As a professional person, have you ever been in a situation where you failed to heed your own advice? The advice for which you’re paid handsomely by others?
We had such an experience recently when we were pitching for a new client – a client which was quite obviously a poor fit for our agency.
As a B2B marketing agency, helping organisations qualify opportunities is part of our DNA. We’re experts at marketing the expertise of others.
So why didn’t we follow the process and best practice we espouse?
Perhaps we were too close to the opportunity. Or perhaps, like many organisations, we allowed revenue to trump fit.
The point is we learned from the experience.
Poor-fit clients are expensive teachers
Most mature organisations know how to qualify clients and opportunities. Go/No-Go processes exist to evaluate opportunities objectively and prevent organisations from pursuing poor fit work. When ignored, the likely outcome is either losing the opportunity or suffering delivery pain later.
So why do experienced professionals override the process?
Sometimes the pipeline has tightened and they’re under pressure to shore up revenue.
Sometimes they’re far from achieving their strategic goals and are under pressure from their head office or parent company.
Sometimes projects are concluding and operations are under pressure to maintain utilisation and retain capability.
The common denominator is pressure. Organisations frequently abandon their own commercial discipline when pressure enters the room.
Pressure to perform. Pressure to grow. Pressure to keep teams billable.
Access is not authority
Most complex B2B purchases involve multiple stakeholders with varying degrees of influence and authority. One of the greatest qualification challenges is identifying who is genuinely driving the decision-making process.
In this instance, we assumed the Head of Marketing—our primary contact—had decision-making authority. As the pursuit progressed, it became clear the CEO was controlling the outcome.
Get it in writing
Invitation-only RFPs can significantly improve the odds of success because fewer organisations are competing. The proviso, however, is that all proponents are responding to the same brief.
It soon became apparent that the prospect had not provided all participating agencies with identical information. More concerningly, there appeared to be little internal consensus around what the organisation actually required – or what success would look like.
As the pursuit progressed, conversations regularly drifted beyond the understood scope, while competing agencies appeared to be proposing materially different solutions.
In this instance, the brief had been delivered verbally. A written brief would not only have reduced ambiguity, but also provided greater confidence that the organisation had alignment around its objectives before commencing the procurement process.
We ignored the warning signals
Throughout the process, the prospect made several remarks that should have put us on alert and perhaps prompted a change of course. All three stakeholders were vague about the organisation’s brand positioning, identity and value proposition. Given we were proposing a content marketing solution, that should have raised a red flag.
Without clarity around brand identity, marketing activity inevitably becomes fragmented and inconsistent. Before organisations invest in campaigns, content or communications, there needs to be alignment around positioning, purpose and how the organisation wants to be perceived.
Rather than overlooking the issue, we should have recommended a brand audit and strategic positioning review as a precursor to the broader engagement. That work would likely have created greater long-term value for the client and positioned the subsequent marketing activity for success.
