About Me:

Learning

Projects

© Darwin Binesh – v0.0.1

← Back

This reflection is a review and analysis of my time at LNG Studios (referred to as the business or the company interchangeably) that includes recommendations for future roles. The function herein is Business Development and the definition of said function shall be "growing the business with net-new client acquisition."

This reflection will analyze facets of the role and the activities carried out within that role based on the following context:

Business Development at LNG Studios during my tenure was fast-paced and effective (in the short-term), but cutthroat and selfish. I was driven by ego to make the deals happen at the expense of the businesses long-term success; furthermore, the disconnect between orgs in the business (project management, finance, accounting, and leadership) compounded this vicious cycle. Characterized, we enjoyed a fruitless "success."

Individual lack of organization, lack of access to assets, and focus on "sales" as the revenue channel we pursued inhibited our momentum. Phone and email were undeniably lucrative. Partnerships were a non-starter aside from unofficial, undocumented referral relationships that were somewhat effective. Inbound marketing was a nice idea we never invested in.

To be more successful, I would (and should), have asserted myself more often. The need for connections between orgs, applied the actual best-practices/tools that cost money, honoured our set long-term plans, and; either, moved myself to a leadership position, or left sooner. My mistake was due to a lack of confidence, patience, and essentially cracking under pressure. Conversely, I must note I learned very much in a short amount of time, and this role shaped my career for the better.

For my next role:

Better understand and connect with the team. Continue prioritizing professional development. Focus on skills. Always prospect for sales, partnerships, and recruiting. Build and leverage a "personal brand" for deals across channels.

The following sections will describe "Subjects" defined as the activities and projects carried out by me during my tenure. Each subject will be reviewed within the context above and include anecdotes as needed and/or warranted.

This was one of our first projects and it went miserably. We switched CRM systems 4 times and none were used to the full extent of their capabilities. This is compounded by a lack of personal organization among sales team members, myself included, and the company.

Our inability to work with a single CRM tool on a long-term basis held us back. Not having a set review schedule also led us to look for alternatives at any given moment instead of when we should have (such as near the holidays when it's quiet anyway).

The Company Fit described above is the issue. There is no "low-cost" CRM solution and implementation that's worth it.

Where I should have asserted myself was in the beginning when the leadership team needed to understanding what a massive undertaking a CRM implementation really is. We underestimated the value of the tool and the investment required to make the most of it to our detriment.

If I know the best plan forward I need to assert that I know it and make sure the company listens to me. This was my fault. Don't cut corners. Spend the money and the time on a long-term solution. Invest in making sure its properly implemented. CRM is the life of the sales org–reps look at it and use it daily–make sure it's properly taken care of.

In consideration of the above list: we should have stayed with Copper until switching to SalesForce or Hubspot (properly). The meetings with vendors, time to implement, time messing with spreadsheets, and hassle of having to explain what we were doing with senior leadership would have been avoided. Furthermore, Copper was working. I made the mistake of letting my Director decide to switch.

Growth Genius is an automated outreach solution that helps you develop an Ideal Customer Profile (ICP), write cold-email copy that would appeal to them (sequence), finds ideal accounts and personas in said ICP, and delivers cold-emails on your behalf following best-practices in deliverability to protect your domain. They were the best investment ($ and Professional Development) I made on behalf of the company. Their ROI was 4X (120k revenue vs 30k spent with ~20k margin).

Getting to ROI took too long and that hurt my ability to convince leadership to continue using their solution. I was not the primary user, and my Director has significant issue with the leads they produced.

Example: I was given 4 positive replies from cold-emails by my Director, the primary user of the solution, and told, as an ultimatum for cutting or continuing their services: "close any of these and I'll buy you dinner". I did close one and it was the biggest USD deal in company history. The analysis is that the solution worked; however, our team was not in a position to really make the most of it.

If I'm proposing a solution for which I'm accountable, I need to be the one actually using it and reporting on it. I can't remember why we decided that my Director would be the one sending those cold-emails. It was silly on my part to let someone else dictate my accountability. This was my fault; however, the education provided by this company was undeniably valuable for our long-term professional development.

They were a new company and we took a chance on them. Their hunger to perform was a big part of why we were able to make the most of their solution and why they helped us along the way. In the future when selecting service-providers: the track-record of the team behind the company is more important (or at least just as important), as the track record of the company itself. It's okay to take a risk on a new provider when the team has a history of success, is hungry for more success, and really needs you to also be successful.

This project was the systematic creation and ongoing use of sales materials (used interchangeably with sales assets) for our sales team. These materials include sales decks, portfolios, examples, copy, and anything/everything else we used to sell. This was hell.

We started something before defining success and without clarifying what we actually wanted these assets to look like. A strategic session to uncover the purpose and intention behind each asset would have gone a long way. While the design and development of these assets was never an issue, the underlying content was; in fact, we wasted our time on several occasions for nothing.

