Joining the dots

by admin on March 17, 2006

in Marketing

“Accountants tend to buy from other accountants, not vendors” – from a conversation with Mr 1%

“I only tend to read emails from people whose reputation I trust” – from a conversation with Bob Harper

“Yes, I think I will ask. Every time. No auction, not game it, not fix it – converse and find it.

Conversed Pricing as it is.” – Sig Rinde on pricing applications in the market.

“Right now, I am seeing a new piece of email has arrived at the same time my phone is ringing. Hmmm – given this choice, I’m taking the call. Maybe, it’s someone who’s got something more interesting to tell me.” Brian Sommers on Make service selling more than a web process

This is the connection I make between these apparently unconnected dots. Until recently, the perceived wisdom for software acquisition has been the Request For Information (RFI), the successor to the Invitation To Tender. But in reality, people buy on the basis of recommendation. People like to talk to other people to find out the ‘truth’ behind vendor claims. If you think I’m wrong then look at this series of comments at AccountingWEB that slams IRIS Payemaster v5. Pretty ferocious isn’t it?

So the question has to be, why do you need a detailed technical document to help you select software? The argument has traditionally been along the lines of ensuring you don’t get trapped with product that goes out of date any time soon. That’s a false premise. The minute you make a decision, the software is out of date because technology moves on at a furious pace. That’s not the point. It is about the value software delivers to your business – not its technical prowess or cost. And you can only truly discover that by talking to others and engaging in conversations. Now flip that on its head.

If markets are indeed conversations, then doesn’t that mean you need to engage with your clients? It’s how you and I learn. Look at the thought generated by my question about data input. I found that enlightening for all sorts of reasons. I see for example that there is no cookie cutter approach to helping clients take responsibility for their books and records. There are alternatives and each has its place.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the mention, I have to say we are a .co.uk not .com internet address!!

I agree with Stuart, and we do tell our clients this is how it has to be done, and if they don't, which they are all entitled to not do, then for new clients this means we are unfortunately unable to act for them, as they will not fit our business model.

I'm with you 100%.

My complaints were aimed at the world!

Rant away Stuart...what I was trying to say at the end was that I'd learned something as a result of having the conversation with the respondents.

As to the issue of 'how' things get done, there is a genuine issue around training as it relates to the available software. We have to address that one way or another.

It doesn't invalidate the remainder of my argument which is about differentiation. Maybe we differentiate by saying to clients - this is the way we do things because in the long run, it benefits you as a client. That would be different don't you think?

If there is a "cookie cutter approach to helping clients take responsibility for their books and records" then I/we most definitely haven't found it yet.

If that is the case, however, doesn't it raise interesting questions when related to your later posting http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=587?

In simple terms, how the hell do we benefit from technology if every job (=client) is different. Why the **** don't we make a stand and tell people this is how it HAS to be done.

(Bit of a rant - blame Barclays Bank lying to me yesterday, my waking up at 4.30 this morning and my military background!)

Previous post:

Next post: