Research

Creating and capturing value

International research report global
and regional analysis of responses

www.huthwaiteinternational.com Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

 Estimated reading time

Full report: 50 minutes

© Huthwaite International

This document is the copyright work of Huthwaite International and

may not be reproduced (in whole or in part, in any form or by any
means whatever) without its prior written permission.

The copyright notices and trademarks on this document may not be

removed or amended without the prior written consent of
Huthwaite International.

02 © Huthwaite International
Contents Huthwaite International Research Report

Contents
Introduction........................................................................................ 5
Defining Value..................................................................................... 6
Creating Value.............................................................................. 7
The phases of Creating/Capturing Value........................................... 8
Changes over Time/Planning for Value........................................ 9
Recognition of Needs/Building Value........................................ 10
Evaluation of Options/Demonstrating Value............................. 11
Negotiation/Resolution of Concerns/Retaining Value............... 12
Implementation/Delivering Value.............................................. 13
The survey respondents................................................................... 14
Country of origin........................................................................ 14
Respondent job roles................................................................. 14
Respondent survey industry sectors.......................................... 15
Company size............................................................................. 15
Type of sale................................................................................ 16
Profitability................................................................................ 16
Global analysis.................................................................................. 17
Planning for Value...................................................................... 17
Building Value............................................................................ 19
Demonstrating Value................................................................. 20
Retaining Value.......................................................................... 21
Delivering Value......................................................................... 22
Summary of global top scoring factors...................................... 23
Global differentiators....................................................................... 24
Transactional v consultative selling.................................................. 25
The differences between transactional
and consultative sellers.............................................................. 25
What works in consultative selling............................................ 26
What works in transactional selling........................................... 27
Large v small organisations.............................................................. 28
What works in large organisations............................................. 29
What works in small organisations............................................ 30
Articulating Value............................................................................. 31
Ways to deliver Value................................................................. 31
Value propositions..................................................................... 33
Summary.................................................................................... 37
Global conclusions............................................................................ 38

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 03

 Contents Huthwaite International Research Report

Contents
Regional analysis.............................................................................. 39
UKITSA............................................................................................... 40
General characteristics.............................................................. 40
Top scoring factors..................................................................... 41
Lowest scoring behaviours......................................................... 42
UKITSA differentiators................................................................ 43
The Nordic results............................................................................. 45
General characteristics................................................................ 45
Top scoring factors..................................................................... 46
Lowest scoring factors............................................................... 47
Danish differentiators................................................................ 48
The Balkan results............................................................................. 49
General characteristics.............................................................. 49
Top scoring factors..................................................................... 50
Lowest scoring factors............................................................... 53
Balkan differentiators................................................................. 54
The outliers....................................................................................... 55
General characteristics.............................................................. 55
Polish results.............................................................................. 56
Asian results............................................................................... 57
Russian results........................................................................... 58
Egyptian results.......................................................................... 59
Regional descriptions of Value......................................................... 60
General characteristics.............................................................. 60
Regional Value propositions...................................................... 61
Conclusions....................................................................................... 62
Report author................................................................................... 63

04 © Huthwaite International
Introduction Huthwaite International Research Report

Introduction
Successful sales forces today have to be in the Background to Huthwaite
business of creating value for their customers
Huthwaite International has been in the business of
and, to stay profitable, capture value for their own
research for over 30 years. We started out by analysing
organisations. Huthwaite International’s latest
the verbal behaviours of successful and average
research project focuses on the concept of value and
performers in business situations so that we could
how selling organisations can create it effectively for
understand what happens in verbal interactions that
both themselves and their customers. The research
makes a difference. Over the years we have conducted
investigated a set of value-creating behaviours to see
a wide variety of research projects, which have
which ones were being used by sellers to try to create
included:
value, and which ones appeared to be a differentiating
factor in terms of their contribution towards a
profitable organisation. • Behavioural analysis of conversations to identify
effective verbal behaviour patterns
Huthwaite International initiated this research by first • Interviews with industry leaders and key personnel
identifying a set of value-creating behaviours that to uncover what is happening at a process and
would enable a selling organisation to create and strategy level within organisations
capture value throughout the buying process, not
• Questionnaires to uncover industry trends and best
just in sales conversations and negotiations. These
practices.
value-creating behaviours were identified from a desk-
based analysis of popular sales theories. The aim of
the survey was to identify to what extent each of the Huthwaite have used the output of the research to
different behaviours were being adopted by selling produce leading-edge white papers and research
organisations. articles, as well as develop world-renowned
methodologies such as SPIN® Selling skills.
To date the survey has generated over 900 responses
from across the globe. The first 157 respondents came
from the membership of the UK Institute of Sales and
Marketing Management (ISMM), and the results of
their responses were published in a research paper in
December 2012. This paper is therefore a follow-up to
the publication of the initial findings, and presents the
results of all 900+ global responses.

If you have read the ISMM survey findings paper you

will find that the content of the first two sections
of this paper is exactly the same, as it sets out the
background to the survey. If you do not wish to be
reminded of this content then please go to page 14
of this report, which is where we start to present the
research data itself. The analyis of the research data is
in two parts: part one presents the global findings and
part two presents an analysis at regional/country level.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 05

 Defining Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Defining Value
Value is a word that is commonly used in sales in lots Value is about benefits minus costs, ie what you get
of different ways, eg value propositions, value-based minus what you have to give to get it. Sellers often
selling, creating value, adding value, communicating focus on the benefits of their solution without really
value. The problem with defining what we mean considering what it will cost the customer to change
by ‘value’ is that it is all about personal perception. or to implement it. This does not mean just the
Like beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder. An financial cost as there are other factors involved, such
individual’s perception of what is valuable to them as the risk in taking the decision and the hassle of the
is conditioned by underlying beliefs, attitudes and implementation. These costs are likely to be much
behaviours, so differs from one person to another. clearer in the customer’s mind, so can reduce the
In selling situations, the challenge for the seller is to value inherent in the benefits. Ultimately the seller has
demonstrate the value of their proposed solution to to be able to demonstrate that the benefits of their
the customer in such a way that the customer, as well solution outweigh the costs.
as the seller, sees the value. Sellers may also have to
demonstrate the value in different ways for different Finally, sellers also need to be mindful of the value
decision-makers, to take account of their different of the deal for their organisation in terms of what
perceptions of value. benefits it will bring: but also what will be the costs of
sale and implementation.

06 © Huthwaite International
Defining Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Creating Value

Value balance
In a customer-seller relationship ideally there is a
balance in terms of the value, with the customer What the customer What the supplier gets
expects in return
getting value from the product/solution provided and
the seller getting value back in return. Value Value

When selling organisations try to add more value for

Customer Seller
the customer this often means going the extra mile
or giving the customer more benefits for the same
cost, or the same benefits for less cost. The value then
becomes unbalanced, as the customer is getting more
with the seller not getting anything back in return. Transferring value
In Huthwaite terms we describe this as transferring Something more Something more
value. for them from us
ts
lier ge
at t h e supp
Adding value in Huthwaite terms means the seller Wh in retu
rn
r
stome
needs to get something back in return for the extra the cu
What xpects Value
e
value they are creating. The additional value for the
seller may not necessarily be a financial benefit. It may
Value
be something like a testimonial, or an opportunity
to move into a different part of the organisation that Customer Seller
ultimately creates long-term value for the seller rather
than a short-term financial recompense.

Adding value

Cross/Up-Selling
More Payoffs
Opportunities

Additional Benefits Testimonials

Satisfying newly Referrals

identified needs

Going the extra mile Repeat business

Value Value

Customer Seller

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 07

 The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

The phases of
Creating/Capturing Value
Any customer making a purchasing decision goes
through a number of phases in the decision-making
process. In Huthwaite we call this process the Buying
Cycle. In each phase of the Buying Cycle the selling
organisation needs to be creating and capturing value.
Huthwaite conducted a review of the current sales
literature and our own research data to identify a
set of what we call value-creating behaviours. These
behaviours encompass strategies/actions that have
been advocated as best practice in today’s competitive
selling environment. In this section we will introduce
the different phases of the Buying Cycle and the value-
creating behaviours we have identified for each phase.

TM

Implementaon Changes
over Time

Decision
Recognion
of Needs

Resoluon
of Concerns Evaluaon
of Opons

Negoaon

08 © Huthwaite International
The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

Changes over Time/Planning for Value

In Changes over Time the customer is not in the The value-creating behaviours in Changes over Time
market to buy at all. They are satisfied with the status are to do with Planning for Value. The behaviours are
quo and are not actively seeking a solution. However, listed below, together with the survey question used
the situation is changing in ways that will eventually to test the extent to which the behaviour was being
lead to a new sales opportunity. These changes may implemented in organisations.
be:

• external and outside of the customer’s

control, such as a change in the general economic
climate

• internally initiated, such as a new CEO

or acquisition

• initiated by the seller, such as a new

product offering.

Behaviour Survey question

Industry/customer knowledge We demonstrate extensive and up-to-date knowledge of our customer’s

business and industry sector.

Proactively problem-hunting We proactively look for problems/opportunities to bring to our customer’s

attention.

Customer segmentation We segment our customer base into those who buy transactionally (price-
focused) and those who want a more consultative (value-focused) selling
approach.

Customer view of strengths We have a clear and accurate picture of how the customer views both our
and our competitors’ relative strengths.

Disruptive innovation We innovate to create simpler products/solutions/processes that enable us

to target new markets and disrupt incumbents.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 09

 The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

Recognition of Needs/Building Value

In Recognition of Needs the customer becomes aware

that the status quo is no longer satisfactory. Initially
needs appear as problems and dissatisfaction with
the current situation. As customers move through this
phase these problems and issues develop into clear
wants or desires.

The value-creating behaviours in this phase of the

Buying Cycle are related to Building Value, ie how the
seller can work with the customer to develop needs
that the seller is well-placed to meet.

Behaviour Survey question

Qualify out We qualify out business where we cannot see how we can uniquely offer
value.

Make customer think differently We present problems/opportunities and their business implications to
customers to make them think differently.

Joint problem solving We work with customers to jointly understand and solve their business
problems and needs.

Consider customer marketplace We consider our customer’s marketplace and plan how we can help them
exploit it more effectively.

10 © Huthwaite International
The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

Evaluation of Options/Demonstrating Value

In Evaluation of Options customers go out to the

market. They have established their decision criteria,
based on the needs they have identified, and are now
looking to compare alternative solutions against those
criteria. This is the phase when Requests for Proposals
(RfPs) are issued, and, for many sellers, the point at
which the sale begins.

The value-creating behaviours in this phase are related

to Demonstrating Value, ie how can the seller show
that they can deliver more value to the customer than
their competitors can.

Behaviour Survey question

Customise solutions We develop and demonstrate customised solutions that make us uniquely
placed to win the business.

Tailor value propositions We tailor value propositions to meet the value drivers for different decision-
makers within the organisation.

Demonstrate financial benefits We demonstrate the financial benefits of our solution to a customer’s
business.

Add value to beat price We demonstrate enough added value to win business against cheaper
competitor bids.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 11

 The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

Negotiation/Resolution of Concerns/Retaining Value

In the decision-making process Negotiation is a At this phase the value-creating behaviours are about
separate, but linked, activity. Negotiation begins when Retaining Value, ie making sure enough value is kept in
the customer says or indicates that the seller’s solution the deal for the selling organisation.
meets their needs, but they are unwilling to accept the
terms and conditions.

Negotiation can begin in Evaluation of Options and

generally runs through to Resolution of Concerns. This
last phase, before the decision is made, is a hidden
part of the buying process. Here the customer’s
attention shifts to the consequences and down-stream
risks associated with the buying of the solution. Sales
that stall for no apparent reason are classic signs of
unresolved concerns.

Behaviour Survey question

Maximise value for both sides In a negotiation we focus on maximising the value of the deal for both
sides.

Prioritise and cost concessions We prepare for a negotiation by prioritising and costing all negotiable issues
so that we are clear on the cost of every concession made.

Trade instead of concede In a negotiation we trade the value of additional services/products, instead
of giving them away.

Low cost v high value In a negotiation we concede on issues of low cost to us/high value to the
other side in return for concessions on issues of high value to us.

Benchmark win price We benchmark against our competitors’ prices to get a clear understanding
of win price and what solution we can afford to offer based on that win
price.

12 © Huthwaite International
The Phases Huthwaite International Research Report

Implementation/Delivering Value

After the buying decision has been made the solution

has to be implemented. This is often the phase of
least sales activity, and where the role of the service
department becomes more important.

The value-creating behaviours are now about

Delivering Value, ie making good the promises made
to the customer during the earlier phases of the
Buying Cycle.

Behaviour Survey question

Measure our profitability We measure the profitability for our organisation of each customer during
implementation.

Charge for additional work When we are asked to do work above and beyond the contract we charge
for it or renegotiate to get a share of the value.

Service/sales work together Our service and sales teams work together during Implementation to share
information and look for new business opportunities.

Assess value to customer We work with the customer to assess the value delivered to them
throughout the contract.

Use customer feedback We use customer feedback from Implementation to influence future
product development and/or marketing.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 13

 The Survey Huthwaite International Research Report

The survey respondents

This section describes the characteristics of the 900+
global survey respondents.

Country of origin

The survey has gathered responses from people in

30 different countries across the world. The main
countries represented are shown here.

United Kingdom Norway

18 Denmark Germany
26 Greece Serbia

Italy United States

Bulgaria Eygpt
% 18 China Others
3
1 South Africa Unknown
1
1
2 Russian Federation
2
2 9 Poland
2 3
3 4 5

Respondent job roles

Half the respondents (51%) were in sales roles, with

smaller numbers of trainers/consultants, marketing,
customer service and HR.
Sales

17 Customer service

HR

Marketing

14 % 51 Trainer/consultant

Other

7
4
7 7
4
7

14 © Huthwaite International
The Survey Huthwaite International Research Report

Respondent industry sectors

In terms of industry sectors represented, 46% of

respondents were from either manufacturing (26%)
or professional services (20%). The remaining 54%
were spread over a range of different sectors, as
shown below.

3 Utilities/Energy
6
6 Professional services
20 Manufacturing
10
IT/Telecommunications

2 Hospitality/Retail
% Healthcare
8
Government

Financial services
7 26 Education
12 Creative Industries

Company size

53% of the respondents were from organisations with

less than 100 employees, with 20% drawn from larger
organisations of over 1000 employees.
No. of employees

20 19 1-9

10-99

100-499
8
% 500-999

1000+

19 34

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 15

 The Survey Huthwaite International Research Report

Type of sale

We asked respondents what percentage of their

customers bought transactionally (which we defined 17
as being focused on price, ease of purchase and 22

minimising risk). The results suggest a bias towards

more transactional-buying but a clear majority (61%)
had a mixed customer base (between 25% - 75% of %
customers being transactional). 25

We asked this question because many of the value-

36
creating behaviours are seen to be more appropriate
for a consultative-type sale. We used the answers to
% transactional customers
this question to test whether the impact of the value-
creating behaviours differed between organisations 0-24%

with predominantly (>75%) consultative customers 25-49%

and those with predominantly (>75%) transactional 50-74%
customers.
75-100%

Profitability

All Huthwaite International research looks to

4
distinguish between high-performers and average/
7
low performers. In terms of creating and capturing
14
value we decided that the most appropriate measure
of success was the profitability of the selling
organisation. We recognise that there are many % 53
factors that contribute towards profitability. However,
the assumption is that those organisations reporting
healthy profit growth were also likely to be well- 22
functioning organisations that were doing things in
the sales process that contributed to that profitability,
Profit/loss reported
ie effectively capturing as well as creating value. The
Profit greater than last year profit
results showed that a clear majority of respondents
worked for profitable organisations, with the largest less than last year
percentage being in the most successful group, which Profit/loss same as last year loss
were not only profitable, but had seen their profit
less than last year
increase from the previous financial year.
Loss greater than last year

16 © Huthwaite International
Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Global analysis
For each value-creating behaviour we asked Planning for Value
respondents to tell us how often the behaviour
was used within their organisation, using the
following scale: The graph on page 18 shows the global average scores
for the Planning for Value behaviours in Changes over
1 = Never
Time.
2 = Rarely

3 = Occasionally Industry/customer knowledge is the most widespread

behaviour in the Planning for Value stage and is almost
4 = Frequently
a top scoring factor. This is understandable, given that
5 = All the time customers in today’s information age expect sellers to
be knowledgeable about their business.
When we analysed the results we were looking
to identify: Proactively problem hunting also scores high and is
close to being another topscoring factor. So as well as
• the level to which each value-creating knowing and understanding your customer’s business
behaviour is being implemented within and market, selling organisations are also focused
organisations on trying to spot the market trends and be one step
• which value-creating behaviours are being ahead of the competition.
used more frequently by organisations
reporting increased profit, compared to Disruptive innovation is not as popular as knowledge
organisations that reported a loss. and problem hunting; however this is a value-creating
behaviour that requires mobilisation and action at
This enables us to identify value-creating behaviours an organisational level, rather than at the individual
which we can consider to be: seller level. Disruptive innovation means that product
innovation must be happening to target new markets
• top scoring factors which we defined as any value- in a different way, which reflects the need of modern
creating behaviour scoring an average of 4 or organisations to be able to respond to rapidly changing
above, as this indicated a behaviour in widespread times.
use that selling organisations need to use to keep
up with the competition Knowing and understanding what a customer regards
as your strengths compared to the competition is key
• potential differentiating factors: those behaviours when it comes to putting your differentiators into a
where there was a statistical significant difference sales bid. However, customer view of strengths did
between the mean scores for organisations not score as high as the other behaviours mentioned
reporting increased profit and those reporting above. So it seems that sellers rely more on their
a loss. (The statistical test used was a two- market knowledge and ability to spot trends rather
tailed t-test assuming unequal variances, with a than truly understanding their competitive position.
significance level of 0.05.)

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 17

 Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Customer segmentation, ie segmenting the customer build value in a way that is completely inappropriate
base between those that buy transactionally and those for the buyer, and which could also cost them the sale.
that buy consultatively, is more internally focused than Segmenting a mixed customer base ensures sellers
the other behaviours, and is also the least popular. Of make more effective use of their time by selling in the
course if an organisation has a largely transactional right way, thus reducing the overall cost of sale and
or largely consultative base then this behaviour is not making the sale more profitable for the seller.
relevant. However we know that 61% of the survey
respondents have a mixture of transactional and In summary, the most popular behaviours in Planning
consultative buyers in their customer base. The danger for Value suggest that sellers favour behaviours
with not segmenting these different buyers is that that are customer-and market-focused rather than
sellers could waste time and resource trying to sell and internally-focused.

Planning for Value

Lowest scoring factor

Industry/customer knowledge 3.97

Proactively problem hunting 3.91

Customer segmentation 3.39

Customer view of strengths 3.68

Disruptive innovation 3.72

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

18 © Huthwaite International
Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Building Value

The graph below shows the global average scores for get them to reframe their thinking. It would appear
the value-creating behaviours appropriate for Building that sellers prefer to think of themselves as working
Value in Recognition of Needs. collaboratively with the customer (ie Joint problem-
solving) rather than challenging them outright.
In Building Value we have our first global differentiator,
which is Joint problem solving. This indicates a high Finally, the least popular behaviour is Qualify out.
degree of consultative selling amongst the survey As in Planning for Value the least popular behaviour
respondents. It also builds on the two most popular is the most internally-focused. This may mean that
behaviours in Changes Over Time – as a seller will be respondents have done enough proactive planning
much better placed to help solve problems if they have and market analysis to be able to just select customers
a thorough understanding of the customer’s business where they have a good chance of winning the
and market and have been proactive in bringing these business. Or it might mean that they just prefer to
problems to the customer’s attention. chase every opportunity. Other recent Huthwaite
research with new business acquisition sellers
Considering the customer’s marketplace and Making identified Qualifying out as increasingly important
the customer think differently are mid-ranking in and frequently used behaviour. These sellers describe
popularity. Considering the customer’s marketplace the benefits as: having a tighter pipeline, a higher
means thinking about not just what impact your conversion rate, and spending far less time chasing
product/solution will have on your customer and their business that does not materialise, which ultimately
business, but also on what impact it will have on their increases their confidence because they experience
customers. So it enables a seller to talk about creating less rejection. So despite its relative lack of popularity
value further down the value chain with a clear focus here, we would still advocate Qualify out as a
on business outcomes. Later on we will see how necessary and effective behaviour.
focused respondents’ articulation of value is on the
customer’s business outcomes and value chain. In summary, respondents’ preferred method of
Building Value appears to be working collaboratively
Making the customer think differently means with customers, rather than challenging them or being
presenting them with challenges or information to selective in who they work with.

Building Value
Highest scoring factor Lowest scoring factor

Qualify out 3.3

Make customer think differently 3.76

Joint problem solving 4.16

Consider customer market place 3.78

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 19

 Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Demonstrating Value

The graph below shows the global average scores Effective Joint problem solving should leave the seller
for the value-creating behaviours appropriate for in a good place to present a Tailored value proposition.
Demonstrating Value in Evaluation of Options. What this suggests is that sellers are more likely to
rely on generic value propositions for their products/
All of these behaviours fall in the mid-range in terms solutions. Later on we will review examples of value
of popularity. The one that is closest to being a top propositions provided to identify how customer-
scoring factor is Customise solutions, which again specific they actually appear to be.
follows on from the most popular behaviour in
Building Value (Joint problem solving) as Customise Demonstrate financial benefits of their solution and
solutions suggests working with the customer to Add value to beat price are also popular behaviours
address specific needs that have emerged from that are close to being top scoring factors.
problem solving. Interestingly the least popular
behaviour here is Tailor value propositions, which we In summary, the principle focus here is on addressing
might have expected to have scored higher given that specific customer needs, although the need to
it is also a likely outcome of having worked jointly demonstrate a financial return on the proposed
with the customer to solve particular problems in the investment also appears to be important.
Building Value stage.

Demonstrating Value

Customise solutions 3.96

Tailor value propositions 3.70

Demonstrate financial benefits 3.92

Add value to beat price 3.92

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

20 © Huthwaite International
Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Retaining Value

The graph below shows the global average scores The other strategies listed here that are less popular
for the value-creating behaviours appropriate for will actually help a seller achieve win-win at minimal
Retaining Value in Negotiation/Resolution of Concerns. cost to their own organisation, whilst still delivering
a good deal to the customer. Prioritise and cost
In the Retaining value stage we have our second global concessions, will enable the seller to know the costs
top scoring factor, which is Maximise value for both of conceding on each negotiable issue and help them
sides during a negotiation. So respondents across the avoid giving away too much on issues that will cost
globe are trying to achieve win-win outcomes in their them a lot of money. Trade instead of concede means
negotiations with customers. that every time the seller gives a concession they
ask for something back in return. Identifying Low
Strategies that will enable sellers to achieve win- cost to high value means identifying the issues that
win negotiations do not prove quite as popular. The cost you little but are of high value to the other side.
second most popular behaviour in Retaining Value was This will enhance the seller’s ability to achieve win-
Benchmark win price, which is not really part of the win, as these are the issues where it is best to make
negotiation. All that Benchmark win price will help you concessions.
do is set appropriate limits around what price you can
hope to achieve in your negotiation. In summary, respondents appear to have the right
attitude and focus in Retaining Value, but do not
seem so well equipped to actually conduct win-win
negotiations.

Retaining Value Highest scoring factor

Maximise value for both sides 4.06

Prioritise and cost concessions 3.63

Trade instead of concede 3.59

Low cost v high value 3.59

Benchmark win price 3.73

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 21

 Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Delivering Value

The graph below shows the global average scores At the same time customers are increasingly looking
for the value-creating behaviours appropriate for for evidence of return on investment (ROI) for
Delivering Value in Implementation. solutions bought and other demonstrations of the
actual value delivered to the business.
There are no behaviours in this stage that emerged as The least popular behaviours in this stage are again the
clear top scoring factors or came very close to being ones that are internally focused, rather than customer
top scoring factors. The most popular behaviour was focused. So Measure our profitability is not as popular
Use customer feedback to improve products/solutions; as Assess the value delivered to the customer. Charge
a behaviour that links to the Planning for value stage for additional work outside of the contract is the least
and will enable organisations to innovate, disruptively popular of all. This may mean that respondents are
or otherwise, and potentially proactively identify transferring value to the customer by accepting scope
customer problems. The two mid-ranking behaviours creep rather than adding value through the Charge
are Service/sales work together to share information for additional work. The danger with this is that it
and assess business opportunities, and Assess value puts pressure on the bottom line and is not always
to customer. Both of these behaviours appear to be in the long-term interests of the customer/supplier
increasing in importance within the market. Service relationship.
is increasingly seen as a vital touchpoint that can be In summary, it would appear that the Delivering
leveraged to deliver additional value to the customer Value stage overall contains the least popular group
and capture more value for the organisation. of behaviours, which may be a reflection of the fact
that half the respondents were sales people, who
traditionally play less of a role in the actual delivery of
the product/solution.

Delivering Value
Lowest scoring factor

Measure our profitability 3.59

Charge for additional work 3.44

Service/sales work together 3.74

Assess value to customer 3.71

Use customer feedback 3.82

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

22 © Huthwaite International
Analysing the Results Huthwaite International Research Report

Summary of global top scoring factors

In summary, we have two global top scoring factors These two behaviours require sellers to have two
–Joint problem solving with customers in the Building different sets of skills – those of consultative selling
value stage and Maximise value for both sides in a and those of negotiation. To be commercially
negotiation in the Retaining value stage. competitive and win a seat at the table sellers need to
be able to effectively demonstrate both sets of skills.

Global top scoring factors

Joint problem solving (Building) 4.16

Maximise value for both sides (Retaining) 4.06

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 23

 Global Differentiators Huthwaite International Research Report

Global differentiators
To identify potential differentiators we compared the with possibly some input from marketing. So these
global average scores between organisations reporting two behaviours reflect the importance of the sales
increased profit and those reporting a loss. The graph team working together with marketing and with R&D
below shows the behaviours that had a significant to ensure that they are getting the right messages to
difference between the means of the two groups. take to market and exploit the right opportunities.

The first point to note is that these potential The Delivering Value differentiating behaviour is sales
differentiators fall in the Planning for Value and and service working together. So the key message
Delivering Value stages, which are not generally seen here is that sales should not operate as a silo in an
as key parts of the actual sales process. A salesperson organisation. To be effective in creating and capturing
would expect to spend most of their time in the value for their organisations there needs to be synergy
Building, Demonstrating and Retaining Value stages. between the sales and marketing departments, and
That said; Industry customer knowledge is a behaviour between sales and service at the other end of the
that in reality should belong to every stage of the process. Other departments may also need to be
Buying Cycle, but it is the least important one here and closely involved with sales, such as R&D. Evidence
is borderline in terms of its significance. from the field suggests that in many places silos still
exist, but where organisations have managed to
The most significant behaviour – Proactively problem break down those silos and create cohesion between
hunting – could be viewed as a responsibility of sales, different departments involved in the sales process
but is also likely to fall under a marketing remit. then they have reaped the benefits.
Disruptive innovation is likely to be an R&D initiative,

Increased profit

3.98
Proactively problem hunting (Planning)
3.53
Loss making
3.81
Service/sales work together (Delivering)
3.44

3.87
Disruptive innovation (Planning)
3.53

4.03
Industry customer knowledge (Planning)
3.78

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

24 © Huthwaite International
 Transactional v Consultative Huthwaite International Research Report

Transactional v consultative selling

Just over half (54%) of respondents were segmenting The differences between transactional
their customer base into transactional and consultative and consultative sellers
buyers frequently or all the time. That means that
almost half (45%) were doing it occasionally or not
really at all. Research from the field suggests that it is When we analysed the differences in responses
important to distinguish between those buyers who between those organisations with >75 transactional
are looking for the best price and ease of purchase, customers, and those with >75% consultative
compared to those who want more advice about what customers, there were four value-creating behaviours
they are buying and how to get the most value out of where there was a statistically significant difference
it. The question for this survey was: could we identify between the two means of the populations. These
any important differences between respondents who four behaviours are shown in the graph below.
had a high percentage of consultative buyers (>75%)
and those with a high percentage of transactional Two of the behaviours were more popular amongst
buyers (>75%). That might indicate which value- the consultative sellers, and these are both in the
creating behaviours were more relevant and effective Building Value stage – Make the customer think
in the two types of selling environment. differently and Joint problem solving. So challenging
and working collaboratively with the customer to
build value appear to be more relevant to consultative
Type of buyer selling, and this would fit with our understanding and
definition of what consultative selling is all about.
>75% Transactional Customer
The other two behaviours were more popular with
>75% Consultative Customer the transactional sellers and these were Benchmark
win price (Retaining) and Measure our profitability
Make customer think
(Delivering). These emphasise the importance of
3.63
differently (Building) getting the price and profit margin right when selling
4.00 in a transactional environment. They also indicate
that the earlier stages of the Buying Cycle are more
Joint problem 4.10
solving (Building) important in consultative selling and the latter stages
4.38 more important in transactional selling.

Benchmark win 4.01

price (Retaining)
3.57

Measure our 3.94

profitability (Delivering)
3.57

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 25

 Transactional v Consultative Huthwaite International Research Report

What works in consultative selling

Taking the respondents with over 75% consultative What is interesting is that when we did the
buyers (ie consultative selling environments) we same analysis for the respondents with over
analysed the difference in means between those who 75% transactional buyers (ie transactional selling
reported increased profit and those that reported a environments) Tailor value propositions and Customise
loss. Three value-creating behaviours emerged with solutions had a larger mean amongst the loss making
differences higher than the rest; Service/sales work organisations than they did in the ones reporting
together, Tailor value propositions and Customise increased profit, although the differences are not large
solutions. Due to the smaller numbers involved, only enough to be statistically significant.
Customise solutions qualified as a differentiator using
our statistical significance test. This does therefore suggest that getting heavily
involved in working alongside the customer to address
specific needs in the Demonstrating Value stage
works in consultative selling situations where there is
an opportunity to create additional value, but is not
appropriate in transactional selling environments,
where it is likely to just increase the cost of sale and
not add any competitive advantage.

Transactional selling Consultative selling

Increased profit Increased profit

Loss making Loss making

Tailor value propositions 4.05

Tailor value propositions (Demonstrating)
(Demonstrating) 3.54
3.50

3.57

Customise solutions 4.35

(Demonstrating) 3.77
Customise solutions
(Demonstrating) 3.92
3.87
4.14 Service/sales work
together(Delivering) 3.27

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

26 © Huthwaite International
 Transactional v Consultative Huthwaite International Research Report

What works in transactional selling

When it came to looking for the positive differentiators margin, it pays to keep on top of your costs in the
for the respondents in largely transactional selling Implementation/Delivering Value stage. But Charge for
environments there were two behaviours that stood additional work may get in the way of a consultative
out; Charge for additional work and Measure our relationship, unless the selling organisation is effective
profitability. Again, due to the numbers involved, in building value for any extra charges.
only Charge for additional work came close to being
statistically significantly higher. In summary, the Building Value and Demonstrating
Value stages appear to be more important in
When we compared the figures to the ones obtained consultative selling environments, whilst the Retaining
for respondents in consultative selling environments, Value and Delivering Value stages are more important
one of these behaviours – Charge for additional work – in transactional selling, particularly in relation to
emerged as having a slightly higher score with the loss managing the profit margin on the sale. These results
making than with the profitable. So in a transactional fit with what is considered best practice for both
relationship, where the customer is buying largely on consultative and transactional selling.
price and to compete requires operating on a tight

Transactional selling Consultative selling

Increased profit Increased profit

Loss making Loss making

3.47
Charge for additional work
(Delivering)
2.77
3.54
Charge for additional
work (Delivering)
3.58
4.01
Measure our profitability
(Delivering) 3.36

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 27

 Large v Small Huthwaite International Research Report

Large v small organisations

The final analysis of a subset of the data was to the same behaviours that were more popular in the
identify if there was any difference between selling transactional selling environment. The percentage
in an organisation of 1000+ people and selling in an of consultative and transactional buyers amongst
organisation of less than 100 people. large and small organisations was broadly the same,
so this does not reflect a more transactional selling
Two behaviours (Measure our profitability and environment amongst the smaller organisations. What
Benchmark win price) emerged as having higher scores it may instead imply is that a smaller organisation
amongst the small organisations (<100 people) than needs to keep a closer eye on its profit margin to
amongst the large (1000+). Interestingly these are ensure long-term survival.