A simple deck became an endeavour involving several team members chiming in, with no clear outcome. The final result was a mish-mash of everyone's opinion that did not accomplish our goals. We just missed the mark and never did it right.

Start after you (very clearly) define success (SMART goals even). If it represents the company everyone in the company needs to at least see and understand it. In our case, the issue was not a lack of ability, it was a lack of focus, discipline, and controlling our process to make these assets. Improve and set these and there will be success. If the team is not qualified or competent enough to produce or envision the tools then get outside help.

We prioritized getting the deal over doing things properly and our assets suffered. Further, we re-did our sales deck and portfolio over 10 times, but none of those assets listed the name of the project, it's address, nor included the logo of the company that did it (not even their name). The whole thing was absent vision and became a nightmare once the 11th version looked too much like the 2nd. Furthermore, presenting our assets was the low-point of our meetings and presentations. I think another lesson is that the materials you use can't do your job for you; instead, they can further illustrate what you've already said.

Cold Outreach was my first experience with sales automation that enabled personalization at-scale. Email was the golden goose that continuously produced deals for me; nonetheless, it was also the activity which fostered further professional development. The process was finding leads that fit our ICP (good leads), and reaching out to them with an email.

The activity was great for revenue, and even better for understanding prospect feedback on our sales materials and website (when stated directly or implied based on the actions they took). Cold-email was meant to produce a handful of net-new clients around the world, but it was more successful than anticipated, which made things difficult.

We became a hyper-aggressive sales org because we became accustomed to the speed of email which was very off-brand. The team's aggression was a direct result of my self-assured hubris, brought on by this success, and it impacted deals across other channels.

Everything I did with the cold-email channel was effective; however, we also went very heavy into this channel when we had other options. Our emails were effective because of the email copy, and our segmentation of the leads we procured or purchased. As a channel it was proven to work, and I was proven to be great.

Keep doing what you're doing. Be mindful of deliverability and how that can effect your success rates. Use best-practices always but remember the backbone (good copy) is always the best-bet with cold email (and most marketing/sales). The bigger lesson is don’t let success (even if it's great success) in one channel full-stop you from at least trying other channels.

Be mindful that the limitation of cold-email is the number of leads you have (that you can legitimately reach out to). If this channel will remain in future roles, make sure to have a steady stream of leads you can reach out to, either with the budget to purchase them or as system to procure them (linkedin, scraping, buying lists, etc).

Cold calling was effective when the accounts we called into were prequalified. Otherwise very difficult. My experience with cold calling is that it’s done best when part of a larger strategy that includes cold email and LinkedIn. Cold calling is difficult in most industries and considered “dead” by most. While I argue it’s not, I would agree that it’s not a good fit for a service-based company (especially in Vancouver).

I would not do it again unless part of a larger approach; furthermore, it only works well if the accounts we call into are in the same city. When we can meet and engage directly, the calls make sense; otherwise, there's no merit in the approach. Our team did not have the number of leads and volume we would have expected because we had issue finding the phone numbers of our direct contacts (LInkedIn rarely included them), so we often hit the gatekeeper. In sum, cold-calling was rarely effective and went unappreciated by the company.

Don't do it unless the company is onboard with what the approach means for the "brand" and don't do it if not part of a larger strategy. The script writing is useful because it can be applied to other channels. Even if you're amazing, the alienation caused by the tactic hurts the overall ability to get buy-in for other avenues. More importantly, it puts you at odds when negotiating (because they know you want their business).

To my surprise, LinkedIn was not effective. The nature of our clientele (old), made it difficult because such clients don't actually use LInkedIn, some don't even have it, and the ones who do never use it. Sales Nav is useful when working with inbound leads. It didn't perform the way we expected when going outbound because nobody cares. LinkedIn works when people think you're cool upon seeing your name, title, and face.

My analysis is that the tool was not effective and we were better off not using it. What it was useful for was finding the companies and accounts that we should cold-email or cold call. Aside from this, responses through LinkedIn outreach were few and far between. If we had an omni-channel approach, a company LinkedIn that was active, and colleagues that were actively posting as well (or at least using LInkedIn to engage), we would have likely seen significantly improved results.

LinkedIn is a tool for personal branding and in three years time it might as well be a cross between a resume and Instagram. My tone aside, the only real way to make the most of LInkedIn is to have it as part of a larger strategy that involves personally branding the sales reps of the company, and additional traction channels operating in parallel.

I personally responded to over 14 RFP and won half. The process is straightforward but time consuming when not organized at the outset of the bid/proposal. I've found that most of the time being invited is the only real opportunity you have to win the bid; otherwise, the fact they didn't invite you to apply implies that they won't select you.

When we did submit to RFPs it was often a very loose process. We approached them differently most times and did not track the activities we performed to win a bid compared to when we lost. For this reason, the best analysis I have of the RFP process I carried out is that it was effective but unorganized, and because it was unorganized, I was not in a position to improve.

