If it is true that you learn most from failure, then the protagonists’ lessons from what they themselves term “the biggest mistake in corporate history” must be really worth taking on board.

It’s been all over media this week as a result of Jeff Bewkes’ keynote Royal Television Society address.

As chairman and chief executive of Time Warner he has a boardroom view of their disastrous merger with AOL.

A supposedly new epoch-forming $164bn glittering purchase in 2001 spawned an incomprehensible $99bn loss a year later, before the ultimate demerger last year.

Here’s one core takeaway.

“It is the legitimacy of any business enterprise that, in order to deserve business and financial support, you should be doing something valuable and legitimate and not something else.”

I realise that when I meet customer-facing souls, they often struggle to pinpoint either the right value of what they provide or from where its legitimacy hails.

Undoubtedly the circumstance where I’ve encountered this mist the most is with unleashing a brand new product into the sales team’s playground.

It struck me that if you can accurately and beneficially answer these two demands, then any launch will be likely to succeed both quicker and better.

I recall with fondness a sales manager of mine, when just starting out many years ago, that urged sharing the worst-case scenario on a sale with a prospect at the earliest possible moment. His reasoning was that the later such negative emerged, the more devastating it’d be to your cause. With prospects so unused to such honesty, your relationship would instantly, positively solidify.

So here’s a tale of buying a car I found myself closely involved with recently. The person who’s car was purchased probably didn’t have the ‘best’ one. But critically, from the word go they outlined what was wrong with it. I gather that the only other person of around ten that came close to a deal (who sold theirs before the buyer made a decision) also employed the same approach of early downside exposure.

Of the other sellers, I was horrified at some of the stunts they tried to pull. Here’s some I personally witnessed:

• not mentioning a defect, or dismissing possible defects, only to be shown up as a blatant liar when checked out with manufacturer service centres
• making completely false statements on their initial pitch, only to belittle the fact when face-to-face (such as making the car younger or with way less miles on the clock)
• and the most outrageous, when the car was primed as impossible to miss out on, it stalled on the lot only to signal an incredible stand-up quality routine on how that didn’t matter.

So on reflection, I think my old boss was right. If you handle any potential bad news well, the deal inevitably becomes yours to lose.

This was the key phrase singularly extracted by all UK news outlets from the newly formed Coalition government’s Business Minister, a certain Vince Cable, at his Liberal party conference last week.

Despite softening by the last minute addition of the prefix “unrestrained“, the accusations ran that “Red Vince” was not simply playing into the left-leaning dreams of his door-knocking activists, but truly about to send Britain’s commerce back to the 70s dark ages.

It created huge media coverage and much of the accompanying analysis was, let’s be honest about it, remote-control trashingly useless. Then I read one journalist with whom I should naturally concur yet despite having an awesome command of the written word, I usually find him a touch too brusque and righteous for my purpose. On this occasion The Telegraph’s Simon Heffer rose above all other commentators with this riposte.

Capitalism creates competition

How easy is that? How come no-one else managed such brilliant simplicity?

He went on to batter another claim - that markets are rigged - by again the straight forward question, ‘which markets, Vince?’

Taken together, this approach reminded me of the always annoying and perpetually negative training that has coloured the career of BBC ‘moderators’ from the time I first noticed the tendency through Nicky Campbell and obviously the once-great Paxo, and has accelerated through to the Stephen Sackur’s of the network today. In essence, whatever the argument of the interviewee, think on the spot of the exact opposite and ram that question down their throats. In Paxman’s famous own words, think, “why is this lying bastard lying to me?“.

In his piece Heffer does this with greater majesty. And of course, what an incredible example of a type of sales objection handling.

Despite all the available knowledge, the single most common response to an objection I hear from the mouths of reps in the field is “yeah, but…”. No empathy, zero exploration, absent understanding. I cringe then weep every time.

Even if such best-practice process is alien to you, at least appreciate the power of pausing for a moment, before asking how they feel about the counter argument. One where rather creates is considered over kill.

“The computer slideshow, the powerpoint presentation, has been with us for 25 years”

So says this BBC News Magazine piece, Alternative ways of getting your message across. Both capabilities and logos have changed a fair bit over this quarter-century.

But most people still moan about it.

Which is why the aforementioned article features a conference where people are discouraged to produce a “lecture with a projector”.  Instead, you see ditties, verse and even theatre, as well as an outbreak of audience participation by medium of touch as encouraged by a lady in her black two-piece underwear, prompt cards sticking out of her knickers.

Whilst I find it virtually impossible to recommend replicating these precise approaches for your next prospect pitch, the underlying theme is a fundamental winner.

What can you do that neither involves slides nor the buyers feeling each other up?

Here’s a starter. You don’t have to be a romantic poet to dream up a rhyming slogan, and it doesn’t take a Hollywood director to fashion a high-impact visual demo.

What an unexpected change. A policeman with both passion and purpose is Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Sir Dennis O’Connor has hit the front pages everywhere in England this week in his quest to see dreaded yob culture anti-social behaviour stamped out.

An open goal for many of the papers of course, here’s how Middle-England’s conscience the Daily Mail commented;

In a report ringing with common sense, Sir Denis O’Connor spells out the blindingly obvious truth that the ‘retreat from the streets’ over the past 40 years has allowed anti-social behaviour to flourish.

The figures are startling. An estimated 14m instances last year equates to the tabloid heaven impact of an ‘attack’ every 2 seconds.

Thankfully, Sir Dennis touts answers. If 45% of all calls to the police concern this, then it’s time to change how police respond. Apparently only 5 of the UK’s 43 forces treat it with the action it deserves.

But at least there is a “path to follow”. One where such work is not considered ‘low level policing’.

His most telling remarks featured his urge for “early intervention”. He cited health and education as arenas where everyone knows that to step in and act early is the best course of action.

He even quoted figures suggesting how difficult it was to halt the slide when the chance to prevent at the outset had been passed over. When striking first, 50% of offenders cause no further complaints. By the time you reach the ASBO, 90% of victims are required to re-dial.

Should the same logic underpin reaction to something going awry within a business setting? In a sales environment for instance there’s plenty of management opportunity to act on triggers. Internal and external.

How often do you hear an old war-horse say sales are never won on the first call but are often lost there? What about response to prospect or customer queries? How often does not nipping something in the bud escalate to a crisis that soon needlessly sucks the life out of the entire team?

The path to which he refers includes having a dedicated team to immediately visit scenes of discomfort and an awareness across the board of signals that must raise instant action.

Similar policies can I’m sure be simply devised to eventually stamp out that which causes 45% of all your issues too.

I enjoyed sushi for lunch the other day. The Itamae recommended the tuna as lovely and fresh, and re-assured it was not bluefin, I had six Maki and also four salmon Uramaki (or mere Rolls & California Rolls as my heathen Western ears knew them).

I polished off each in two bites. This meant I’d eaten my tasty little morsels in twenty bites. Even with a couple left to go, it occurred to me that I was getting full. Did this mean that I should restrict myself to eating a specific number of mouthfuls? Is a limit of twenty enough to both keep me sated and prevent onset of over-indulgent middle-aged spread?

It’s a challenging thesis and one that some offshoot of the diet industry has daresay already debated.

But what then of an obvious parallel in selling?

How many points is it ideal to make on a sales call?
What number of agreed next actions is an optimum that helps guarantee their execution in your favour?
How many slides it it best to have in a presentation?

In the context of the number meaning that you will both avoid audience exhaustion whilst giving just the right amount to maintain healthy interest, I’m pretty sure that one must exist.

In many a meeting I’ve cringed as a rep oversells onto yet another meaningless opaque point, cried inside at another impartation for the prospect to do something when they’re clearly struggling to work out how they’d get the first request done and cowered in meetings where the squillionth slide mumbles up.

I’m not altogether certain I could arrive at an optimal number in each case, but I suspect that whenever we enter into such forums, it must surely be good practice to assess if your number really is the right number.

What are the odds that this magic number isn’t far away from just One?

Here’s another cheeky presentation resource. Specifically, I’d only advise utilising this for internal song and dance slots.

The kind of forums with just a handful of you. They’ll be regular. You’re all probably friends (no, really). It’s pretty informal. Like a small regional salesteam, or particular bid players. Something along those lines.

I’ve been to plenty of this kind of meeting, many as a protagonist and even more as observer. Someone always, always, tries to pop in the odd humorous slide. Nowadays, they tend to show short youtube extracts. And I suppose there’s usually not much harm in it.

If you really feel you cannot avoid pushing the funny button, then a spoof Successories slide could be your thing. It’s difficult to find anyone openly admitting to liking their ‘motivational’ posters.

Yet I suspect many will publicly enjoy their nemesis, Despair, Inc. Their parodies could well strike a chord.

Here’s examples. Click on any of my chosen trio to view their full suit of (at time of posting) 112 landscape masterpeices of “revolutionary tools for pessimists, underachievers and the chronically unsuccessful“.

Are there any procurement decisions more complex and costly than within military circles?

The UK Government this week suggested it’s considering deferring Britain’s £20bn ‘Trident’ nuclear submarine replacement project from 2014 to 2015, for both political and pecuniary ends. As a result of the significant local media coverage, I was alerted to their strategic acquisition process.

I immediately thought this must be a fundamentally flawed framework. My judgement influenced by frequent bad press that seems to afflict every single such project due to lengthy over-runs, spiralling costs, specification shortcomings and even eventual project obsolescence.

Still, the very fact that the approach has been so neatly documented throws a couple of intriguing sales tools our way.

Here’s how they describe ‘decision points‘.

The early stages of a project lifecycle contain two major decision points as defined in the Approvals and Scrutiny process – Initial Gate and Main Gate.

Sponsors and project teams are required to develop a Business Case at both of these stages justifying the project proceeding to the next stage. No manufacture or service contract can be signed prior to approval.