Large (>1000) v small (<100)

Large (>1000)

Small (<100)

Measure our profitability (Delivering) 3.17

3.39

3.37
Benchmark win price (Retaining)
3.65

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

28 © Huthwaite International
Large v Small Huthwaite International Research Report

What works in large organisations

A comparison of the large organisations reporting Delivering Value phase and do need to ensure
increased profit compared to those reporting a loss that the sales function is well-integrated with the
identified two behaviours (Measure our profitability Implementation/Delivering Value phase. If solutions
and Service/sales work together) with a larger are sold and ‘thrown over the wall’ then they could
difference in the means than the other behaviours, end up being costly to implement and not bring
although neither were statistically significant due to as much value (profit) to the selling organisation.
the numbers involved. Both these behaviours relate Maximising the potential in an account and ensuring
to the Delivering Value stage, and one of them, that the large selling organisation captures maximum
Measure our profitability, occurred noticeably less in value from a customer opportunity also relies on
large organisations than it did in the small ones. This the close co-operation of sales and service, which
suggests that, due to their size, large organisations are likely to be more disparate functions in a large
do need to keep a handle on what happens in the organisation than they are in a small one.

Large (>1000)

Increased profit

Loss making

4.00
Measure our profitability (Delivering)
3.11

3.84
Service/sales work together (Delivering)
3.22

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 29

 Large v Small Huthwaite International Research Report

What works in small organisations

It is a different picture in small organisations of less In summary, both large and small organisations
than 100 people, where the focus is on the Planning have a focus on their own profitability; small
for Value stage, ie early in the Buying Cycle. organisations appear to be measuring it more, and
the successful large ones are measuring it more than
Two value-creating behaviours (Proactively problem the unsuccessful large ones. In large organisations
hunting and Disruptive innovation) emerged as success seems to require the ability to integrate the
having higher means between small organisations Delivering phase with the rest of the sales cycle in
reporting increased profit and those reporting a loss. terms of ensuring profitable solutions are sold, their
One of these; Proactively problem-hunting shows a profit measured, and sales and service work together
statistically significant difference between the means. to exploit the opportunities in an account. Small
The emergence of these behaviours as the top two organisations on the other hand thrive on their ability
suggests that success in a small organisation requires to read a market and act ahead of the competition.
agility, forward-thinking and market awareness.

Small (<100)
Increased profit

Loss making

3.99
Proactively problem hunting (Planning)
3.48

3.89
Disruptive innovation (Planning)
3.56

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

30 © Huthwaite International
Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Articulating Value
In addition to the 23 value-creating questions the The graph shows the percentages of the different ways
survey also asked respondents to provide written of delivering value. Type of solution (ie Features of the
examples of: product or solution) clearly dominates, having over
twice as many examples as there were descriptions
• three ways in which they deliver value for their of business impact. What this suggests is that the
clients majority of respondents were actually more internally-
• a value proposition they had recently submitted to focused than they were customer-focused in how they
a customer. described their actual value, which contrasts to how
In this section we present an analysis of the responses they answered the questions about the value-creating
we received. behaviours. Given the popularity of Joint problem-
solving as a behaviour, where 81% of respondents
claimed they did it frequently or all the time, we might
Ways to deliver value expect to see a higher percentage cite examples of
how they worked together with their customers to
help solve their problems as a way of delivering value.
When we analysed the ways in which global Few focus on minimising risk, which may not be a bad
organisations described how they deliver value we thing, as offering guarantees etc may be a reflection
identified a number of themes: of an inability to build value for the product/solution
or demonstrate credibility in the projected business
• First, there were descriptions of how they delivered outcomes.
value through the way they worked with the
customer. Examples of this include: “understanding
their issues”, “offering expertise”, “designing 1
bespoke solutions”
Working together
5 12
• Secondly, there were descriptions of the type of
Type of solution
solution provided. Examples of this include: “price”,
“service”, “ease of transaction”, “online ordering”. Business impact
23
These are all Features of the product/solution Reducing risk
provided
% It depends
• Thirdly, there were descriptions of the business
outcomes delivered to the customer. Examples of
these include: “reduce time and cost”; “reduce
absenteeism”, “improve staff retention”. These are 59
all what Huthwaite would call Advantages of the
product/solution provided, ie they demonstrate
how the product/solution helps the customer
• Fourthly, there were descriptions of how the
organisation delivered value through minimising
the risk associated with the buying decision.
Examples of these include: “minimise risk”;
“provide guarantee”; “proven ROI”
• Finally there were some descriptions which simply
said “it depends”, so we classified these separately.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 31

 Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

We then analysed what percentage of each type of The lowest percentage of all was Reducing risk of
response came from organisations reporting increased change. So this suggests that demonstrating Business
profit. Overall 53% of the descriptions of value that we impact and flexibility are better indicators of success
analysed came from organisations reporting increased than either focusing on the relationship or the features
profit. Descriptions that we defined as Business impact of the product/solution. The lower percentage
or “It depends” are notable in that they had a higher attributed to Reducing the risk of change suggests that
percentage (60/61%) from organisations reporting those organisations who do focus on minimising risk
increased profit. The Working together descriptions are doing so because they have not done enough value
represented a percentage slightly above the average, building to convince the customer of the benefits of
whilst Type of solution was slightly below the average. the proposed solution.

% of responses from organisations with increased profit

Overall Business impact

Working together Reducing risk of change

Type of solution “It depends”

70
61 60
60 55
53
51
50
44
40

30

20

10

32 © Huthwaite International
Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Value propositions

A value proposition articulates the value the customer

will derive from buying your solution. It should
articulate the outcomes/benefits that the customer
will get. It should also be quantifiable where possible
and demonstrate how you are differentiated from the
competition.

We therefore decided to score the value propositions

submitted as follows:

Score Criteria

1 Statement of capability or functionality

2 Implies a customer outcome (not specifically stated) OR value given for free

3 Customer outcome /benefit (eg increased sales) or problem solved

4 As (3) above, but includes the ‘how’

Additional points scored for:

Being customer specific

Including quantified benefits

Showing differentiation from the competition

Offering a guarantee

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 33

 Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Below are some examples of the difference between

the value propositions with different scores.

Scored 1 Rationale

Management development training for finance managers. Product description.

A segmented approach to their business. A feature of the service provided.

Rental service instead of purchase of equipment. A feature of the service provided.

Scored 2 Rationale

Local expertise in specialist sector with proven track record but “Proven track record” and “same or better levels of …” hints at
same or better levels of service and technical knowledge. the benefits provided.

Programme designed to optimise all aspects of patient’s “Optimise” hints at the benefits provided.
journey.

Offering two staff training sessions free of charge. Value given away for free.

Scored 3 Rationale

Our solutions are built to save you money, make your business Provides description of the benefits to the customer.
more efficient and take away pain.

Speeding up development, getting new opportunities from the Description of customer benefits.
existing resources.

Scored 4 Rationale

In conjunction with a dealer we developed a new financing Provides description of the benefits to the customer and has
product that resulted in a lower selling price, reduced risk for the evidence of specific tailoring for a particular customer.
dealer and a smoother service for the end consumer.

The prescription of a specific medicine (for Alzheimers) reduces Evidence of a benefit (reducing the total prescription budget)
the need for prescribing antipsychotic medicines - and so with an explanation of the how.
reducing the total prescription budget of a physician.

34 © Huthwaite International
Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Scored 5 Rationale

With our new product, you do not need to use an application Provides description of the benefits to the customer with a
device anymore (necessary until recently with all products.) This description of the how, and quantifies the saving involved.
way, you save money and you reduce operation time by 50%.

We worked together with a client to reduce the selling price the Evidence of customer benefits, together with a description of
client charged his customers, helped him reduce his risks and the how, which in this case is specific to an individual customer.
0reduced the delivery time to the end consumer.

Scored 6 Rationale

We identified that our unique service organisation would Shows benefits for customer: “truck up time; machine and staff
increase their fork lift truck up time and reduce the overall reduction”.
number of machines and staff required in comparison to their
Shows the ‘how’: “unique service organisation”.
existing supplier.
Specific to the customer: “we identified – their up time”.

Shows competitive differentiation: “in comparison to existing

supplier”.

We will implement a sales process that will increase gross sales Shows benefits for customer: increase gross sales.
by 5% (£50k) within 6 months by providing regular training
Shows the ‘how’: regular training sessions.
sessions for a total fee of £X. For every 1% that is not achieved,
we will reduce our fee by £Y. Quantifiable: 5%.

Guarantee: “For every 1% that is not achieved…”

Custom designed interface reducing overall part count. More Shows benefits for customer: reduction in time, operating costs,
expensive but much simplified operator functions and huge faster payback.
reductions in time and operating costs over the coming years,
Shows the ‘how’: interface reducing overall part count.
allowing much faster payback recovery than the competition.
Specific to the customer: “custom designed”.

Shows competitive differentiation: “faster payback recovery

than the competition”.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 35

 Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

No value proposition submitted scored higher than We also analysed what percentage of the value
six. The graph below shows the percentage of value propositions with each score came from organisations
propositions that fell into three groups: those scoring that reported an increased profit. It shows a trend
one or two; those scoring three or four; those upwards in that the lowest percentage of increased
scoring five or six. Over half of the value propositions profit organisations are in the group that scored
provided scored only one or two, which in effect one for their value propositions, whilst the highest
demonstrated very little value for the customer. percentage is in the group that scored six. So a
value proposition that is not only customer focussed
but is also in some way specific to the customer,
quantifiable or focuses on your key differentiators
does appear to make a difference.

VP scores VP score against profit

% of total value % of vps with this score who

propositions provided reported increased profit

90
90 86
80 80

70 70
65
60 60 58
57
53 53
50 50 46

40 40
33
30 30

20 20

10 7 10
0 0
Score 1/2 Score 3/4 Score 5/6 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCORES

36 © Huthwaite International
Articulated Value Huthwaite International Research Report

Summary

In summary, some questions for readers:

• Do your value propositions articulate specific

customer outcomes/benefits?

• Are at least some of the customer benefits

quantified in financial terms?

• Does your value proposition demonstrate how you

are superior to the competition?

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 37

 Global Conclusions Huthwaite International Research Report

Global conclusions
To create and capture value effectively you need to • Larger organisations need to manage
be implementing value-creating behaviours in all implementations effectively to be successful
phases of the Buying Cycle. Overall the value-creating
• Small organisations need to be flexible and
behaviours analysed here are being implemented
forward-thinking in their ability to read the market
occasionally to frequently within global organisations,
and adapt their product offering to be successful
with only two scoring more than 4 on average.
Key value-creating behaviours share the following • The more successful organisations are more
characteristics: likely to include specific, quantifiable and/or
differentiated customer business outcomes in their
• They are focused on the customer, rather than on descriptions of how they deliver value and word
internal efficiency their value propositions.