RFP Responses are about the process behind the responses and the data you have to work with from before you start. Start with the right questions. Did they invite us to apply? Do they work with firms like ours already? Are we actually a good fit to win this? Who else might apply and what are their strengths? There is no set template for responding to RFP, and we should have made one.

Pitching and presenting were the weak links in my ability to sell where developing deals, follow-up, and closing were my stronger links. Presentations were not bad, but ironically, the moment I would present our slides would also be when things went downhill. Listing off services (which is what our deck was), was very ineffective. This goes back to the Sales Materials section above.

It's worth reviewing the process to analyze it effectively. The time spent talking on my part should be minimal; however, it often becomes a "show and tell" in front of our clients. The irony is that the development process (booking the meeting), is the most effective way to keep the meeting on track and have the client do most of the talking.

We did not do this well because we spent more time talking than we should have.

Speak less, take great notes, discern what your client is looking for, and do not feel like you have to put slides on screen just because you have them. You can figure out what your client wants based on their answer to the question "so what brings you here?" (for inbound leads) - advanced details later. If it's an outbound sales development process then you should already know what they want (which is why they booked the meeting), so your job is even easier.

Remember: the point of the meeting is to gather the intelligence and create the ammunition you need for a winning "proposal". If you spend all the time talking at your client you can't make a winning proposal. When done right, all you'll need to send is an email with bullet points and an invoice and you'll get the deal done. The presentation is an opportunity for the client to tell you how to win the deal and verbally agree once you propose it after they're done talking.

Writing up deals was fun for me because it was very easy. When the sale is developed properly, the client talks most during the meeting (with the right leading questions), and the notes are properly documented, writing the deal takes 10 min. Getting to this level of understanding took time (a lot of time); moreover, it was well worth all the effort. Aside from one deal (with the most prestigious law firm NA, Skadden Arps), my deals were minimally red-lined.

Writing up deals well was a big part of my success because it made closing deals much easier (closed 60% of all deals that reached this stage). However, it also cost me a lot of time to figure things out. I believe deal writing is the second most important part of the sales process after developing the initial sales, and so I'm glad this became one of my strengths.

Formal proposals are over-rated as long as the actual terms are already understood. The biggest clients I signed, billion dollar brands, were all fine with the deal being written up in an email and sent over. Granted, a formal invoice with the same terms in legal language were required, but those were boiler plate anyway.

I should have taught the team more about the deal process, including negotiating and getting buy-in on the terms in advance of the writing being sent over. Naturally, verbal agreement on the deal is best before sending the deal because clients will (usually) sign right away. Secondly, having a template where we fill in the blanks further speeds up the deal writing process. We struggled understanding the impact of the deal on the business (actual profit, actual costs, etc), and that made it harder to draw lines when negotiating. Over time, as my ego grew, I gave more concessions for the sake of closing deals - and that probably cost us in the long run.

We sponsored an event as an opportunity to get exposure and sponsor deals. The overall budge exceeded 5k, but I'm not convinced it was worth it. Our resources to carry this out were limited, but the saving grace was that it forced the company to re-do its material designs (which were long overdue and a difficult process). The approach was to have team on the floor around newly printed assets (large sign-style renderings, a new brochure, and a one-pager).

We did not recovered the money spent through immediate deals, and the overall engagement was rather low. Overall this would have been money better spent if we didn't sponsor and did geo-tags and applied paid social media ads to the space (provided the goal was focused only on awareness). The challenge with events and sponsorships like this is that if you don't do them regularly, or if there's no specific, strategic component, you won't get anything out of them. We didn't.

Event sponsorship needs to be considered an going channel for a business. One-offs as I saw are ineffective (especially with such a niche business). There are opportunities to use them at marquee events that draw the connections you want; however, the budget has to make sense for the awareness received in exchange. Where we went wrong was in the overall plan for the event. We did no marketing in advance, nor after, and while we gave away prizes, we received only a couple of leads that didn't convert into sales. For future roles, events need to be a channel; one offs don't work.

This project never took off because we wouldn't find affiliates. We had the idea but it never materialized because very few people can actually sell the products of our company; moreover, it was impossible for any affiliate to connect with our team. The high-touch nature of a handover meant that every affiliate would have to sort through that mess, which wasn't possible. We set up the comp plans, possible approaches to recruiting, and the dashboards they'd have access to.

For an affiliate network to be successful, there can be no real handover process. The moment a salesperson closes a deal in a high-touch service based business, and they're not on staff, it becomes a nightmare for a project team to deal with. The opportunity alone doesn't necessarily make the overall deal worth it because of the handover; moreover, it removes predictability in the workload unless the affiliates have their deals tracked like a full-time salesperson. Even if tracked, it doesn't mean they'll keep clean records (because they don't have to) until they close the deal.

I feel strongly that my time at LNG Studios was worth it in the end, considering the stage in my career when joining the company. The pace was fast, the team worked hard, and (despite the challenges in this report), I'm glad I left on good terms with almost everyone. It wasn't a fun, nor smooth experience, but enlightening overall.

TOC: