SPI's response to the Harvard Business Review about "In a Downturn, Provoke Your Customers!"

In their March 2009 issue, the Harvard Business Review published an article about “provocation-based selling”, which references Solution Selling® explicity.  The article contained numerous errors.  The following is the official reply from Keith Eades, CEO of Sales Performance International.

The Editor
Harvard Business Review
60 Harvard Way
Boston, MA 02163

Dear Editor,

Philip Lay, Todd Hewlin and Geoffrey Moore make some very useful suggestions about succeeding in sales, especially in an uncertain economic time (“In a Downturn, Provoke Your Customers”, March 2009).

In fact, I’ve agreed with this point of view for more than 20 years, as I’ve helped my clients to adopt a Solution Selling® approach to winning business and serving customers. In two of my books, The New Solution Selling (2003, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0071435390) and the Solution Selling Fieldbook (2005, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0071456074), I describe how top performing salespeople provoke customers into action by first stimulating executive level interest with results-based problem resolution examples, then creating a clear vision of how to solve the problem in a new way, and finally, gaining commitment based upon proven and quantifiable value that can be achieved. This is virtually identical to the approach recommended by Lay, Hewlin and Moore in their article.

However, the authors’ comparison of their ideas to Solution Selling® is incorrect. Their attempt to compare their ideas to a generic concept that they refer to as “solution selling” is misguided, and indicates they are either unaware or have a very limited understanding of the process, methods, and essence of Sales Performance International’s (SPI) proprietary and trademarked methodology - Solution Selling®.

In their zeal to make useful points, Lay, Hewlin and Moore have gravely mischaracterized Solution Selling®, one of the most widely-used sales methodologies in the world. I was extremely disappointed to see repeated erroneous descriptions of “solution selling” principles and practices, especially the notion that selling solutions is a passive and reactive response to customer expression of need. The chart and text in the sidebar entitled “Why Not Settle for Solution Selling?” is particularly offensive – every point in the description of “solution selling” is incorrect and misleading.

The authors of what otherwise is a well-crafted and helpful article have done themselves an unfortunate disservice. If they had simply conducted a web search on “solution selling”, they would have discovered in seconds that it is a registered trademark of our firm, SPI, and they could have examined our free white papers and online resources to get the facts, before they composed their commentary. If only they had called us, as we would have happily provided examples of our Solution Selling® materials, and explained their proper use. Or if they had simply searched for “solution selling” in any online bookstore, they would have found our readily available books on the subject. Further, I’m disappointed in the editorial staff of the Harvard Business Review, who should have vetted the content of the article before publishing it.

If the authors had replaced their erroneous use of our registered trademark with a far more accurate descriptor, needs-reactive selling, they would have more clearly expressed their ideas while keeping their credibility intact. As it is currently written, however, the article suffers greatly for its errors and gross inaccuracies, which erode what otherwise would have been a useful contribution to the sales profession.

We invite the readers of Harvard Business Review to visit our blog at www.solutionsellingblog.com, where we are publishing a series of detailed posts that explore the implications of “provocation-based selling”, and how Solution Selling® has enabled sales professionals to do it well for more than 20 years.

Very truly yours,
Keith M. Eades