• They require long-term strategic thinking and the

How value is actually being articulated to customers
ability to read the market
still appears to be largely seller-focused, in that it
• Value creation depends on co-operation between describes capability and functionality, rather than
different departments; sales and service need outcomes/benefits to the customer. The prevalence
to work closely together to exploit business of capability/functionality descriptions suggests that
opportunities; marketing need to work with sales a significant number of the respondent organisations
so that they have a joint understanding of the are still in the business of communicating value,
customers and the market rather than creating it. However, there are also
some excellent examples of how organisations are
• In transactional sales, sellers need to focus on price
describing the value they bring to the customer in
and profitability in the latter stages of the Buying
specific customer terms.
Cycle to be successful
• In consultative sales, sellers need to be able to
address specific needs when demonstrating value
in the Evaluation of Options stage to be successful

38 © Huthwaite International
Regional analysis Huthwaite International Research Report

Regional analysis
The first step in analysing individual country data In this report we will present the following analysis:
was to conduct a cluster analysis to see if any of the
countries could be grouped in terms of the similarity • The general characteristics of each country/
of their answers. Three distinct groups emerged from cluster in terms of financial health, type of
the cluster analysis. buyer and organisational size of the respondent
organisations
Group 1: UKITSA
• The top scoring factors (which we define as
The most similar countries in terms of results were
factors used frequently to all the time, so include
the United Kingdom, South Africa and Italy. They were
survey questions that scored 4 or more)
called UKITSA.
• The lowest-scoring factors (ie survey questions
Group 2: The Nordics that scored less than 3.5)
Denmark and Norway also produced similar results, so • The differentiators (ie survey questions where
formed a cluster called the Nordics. there was a significant difference between
the average scores for organisations reporting
Group 3: The Balkans increased profit and those reporting a loss)
The final cluster consists of the three Balkan countries
• The ways of creating value and value propositions
of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria.
produced by each cluster.

Asia (which includes China, Hong Kong and Singapore),

Poland, Russia and Egypt did not form part of any
tight cluster group. So we called these countries The
Outliers.

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 39

 UKITSA Huthwaite International Research Report

UKITSA
General characteristics

Financial Health
In terms of general characteristics we analysed the
financial health reported, the percentage of customers Increased profit Reduced profit
buying transactionally and the size of the organisation. Loss making Stays the same

Within the UKITSA countries, companies from the

7
United Kingdom report the best financial health with United Kingdom 17
63
over 60% of the respondents reporting increased 13
profit and only 7% a loss. Italy in contrast has less 12
31
than 40% reporting an increased profit and a higher South Africa 54
4
percentage reporting reduced profit. This suggests
that the Italian respondents are under more financial 3
Italy 44
pressure. South Africa presents a more mixed picture 38
15
– over half the respondents are reporting increased
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
profit, but it also has over 10% reporting a loss.

% Transactional buyers
In terms of the percentage of transactional buyers, the
United Kingdom has the fewest, which suggests this 0-24 50-74
is the most consultative selling environment. Italy has 25-49 75-100
a similar profile to the United Kingdom, but there are
more transactional buyers. South Africa has almost
19
50% of respondents saying that their buyers are very United Kingdom
36
28
transactional, so this market would appear to be 17
predominantly transactional. 4.35 48
32
South Africa 12
8
In terms of organisational size, the Italian and United
Kingdom respondents are dominated by companies 21
Italy 44
with fewer than 100 people, whereas the South 23
13
African respondents are dominated by companies of
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
more than 1000 people.
Organisation size
1000+ <100

100-1000

22
United Kingdom 27
52
50
South Africa 23
27
28
Italy 15
56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

40 © Huthwaite International
UKITSA Huthwaite International Research Report

Top scoring factors

UKITSA are characterised by scoring lower than the more tactical – Benchmark win price, which is possibly
other countries on the value-creating behaviours. an indication of the state of the Italian economy
The graphs show the top three scoring factors for and reflects that they were under more financial
each country, but there is only one top scoring factor: pressure. The United Kingdom has a more proactive,
Customise solutions in South Africa. strategically focused behaviour in Proactively problem
hunting. South Africa appears to favour working
Overall the behaviours favoured by UKITSA closely together with customers as all three of their
respondents are consultative in nature. The same two top behaviours focus on getting to know the customer
value-creating behaviours appear in the top three in and understanding their needs really well, despite
each of these countries; Industry/customer knowledge having a dominant transactional selling environment.
and Joint problem solving. Only Italy shows one that is

United Kingdom

Joint problem solving

(Building) 3.95

Industry/customer
knowledge (Planning) 3.80

Proactively problem
hunting (Planning) 3.79

1 2 3 4 5

South Africa Italy

Customise solutions 4.00 Joint problem solving 3.82

(Demonstrating) (Building)

Industry/customer Industry/customer
knowledge (Planning) 3.94 3.74
knowledge (Planning)

Joint problem solving Benchmark with price

3.87 3.69
(Building) (Retaining)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 41

 UKITSA Huthwaite International Research Report

Lowest coring behaviours

United Kingdom

Lowest scoring behaviours are those that scored less Low cost v high value
3.47
(Retaining)
than 3.5, so are closer to be used occasionally, rather Benchmark win price
3.40
than frequently. UKITSA are characterised by having (Retaining)
Measure our profitability
more lower scoring behaviours than any other cluster (Delivering)
3.38
or country. Italy has the largest number of all, with Customer view of strengths
3.36
(Planning)
over half the behaviours scoring less than 3.5, so we Customer segmentation
3.29
have only shown the bottom ten on the graph below. (Planning)
Charge for additional work
(Delivering) 3.27
Three behaviours are lowest scoring in all three Prioritise/cost concessions
3.27
(Retaining)
countries: Qualify out, which scored low across the Qualify out 3.19
world, and suggests that sales people are still keen to (Building)
1 2 3 4 5
go after every opportunity that comes their way; Low
cost v high value, which suggests a lack of planning in
negotiations, and Customer view of strengths, which South Africa
suggests that organisations either struggle to do an
Made customer think differently
effective competitive analysis in the Planning stage or 3.45
(Building)
don’t do it at all. Asses Value to customer
(Delivering) 3.44
Low cost v high value
The United Kingdom has a tactical set of lowest- (Retaining)
3.40
scoring behaviours, in contrast to the more Service/sales work together
3.38
(Delivering)
consultative/strategic behaviours that were scored
Customer view of strengths
high in this country. 75% of their lowest scoring 3.31
(Planning)
behaviours are from the Retaining/Delivering stages, Qualify out
3.23
(Building)
with only two from the Planning stage. So the country
1 2 3 4 5
with the highest percentage of consultative buyers in
this group is reflecting its preference for consultative
Italy
selling in its top scoring and lowest scoring behaviours.
Asses value to customer
(Delivering) 3.44
South Africa has the smallest number of lowest scoring
Prioritise and cost
behaviours amongst these three countries. They are 3.43
concessions
spread out through the Buying Cycle. Some are more Customer view of strengths 3.40
tactical/transactional, such as Service/sales work Customise solutions 3.38
together, Assess value to the customer, Low cost v
Consider customer market place 3.35
high value and Qualify out, whereas others are more
consultative and strategic – Make customer think Tailor value propositions 3.30
differently and Customer view of strengths. Use customer feedback
3.26
(Delivering)
Customer segmentation
3.21
(Planning)
The Italian bottom ten behaviours include a mix from
Low cost v high value
3.20
across the Buying Cycle, with no real theme emerging. (Retaining)
Qualify out 2.69
(Building)
1 2 3 4 5

42 © Huthwaite International
UKITSA Huthwaite International Research Report

UKITSA differentiators

At a regional/country level it is not always possible to South Africa is the only other UKITSA country to
identify differentiators, even if the difference in the produce a differentiator, which is Service/sales
average means between organisations with increased work together. This was one of the lowest scoring
profit and those making a loss is quite large. This is behaviours overall in South Africa. However South
because the actual numbers involved can be quite Africa was also characterised by having a large
small. percentage of larger organisations (1000+) in the
respondent group. It would make sense that it is more
The largest group of respondents within the UKITSA important to have Service and sales working together
group were from the UK and they produced two effectively in larger organisations, as they are likely to
differentiators, according to our statistical test. The have more disparate customer touch-points and need
first one; Make the customer think differently, reflects to find ways of pulling together all their customer
a consultative approach that builds on the UK top intelligence internally to maximise the business
scoring factors of Joint problem solving, Industry/ potential. They also had a higher percentage of very
customer knowledge and Proactively problem hunting. transactional customers, which may affect the ability
In fact one could argue that these top scoring factors of sales people to get close to the customer during
are necessary for Make the customer think differently the Recognition of Needs and Evaluation of Options
to happen effectively. The second differentiator – stages of the Buying Cycle. Hence it is more important
Customer segmentation was one of the lowest scoring to gather intelligence during Implementation and get
behaviours for the UK. Overall the UK seems to favour close to customers at this stage through the service
a consultative selling approach, but this result suggests delivery.
that the most successful organisations are those that
are careful about selecting the customers on whom to
focus their consultative selling approach.

United Kingdom differentiators South Africa differentiators

Increased profit Loss making Increased profit Loss making

Make customer think 3.59

differently (Building)
2.67

Service/sales work 3.21

together (Delivering)
2.67

Customer segregation 3.31

(Planning)
3.42

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 43

 UKITSA Huthwaite International Research Report

Italy did not generate enough data for us to be able In conclusion it would appear that the UKITSA favour
to do any differentiator analysis. However, when we a strategic and consultative approach to selling, but
combined the UK, South African and Italian data we overall do not embrace the value-creating behaviours
identified one differentiator for the group as a whole, as much as other countries.
which is Make the customer think differently. This
reflects the dominance of the UK data in this group,
and also reflects how strongly this behaviour stood out
as a differentiator for the UK.

