Spring training is over and now it is time for the season to begin. You go into the season feeling confident that you and your team have done everything you can to be ready. But surprises always happen. You win an unexpected game and lose against the worst team in the league. You face tough opponents with varying outcomes. The big question is “why?”
This doesn’t happen just on the baseball field. It happens every day in the sales field. Salespeople hear good and bad news all the time just like sports teams win and lose all the time.
While a coach may be asking, “Did we have the best pitcher for this game?” a sales manager may be asking, “Did our sales rep really understand what the prospect was looking for?” or “Were we really ready for that finals presentation?”
Understanding the real reasons a certain sales decision was made can be some of the best on-going sales training there is. And learning from both winning and losing situations give sales reps, teams, and managers the intel needed to prepare for the next competitive sales situation.
Win Loss research invites decision makers to give open and honest feedback about the sales engagement. It allows prospects to address many areas of the sales situation from what was most important, to the buyer’s mindset going into the sales process, to unvarnished feedback about the salesmanship demonstrated throughout the process. Sales reps and sales leaders can learn about the specific areas that need more work or training. Maybe it was the (lack of) product knowledge, maybe it was the pricing structure, or maybe even sluggish responsiveness.
When a Win Loss Analysis program is used on a routine basis, that is, when interviews are being conducted and analyzed week in and week out, sales leaders learn real-time. Corrections can be made, competitors can be better understood, and product positioning can be adjusted. In the moment sales training can happen within minutes, and on the flip side, successful sales reps can become examples of what’s winning and what’s working well in the field.
You can win more business with Win Loss Research. Understanding the outcome of the sales presentation and what went into the decision process can best prepare your sales team for the next big game. Win or lose, there’s always something to learn.
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jamie Zielinski
Anova Consulting Group, LLC
(617) 731-1045
jamiez@anovaconsulting.com
Brookline, MASS. March 7, 2017 – Anova Consulting Group, a leading provider of Win Loss Analysis and Win Loss Research, client retention analysis to industry leading financial services, technology, and healthcare companies announced myView, a client dashboard powered by the firm’s proprietary software, Viewpoint.
myView is an innovative, client-facing portal that delivers real-time analytics, updates, and program management. The cloud-based platform allows Anova’s clients to track key statistics from their research programs and easily find and search through completed interview transcripts.
Andrew Cloutier, Partner at Anova, says, “One of our key initiatives in 2017 was enhancing our technology to improve our client experience. We knew we wanted to give our clients unparalleled access to their data and analytics. To deliver this, building out Viewpoint, our bedrock technology, was critical. We are thrilled that myView now allows our clients to sit in the driver’s seat and see what’s most important to them in the moment it means the most.”
The tools and analytics now available in myView complement Anova’s full reporting suite. Clients can leverage their programs’ completed in-depth transcripts both individually and in aggregate like never before. Access to program results 24/7 will help clients run their win / loss programs more seamlessly and efficiently, resulting in more competitive sales capabilities and increased win rates. myView also opens the door to the on-going project management of Anova’s research programs, putting the client and Anova’s service team on the same page.
“We are truly excited about the launch of myView. Our team has been working tirelessly on developing this technology for our clients. Now our customers have the flexibility to access, manage, and act on their data 24/7. We are committed to helping our clients win more business, and we see myView as a natural extension of that commitment. Our clients come first to us. We know myView will give our clients the support, flexibility, and data that is most relevant to them anytime it’s called on.” adds Rich Schroder, Founder and President of Anova.
Anova is actively meeting with its customers to demonstrate myView and teach clients about its comprehensive capabilities.
Established in 2005, Anova Consulting Group is a leading market research and consulting firm focused on Win Loss Analysis and client retention analysis. By helping its clients understand why they win, lose, and retain business, Anova provides strategic perspectives driving better decision making, product development, sales effectiveness, client service, and continuous improvement. Richard Schroder, Founder and President of Anova, is author of a Win Loss Analysis book titled From a Good Sales Call to a Great Sales Call (McGraw-Hill), which details how learning from post-sale debriefing helps close more future sales.
William Shakespeare said it best over 400 years ago when he wrote one of the most iconic lines from Romeo and Juliet: “Parting is such sweet sorrow…”
Ending a relationship hurts. Shakespeare, no doubt, was not thinking about a business relationship when he penned one of the world’s most revered pieces of literature.
And yet, he certainly succeeded in capturing a shared sentiment when someone departs a relationship, especially a business one.
It’s always hard to see clients go. It is costly (you probably lost some reoccurring revenue) and hard to explain (what are you going to tell your boss or the salesperson that closed that account?). But truth be told, clients exiting relationships is part of the normal rhythm of business. Clients come and clients go.
The good news is: You’re not alone. We’ve all lost a client (or two) before.
