My experience suggests all companies do have some form of revenue system (heart) in place today. The reality is most are the “open loop” intermittent variety meaning the core revenue tasks of selling, forecasting, rewarding performance and staffing operate as standalone events with minimal process accountability. They may be done by one individual but that person addresses these as independent – sometimes even burdensome – tasks.

All companies have revenue stimulators (cold call Fridays, end of quarter discount promotions, etc.) that are used to keep the vision alive – and the doors open – but these are best described as tactical adrenalin, not a revenue system.  When these no longer produce the results needed, the quick-fix option is lowering the revenue bar to align with current ‘system’ capabilities assuming the financial structure can accommodate the reductions. This is the drug of choice for sustaining most ‘open loop’ based revenue models…and the number one reason why companies prefer a ‘closed loop’ revenue system (heart).

However, some sales teams are seeing higher numbers of UFO’s (Un- Funded Opportunities) such that starting with the Money discussion to confirm a budget does exist or funds can be allocated for the transaction is just a good strategy in today’s economy. There is a lot of stress in parts of our economy and it is not the first time we have seen prospects trying to identify new projects that could become their job savers.

The old rule – no money, no prospect – still applies.

As such, under our SRS 2.0 model, they have uniquely developed one of the 4 core processes of a complete Revenue System, albeit one that is totally optimized to their profile and may not be readily transferable to others.

The complete revenue system requires competence in 4 processes – not just one. That makes the CRO role requirements much different than those of an individual contributor. The CRO has to deliver coaching (5M’s Sales Process), accountability (Bankable Forecast Process), motivation (Incentive Process) and talent selection (Staffing Process).

The step up from individual contributor to CRO is a quantum leap in leadership and responsibility. Most of the time, these leadership responsibilities are not tasks that fit the true hunter profile.

Well, I have observed the same apathy towards treadmill sales campaigns in business. As a sports fan, I respect the skill needed to compete in any world class athletic event. As such, I do not share the boredom profile recently expressed by some Wimbledon viewers. I do however support my business colleagues’ frustration with marathon sales campaigns. My experience is that these lengthy and expensive endeavors are not based on skill. They are based on feature/benefit selling tactics with no qualifying process involved so the treadmill platform becomes the only option available.

Those who have been there know this is not a revenue system. If the only data changing on forecast updates is the projected close date, you are already on the treadmill.

What we sell and how we get paid are two different things!

Your Differentiating Value is what separates you from the competition and goes beyond core competencies like the typical quality, service and support platforms most companies promote. The Sales Revenue System 2.0 book example of the cinnamon sales rep is a typical illustration of this discovery. He was actually selling ‘time to market’ for new products but got paid in shipments of cinnamon and other spices.

The first step in our Revenue System implementation always starts with defining your Differentiating Value…and the discoveries that follow.

The web-based assessment tools available today take less than an hour to complete and give you more upfront profile information about the applicant than most managers can learn in a year about their new hires. The web-based assessment tools can objectively sort talent from wannabe’s so you don’t have to revisit those “I wish I had know that before….” discoveries after they are on your payroll and not performing. Thanks to these tools you don’t have to keep making those same repetitive mistakes today.

There is no fixed answer to that question since the CQQ’s originate from the company’s Differentiating Value (DV) platform. The more DV, the more topics you have available for CQQ consideration. One suggestion I frequently make to CRO’s working through the implementation process is this – spend your time on the CQQ’s for Motivation. If you cannot establish any DV ‘traction’ with the lead, you have a suspect – not a prospect. The heavy lifting is always with the Motivation fit and most companies can quickly modify the CQQ’s listed in the book for Money, Methodology and Market to jump start their implementation.

My first sales role was during my college years selling cutlery door-to-door. Can you imagine standing on someone’s front porch today with two demo cases of kitchen knives saying to a total stranger that you would like to come into their home for a couple hours and demonstrate what amounted to enough cutting tools to outfit a small slaughter house? Today those products would be classified as ‘edged weapons’ based on blade length and the call to 911 would go out as soon you started talking.

Rejection in that sales model ranged from having the door slammed in your face to the prospect telling you in loud 4 letter words to get off their porch. When that happened, you only hoped the door did not reopen as that was the early indication they were about to exercise the family dog at your expense under a much older version of the ‘fair chase’ concept.

Out running the canine to the car while carrying two steel-laden demo cases was real rejection (and some good evening entertainment for the prospect), but the commission plan made it all work. The electronic rejections we receive today while working 8-5 in environmentally-controlled offices with never-ending supplies of coffee, water, snacks etc. aren’t even worth mentioning.