Rethinking BANT: How to Better Define “Qualified”their lead scoring process. It helps them decide how and where to focus their resources to bring revenue into the pipeline. So

Sales Lead Generation • Sales Lead Qualification • Lead Nurturing • Appointment Setting • Customer Development & Growth

Rethinking BANT: How to Better Define “Qualified”

There are four commonly accepted parameters that are almost universally used to define a qualified lead. The folks at IBM are widely credited for the development of an acronym for those parameters – BANT (Budget, Authority, Need and Timeframe). More formally, the acronym is applied as follows:

Is there a Budget allocated for a solution (and is it sufficient for your solution)?

Has the Authority for the purchasing process been identified (and are you in touch)?

Is the Need for a solution well defined (and does it match your capabilities)?

What is the Timeframe for purchasing and implementing a solution? Is it in the next six months, 12 months, or over a year?

Many companies use this paradigm as the heart of their lead scoring process. It helps them decide how and where to focus their resources to bring revenue into the pipeline. So it’s important for them to know that the BANT approach is both valid and sufficient to meet that need. We think BANT lacks the validity to serve that purpose. From our vantage point, there some obvious problems. First and foremost, BANT is seller-centric. As every successful sales person with experience knows, it’s never about you (the seller), it’s ALWAYS about them (the prospect). Thus, if you fail to look at the relationship from the prospect’s (buyer’s) perspective, the likelihood of making a sale is diminished – unless, of course, your offering is so far superior to the competition that the decision is a no-brainer. But if that were the case, then your closing ratio would be very close to perfect.

Moreover, this seller-centric perspective pushes BANT off the mark. You do need money, a decision-making process, a need and (assuming it’s important), a time frame for making a decision and implementing a solution. But the BANT parameters, as stated, are only tangential to what’s truly important in closing the sale. And, as a whole, while these parameters are arguably necessary, they are not sufficient as qualifying criteria. They lack essential characteristics that are, in our view, more important. Let’s look at each of the elements independently: B (Budget) Plainly, if a prospect already has a defined budget, then you are quite likely too late to the party. They may have already been in discussion with one or more of your competitors. That may be how they came up with that budget.. Or they may have established a budget based upon some other basis (research), but it is not likely to be the budget you would have crafted for them, nor does it consider the value of your solution. It’s important to recall that value that more often trumps price as a critical decision criterion. It’s akin to the RFP scenario. If a company has issued an RFP, and you were not involved in setting those standards, then it was established based upon a vision that did not include your solution. And, unless your solution matches the requirements to a tee, you may not want to get involved. RFP’s, for the most part, create commoditized procurement decisions, not value-based decisions. If you are not selling a commodity, and if you don’t want a decision made essentially on the basis of price, then you need an opportunity to demonstrate your value.

Rethinking BANT: How to Better Define “Qualified” Page 2.

In practice, it actually may be preferable for them not to have a budget (just as you’d prefer them not to have an RFP). Yet you do want them to have the resources needed to fund a solution, preferably at a level that fits your solution. Ideally, you want to help them craft both a solution and a budget, and you should want to engage with them before that process is initiated. So, the very best time to get involved is before they have a budget and before they have envisioned a solution. Given all of that, is Budget truly a qualifying criterion? A (Authority) Most people assume that this means that you have identified or (preferably) are engaged with “the” decision-maker. This is way too simplistic for the real world. In virtually every situation imaginable (especially in a complex B2B setting), there is no single decision-maker. Realistically, decisions are not only never made by a single person, they may not even be owned by a single department. The truth is that most enterprises have matrix relationships in which anyone, at virtually any level, can raise their hands and put the brakes on a decision or a shift in direction. Even in small “mom and pop” businesses decisions are rarely made by a single person, even the owner. There are trusted advisors, spouses, key staff, outside consultants and even business colleagues outside of the company who can influence a buying decision significantly. What is most vital is to gain an understanding of how decisions in areas related to your solution are made within the organization. You need to know who is typically involved in that process and a detailed understanding of the relationships among the key people (from both a personal and business perspective).