The bad news is: They have already left and there is likely nothing you can do to get them back.
However, there is a silver lining. By learning the reasons behind why these clients departed, you can help preserve current relationships and retain your existing customers.
A Departed Client program’s purpose is to identify the real (and sometimes unexpected) reasons why clients are leaving. By learning from recently departed clients, you move from the “not knowing zone” to the “knowing zone”, and it is this learning that can help you prevent other clients from leaving too.
Engaging in a Departed Client program will allow your organization to:
One of the best things you can do when a client departs is to understand why they did. Not to get that specific client back, but to help your existing clients stay put.
Anova Consulting Group provides market research and consulting services to a broad range of 401(k) providers, investment managers, enterprise software companies, and human capital management firms. We are experiencing rapid growth and seek an exceptional individual to join our tight-knit team for a full-time market research position. Anova is based in Brookline, MA (accessible to MBTA C / Green Line and buses). Qualified candidates will have:
Primary responsibilities include:
Participating in design and administration of custom primary market research programs, including:
Managing client relationships on a day-to-day basis, including:
Send a resume to Jamie Zielinski at jamieZ@anovaconsulting.com. No phone calls please.
Established in 2005, Anova Consulting Group is a leading market research and consulting firm focused on Win Loss Analysis, Win Loss Research and client satisfaction analysis. By helping clients understand why they win, lose and retain business, Anova provides strategic perspectives to its clients, driving better decision-making, product development, sales effectiveness, client service, and continuous improvement.
The calendar has been flipped and the New Year has been rung in. Organizations are compiling year-end results and communicating what new business has been sold. New client logos are exciting to share with your team, and business hums as new accounts turn into uncharted, prosperous relationships. The possibilities of a new relationship are down-right thrilling!
But then there’s also the bad news. By now organizations are also learning about clients that have departed. Service heads and business leaders are feeling the pain from taking down client logos and facing lost re-occurring revenue.
Wondering what you can do to turn that hurt into a healthy revitalizer for your organization? The answer is Departed Client research and analysis.
Right now, the first quarter of the business year, is the most opportunistic time to learn from the clients who chose to part ways with your organization last year.
Think of it like an annual physical. It’s common knowledge that making your annual physical with your doctor is one of the best ways to keep your health on track and / or address any health-related vulnerabilities. The annual check-up can be your trusted source to find out if you need to worry about that ache in your knee or stiffness in your back. Why not do the same when it comes to keeping your clients’ health on track? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to learn what aches and pains your ex-clients felt that caused them to leave, since those same issues are probably plaguing and endangering the clients still with you?
There’s no better way to learn how to retain your existing clients than learning from recently departed clients. Through a Departed Client program your organization will find out the real (often unexpected) reasons why clients are leaving. Such a program allows organizations to hear about service gaps and disappointments, misaligned sales expectations, technology glitches, product limitations, and pricing issues – just to name a few. A well-executed program will also identify which competitors are being selected to replace your company and why.
Retaining your existing customers by learning from those that have already left is the next best thing you can do for the overall health of your organization. There’s a way to stop taking those logos down…it’s time to go see the doctor.
The past four blogs have discussed the different reasons decision makers choose to buy products and services, and just one final area remains to be analyzed as part of this series. On the surface it seems obvious: the ability of the salesperson to convince the buyer to actually buy their product.
First, it is important to define sales effort. In a typical win / loss program, feedback is garnered across a number of sales attributes such as the salesperson’s responsiveness and rapport building with the prospect, their ability to conduct needs analysis and customize the presentation to the prospect’s unique needs, and ultimately make the prospect feel like an important client.
After looking at thousands of Win Loss Analysis interviews from the past year, sales effort was noted as a reason for choice in 11% of Mature market and 17% of Emerging market decisions. These frequencies may seem low, but they emphasize just how important Win Loss Research is to understanding business choices.
17% was actually the second-highest percentage amongst reasons for choice in Growth markets, bringing to light how complex decisions in these industries can be. There is never a predictable answer that is standard across these deals, and although it is critical for sales teams in these markets to effectively articulate their company’s value proposition, according to the data shared with us, most of the time they fall short.
Now consider the Mature market, where sales effort was only noted by 11% of respondents. In the more commoditized spaces, the significance of sales effectiveness on winning a deal is intensified. Salespeople need to be able to differentiate from the rest of the market, but ultimately the 11% figure demonstrates their ability to do so is not very high.
If you remember that one-fifth of all decisions in Mature markets involve a previous relationship, not only are sales reps in these spaces selling against analogous competitors but also against strong incumbent ties. While these binds may be deflating the sales approach as a reason for choice number (because some prospects are averse to changing providers due to switching costs and pains, even if a competitor outsold them), they reemphasize how essential it is for sales reps to raise their game.
