Tuesday June 27, 2006

How to win -- or at least not lose -- clients in the first 5 minutes

I spent a good chunk of time in the Midwest in the last couple weeks, working from Chicago and Milwaukee, remote style, while my wife and kids spent time with her family. Both of these visits were really enjoyable (especially in the early part of the summer), and my experiences in both places -- speaking at Neocon and later working amidst the core of Milwaukee's creative class in the Third Ward -- have spawned a number of conversations I'd like to share with you. So here we go.

Neocon, brand, vendors, and how to win -- or not lose -- a client in the first five minutes

We've spent a lot of time at Sun in the last few years evangelizing the notion of what brand is and what brand isn't. For a simple recap: brand is not a product, company, or logo. It's a reputation -- your perception -- of an organization. And it's communicated in a boatload of ways, from advertising and marketing to product performance and even service and support.

Now despite what a number of low-rent marketers might have you believe, brands cannot be built on promises alone. We all love (or don't) certain things not for what they promise, but for what they deliver. And companies that get that are rewarded financially...they've built their organization to deliver value across as many touchpoints as possible.

That's something that I don't think anyone gets quite right, but I'm certainly excited to say that Sun is working to make that happen. The good news: we'll get there. The bad news: everyone who has the opportunity to provide value to and for Sun -- all employees and vendors -- must also understand this.

The trouble with vendors

I should rephrase that...it's not necessarily "the bad news." It's the most challenging part. And I'm not referring to the employees; that's a heavy-lifting effort, but as an organization we can measure and reward people who contribute in a way that's reflective of our core values. It's hard, but it's doable.

Rather, I've found that it's gosh-dang hard to enlist a cadre of vendors who actually care about our business. Finding vendors who espouse the true principles of partnership -- who understand our business and have our best short- and long-term interests at heart -- can be difficult. I'm exposed on a regular basis, for example, to firms in the architecture or interior-environments world that seem to think that we're more interested in what nifty thing they can do with our logo on a wall, than with how they can assist in providing unforgettable experiences (unique to Sun) that blossom into long-term business relationships.

And if it's not about the logo, then it's a fascination with technology that a potential vendor wants to push. Or it's an obvious rote approach for design -- we'll give you the exact same wow-factor that we gave Company X (who all too often just happens to be a competitor, differentiation be damned.)

Separating the wheat from the chaff

So I was fortunate enough to present at Neocon (with David Meckley of Huntsman and Beth Davis of Spencer Stuart). My particular angle was on the value that designers (and more specifically, "design") bring to any business. And one of the questions that arose after the presentation was about knowing the difference between a "good vendor" and a "bad vendor" -- something that becomes rather clear to me, in my role at Sun, in the first five minutes of any presentation from an environments-design vendor.

In fact, it's something I've been asked about twice since then...attendee Donna Caldwell positions this as "how to win -- or at least not lose -- a client in the first 5 minutes." Works for me. So what the heck -- let's open this up. Here's my rapid-fire take on the difference between vendors I at Sun want to work with and those I don't...the difference between those who will boost our brand as a true partner, and those who simply want to do their thing, send a bill, and walk away...often despite intentions that state otherwise.

Ready, set, go:

-- Language: if the firm offers to design our brand story, they're in the door. If they simply "design interiors," that's less valuable to me.

-- Brand:: if their view of "branding" is about where they place the logo, or about which wall we paint Sun Blue, then that's a negative point.

-- Measurement:: if the firm can tell me how they'll connect guests or employees to the brand -- and how they'd measure that -- then I'm very interested.

-- Possibilities:: if they can map out for me how this may provide increased revenue or new sources of revenue, then I'm downright excited.

-- Prescriptive solutions:: if they're immediately diving into the latest technology or hippest designs, they're missing the point. (If it's something our competitors could easily do, then what's the point?)

-- Open approach:: if the firm has a multidisciplinary team (from artists to designers to writers to [yes] actors), they're more likely to see the world in new ways and provide a solution that's as unique as we think we are. And that's good. But if the firm has signature look that hints of a templated approach to design, that's not as desirable.

-- Research:: if the firm has done its homework and knows something about our history and brand values, I'm grateful. If they haven't prepared, it's usually clear. (Any firm that makes their first presentation to us in PowerPoint/Microsoft rather than StarOffice/Sun has a small mark against them, in my opinion. [Regardless of which tool may actually be better.] They clearly don't know our culture.)

-- Charisma:: and finally, if the team lead can sell ideas, they're in. Organizational navigation is a given challenge in any big company, and a strong lead can make or break the implementation of a good idea at Sun. Some vendors have it, some don't. The best ones are those who can make my internal-selling job of that much easier.

Finally, I'd like to add one more. It's based on what Martin Lindstrom calls "smashing the brand," but it's an ages-old methodology for knowing how strong you communicate your brand. The litmus test is this: if you remove the logos in this physical space, would it still be clearly identifiable as a Sun space? If not, then we're all really just plopping in walls, furniture and fixtures, aren't we?

Walls, floors and fixtures are fine for meeting minimally-acceptable requirements. It's just that I don't believe Sun is interested in presenting itself as a minimally-acceptable company.

OK, enough grandstanding from my end. Dogmatic approaches, after all, will only get me so far. I'm curious to hear what works and what doesn't for you, whether you're on the vendor or client side. Let's talk.

( Jun 27 2006, 10:14:16 AM PDT ) Permalink