Most companies need to rethink their online price & lead generation strategies. Ignoring the sales force is the first step.

I can’t quite figure out why so many companies avoid putting prices on their Website. Actually, I do know. The company’s sales force wants to embargo product prices to force Web visitors to fill out that pesky contact form or engage in an online sales chat. This, they say, allows them to sell the product’s value and benefits, and work around the product’s price.

This is a big mistake. Here’s three reasons why.

Price pre-qualifies if the visitor is a real prospect (need and ability to buy) or simply a window shopper.

Lowers the costs of sales by sifting out the wannabees from the winners, which focuses the sales force on real prospects who have the budget to buy.

And here’s the third (and all important) reason. Creating an avalanche of unqualified leads requires salespeople to cherry pick through them trying to deduce which ones fit their requirements—and which they are going to ignore. This, in turn, leads to a cacophony of complaints from the sales force that the Website isn’t generating enough quality leads. What they conveniently forget, of course, is that they brought themselves to the pity party.

For those who can’t or won’t publish prices (or have complex products that require a lot of additional bells and whistles) here’s an alternative approach that works. Use the “starting at” pricing gambit. You’ll find that this simple change will instantly filter out the wheat from the chaff – and allow more qualified buyers to plop right into your prospect pipeline.

I faithfully read Seth Goden’s blog every morning. One reason is that it’s blissfully short [memo to self]. The other reason is the golden marketing nuggets he brings to the table.

This morning is such a moment – and one that speaks to why so many LOB execs and stakeholders constantly push back on dotcom Web teams pitching new designs or the latest industry trends.

They don’t think they have a problem.

Face it. From most stakeholders’ perspective, dotcom teams come in two flavors: the “borg” [you will be assimilated] and the “butterfly” [this is the latest trend and we need to capitalize on it].  Neither are focused on a problem from the stakeholder’s point of view.

But what if a dotcom team saw its stakeholders as customers?  Like any good salesperson, the team would help stakeholders identify a problem and explore its cost or impact on the LOB.

In other words, dotcom teams should sell the problem.

Until stakeholders agree that they have a problem, the solution doesn’t count. That’s why so many projects end up in chaos.  In pushback, deliberate inertia, and stakeholders who spend their time deliberately coloring outside of the lines.

Real people, real voices, real time

While the SMB & mid-size market are using social media to just get their name out to the masses, large companies are learning how to use social media & communities in tandem for a whole new purpose. And it is literally changing the face of IT.

Large IT companies don’t need to get their name out there. I mean, who doesn’t know IBM, HP, Apple, or Dell? I would bet that even your grandmother knows the name of one of these companies, even if she doesn’t know how to use a mouse. So, aside from using social media as a slick press release system, how do large companies use these outlets to their advantage?

The death of the faceless organization: For eons IBM has had the reputation of the faceless organization. In fact, it became so faceless that the phrase “blue suits” was coined to describe it. Well, those days are over—welcome the people that are IBM. Over the past 12 months, IBM.com has started publishing the names & faces of the managers & executives who steer IBM—the company, the vision, and the products.  This initiative is supported by its online communities, Facebook pages, and Twitter personas. Now IBM customers & fans can engage with IBMers real time, and hear the perspectives of IBM employees on an ongoing basis. Now IBM has many, many faces & voices—and many of them wear golf shirts.

What goes around comes around: Large companies are made of people, and people want to hear what others are saying about them. This is where the social networking part of the equation comes into play. Forums like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter offer companies a view into the opinions, wants, and needs of its potential buyers and customers like never before. Just type IBM, HP, Dell, or Apple into the Facebook search engine and see how many pages show up. Or cruise these Websites for links back to their Facebook pages or Twitter profiles. These companies are learning that these forums are more than places to meet & greet. They are the largest-scale, lowest-cost testing forums and CSAT studies they could ever want.

To err is human to deliver spin control divine: Strategies that didn’t pan out. Products that don’t cut the mustard. Far reaching visions that never came to fruition. All the major companies have them, only now social media gives them the platforms to take wrong turns into new directions. Executives use blogs, Webcasts, and Podcasts to subtly shift their company’s visions to accommodate an ever changing business landscape. Meanwhile, product managers use blogs & forums to announce “new & improved features” (or in other words, “fixes for glitches”) in an upcoming product update—or in the worst of cases, fall on their swords. But no matter the topic, issue, or intent, all these social mediums give companies the flexibility to shift, craft, and hone their visions and image to align to current realities.

What do all of these strategies have in common? The power that social media gives people to change a company’s image, direction, and products—whether it is the company’s executives, product managers, customers, or prospects. The benefits of these strategies & forums are not limited to only the mighty few. Any company that is willing to use social media to open a dialog and listen to what people say can become the flexible and responsive organization that potential buyers and customers crave.

Companies eying new markets should avoid “Marie Antoinette” and “Frankenstein” support strategies. Here’s why.