A win / loss program is an essential tool to understanding sales effectiveness because it arms executives and sales teams with the data, feedback, and suggestions needed to become more effective. In the past year, 75% of Anova’s clients did just that, improving the frequency in which sales was mentioned by prospects as a reason for choosing them in bids won situations compared to the rate in their previous program. Sales teams across all types of industries struggle with sales effectiveness, and this kind of research can give them a leg-up when trying to win more business.
This concludes the 5-part series investigating buying decisions across Mature and Growth markets. For a recap of past analysis, below are the links to the articles.
Note, this is Part 4 of Anova’s 5 part series: Understanding Decisions. For an overview of the research methodology, Click Here. Be sure to come back at the end of the month for the last post examining sales effort.
Win / Loss analysis brands
Brands are everywhere around us. In markets driven by consumers, a brand can be a powerful differentiator and the reason someone might choose to drink Coke instead of Pepsi, or drive a BMW instead of a Mercedes. In the B2B world however, the importance of brand can be less clear.
Does a decision-maker weigh the impact of brand equity when signing off on a premium product over a less-expensive option? Will the owner of a small business factor in the notoriety of using the software from a prominent technology vendor instead of a less-known start-up which offers a more advanced user interface?
Here’s what we do know: Brand was mentioned as a reason for choosing a vendor twice as much in Mature market situations (33%) than in Growth market decisions (16%). Why would brand be seen as twice as important in these more established industries?
In the financial services world, buyers are more likely to choose a provider with a trusted brand. Longevity, stability, and organizational strength all make a person feel safe and protected so that he may turn over his assets. Even when you look at the dictionary definition of the names of some leading financial services companies you find: faithfulness, loyalty, the ability to make someone stronger, leading in new ideas, act in confidence. These names are designed to promote trust and confidence, and when we look at the data and see 1/3rd of all decisions from Mature markets include brand in some capacity, it is evident emotional ties are important.
Anova’s Mature market classification does not include all financial services companies, however. There are other corporations we included who exist in markets in which the competitive landscape is stable and market share is largely held by only a few select providers. In these scenarios, market leadership and the widespread reputation as a top provider is often cited as a reason for selecting those companies.
On the flip side, Growth markets can be too fast-moving for brands to really take hold and factor into decisions. Disruptive new products or M&A activity leads to ever-changing marketplaces. In these Growth market decisions, it is not uncommon to see a smaller company with breakthrough technology take on a large conglomerate and win a deal. While 16% of buyers do end up choosing a vendor based on their reputation, without the same need for trust that Mature market buyers have, Emerging market decisions largely do not involve brand.
A company’s brand can distinguish itself as unique but it doesn’t always influence final buying decisions. In Anova’s research, brand was twice as important in final purchase decisions in Mature markets, largely due to the importance of stability and reputation in the financial services arena. In Growth areas, the constant transforming of the competitive landscape upends the ability for brands to resonate deep enough in buying decisions.
Note, this is Part 3 of Anova’s 5 part series: Understanding Decisions. For an overview of the Win Loss Research methodology, Click Here. For Part 2: Exploring the Influence of Price, Click Here.
Trust. It’s the backbone of friendships and relationships, but not all business partnerships. In fact, Anova found that the trust built from a positive past experience can be influential in many Mature market sales situations, but did not play a role in decisions within Growth markets. Ultimately, a fundamental distinction in how each of these markets are constructed leads to this difference.
When we looked at reasons for selecting a vendor in Growth markets, a prior relationship was only mentioned by 4% of all respondents. Growth markets, by Anova’s definition, are dynamic industries heavily influenced by disruptive providers bursting onto the scene offering new products and technologies. There is little opportunity for a prior experience to even exist, as there always seems to be a new competitor with a more advanced product or innovation. In these fast-moving arenas, legacy relationships are not weighted as heavily in final decisions. Decision-makers, in turn, value innovation, efficiency gains, and the ability to actually accomplish a specific organizational need. Imagine the complexity here for sales organizations selling in these markets – each sale is like starting a new relationship, and it takes a lot of effort to build trust with the prospect. Our research found the sales effort in this market was a leading criteria for choosing a product, second only to the product features. The takeaway: salespeople in Growth industries need to put forth a stronger sales effort during the actual sales process to compensate for the lack of a pre-existing relationship.
In Mature markets, however, a positive past experience with the winning provider was cited 22% of the time. This is a substantial difference between the two markets. The main reason for this is trust. Renowned author Stephen Covey acknowledges this attribute in saying, “When the trust account is high, communication is easy, instant, and effective.” Mature market sales teams are more likely to have the benefit of a past relationship to aid the effectiveness of their sales efforts.
