Comments on: Markesales 2.0™

By: Ja, ik wil… | Sales 2.0

Ja, ik wil… | Sales 2.0 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:20:41 +0000

[...] Castelein maakt het weer iets te bont door de twee nieuwbakken partners te verenigen tot Markesales 2.0™. Laten we ook niet overdrijven. Zo werkt het in een huwelijk niet. Je vult elkaar aan, je lacht [...]

By: Steven Woods

Steven Woods — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:00:46 +0000

Jep,
thanks for the callout, and I agree with your point on the name. We do tend to think in terms of names that reflect an outbound role (sales, marketing). We need to start thinking about facilitating a customer’s buying process rather than pushing a sales process. Whether the term will stick, I don’t know, but it’s a good discussion.
Steve

By: Nigel Edelshain

Nigel Edelshain — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:41:17 +0000

Jep,

I agree with your thoughts. It is about the customer. The mission of Sales 2.0 in my opinion is to come up with “new ways of selling”. These new ways have to encompass BOTH the customer and the marketing function.

I might actually be to blame for the name (hence my company name). When it came to choosing between “Sales 2.0″ and “Smarketing” etc. (yes, I thought about combining) you know which seemed to be more memorable.

Interesting to see Mike from Hubspot commenting here. I feel the “Sales 2.0″ movement and the “Inbound Marketing” movement will find some things to do together soon. I’m a bit fan of Hubspot and inbound marketing.

This is a great blog. Sorry, I was slothful in finding it. Thanks for coming to the conference. It was a lot of fun.

Nigel

By: Mike Volpe - HubSpot

Mike Volpe - HubSpot — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:12:42 +0000

At HubSpot one of our sales managers started calling it “smarketing” and it has stuck a bit here. We have all of our key meetings together and generally the teams function as one. We each have goals that we report on as a team, and we support each other to achieve goals in terms of leads and sales.

I’m not in love with any of the terms, but I am a believer that inbound marketing works best with a solid relationship between sales and marketing.

By: Marc Perramond

Marc Perramond — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:53:47 +0000

Jep, I’d have to agree that “everybody is in sales”. As marketers we’ve always participated in the overall sales/buying process – and it’s the entire process that is being reshaped by technology.

I kind of like Buying 2.0 (anybody know who that was in the crowd during the Wed AM session?), but I’m pretty sure the term Sales 2.0 is here to stay.

As for ’smarketing’, I hadn’t previously heard the smart + marketing version. At InsideView we’ve been using it to describe the convergence of traditional sales & marketing roles, activities, etc. I’m not sure of the origin either, but this Destination CRM article from Jan 2000 is one of the earliest written mentions that I could find – http://tinyurl.com/axz2pb

By: Mac McIntosh

Mac McIntosh — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:59:26 +0000

Jep,

the “2.0″ is getting overused. Perhaps it is time to move to 3.0 instead.

Here’s another idea “C-Three” or “C3.O” for Customer Creation Conference?

Mac
M. H. McIntosh
mcintosh@sales-lead-experts.com

By: Jep Castelein

Jep Castelein — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:42:37 +0000

Adam, that’s very good point. That’s why my current favorite is “Buying 2.0″ because it’s centered around the customer, not the vendor.

By: Adam Needles

Adam Needles — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:08:16 +0000

The problem in my mind of calling it overtly marketing OR sales or mashing it up is that these are functional ways of thinking about it … all that leave out the customer.

We need to be customer-centric … not only in our platforms but also in how we term things.

So let’s find a term that focuses not on a functional view of the world but on an outcome view of the world.

Happy Customer 2.0 = Profit