UKITSA differentiators

Increased profit Loss making

Make customer think 3.61

differently (Building)
3.00

1 2 3 4 5

44 © Huthwaite International
The Nordic results Huthwaite International Research Report

The Nordic results

General characteristics

In terms of financial health Denmark is similar to South Financial health

Africa in that there is a healthy percentage (over 50%)
Loss making Increased profit
reporting increased profit, but it also has one of the
Reduced profit Stays the same
highest percentages of loss-making organisations at
over 10%.
0
35
Norway 59
Norway in contrast has no loss-making organisations 6
and almost 60% reporting increased profit, so appears 13
16
to have the healthier corporate sector of these two Denmark 54
17
economies.
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

In terms of the type of buyer, both countries show % Transactional buyers

a fairly even spread between transactional and
75-100 25-49
consultative. Norway has a higher percentage of very
50-74 0-24
transactional and very consultative, suggesting that its
salespeople are more likely to encounter just one type
24
of buyer. Denmark has higher percentages in the more 29
Norway 59
mixed categories. 24

16
40
Denmark 27
17

0 10 20 30 40 50

In terms of organisation size Denmark has a very high Organisation size

percentage of respondents from organisations of less
than 100 people, which reflects the structure of the 1000+ <100
100-1000
Danish market. Norway has a much higher percentage
of large organisations of over 1000 people.
47
Norway 18
35

14
Denmark 22
65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 45

 The Nordic results Huthwaite International Research Report

Top scoring factors

Overall the Nordics returned higher scores than sales work together, which will help them exploit
UKITSA, so both Denmark and Norway have top opportunities and Assess value to customer, which
scoring factors. Norway has over double the number will help them identify the return on investment for
of Denmark. Again we find Joint problem solving the customer. The popularity of Service/sales work
as a top scoring factor in both countries, along together may be a reflection of Norway having a
with Maximise value for both sides and Customise bigger percentage of large organisations of over 1000
solutions. people, as it is in larger organisations that we see this
behaviour as being more necessary and effective.
These three common top scoring factors suggest that Charge for additional work is unusual in being scored
a consultative and strategic long-term selling approach so highly, as in most other countries it scores relatively
is favoured by the Nordic respondent organisations, low. Its popularity here may reflect stronger account
even though they had a mix of transactional and management and ongoing relationships, but may also
consultative buyers. The focus is on working closely reflect a market that is strong enough for organisations
with customers in the Planning, Building and to feel more comfortable in charging for scope
Demonstrating stages to devise the best solutions, and creep. The importance of market understanding and
taking a long-term view when negotiating. In addition knowledge is also evidenced by Industry/customer
Norwegians appear to be more forward-thinking in knowledge making it into the top scoring factor list,
terms of Proactively problem hunting and also appear which would of course facilitate Proactively problem
to focus more on getting more out of their accounts hunting.
in the Delivering phase, both in terms of Service/

Norway

Proactively problem hunting 4.29

(Planning)

Service/sales work together 4.17

(Delivering)

Maximise value for both sides 4.11

Joint problem solving 4.10

(Building)
Denmark
Customer solutions
(Demonstrating) 4.05

Joint problem solving Assess value to customer

4.35 (Delivering) 4.00
(Building)

Maximise value for both sides Charge for additional work

4.18 4.00
4.00
(Retaining) (Delivering)

Customer solutions Industry/customer knowledge 4.00

4.02 4.00
(Demonstrating) (Planning)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

46 © Huthwaite International
The Nordic results Huthwaite International Research Report

Lowest scoring factors

There are two themes in Denmark’s lowest-scoring other side (Low cost v high value) is very important if
factors; the dominance of internally-focused factors you want to emerge from a negotiation with the other
and the dominance of behaviours from the Retaining side feeling that they got what they really wanted
phase. Customer segmentation, Charge for additional without you feeling that you have given away too
work, Measure our profitability, Prioritise and cost much in the process. Using Trade instead of concede is
concessions, and to a certain extent Low cost v high also essential for both sides to emerge with a workable
value are all behaviours that are looking at internal deal and the relationship intact. It means that you can
costs, either in terms of managing the overall cost of accept demands for concessions from the other side
sale (Customer segmentation) or the actual cost of but always get something back in return.
fulfilling a particular contract.
The lowest-scoring factors for Norway are entirely
In the Retaining phase, Maximise value for both sides internally-focused. Two of them are about managing
is a top scoring factor for Danish respondents, but the cost of the sales process (Customer segmentation
some of the behaviours that would help them achieve and Qualify out). The other two are about assessing
this are amongst the lowest scoring. Using Prioritise the actual cost of fulfilling the contract (Prioritise and
and cost concessions would help them go into a cost concessions and Measure our profitability).
negotiation better prepared and come out at the In conclusion it would appear that the Nordics favour a
other end with a workable deal for their organisation. consultative and strategic selling approach over being
Knowing which negotiable issues would cost them tactical and managing the costs of implementation.
little to give away, but would be of great value to the

Denmark

Prioritise and cost concessions

3.48
(Retaining)
Norway
Charge for additional work 3.45
(Delivering)

Low cost v high value Customer segmentation

(Retaining) 3.43 3.45
(Planning)

Trade instead of concede Prioritise and cost concessions

3.32 3.44
(Retaining) (Retaining)

Measure our profitability Qualify out

3.25 3.42
(Delivering) (Building)

Customer segmentation Measure our profitability

3.10 (Delivering) 3.06
(Planning)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 47

 The Nordic results Huthwaite International Research Report

Danish differentiators

Only Denmark had enough respondents for us to be Implementation and working efficiently together
able to do a differentiator analysis, as there were no to maximise the potential in an account. Measure
loss making organisations in the Norwegian results. our profitability was one of the lowest scoring
Denmark has the largest number of differentiators factors overall in Denmark, but it is the loss making
of any group. Three of them are from the Planning organisations that score it really low. However
stage and two from the Delivering stage. So success this behaviour represents a real opportunity
in Denmark is not about what happens when face-to- to differentiate from the competition, as fewer
face with the customer in a sales environment; it is organisations are doing it, but those that are doing
more about what happens before the salesperson gets it are being more successful. Given the dominance
in front of the customer and what happens afterwards of small organisations it may seem surprising that
in the Implementation. Service/sales work together is a differentiator. Deeper
analysis of the data revealed that this behaviour is
The three Planning differentiator behaviours reflect a top scoring factor in large Danish organisations of
a theme of really understanding a market, and being over 1000 people, but is close to being a low-scoring
able to predict what will happen in that market, and behaviour in small organisations of less than 100.
what the likely market needs will be. Both Proactively So the size of the organisation was related to how
problem hunting and Disruptive innovation are about much the behaviour was used. Interestingly it was
looking to the future, spotting market opportunities the mid-sized organisations of between 100 and 1000
and being able to exploit them. Industry/customer people where the behaviour appeared to be a real
knowledge is the bedrock on which this opportunity differentiator. So cohesion is still essential even in
analysis depends. The dominance of these behaviours smaller organisations.
may also reflect Denmark’s high percentage of
companies of less than 100 people, as it is these In conclusion it makes sense that in these times of
small organisations that are more likely to need to be slow economic growth, being ahead of the game, as
innovative and respond quickly and flexibly to market well as staying on top of your Implementation costs
changes in order to thrive. and making the most of the opportunities in your
existing accounts is a good recipe for success.
The two Delivering differentiator behaviours of
Measure our profitability and Service/sales working
together reflect a theme of effectively managing an Danish differentiators
Increased profit Loss making

Proactively problem hunting 3.94

(Planning) 3.25

Disruptive innovation 3.97

(Planning) 3.33

Industry/customer knowledge 3.97

(Planning) 3.35

Measure our profitability 3.36

(Delivering) 2.74

Service/sales work together 3.65

(Delivering) 3.05

1 2 3 4 5
48 © Huthwaite International
The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

The Balkan results

General characteristics

The Balkan countries show quite different states of Financial health

financial health. Whereas Serbia appears relatively
Loss making Increased profit
strong and healthy with over 70% reporting increased
Reduced profit Stays the same
profit, Greece shows a very different picture.
Greece has the highest percentage of loss-making
90
organisations of all the countries, and the lowest 14
Serbia 73
number reporting increased profit, which reflects the 5
scale of the economic crisis. Bulgaria is also showing a 22
28
higher percentage of loss-making organisations than Greece 33
16
has been seen in other countries.
17
Bulgaria 29
In terms of the type of buyer both Serbia and Bulgaria 12
43

show a high percentage of transactional buyers,

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
whereas Greece shows more of a spread of customer
types. This higher percentage of transactional buyers % Transactional buyers
may be a reflection of the maturity of the market in
these countries. The three countries to date with the 75-100 25-49

highest percentage of transactional buyers (South 50-74 0-24

Africa, Serbia and Bulgaria) are all countries that have

experienced huge political change within the last 0 30
Serbia 39
twenty years (South Africa coming out of apartheid, 17
13
Serbia emerging from a long and damaging war and
22
Bulgaria emerging from communist rule). The relative Greece 33
27
youth of the political and economic structure may 17
mean buyers tend to be more transactional in their 35
Bulgaria 40
outlook. 16
9
9
In terms of organisational size the respondents from 0 10 20 30 40 50

all three countries were dominated by organisations of

less than 100 people, especially in Bulgaria. The fewest Organisation size
number of respondents came from organisations of 1000+ <100
over 1000 people. 100-1000

17
Serbia 25
48

11
Greece 37
52

5
Bulgaria 35
60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 49

 The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

Top scoring factors

The three Balkan countries of Greece, Serbia and environment. With their top five top scoring factors
Bulgaria are characterised by having higher scores the Greeks are saying that if they are more expensive
than the other countries that took part. Over half the then they have to be able to justify the higher price in
value-creating behaviours were scored as top scoring some way; they have to be able to demonstrate the
factors in all these countries. financial benefits of their solution and they need to
benchmark prices to ensure that they are competitive.
Greece has the lowest number of top scoring factors Industry/customer knowledge is not so financially
amongst these countries (fourteen) and also slightly focused, but part of that knowledge is likely to be
lower scores for its top factors than Bulgaria and understanding the pricing their market can stand. The
Serbia. What is different in the Greek results is the importance of Maximise value for both sides suggests
type of value-creating behaviour that comes out on that the Greeks have to work hard to secure deals
top. Here we have a clear focus on financials, and that provide a return for both parties in their current
evidence of a very price-conscious and focused selling economic climate.

Greece

Add value to beat price (Demonstrating) 4.40

Demonstrate financial benefits 4.34

Industry/customer knowledge (Planning) 4.30

Benchmark win price (Retaining) 4.28

Maximise value for both sides 4.28

Joint problem solving (Building) 4.23

Use customer feedback (Delivering) 4.13

Consider customer market place 4.11

Prioritise and cost concessions 4.08

Make customers think differently 4.07

Customer view of strengths (Planning) 4.06

Customise solutions (Demonstrating) 4.04

Measure our profitability (Delivering) 4.03

Asses value to customer (Measuring) 4.02

1 2 3 4 5

50 © Huthwaite International
The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

Serbia has the most top scoring factors (17 in total), relatively fewer consultative buyers. Prioritise and
and again we see financially-focused behaviours in the cost concessions is number six in the scoring table, so
top five – Demonstrate financial benefits, Maximise is clearly considered more important in the Balkans
value for both sides and Add value to beat price. But than in other countries. This may also reflect a trading
we also have Customise solutions and Joint problem environment where very hard bargains are being
solving in the top five, which suggests that Serbia is driven, so it is essential to know the cost of what you
placing importance on consultative selling behaviour, are being pressurised to give away. This may reflect
as well as being financially aware, despite having the more transactional nature of the market.