While disruption defines the Growth market, the Mature market is largely made up of financial services organizations and more stable enterprises. When managing a person’s financial status or handling his money, particularly his hard earned savings, trust is paramount. Mistakes are not only costly, but personal. There needs to be a high level of conviction and even comfort that the hired vendor will provide the service and integrity sought. Often times, this confidence felt by the decision-maker comes from having worked with the vendor before in a positive, trusting way.
Trust resulting from an existing or prior relationship proves to be the second-largest delta amongst reason for choice mentions – an 18% difference. While Mature markets recognize the comfort of working with a past relationship during sales opportunities, research does not show the same for Growth markets. In either case, though, both markets need to build and sustain trust with new and existing clients in order to retain their own client base.
In the next post we will explore how brand can be influential between the Mature and Growth Markets.
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andrew Cloutier
Anova Consulting Group, LLC
(617) 731-1045
andrew@anovaconsulting.com
Brookline, MASS. October 18, 2016 – Anova Consulting Group, a leading provider of Win Loss Research and Win / Loss analysis and client retention analysis to industry leading financial services, technology, and healthcare companies announced the addition of Jack Ryan as a research analyst.
Prior to joining Anova, Jack gained work experience at Standish Management and Gurnet Consulting. He is a graduate of Williams College, where he earned a BA in Economics and was recognized for his leadership as a four-year letterman on the Williams football team.
Jack will be focused on the day-to-day execution of Anova’s custom market research programs, as well as analysis of aggregate program data to identify actionable insights for clients. He will cover clients in the financial services, enterprise technology, and healthcare market verticals.
“In the competitive and rapidly changing markets that Anova covers, we are experiencing ever-increasing client demand for more information in a faster timeframe,” said Richard Schroder, president of Anova Consulting Group. “Jack brings an impressive analytical background and a strong work ethic to our team, which will help Anova continue to deliver top-quality research to our expanding client base.”
Jack will report directly to Andrew Cloutier, Partner at Anova.
ABOUT ANOVA CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
Established in 2005, Anova Consulting Group is a leading market research and consulting firm focused on Win / Loss research and client retention analysis. By helping its clients understand why they win, lose, and retain business, Anova provides strategic perspectives driving better decision making, product development, sales effectiveness, client service, and continuous improvement. Richard Schroder, Founder and President of Anova, is author of a book titled From a Good Sales Call to a Great Sales Call (McGraw-Hill), which details how learning from post-sale debriefing helps close more future sales.
“Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Said by famed investor Warren Buffet, this quote draws distinctions between different components of cost. But how does this expression from one of the world’s wealthiest men play out when considering buying decisions made at the conclusion of a traditional B2B sales process?
Anova’s research reinforces Buffet’s assertion. Ultimately, price dominates decisions in Mature markets twice as frequently as decisions in Growth markets. In our research over the past year, cost was mentioned as a reason for choosing a provider 59% of the time in Mature markets, and 29% for clients in Growth markets in our Win Loss Research.
What is behind this 30 point difference? In Mature markets, competitors are selling a similar product or service. The relatively indistinguishable product means buyers do not have to worry about a difference in utility – in other words, one product or service would “work” as well as the competitor’s product or service. Buyers put a greater emphasis on minimizing fees or cost in order to gain the most value. How does a firm win in these situations? Fee compression takes hold and vendors offer lower prices.
In order to illuminate this, think of an example from the group insurance space. ABC Corporation wants to offer the best possible benefits plan at an affordable cost to their employees, and goes out to market to compare bids from a few insurance providers. When the proposals come back all of the plan features are roughly the same. Insurance Company X, however, has discounted their plan 20% less than Insurance Company Y. Company X knows that since their benefit offering will be similar to their competitors, they need to squeeze their margins in order to differentiate themselves. ABC Corporation sees the two plans as substitutable, and in this situation, Company X’s ability to use lower costs as a competitive advantage wins them the plan.
Conversely, research in Growth markets shows something much different. In Growth markets, there is often a greater difference in the utility derived from two competing products. Think of this example: ABC Corporation is now looking into business intelligence software to streamline its manufacturing processes. Software Company X offers a low-cost product, but with minimal functionality and management portals that are difficult to navigate. Company Y, on the other hand, allows users to view the throughput times of their manufacturing process at a number of different facilities across the country and monitor the productivity of different teams, all on an easy to use dashboard. Even if Y’s software is more expensive, the value gained outweighs the costs, and (unless ABC Corporation is budget-strapped) will most likely be chosen. In this decision, however, functionality and ease of use will be cited as reasons for choosing Y, not price.
While price is the most frequently cited reason for choice in both Mature and Growth markets, it is not the sole decision criteria in competitive situations. Other factors need to be explored. In our next blog post as part of this Reason for Choice Series, we will further investigate the level of impact a previous relationship with a vendor has on a buying decision.
© 2025 Anova Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved
