TV election, no. Real time election, yes

Watching the Andrew Marr show yesterday (does anyone else find the opening credits completely ridiculous? You host a talk show, not a M16 operation!) I heard one of the guests -apologies, I wasn't paying enough attention at the time, to busy laughing at the credits - saying this election campaign had bought back the importance of telvision. The argument was solely based on the debate coverage and shots of candidates running round consituencies shaking the hands of anyone who came within ten yards of them.

But to say this has been a TV campaign would be wrong. I have never seen so much hype over an election, and it's not because 3 guys stood in front of a camera and talked utter garbage for 2 hours. It's down to how easy it is now for people to express and share opinions very easily using the web and real time tools. How many surveys have been around this year? Daily, hourly in fact. 'Lib Dems are winning according to Twitter', 'Labour catching up according to online poll', 'Raving Loony party odds on says Facebook data', it's relentless.

With this much information available to digest it would be understandable if every spin doctor in the country just collapsed with exhaustion. The whole thing is chaos, and they have absolutely no idea what to target next. The real time update element has bought a huge bundle of policy messes and to be honest, it might as well be a flick of the coin now. It's just another example to indicate, if we want real time web, we need tools able to handle the overload. Otherwise, we could be left with a loony majority yet.

The ultimate sales pitch has already lost the deal

Those familiar with the DailyMash would have enjoyed the headline 'Fears Grow that massive ash cloud may be unable to prevent tonight's leader debate'. It somewhat terrifies me just how much seems to be resting on the events of this evening. I heard someone say it was the ultimate chance for the leaders to sell themselves, their beliefs, their product. But it's not a sales pitch at all, it's a complete fake.

It's not the endless rehearsals, the line learning, the posture training that bothers me (although I would love to have been a fly on the wall watching Gordon Brown learn how to walk powerfully). These are all signs that you're taking the pitch seriously. Preparation is everything after all. No, what bothers me is that the whole thing is staged, with leaders only answering questions they themselves have set. That's like walking into a sales meeting and asking 'can you avoid these areas please? We're still a little ropey on those.'

You'll hear 100 times daily that the key to a successful sale is listening to the needs of the customer. How can you listen when you won't let them say what they want to say? Listening, adapting and implementing the desired change is what makes a deal worthwhile, so cutting out the first stage seems somewhat ridiculous to me. So whilst tomorrow morning, party officials will be raising their hands in triumph, like a boxer claiming the points victory after the last bell has rung, there will be no winners, only disillusioned politicians and frustrated customers.

Anyone for a lead management survey?

It came to my attention today that a company called Info-Tech Research group are looking for orginisations, who have been involved with vendor selection relating to automated lead management software, to complete a short three minute survey on the 'drivers' they used when selecting vendors and their overall general experiences.

Seeing as I'll be very interested in the results of the report (self interest at it's finest) I thought I'd do my bit and point anyone interested in participating in the right direction. You can find out more information here

Job done, awareness raised, I look forward to finding out the results.

Sales blog A vs Sales blog B

I read two very differing blog posts today, both with the same underlying message but one laying the blame at one door and the other chucking the responsibility straight back in the other direction. Post A suggested that corporate managers were not providing their sales people with enough support, thus companies were losing key customer opportunities (they even spouted the figure that 90% of inquiries generated being ignored by sales people...I find that maybe a little far fetched).

Post B believed it was the salesperson themselves to blame for this inefficiency, believing that if they wanted to be the best, then they had to put the time and dedication in to make sure that happened. So which argument do you side with?

Very much sitting on the fence here, I was intrigued by both. But what it comes down to is that both managers and sales professionals should be exploiting technologies to make the whole process much easier for both. New techniques are driven from the top and yes, corporate managers should be looking at new methods to support their team. Similarly, once the tools are provided to make the job simpler, sales teams should be making the most out of whats on offer to them. It's very much a two way street but a street, nonetheless, which is extremely manageable using the right processes.

Facebook and Twitter not rocket science

Just stop and think to yourself a minute, how many times in the last month have you seen something similar to this:

'Increase sales 100% using Facebook and Twitter!'

Which, translated into reality actually means:

'pay us lots of money and we'll tell you blindingly obvious facts that you probably already know!'

Facebook and Twitter are not rocket science. They've been built up as this big barrier that companies have to engage with or face a slow, painful death, and I'm always hearing of million pound campaigns trying to exploit the platform, almost on a daily basis. I'm not claiming to be an expert here, in fact, far from it. I'd still like to use both sites to greater benefit for this blog but the fact is, Facebook and Twitter work because it's an easy place for people to highlight what they want.

In the same way that picking up the phone and asking a customer what they need is useful. If you want to be really 1980's about write the customer a letter asking the very same thing. There is no hidden science behind the social networks, they're just simple ways to interact with customers and gage their needs. If you're good with conversation then you can probably master the social networking world, so my advice would be to not throw lots of money at someone who'll most likely tell you exactly the same thing.

Working out the current pain is half the battle

Anyone got a 50p for the pay and display?

If you're one of those poor people who parks their car on the M25 every morning around quarter to 9 then you've probably, almost certainly cast your eye over a big road map at least once in your life desperately looking for another route. You're looking for another route because you are absolutely sick to death of the current solution.

In sales terms, if someone could offer you that other route you'd take it (probably hugging whoever could in the process and animatedly shaking your fist at all the other losers still stuck motionless on the M25). If however, by some minor miracle, the famous motorway/car park was somehow able to figure out a way of actually allowing cars to move and flow freely you'd probably be quite happy joining the road each day. You probably wouldn't want to look at other complicated routes, the current solution is working.

Knowing when someone is unhappy with something is the ultimate sales trigger. Why sell to someone who doesn't want to be sold to? Filtering down those who do want a new solution not only saves you time but significantly improves the chance of gaining interest and a prospective new client. That said, anyone know a good route round the damn M25?

The link between trigger events and customer relationships

Hugh Grant may seem a strange answer but read on

I recently got caught up in a bit of a dispute (court date pending) over what makes a trigger event useful and whether or not they could be used successfully both in prospecting and inside business intelligence. When I say a dispute, it's really for dramatic affect, I'm afraid it was all very amicable but nonetheless I've run home to my blog to have my say.

Part of the debate centered around whether relying on sales triggers was more or less important than building solid relationships with customers. But see, in my opinion both come hand in hand. Take, for example, the classic social disaster of putting your foot in it. Asking a friend to go see the new romantic comedy at the cinema failing to realize they've had a fairly horrendous break up two days previously. Your relationship is likely to hit a bit of a wall, probably after several expletives are shared.

If you had the knowledge of the breakup, you would actively avoid the rom com (despite your desperation to see Huw Grant get Sandra Bullock for the 18th time) and focus on the friend's needs, thus making you look much better in their eyes.

This is the same in business. If a bank calls a company after hearing they're set to expand, they probably stand a better chance of matching that companie's need than if they phoned them say, out of the blue, not hearing the news that they'd just received a £500,000 grant. Thus, the relationship between client and company is much stronger, you've met their needs at a crucial time and they appreciate it.

So to separate strong customer bonds and sales triggers would be unfair. The sales triggers inside business intelligence is what builds the bond, not compensate for it.