Finally, you also want to build an understanding of another critical element – the company’s orientation to change. Is this a company that takes risks or one that is risk averse? Are they somewhere in the middle? Their orientation toward change will tell you a great deal more than you can imagine about the strategies that you might employ to move them toward adopting your solution. This element is really the missing link as we’ll discuss later. N (Need) Of all of the BANT elements, this is the most seller-centric. How many times has a sales rep come to you and said, “It’s a slam dunk … they NEED our solution.” Is need the critical issue? For example, we need food. We need it for survival, and we need it to satisfy and resolve pangs of hunger. But, do we need it NOW? It may be lunchtime or dinnertime, but there are competing needs and demands that may have greater urgency at present and render the need for food less vital. So, it’s not simply about need. It’s much more about the existence of a compelling event or reason that raises the urgency of a need to an “act now” imperative. Absent that level of motivation, there is no credible impetus for change, and no substantive reason for resources to be expended, even if the money is available and someone is willing to spend it. T (Time frame) This is also a seller-centric view. What is really meant here is, “is this opportunity going to come to fruition in the near-term so it becomes worthwhile for me, as a salesperson, to spend my time on it?” And, the truth is, in and of itself, it is meaningless. Time is only important in the context of all of the other elements.



So, what do we see as the important criteria? In our view, four prospect questions demand answers in order to qualify an opportunity:

Is there a compelling reason for change? Is everyone who is feeling the impact

involved in the decision making process? Is there a solution attainable using the

resources we have available? And, what are the consequences to us

(and our company) if we fail to act timely?

These are the primary variables that define a qualified sales opportunity. Let’s expand the explanation by making a statement that may seem on the surface to be overly simplistic. But when you consider it carefully, you may find yourself in full agreement. The biggest impediment to closing a sale is inertia. And, overcoming inertia is the primary challenge. How many times have you heard these statements uttered in sales training? “Value is more important than cost,” “it’s vital to provide clear ROI,” “establish mutual perception of need,” “where’s the pain?” These are all well reasoned common statements that are widely seen as a bedrock of selling. The irony is that you can definitively establish value, pain and need and show extraordinary ROI and yet the prospective buyer simply elects not to buy. Instead, they continue the status quo with all of its inherent costs and pain (all of which they have openly acknowledged). We can’t help believing that the reason for their inaction is that they perceive the cost of changing the way in which they currently operate – financially, emotionally (more likely) or both – to exceed the cost of maintaining the status quo, even to the point where status quo leads to the failure of the company. It may not be rational, but it is quite human. A powerful example of inertia.

So, if inertia is the critical factor that a sales person needs to manage in order to successfully conclude a sale, then it is vital for them to have an understanding of the prospect company’s orientation to change. They need to know if a company is risk averse or if they are an early adopter, or somewhere else along the risk continuum. Capturing that information in advance of a sales presentation is vital in mapping a successful sales strategy. Inertia is clearly a major missing element in the BANT paradigm. Regardless of whether you view the sales process from a buyer or seller’s perspective, an opportunity can’t be a fully sales qualified unless there is legitimate potential for the prospect company to agree to make the necessary changes inherent in the sale. So what we do have as an alternative acronym to BANT? We suggest “I CARE”:

Imperative – is there a compelling reason to consider a new solution?

Consequences – Is there a significant cost to inaction?

Agreement - Is there a consensus among stakeholders to take action?

Resources - Is there sufficient funding available to obtain a solution?

Environment – Is there solid potential for overcoming inertia within the culture?

This acronym represents a more practical and accurate method for defining a qualified sales opportunity. First, it’s important to uncover a compelling reason for a company to take an action to meet a need or resolve a challenge. Next, the consequences of inaction need to be sufficient to warrant a search for a solution.



