Ask Andy Whyte: What If Your Champion Is Your Competitor’s Champion?

00:00:00 Andy Whyte: The producers tell me we’ve got some more questions. Let’s dive in. Okay, so question one is a video. It’s Julie. 00:00:09 Julie: Hey Andy, Julie here. I have a question for you. What if you suspect that your champion is actually the competitor’s champion? 00:00:16 Andy Whyte: Oh. What do you do if you suspect the person you thought was your champion is actually the champion of your competition? I think this one all comes down to vested interest. Because if they’re a true champion, then what they’re looking for is the solution that can help them the most with their vested interest. They shouldn’t be biased. They should just be looking for the best solution for them. So the only way to resolve that situation is to get into it, find out what their vested interests are, and find a way in which our solution better serves those vested interests. And that doesn’t just have to be the vested interests you’ve already uncovered. There can be deeper vested interests, other benefits and value they haven’t uncovered for themselves yet. So this is about getting back into discovery mode, getting back into working with this person to make sure you can align to whatever their vested interests are, and then presenting your solution as the one that helps them the most in getting toward whatever that goal is, or overcoming whatever that challenge is. And of course, you have to do that with decision criteria. 00:01:12 Andy Whyte: You have to look at how our solution better solves for their vested interests with decision criteria, because otherwise, if your competition’s got their head screwed on, they’ll just go and do back to you what you’ve done to them, and you end up with this sort of champion switching sides. So decision criteria is just as important as champion building in this one. 00:01:34 Producer: Okay. So question number two comes from Jeroen, and he asks: how do you see the value pyramid evolving in more complex, multi-stakeholder sales processes, where goals and obstacles differ per persona? 00:01:47 Andy Whyte: Good question, Jeroen. Yeah. Well, the beauty of this is that this is really where the value pyramid comes into its own, where you have more complexity. The purpose of it really is to help you bring clarity to any complexity, because it’s helping you connect the obstacles that are in the way of a person getting all the way up from initiatives, to strategies, to achieving their goal. So the more people involved, the more complexity there will be, as your question suggests. The simple answer is that you have multiple value pyramids, and you make sure they’re attached to particular stakeholders, tied to the particular obstacles in their way, and aligned to the initiatives they’re interested in. So it’s a case of breaking it down into multiple value pyramids. And when I say multiple value pyramids, I don’t mean you have to have literally lots of pyramids. You can have one pyramid, but at the top you have the stakeholder, and vertically underneath that you have the goals they care about, the strategies, the initiatives and so on. Then you have another stakeholder with the same things. 00:02:47 Andy Whyte: So as you’re presenting this one value pyramid, with several columns of different people’s interests on it, every stakeholder sees it and says, “Okay, this doesn’t just solve my obstacles and support the initiatives and strategies I’m working on toward the goals I have. I can see it helps my peers around me as well.” So, if anything, it may add some complexity, but it’s going to add power and weight to the value of your solution. I’d say that’s the way the value pyramid is really going to come into its own. And by the way, if you’re watching this and you don’t know what a value pyramid is, we’ve made “The Value Pyramid in Ten Minutes,” which will probably be there or thereabouts, wherever these fine producers decide it looks best next to my face. Right there, I suspect. So you can click on it and get a download of exactly what a value pyramid is, in ten minutes. 00:03:26 Producer: Here’s a question for you. This is a subject I know you’re quite passionate about. You’ve said many times that A players are uncomfortable being comfortable. I’ve got a great response here from Christian, who says: “But are they also comfortable being uncomfortable, as in being comfortable asking the supposedly uncomfortable next question?” 00:03:46 Andy Whyte: When it comes to discovery, A players are comfortable asking uncomfortable questions, because they know those uncomfortable questions lead to better answers in discovery. Meaning, the questions they ask sometimes force the customer to live in that moment of pain, to truly uncover implicated pain, which leads to more urgency and more emotion being tied to solving a problem, all that kind of stuff. So that’s why asking those uncomfortable questions is a good thing. And A players are more comfortable asking those uncomfortable questions because, by nature of being an A player, you’re innately driven to constantly be the best version of yourself. Therefore, if you know there’s an activity you can follow, in this case asking questions that are uncomfortable but lead to better outcomes, you persevere. You still power through. The only thing more uncomfortable for you than asking those uncomfortable questions is living with yourself, knowing you didn’t do the best job you could have done by asking those questions in the first place. So it’s a great question. I like the way they’re thinking there as well. So yeah, the short answer is yes. 00:04:48 Producer: All right. This next one goes to all the SDRs out there. So Jay asks: how would you incorporate MEDDICC into the top-of-funnel qualification stage for a BDR or SDR team? 00:04:58 Andy Whyte: Oh, okay. Good question. The question specifically mentions qualification, so I’ll answer from a qualification perspective. But there’s more to MEDDICC for SDRs than just qualification. As you know, we like to break it down into three categories, three pillars: value, stakeholders and process. And all three of those matter to SDRs when qualifying. In terms of value: what pain are we solving for this customer, and what’s the value in solving that pain? In terms of stakeholders: which stakeholders are we engaging with, are they the right stakeholders, and who else needs to be involved? As well as process: is this an inbound lead we’re qualifying? Is it purely outbound? Is it nearbound? How will we treat different opportunities and approach them differently from an ABM perspective, and which contacts are we looking to engage with? So it helps to become that common language, to make sure the SDR teams are focusing on the right elements of value, stakeholders and process. But I would go further than qualification and say it can be the tool that inspires the SDR and BDR team to contact the right people with the right message at the right time. 00:06:02 Andy Whyte: What I mean by that is how you can use the common language to bring pain you think is going to be relevant to that customer, and the metrics you’ve seen your existing customers get from solving that pain. You’re starting to form this value story: “You, Mr. or Mrs. Customer: organizations like yours, when we first worked with them, had this pain. We helped them solve that pain with this part of our solution, which led to this gain. And the delta between the pain and the gain was this,” which is metrics. Then you can start to talk about who the champion is in the opportunity. You often won’t mention the customer, but you can talk about that champion persona and how you helped their vested interests. And all of this is to be done in your own voice, your own style. I’m not saying this is how you should script it, but see these as elements you can bring in, whether it’s a cold call, an email, or talking to someone on a trade stand. All of a sudden, you’re empowered with this really clear, cohesive, clinical way of bringing value to the right stakeholders at the right point in the process. 00:07:01 Producer: So this final question is in response to a brilliant piece you did a while ago about feedback being like milk, and how it’s best when it’s fresh. You gave a great example of an instance in your career where you wished you’d given feedback a bit sooner. The question here, from Rog, is: when you think back, was the hesitation more about wanting the perfect delivery, or the discomfort around how the feedback might land? 00:07:25 Andy Whyte: Oh, well, my brain’s saying, “Say both, say both. It’ll save you from looking daft.” But the reality is that waiting for the perfect moment, the perfect delivery, the right amount of context, all that sort of stuff, is exactly why we say feedback is like milk. It’s best served fresh, because we always kid ourselves that we can find more context or a better moment, especially when, as in this case, it’s critical, constructive feedback. So no, it was very much me being nervous about giving that negative feedback. It was a really big lesson, and that came from my CEO coach, and I’ve got better since my terrible ability to give feedback at the time. Okay, that’s it. Thank you for all your questions. If you’d like to get your question onto the show, you know what to do. Hit the comments below, DM me on LinkedIn, send a carrier pigeon. I don’t know. If you can get a message to me, I’ll answer it.