A common issue unites all companies, regardless of size and industry: there is never enough money to throw at every opportunity or threat. That fixed budget means investments in one area of the business come at the expense of others.

For Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMBs), those budgetary decisions are especially difficult and visible. By definition, there’s fewer dollars available than in large corporations. And when there’s less than 100 employees and a relatively small customer base, it’s very apparent where resources are going and where they aren’t.

As result, investments are made in the areas that offer the most obvious return, and for many SMBs that is not perceived to be their website. Research indicates that 57% of SMBs are making money from their websites, either online or via offline sales. While it’s a growing percentage of revenue, it’s not yet reached the level where every SMB can quantify the benefits of investing in their website.

Every company can calculate the benefits of adding salepeople or investing in improved supply chain management systems, however, so it’s easy to understand why the website can lose out to other areas of the business.

This question of how to justify website investments was an important part of a seminar we presented to a group of business owners this week. Their companies ranged across a variety of sectors. Their websites, in turn, varied widely in functionality, content quality and visual appeal.

We reviewed ROI models that quantify the company-wide benefits created by a site that strongly links to organizational objectives. While each company worked with numbers that were unique to their business, there was one measure they all factored into their plans: 1/20^th of a second.

That’s the amount of time in which viewers judge your site, according to researchers in Carleton University’s Human-Oriented Technology Lab. They reached their conclusion by flashing websites for 50 milliseconds and asking study participants to rate them for visual appeal.

“Unless the first impression is favorable, visitors will be out of your site before they even know that you might be offering more than your competitors,” says Carleton’s Dr. Gitte Lindgaard. The research, which is reported in E-Commerce Times, suggests that the first impression forms an initital bias that dictates long-term opinions.

A positive first impression carries over to other features of the site, such as content. Since people like to be right, Lindgaard reasoned, they will continue to use a website that made a good first impression.

It’s an eye-catching stat, and one that certainly captured the attention of the business owners. While the benefits of a well designed site are difficult to quantify, the risk of creating a negative impression in a fraction of a second can be quickly understood.

And with that understanding comes an obvious justification for improving the design of a website.

RELATED ITEMS

Which comes first: resource allocation or strategy?

Design I: Making your site pretty can get ugly

If you’re a marketer and want to antagonize a salesperson, just tell them that Peter Drucker says: “The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.” Why would you want to antagonize a sales person? Because you can, and they antagonize real good.

Properly understood, Drucker’s point is that marketing’s job is to make the salesperson more efficient, not redundant. The antagonism can contribute to healthy competition between sales and marketing: sales challenges marketing to develop great programs, and marketing challenges sales to close deals.

By defining the target audience, creating a clear value proposition unique to that audience and then communicating that value in advance of a sales call, marketing makes the salesperson’s job easier. But marketing doesn’t close the deal. A focused, knowledgeable, professional sales person does, especially when the product is software designed to increase the effectiveness of complex websites.

A colleague recently experienced what happens when a salesperson who lacks the qualities mentioned above fulfills a request created by effective marketing.

But before learning from his story, let’s get a refresher on how to create effective marketing programs. In a recent article in CMO called “Going Guerrilla”, Michael W. McLaughlin provides five guerrilla marketing rules that will assist marketers in professional services to boost sales.

1.    Stress how your firm solves specific problems. That will get the attention of the right clients.

2.    The best companies are able to create evangelists of their people. Use low-cost, high-return marketing tactics like nonsponsored speaking opportunities, e-newsletters, blogs, webinars and surveys to make your experts a part of your marketing and sales processes.

3.    In professional services, clients are the richest source of new business and referrals. For that reason, focus roughly 60 percent of marketing resources on cultivating those relationships. Use 30 percent of your marketing efforts to reach prospects in your target market(s). Save the final 10 percent for building visibility in the business community.

4.    The needs of professional-service clients vary too widely for generic marketing. So a critical guerrilla marketing principle applies: One size fits none. Tailor marketing to meet the precise needs of clients and your market.

5.    Answer the tough questions. Before using resources for any marketing program, ask these questions: Why do we need this program? Is it aligned with client needs? What are the desired results? How will we measure effectiveness? How will the company be involved in rolling it out? Is there a better way to use these resources?

Great suggestions. Now let’s see what happens when the sales rep doesn’t follow the script.

My colleague was sourcing web software in a crowded space in which there were little opportunities for differentiation. The situation called for due diligence, so he prepared a detailed RFP and then contacted key vendors.

One company had managed to stand out by securing a high rating in a respected industry study, and my colleague was suitably impressed by the focused, marketing explanation featured on the vendor’s website regarding how the product would solve his specific problems. Textbook marketing up this point, with a rep receiving: a highly qualified lead complete with champion, timeframe and budget; decision-criteria set favoring the vendor’s solution; positive brand awareness.

Here’s what happened when my colleague contacted the salesperson:

·      The salesperson refused to respond to the RFP: the product’s features would sell themselves in a demo and the product was priced to “own the market” (yes, he put that in an e-mail). In other words, even a minimum level of sales effort was superfluous.

·      A refusal to allocate a development resource for the requested demo. Because the rep judged the sales value to be too low, he thought it best to utilize a service technician instead (yes again on the e-mail communiqué).

·       Following an impressive demo, in which the technician suggested to my colleague that a brief conversation with a developer would be beneficial, the sales rep prevented that conversation from taking place because the sales value was too low (written in an e-mail? Oh yeah.)

·       After this antagonism, my colleague still saw enough value in the software to schedule a conference call between the six-person purchasing team and the sales rep to finalize a price. The rep issued an electronic invitation for a time that suited him… and then missed the call.

Guess who didn’t get the sale.

Unfortunately, the experience has left my colleague wishing the sales role was superfluous. Or non-existent.

RELATED ITEMS                                         

Put the sales team back into your sales strategy

E-commerce sales now 7.7% of offline sales