Is there consensus for taking action among all the key constituents (stakeholders) who are feeling the impact of the need/challenge as well as those responsible for resolving it? Then, a solution needs to available and the capacity to obtain the resources needed for that solution must exist (remember, if it’s important enough, the resources can be found, regardless of budget considerations). And, last and most important, how amenable is the organization to effecting change? Here is one simple practical example as "food for thought" (sorry in advance for this pun). Let's consider this scenario: You're walking down a busy city street around lunchtime, on your way to a very important meeting with a new client or hot prospect. You're hungry (the “N”). You've got plenty of money in your pocket and a budget reserved for lunch (there's the “B”) and you need to make a decision (you are obviously the “A”) as to whether or not to stop to eat before the meeting. You've got 30 minutes until your meeting starts and you're five minutes away from the location, so time is more than sufficient (“T”). You pass a multitude of restaurants and street vendors along the way. How can the owner of a food establishment predict how likely you are to stop and eat? And, what, if anything, can the proprietor do to get you to eat at his or her establishment? (By the way, this example would be just a valid if there were only one food source along the route - and it was your favorite.) Here's a clue…think about the problem from both a seller's and a potential buyer's vantage point. Your decision to stop and eat is reasonably complex. There are competing needs, at varying levels of urgency.

You are hungry (a function of an early breakfast), abetted by a regular ritual of eating lunch at the prescribed time. So your internal debate will take a multitude of factors into account. For example:

I’m hungry This meeting is very important I always eat at this time of the day I have sufficient time to eat before my

meeting I would love a few moments to check my

email and voice messages before my meeting, (but I could do that without eating)

If I don’t eat, my growing hunger may become a distraction during the meeting

I have more than enough money in my pocket and, besides, my bill for lunch will be covered as a reimbursable expense

While considering your options, these and other questions will arise until you make a decision. And, of course, making no decision is also an affirmative decision. In complex businesses, making no decision is what happens all too frequently – because the cost of doing something has ripple effects throughout the organization. Inertia – maintaining the status quo (sometimes even in the face of all rationality such as unquestionable ROI) – is too often the easiest course of action. How would this decision-making process be represented in the I CARE model? Imperative: hunger, time of day (lunchtime) Consequences of inaction: poor meeting performance, distraction Agreement among stakeholders: You (and your growling stomach) Resources: money is not an issue, and it’s a reimbursable expense Environment conducive to change: it boils down to inertia, doesn’t it?


Page 5.Rethinking BANT: How to Better Define “Qualified”


How can a proprietor get you to stop and eat? What can they do to raise the threshold high enough to overcome inertia?

When a seller has a clear understanding of how a prospective buyer makes their decisions, and solid insight into how the prospect views the issues and their proclivity to change the way in which they behave, they have more chance of success. This more closely aligns their goals with those of the prospect and provides them with far better insight as to the hot buttons that will serve to overcome inertia (which is, after all, the heart of the sales challenge).

You experience the answer all the time in those situations, don’t you? Some vendors and restaurants pump out tantalizing smells of their luscious offerings and tease you with them. Others do something with their display; maybe they toss the pizza in the front window, or display the desserts or even offer you a complimentary taste in front of their establishment. Maybe they offer free Wi-Fi that enables you to easily and quickly check your voice and email messages.

And isn’t the purpose of defining a qualified lead all about providing sales people with opportunities that offer them a better chance of closing more sales in less time? Success in that endeavor is the basis for enhancing sales productivity, maximizing ROI and increasing sales revenue.

All of those actions and offerings are designed to entice you to into their establishment and overcome inertia. When they hit the right hot buttons for you, you’re sold.

BANT has been a useful and important early model for focusing the qualification process. But it needs some rethinking because it fails to consider the prospective buyer’s viewpoint and is inadequate in identifying the elements that are the key determinants for concluding a sale. BANT, however time tested, does not necessarily increase the chance of sales success.

But even having decided where you may eat, unless all the other factors are aligned you still may not physically go in (inertia). It’s only at the point that you decide to CHANGE the course you’re on right now that the sale may actually get consummated. I CARE does it better.

465 Columbus Avenue Valhalla, NY 10595

Tel: +1 (914) 747-3030 Toll Free: 1-800-466-4384

www.etisales.com www.etisales.com/blog

Documents

Rethinking BANT: How to Better Define “Qualified”their lead scoring process. It helps them decide how and where to focus their resources to bring revenue into the pipeline. So