Initial Gate: the Early Decision Point

Initial Gate remains the first approval point in the lifecycle. Projects will return to the appropriate Approval Authority if agreed targets are breached.

Main Gate: the Key Decision Point

Main Gate is the major decision point at which the solution and ‘not to exceed figures’ are approved.

Main Gate approval:

• Remains the key investment decision point for Projects, where the risks to successful delivery are considered against the benefit of the proposed solution in meeting an endorsed Defence requirement. Risks can cover many aspects (for example, financial, technical, industrial [....])
• Sets targets against which the acquisition performance of the project is assessed. Targets are only established at Main Gate, when all the risks are sufficiently understood.
• Establishes defined trade boundaries for the project.
• Considers Whole Life Costs across all [risk aspects]. Crucially, it addresses the support solution as well as the equipment procurement.
• Requires assurance by the User (generally the Front Line Command) that the proposal can be integrated … with existing systems. This is needed to deliver an effective military capability from the In-Service Date.

The Approving Authorities will expect to see at the Decision Points that a wide range of Acquisition lifecycle strategies have been considered.

In the context of Trident, postponing the Main Gate decision until the next Parliament is one mechanism to delay “the point of no return when ministers sign contracts and start spending billions of pounds”.

I’ve spent nearly all of my career involved with products that seek to command a price premium in their marketplace. They’ve not always been the most expensive, yet they are far from the cheapest. A constant struggle is to justify this higher positioning, often in the face of relentless, uncaring commoditising buyer attitudes.

It got me wondering whether perhaps that it is towards the two extremes that a dearer purchase is more likely? The more vigilant a purchasing decision, the more deeply a buying investigation digs and the more it adheres to documented decision criteria, then is it also the more likely an ‘expensive’ solution can be considered? Similarly, can a quick, almost rash, decision, based more on emotion and urgency of need or pull of desire be more inclined to disregard price?

Whatever the reality of this, I feel certain that if you’ve a pricier hat in the ring, to introduce elements of this process to the buyer can only enhance your chances of ultimate success.

Imagine setting the buyer (and naturally then helping them with) the task of completing a full risk analysis, acquisition target documenting, whole life costs (including future upkeep) and existing system impact.

Pick the ones that are bound to set you apart and you’re well on to a winner.

The allure of snooker seems on the rise. Although nowhere near its Eighties heyday, the current World Open is gathering plenty of comment.

The quickfire first to three frames format of the early rounds apparently puts a lot of pressure on shots to which such force would not normally apply.

One-time world champion turned TV analyst John Parrott tonight used his understanding of the mind of a sports psychologist to explain how one particular miss cost Mark Davis a frame against Stephen Hendry.

better to be decisive than correct

When you make a decision, go through with it. With full gusto. Any wavering, any dilly-dallying in the execution and you’re likely to come a cropper.

The same can be said for many a selling situation.

Shame on me. My web 2.0 engagement is lamentably low. I clicked on an auto-LinkedIn mail the other day as dozens of people have apparently invited me to be ‘connections’. It’s been literally years since I ‘connected’ myself. I was delighted to find their Answers action still had a sales section.

The most recent question seemed to engender an unusually large number of responses (52); how did you manage to boost sales in a slow economy?

A decent qu. Having around 40 posts myself on all things credit crunch selling related, I eagerly read on.

Here’s the first thing. How many of the 52 do you think answered the question?

Amazingly, it was just 8. I appreciate that mine is a highly subjective measure, but I felt that only these 15% answered with bona fide examples of what they themselves had done. The questioner was specific. “How did you…”. Of other responses, many also neglected to follow the dictum of “…boost sales…”, electing to talk of merely making sales. All were either vague, although they may have been from personal experience it couldn’t be certainly so. Or they were basically what you’d get if you googled. Useless bland generic waffle. Here’s a graphic representation of this malaise.

Can it be really true that in only one out of every six cases (roughly 15% of the time) a salesperson correctly answers the question?

Of further interest was the fact that just two mentioned any discernible figures, and only one person delivered any kind of metric. Although frustratingly it only talked about generated leads, rather than as the question requested, sales and needs work on its structure. Anyway, here it is, from a Mr Kenneth Darryl Brown.

I embraced the Internet and resources that the web provides and started conducting my first call appointments ONLINE! Now instead on seeing 3 or 4 people a day, I can connect with 6 or 8 prospects without leaving the office! I save time and money! More connects equal more sale opportunities!

As for the remainder, here’s a selection of other quotes:

• Sample. (No wink)
• Instead, prospect for change
• In a slower economy, put an emphasis on customer retention instead of new customer acquisition, which is more expensive
• when your core customers starting cutting back it is time to explore
• The best companies don’t cut marketing spending in a downturn, they do the opposite
• Red Adair said: “If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur”

And finally, one person (from Scotland of all places) unwittingly perhaps gave a killer insight. A consultant called Mr Tim Sandford commented,

Focus on the market need…Prove your product delivers…Talk to more people
In truth these are the same recommendations we would make in the good times to companies that want to grow and they work.