Serbia

Demonstrate financial benefits 4.57

Maximise value for both sides 4.48

Customise solutions (Demonstrating) 4.48

Joint problem solving (Building) 4.43

Add value to the price (Demonstrating) 4.39

Prioritise and cost concessions 4.30

Proactively problem hunting (Planning) 4.22

Disruptive innovation (Planning) 4.17

Customer view of strengths (Planning) 4.17

Low cost v high value (Retaining) 4.13

Use customer feedback (Delivering) 4.09

Measure our profitability (Delivering) 4.09

Benchmark win price (Retaining) 4.09

Make customer think differently 4.09

Industry/customer knowledge (Planning) 4.09

Trade instead of concede (Retaining) 4.05

Customer segmentation (Planning) 4.00

1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 51

 The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

Bulgaria differs from Greece and Serbia in that the in-depth knowledge of what the customer is thinking.
value-creating behaviours that make up its top five Use customer feedback means taking what the
indicate a mindset that is more about understanding customer says about their product/solution and using
the customer and getting inside the customer’s head it to improve their product offerings, so again this
than anything else. Maximise value for both sides demonstrates spending time getting information from
requires them to understand what the customer wants customers. This is all despite the fact that Bulgaria
out of the deal as well as themselves. Joint problem had a predominantly transactional market, but may
solving and Customise solutions suggest working also be a reflection of the fact that a majority of the
together to create something that meets specific respondents came from small organisations, who
customer needs is very important. Customer view of may place more importance on getting to know their
strengths is about understanding how the customer customers well
views them and their competition, so again requires

Bulgaria

Maximise value for both sides 4.61

Joint problem solving (Building) 4.52

Customise solutions (Demonstrating) 4.49

Customer view of strengths (Planning) 4.40

Use Customer feedback (Delivering) 4.39

Service/sales work together (Delivering) 4.33

Consider customer market place 4.33

Industry/customer knowledge (Planning) 4.31

Prioritise and cost concessions 4.31

Demonstrate financial benefits 4.26

Benchmark win price (Retaining) 4.24

Add value to beat price (Demonstrating) 4.22

Proactively problem hunting (Planning) 4.20

Tailor value propositions 4.19

Measure our profitability (Delivering) 4.09

Asses value to customer (Delivering) 4.07

1 2 3 4 5

52 © Huthwaite International
 The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

Lowest scoring factors

The Balkan countries are characterised by having The low popularity of Qualify out may indicate a
very few low scoring factors, in contrast to the large climate of going after all the business that you can
number of top scoring factors. For Serbia and Bulgaria possibly get. In the long-term this may have a financial
only, Qualify out was categorised as a low score. This impact through increasing the cost of sale and eroding
was also the lowest scoring value-creating behaviour the margin on delivery. It would seem prudent in
in Greece, but here it is joined by Charge for additional tough economic times to focus on opportunities that
work. So, even though Greece appears to be highly are likely to turn into real business, and not spend
focused on getting the best deal in terms of its top too much time chasing opportunities where you are
scoring factors it still does not see charging for work clearly being used to either benchmark price or make
beyond the scope of a contract as a way of capturing up the numbers.
more value.

Greece

Qualify out 3.36

(Building)

Charge for additional 3.33

work (Delivering)

1 2 3 4 5

Bulgaria Serbia

Qualify out 3.05 Qualify out 2.91

(Building) (Building)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 53

 The Balkan results Huthwaite International Research Report

Balkan differentiators

Amongst the Balkan countries only Greece had enough For the Balkans as a whole there were two clear
respondents to get differentiators that passed our differentiators that passed the significance test:
significance test. There was only one value-creating Proactively problem hunting and Customer
behaviour in Greece that clearly passed the test, which segmentation. Tailor value propositions again was
was Customer segmentation. Disruptive innovation borderline. Customer segmentation only appeared
and Tailor value propositions returned a borderline at the bottom of Serbia’s list of top scoring factors
result. and did not make the top scoring list in Greece or
Bulgaria, yet is a strong top scoring factor amongst
Although the Greeks seem to favour financially- organisations in these countries that reported
focused value-creating behaviours, as emphasised increased profit. So targeting and focusing your sales
by their top scoring factors, their key differentiating effort in the right places would appear to be effective
behaviour is about reducing the cost of sale and in tough economic times. Proactively problem hunting
being more pragmatic in how they manage their was a top scoring factor in Bulgaria and Serbia, but
sales process. Disruptive innovation and Tailor value not in Greece; however it is a clear top scoring factor
propositions are also not about getting the financials amongst organisations reporting increased profit in
right. the region. Again the message here is; to be successful
in tough economic times you need to be able to think
ahead and spot new trends or issues emerging that
you can address with a solution. And then tailor your
value proposition to meet specific customer needs.

Greek differentiators Balkan differentiators

Increased profit Loss making Increased profit Loss making

4.41 4.21
Customer segmentation Proactively problem hunting
(Planning) (Planning)
3.23 3.72

4.28 4.09
Disruptive innovation Customer segmentation
(Planning) (Planning)
3.73 3.53

4.21 4.17
Tailor value propositions Tailor value propositions
(Demonstrating) (Demonstrating)
3.64 3.78

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

54 © Huthwaite International
The Outliers Huthwaite International Research Report

The Outliers
Financial health
The remaining countries in our survey did not form
Loss making Increased profit
part of a cluster so we analysed them individually. Reduced profit Stays the same
They did not return a large enough number of results
for us to complete a differentiator analysis, but we 9
Poland 14 23
can identify their top scoring factors and low-scoring 41
27
factors.
0 0
Russia 21
67
13

General characteristics 0
57
Egypt 43
0

3
The outliers contain two of the healthiest looking Asia 17
64
economies in terms of organisations reporting 17

increased profit, Russia and Asia. Poland and Egypt 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
appear to be experiencing more challenging market
conditions (NB: The Egyptian data was taken before % Transactional buyers
the more recent upheaval in that country). 75-100 25-49
50-74 0-24

In terms of the type of buyer it is again the ex-

41
Communist satellite country of Poland that has a Poland 41
9
much higher percentage of transactional or largely 9

transactional buyers than consultative buyers. Russia, 0 13

Russia 13
itself once a Communist state, does not show the 38
38
same trend as it appears to have a market dominated
25
by consultative buyers. Russia and Asia are the two Egypt 25
27
countries reporting the highest percentage of 0-24% 0

transactional buyers, which suggests a higher level 17

37
Asia
of consultative selling in those two countries. Egypt 14
14
presents a mixed picture.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

In terms of organisational size Asia and Poland show a

Organisation size
split between large and small organisations, whereas
1000+ 100-1000 <100
Russia and Egypt have fewer large organisations.

36
Poland 18
45

17
Russia 38
46

14
Egypt 29
57

42
Asia 22
36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 55

 The Outliers Huthwaite International Research Report

Polish results

Poland’s top scoring factors reflect a highly category. There is also a lack of emphasis on carrying
consultative approach to selling with the focus being through the consultative selling approach into the
on identifying new insights to get the customer to Implementation phase of the Buying Cycle, by using
think differently, then working with them to customise Service/sales work together. It could be that service
solutions to solve their problems, and taking the long- and sales don’t work together to spot opportunities
term view of trying to achieve a win-win outcome in because the sales person is maintaining close contact
negotiation. The popularity of Add value to beat price with the customer throughout Implementation, but
also suggests that they have to be able to justify why then we might expect them to be doing more of
they are more expensive than the competition, which Assess value to customer, especially given that Add
could be through the way they work together jointly value to beat price is a top scoring factor. Assessing
with the customer. This is despite having a largely the value actually delivered and collecting information
transactional customer base. on it would put organisations in a better position to
demonstrate their added value in future sales. This
The low-scoring factors for Poland indicate that having might also help them to demonstrate added value in
an efficient sales process is less popular, as both a largely transactional selling environment, which is
Qualify out and Customer segmentation fall into this experiencing economic challenge.

Poland Poland

Joint problem solving

4.31
(Building)
Qualify out 3.41
(Buidling)
Add value to beat price 4.19
(Demonstrating) Customer segmentation
3.36
(Planning)
Customise solutions 4.19
(Demonstrating) Service/sales work together 3.23
(Delivering)
Proactively problem hunting 4.13
(Planning)
Asses value to customer 3.17
(Delivering)
Make customer think differently
4.03
(Building) 1 2 3 4 5

Maximise value for both sides 4.00

(Retaining)

1 2 3 4 5

56 © Huthwaite International
The Outliers Huthwaite International Research Report

Asian results

The Asian results are drawn from respondents in terms of using the potential value generated to justify
China, Hong Kong and Singapore. The top scoring a higher price (Add value to beat price) and ultimately
factors again reflect a strategic and consultative being able to assess the actual value delivered (Assess
approach, which would fit with these countries having value to customer).
a higher percentage of consultative buyers than we
have seen elsewhere. Asian organisations seem to The Asian respondents appear to be clearly customer-
recognise the need to understand the marketplace focused as their lowest-scoring factors are both
in terms of understanding the needs of their clients’ internally-focused. It would appear that delivering
customers (Consider customer marketplace) as value through a consultative selling approach and
well as being able to proactively identify problems ensuring that you tailor the solution correctly is
(Proactively problem hunting). This requires both more important than charging for work outside of
broad and long-range thinking. The actual selling scope (Charge for additional work). Again Qualify out
process seems to involve a consultative approach of emerges as a low scoring factor, so it would seem that
using Joint problem solving that leads to Tailor value in Asia, as in other countries, sellers are still going
propositions, which address the issues identified. after as much business as they can. Both of these may
Being able to define the actual value delivered to the not seem necessary in an economic climate which is
customer also appears to be very important, not only healthy and prosperous.
in terms of tailoring the value message, but also in

Asia Asia

Consider customer market place Qualify out

4.12 3.36
(Building) (Building)

Joint problem solving Charge for additional work

4.05 3.33
(Building) (Delivering)

1 2 3 4 5
Add value to beat price
4.03
(Demonstrating)

Asses value to customer

4.00
(Delivering)

Tailor value propostions

(Demonstrating) 4.00

Proactively problem hunting

4.00
(Planning)

1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 57

 The Outliers Huthwaite International Research Report

Russian results

The top scoring factors for Russia show a mix of and Proactively problem hunting as top scoring factors,
different types of behaviour, with the top three which suggest that organisations see understanding
(Measure our profitability, Benchmark win price and your customer’s market in a strategic sense as
Demonstrate financial benefits) being financially- important, yet considering the needs of your clients’
focused. After that they demonstrate a more customers (Consider customer marketplace) is not as
consultative approach with Joint problem solving, popular. Internally and financially focused behaviours
Maximise value for both sides and Customise solutions such as Measure our profitability are popular, but
in the list. The popularity of Service/sales work Prioritise and cost concessions, which requires a similar
together also suggests that they work hard to make the mindset and would also help them Maximise value
most of the business opportunities in each account. for both sides, is not popular. Although they might
Customer segmentation is unusual in its appearance be very keen on Measure our profitability this does
amongst top scoring factors but may reflect an not extend to Charge for additional work, nor does it
economic reality where Russians have to make effective extend to measuring the value of what they deliver to
use of their sales resources. Again there is evidence the customer (Assess value to customer). And although
that understanding your customers/market and being they might be segmenting their customer base in terms
ahead of the game in identifying potential problems is of sales effort (Customer segmentation) they are still
seen as important by survey respondents. This would reluctant to Qualify out, which would also help them to
seem appropriate given the higher percentage of make more efficient use of their resources.
consultative buyers reported by this population.