You can tell a lot about a company’s prime customers by its Website—and even more by how customers fresh from acquisitions and market gambits get lost in the shuffle.

Examine companies like Dell, that has moved from its consumer roots into enterprise markets. Or, IBM’s, CA’s and Cisco’s endeavors to translate historical successes in the enterprise realm into SMB markets. And then there is Oracle’s attempt to execute simultaneous vertical and horizontal market strategies by lashing together its software applications with Sun’s hardware and storage products. There are plenty of examples.

If you think the “tell” of these (and other) companies’ successes or failures are found in their online marketing content, you would be looking in the wrong direction. In reality, the “tell” is found in their support and training zones.

Before support and training Web teams even entertain the hope for a successful market move, they must take these two approaches off the table: 

• Let ‘em eat cake. Some companies assume that all customers are created equal – and simply dump new customers into existing support and training zones. Think of it as the “Marie Antoinette (let ‘em eat cake)” strategy. In this scenario, enterprise customers don’t get the complex answers and training they need – and consumers get lost in messy support & training sites optimized for large accounts. In either case, it’s a bad behavior.

• Watch the birdie. Other companies decide to bolt market-specific support and training sites onto their existing venues. Think of this as the “Frankenstein” strategy. In this scenario, the company’s favored markets get center seat, while new markets and acquisitions get the “oh by the way” links in the right column, or at the bottom of support and training home pages. There’s nothing like an invisible link to tell “acquired”customers that they are second class citizens.

Both of these approaches tell new customers two important things. That (1) the vendor is more than willing to sell them products, but (2) won’t do the hard work necessary to deliver “after-sales” support and training optimized for their needs.

From our POV, two memos should be sent when a company decides to move up or down market.

The first should go to the marketing teams, giving them a heads up that they need to open and populate new product zones.

The second (and arguably most important) should be sent to the teams managing the company’s support and training zones warning them that “Marie Antoinette” and “Frankenstein” gambits don’t work. These teams need to put on their thinking caps, and recalibrate how they view and deliver their training and support sites.

One of the things Web teams constantly struggle with is the ying and yang between centralized governance and the wants, needs, and demands of stakeholders and line of business (LOB) managers who operate different parts of the site.

Over the past few years, I’ve seen these dynamics play out many companies – and in different ways. The most memorable are:

The inmates run the asylum

Here, I’m reminded of a huge software company who belatedly realized that competitors were selling their low cost software online – and they needed to get with the program.

To achieve this, the dotcom team spent weeks confabing with line of business marketing managers and stakeholders to get their buy in and identify requirements. Then they consolidated the feedback and developed a working project plan.

Three months later, the dotcom team was ready to launch the company’s first foray into ecommerce. The platform was built. LOB marketing managers were trained. Then everything went off the rails.

Why? Because the most influential LOB pulled its support for ecommerce at the last minute. I was in the room when the project manager got the call – and then watched her bang her head on the conference room table as the ecommerce strategy (and all of the hard work) went down the tubes.

And what’s the lesson? Websites don’t do well in a matrix management organization where one “no” vote can stop the presses. If you have one, make sure that LOB executives are driving the strategy down through the troops. They won’t salute you – but they sure will salute their bosses.

The vision hits the “what’s in it for me?” brick wall

Here, I’m reminded of a huge computer company that has decided to embrace social media whole hog and use it as a competitive game changer. New, smart executives were hired to develop and evangelize a strategy based on the future of the Web. Minions were added to execute the vision and gain buy in from the troops working in every line of business.

The problem? The strategy requires two things. A cult like belief in a fuzzy future and a fundamental change in the company’s culture – including increasing the load on beleaguered marketing managers who are already up to their eyeballs in management fire drills — and are measured based on revenue generation.

Thus, the grand strategy devised in one corner of the corporation collides with the beliefs & business realities everywhere else.  The net result is plenty of “do you get it? I don’t” whispers around the water cooler, and push back from LOB executives who can’t see how this foray into the great unknown will improve their bottom line.

And what’s the lesson? Grand visions – especially those that can’t be linked to revenue — don’t translate well in large, complex organizations. As important, if the vision requires a fundamental culture change, you are probably throwing yourself against a brick wall.

The Bottom Line

After working with major corporations for 15 years, I know the following things about the Web:

1. Visions and strategies that can’t generate revenue are doomed to fail. As important, if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist. After a grace period, expect executives to pull the plug.
2. Web strategies that rely on a culture change will end up on the cutting room floor. This is especially true in today’s business climate where layoffs mean people have to do two or more jobs. If your strategy relies on culture change, put it on the back burner for at least 3 years.
3. Bold promises aside, the jury’s still out on whether social media is a passing (and very expensive) fad —  or a new era on the Web. Lots of companies (like the example above) think it’s a game changer. The rest can’t quite figure out what all of this lurking and listening means for the bottom line. My POV? Tread carefully and spend wisely. Bet that the future of social media is captured in item #1 above.