Sales Training Content: Why It Isn’t and Shouldn’t be the Primary Differentiator When Choosing a Provider

40 years ago, the major providers of B2B sales training providers offered very different solutions that solved for very different challenges. At that time, a small cadre of innovators reaped fame, profit and enviable growth by revolutionizing the world of sales, bringing science from different disciplines to professional B2B and B2G sales organizations. Since that time, literally hundreds of imitators have arisen, and a flood of "the latest sales model offerings" have hit the market. Today’s sales leaders looking for outside help to improve performance are overwhelmed with offerings that sound the same. Further, companies seeking their business focus on explaining why their model is the best one.

Decision makers quite naturally focus on sales training content as the primary decision criterion. While a focus on content is a reasonable approach, expecting any sales leader to properly identify content with solid provenance vs the empty hat imitators is expecting too much. Statistics show that more than 56% of decisions on who to engage are based on "I used them before!", 77% said "I took an inexpensive option. After all, it’s all the same anyway."

Sales training content differences do matter. But there are other considerations even more critical for leaders to consider. As heretical as it sounds, even lackluster imitation content can make a difference if the provider delivers the full breadth of what is required. The problem is they never do. Sadly, even companies with legitimate, sound, proven content often fail to cover that full breadth.

Let’s take a quick look at:

  • Why sales training content should matter.
  • Why it is difficult to discern sound training content from poor imitations.
  • Where decision makers should focus.

We’ll take a quick tour in each of these areas looking at both the problem (and causes) and what approach works best. All three of these questions are answered in summary bullets below.

Why Sales Training Content Should Matter

Problem

  • Every sales training company lays claim to "research-based" content. The problem is there is no universal standard for what is meant in this case by "research-based". Did the content creator read one book? Did they use their own experience as "research"?
  • Or, worst of all, did they take someone else’s content and (in the mistaken assumption that changing a few titles escapes copyright laws) simply create a derivative work?
  • The only legitimate determinant of "best practice" content is the hard work of collecting large data samples, controlling to eliminate issues of personality, industry, company, product, etc., and use the science of statistical analysis to determine real best practice. Boring huh?
  • The innovators of 40 years ago did just that. Their solutions were revolutionary because of the sound basis of their research conclusions.
  • The horde of imitators use similar language, so how is a sales executive to recognize great content from drivel when everyone sounds similar?
  • Most sales executives have been through one or more courses, only to find that the results they expected failed to materialize, so why should content matter?
  • Bottom line: content matters but it is unreasonable to expect those seeking outside sales performance improvement help to know how to tell the difference.
  • If someone is willing to examine what makes good content vs bad content, it takes a good bit of effort. Executives have no time for such an exploration.

What Works

  • As heretical as it sounds, forget trying to tell good from bad.
  • Instead, focus on how the provider includes resources, tools, metrics, etc., to drive adoption and fluency.
  • Abandon a focus on cute acronyms: SNAP, MEDDIC, MEDDICPRO, RISE, DEAL, BANT, etc. These are just mnemonics to help sellers remember (which they seldom do).
  • Mediocre (not bad) training content paired with superior resources for adoption will beat entertaining content alone every time.
  • Ensure that training is identified as a beginning of the improvement process and not the end of it. Improvement is an incremental process not a course.
  • Ensure that some cadre (ideally first-line managers) have resources to coach and guide. Without them, coaching will seldom happen.
  • Expectations of improvement are not enough. Progress takes practice and measurement.
  • Carefully explore what processes a provider goes through before any training takes place. What about the participants' selling experiences does the provider uncover and how do they do so?

For those that are considering engaging with a sales performance improvement provider, Funnel Clarity has a White Paper laying out an agnostic set of decision criteria and information about how to choose a provider that may be helpful. Find that White Paper here.