any meeting and what behaviors are appropriate and what are not.
• Set ground rules for every pursuit.  The same can be said for every opportunity pursued.
• Assign primary and secondary relationship responsibilities for key members of a client organization.  Both business developers and firm professional staff members should have such responsibilities.

When a sales-savvy professional is teamed with a professions-savvy salesperson, they can work wonders.  It’s a combination worth striving for.