Russia’s lowest scoring factors show something of a

paradox when compared to the top scoring factors. This
is because we have similar value-creating behaviours
on the low scoring list as were on the top scoring list. Russia
So we have behaviours such as Joint problem solving
Measure our profitability
(Delivering)
4.48
Benchmark win price
(Retaining) 4.20
Russia
Demonstrate financial benefits 4.08
Consider customer market place
(Building) 3.46 Service/sales work together
4.04
(Delivering)
Prioritise and cost concessions
3.44 Joint problem solving
(Retaining) 4.04
(Building)
Charge for additional work
3.32 Customer segmentation
(Delivering) 4.04
(Planning)
Asses value to customer
(Delievering) 3.28 Proactively problem hunting
(Planning) 4.04
Qualify out 3.15 Industry/customer knowledge
(Building) 4.04
(Planning)
1 2 3 4 5
Maximise value for both sides 4.00
Customise solutions
4.00
(Demonstrating)
1 2 3 4 5

58 © Huthwaite International
 The Outliers Huthwaite International Research Report

Egyptian results

The Egyptian/Gulf results show a slightly different mix problem solving and Customise solutions making the
than other countries, in that the top one, Prioritise list. This is despite Egypt not having a particularly high
and cost concessions, is more likely to be found as percentage of consultative buyers.
a low-scoring factor in other places. The popularity
of this behaviour plus identifying issues of low cost Although there was an element of consultative selling
to them but high value to the other side (Low cost amongst the top scoring factors it also appears in
v high value) and Maximise value for both sides the low-scoring factors, with Make customer think
suggests that effective bargaining is seen as important differently and Consider customer market place being
in the Middle East region. At the same time Middle at the bottom. So although Middle East sellers may see
Eastern sellers need to be able to demonstrate the working alongside their customers as important they
financial value of what they are selling, both in terms are not so inclined to challenge their thinking, nor are
of justifying a higher price, Add value to beat price, they inclined to think more broadly and strategically
and Demonstrate financial benefits. Competitive about what value the customer is trying to deliver
knowledge also emerges as a factor that has not been to their customers. They also don’t see the need to
seen elsewhere, as Customer view of strengths means segment their customer base in order to optimise the
that sellers have a good understanding of how they are use of their sales resources. This may reflect a more
ranked alongside their competition. This should also tactical approach to selling, which focuses on meeting
help them to demonstrate their added value when the apparent customer needs and driving an effective
they are not offering the lowest price. Again there bargain. This may be a reflection of the current market
is an element of consultative selling, with both Joint conditions, as well as the prevailing culture.

Egypt Egypt

Make customer think differently Prioritise and cost concessions

3.45 4.30
(Building) (Retaining)
Consider customer market place Maximise value for both sides
(Building) 3.27 4.30
(Retaining)
Customise segmentation
3.08 Add value to beat price 4.09
(Planning)
(Demonstrating)
1 2 3 4 5 Customer solutions 4.09
(Demonstrating)

Joint problem solving 4.09

(Building)
Customer view of strengths 4.08
(Planning)

Low cost v high value 4.00

(Retaining)
Demonstrate financial benefits 4.00
(Demonstrating)
1 2 3 4 5

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 59

 Regional descriptions of value Huthwaite International Research Report

Regional descriptions of Value

In this final section we will present an analysis of country/regional ways in which organisations describe how they
deliver value, and their value propositions.

General characteristics

We categorised the regional responses to how they We then calculated the percentage for each score
deliver value in the same way that we categorised that came from an organisation reporting increased
the overall global responses. The graph shows the profit. No clear pattern emerges from these results,
results from the different cluster groups. All of them although there are some slight differences between
follow a broadly similar pattern in that Type of solution the regions. With UKITSA there is a higher percentage
is the most popular category, containing over 50% of profitable companies identifying Business impact
of the responses in all regions. Business impact is ways of delivering value, but this is not the case with
second and is most prevalent for UKITSA and Nordics. the other clusters. “It depends” has high percentages
Working together is as popular, or almost as popular, but the numbers are so small that we cannot draw any
as Business impact in the Balkans and Outliers, which valid conclusions. In summary it would appear that the
suggests that the countries in these groups place more way organisations describe how they deliver value has
importance on the working relationship. little impact on organisational performance.

Ways to create value Ways to create value

Business impact (% of each score that reported increased profit)
Working Together Reducing risk of change

Type of solution “It depends” Business impact

Working Together Reducing risk of change
19
55 Type of solution “It depends”
Outliers 22
4
1

7 63
59 51
Nordics 28 Outliers 48
6 50
0 100

13 57
69
Nordics 52
Balkans 6
13 60
61
0 0

13 42

UKITSA 26
56
Balkans 39
45
4 29
1 0

12 55
Total 23
59
UKITSA 59
68
5 42
0 67

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

60 © Huthwaite International
Regional descriptions of value Huthwaite International Research Report

Regional value propositions

The regional analysis of the value propositions In terms of organisations reporting increased profit in
supplied shows that all the regions, with one the Nordics and UKITSA, they have a higher percentage
exception, had over 50% of their value propositions of the 5/6 scores and a lower percentage of the 1 and
scored as 1 or 2. The exception was the UKITSA group, 2 scores. However, the same is not true for the Balkans
where the percentage scoring 4 or 5 is almost as or the Outliers, where profitable organisations are
high as the percentage scoring 1 or 2. UKITSA also most prevalent in the category that scored 1 or 2. So
have the highest percentage of value propositions we can say that in the Western European countries,
that score 5 or 6. This correlates with them having a where consultative selling is strongly favoured, having
higher percentage than some other regions of ways a value proposition that is customer-focused, specific,
to add value that were classified as Business impact. quantifiable, differentiates you from the competition
However the Nordics also had a higher percentage of and potentially offers a guarantee is correlated with
Business impact ways to add value, but this does not having good financial health. The picture is not as clear
translate into them having a high percentage of value in the other economies.
propositions scoring 3 or above. In fact the opposite is
true as the Nordics are the most product or solution
focused of all the groups shown here, with almost
three-quarters of their value propositions scoring only
1 or 2.

Value proposition scores Value proposition scores

Score 5/6 Score 1/2 Score 3/4
(% of scores reporting increased profit)
Score 5/6 Score 1/2 Score 3/4
9
Total 33
56 74
Total 53
3 54
Outliers 35
63 0
Outliers 50
1 56
Nordics 25
73 100
Nordics 68
10 52
Balkans 26
59 50
Balkans 33
15 68
UKITSA 40
43 84
UKITSA 54
0 20 40 60 80 45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 61

 Regional Conclusions Huthwaite International Research Report

Regional conclusions
Overall it would appear that organisations across the Customer segmentation also appeared on the list of
world favour a consultative approach to selling. This is differentiators for both the United Kingdom and Greece.
despite the fact that not all their customers were buying This behaviour has a different focus in that it is about
consultatively. We also did not see organisations focusing understanding your customers so that you can direct the
on managing their consultative sales effort by making appropriate sales resource to them and manage your
sure they only sold consultatively to customers who sales effort effectively. It also reflects a mindset that we
wanted to buy consultatively. are seeing amongst our own clients, who are increasingly
questioning how much time and effort they should put
Countries differed in how highly they scored their use of into certain customer relationships. However, Customer
the value-creating behaviours. We saw higher scores in segmentation was not a particularly popular behaviour
the Balkan states than elsewhere, which may reflect a within the survey, which suggests a lot of organisations
higher level of national enthusiasm. UKITSA scored lower, are still not managing the effectiveness of their sales
which may reflect more national conservatism or even force and deployment of sales resource.
cynicism.
Measure our profitability is another relatively unpopular
The popularity of certain types of behaviour in different behaviour that made it onto the Danish differentiator
countries did appear to reflect economic situations or list. This is clearly an internally-focused behaviour and
national preferences. The Greeks were clearly more supports our premise that creating and capturing value
financially-focused than anyone else, driven possibly is not just about what the customer gets out of the
by their current economic crisis. Middle East countries relationship. The selling organisation needs to make
appeared to place more importance on negotiating sure that the contracts signed are implementable and
behaviours than elsewhere, which may reflect a national generate profit for the organisation.
preference for bargaining. The Northern Europeans
appeared to strongly favour a consultative selling Finally, despite the popularity of consultative-type
approach, although the customer base seems to contain behaviours amongst the answers to the survey questions,
a mixture of consultative and transactional buyers. the analysis of the ways to create value and value
propositions revealed a strong bias towards descriptions
The differentiator analysis could only be completed for of solutions, rather than focusing on value outcomes for
certain countries, and for the three clusters of UKITSA, the customer. However there is no clear-cut evidence
Nordics and the Balkans. The four global differentiators that the different ways to add value had any impact on
of Proactively problem hunting, Disruptive innovation, business performance. There is some evidence to suggest
Industry/customer knowledge and Service/sales work that having a specific, quantifiable, customer-focused
together all appeared at least once in a country/regional value proposition that differentiates you from the
list of differentiators. The United Kingdom produced competition is related to commercial success, particularly
a slightly different result with its key differentiator in the Western economies.
being Make customer think differently. However, this
behaviour is closely linked to Proactively problem hunting
and Industry/customer knowledge, as our experience
suggests that sellers need to be in touch with market
trends and demonstrate good knowledge of the market
to be able to have the credibility to get the customer to For more information please visit our website at
think differently. www.huthwaiteinternational.com

62 © Huthwaite International
Report author Huthwaite International Research Report

Report author
Dr Janet Curran
Head of Thought Leadership, Huthwaite International

For over 30 years, Huthwaite has built an enviable

reputation for being thought leaders in the arena
of verbal behavioural skills. Janet’s role as Head of
Thought Leadership is to carry forward the beacon of
respected research. With a PhD in retail marketing, she
brings extensive experience of both academic research
and of Huthwaite’s own unique research methodology
to the role.

Janet’s research output to date within Huthwaite

has focused on retail, prospecting and customer
service, contributing to a deeper understanding of
the behavioural strategies that deliver results in
these areas. She has used this knowledge to help
align Huthwaite’s customer service and prospecting
offerings with other key products such as SPIN® Selling
and Negotiation Skills. She has also used her research
expertise to develop sales competency frameworks
from sales director to account manager level, which
support the implementation of global sales academies.

Our research never stops. If you would like to know

more about our current projects follow Janet on
@janet_curran, or email her at
[email protected].

Change Behaviour. Change Results.™ 63

+44 (0)1709 710081
[email protected]

© Huthwaite International. This document is the copyright work of Huthwaite International

and may not be reproduced (in whole or in part, in any form or by any means whatever)
without its prior written permission. SPIN, Huthwaite, the Buying Cycle and the Company
logo are trademarks and are registered in many countries throughout the world. The copyright
notices and trademarks on this document may not be removed or amended without the
prior written consent of Huthwaite International.