This is the second in a series of articles that Agency Sales is presenting that will examine the subject of Transformational Change — for both independent manufacturers’ representatives and their principals.

Last month we examined how two rep firms changed the way they conducted business. This month the subject is the need to perform mutual action planning. In subsequent issues, a number of other subjects including consultative selling, training and communication will be presented.

Reps hate it when I admit I provided information to my principals. I took notes during a call because we were in the motion control and variable speed drive business — our products were “seller applied.” We had long sales cycles and a lot of technical application information to gather. I couldn’t possibly remember it all. So, I had to take notes, and as for providing input to the manufacturers, the information was there anyway. While I did not send them every call report and usually consolidated the information, reps still ask: “Why share it with the manufacturers?” There are several reasons:

• To let them know we were actually doing something.

• To create a team-selling approach that was necessary in our business. We had to engage applications engineers, design engineers, and various other people in the sales process.

• If I went on vacation, I wanted other people to be able to “pick up the ball” if a prospect or customer needed help. I didn’t want my customers and prospects to be held up because I was on vacation. And while I was on vacation, I was on vacation — I didn’t call the office for messages. When I left for vacation it was really clear to prospects, customers, and associates who was responsible for what and where the information was. This was even clear on my voicemail message. However, one regional manager just did not “get it” — he insisted that I check in with him even while on vacation, and left progressively nastier message after nastier message on my machine. We parted ways after my return. Who needs that?

• If something unexpected happened personally (which did happen a couple of times — as it surely has happened to every rep), then other people could quickly pick up the slack while we put our life back in order. You don’t want work issues hanging over your head when dealing with family emergencies.

Now some reps will squirm and say, “But I can’t trust them — they might use the information and hire a direct person in my place.” In response I’d offer: “Fine — let them do that.”

The Question of Trust

I want to know sooner rather than later if I can trust them. What’s the point in continuously going through this game of them begging and nagging me for information and me either going passive-aggressive on them or coming up with excuses (and when all that fails using the “it’s against IRS regulations” favorite position). Why waste time fighting over information because they might not be trusted? I want to find out now. If they are trustworthy, then we can use the shared information in a team-selling approach. If they can’t be trusted, well, then I’m not worried anyway. The customer is in my backyard, and if I do my job correctly, I’ll smoke the direct guy anyhow. Besides, if they replace me with a direct guy, guess who will want us to rep their line? Their competitor. Finally, if they aren’t trustworthy with the rep, they won’t be trustworthy with the customer. Not being trustworthy isn’t a sales-channel strategy, it’s a character trait. Sooner or later, they will mistreat the customer as well, which means what? I get the business anyway — and probably at a valued premium.

The other thing about the information provided to my manufacturers — it wasn’t much extra work. We had more sales data than they really needed anyhow. In the ‘80s we used D-Base III Plus, then Paradox databases. In the early ‘90s we used a DOS-based program called Follow-up, which was the best program I have ever seen for sales force automation up to and including any web-based system I have looked at today. Before I get a dozen calls arguing this point — let me simply explain that I was able to input data and retrieve detailed forecasts by manufacturer or market segment without ever having to open the manual or call a help line. Full disclosure — I am not a computer geek.

Mutual Action Planning

Continuing the improvement process, in 1996 I hired a consultant who was the former Xerox Business Partner of the Year (1991). She showed me a process that she used to work with her 150 salespeople to achieve their success. I tweaked what she showed me into what I call Mutual Action Planning. I then showed this process to our principals — one of whom was Peter Zafiro, vice president, sales and marketing of Yaskawa Electric America. Peter then rolled this out to his entire rep channel (my apologies to the YEA reps). Today, Peter and I promote Mutual Action Planning in our MANA manufacturer education workshops as a means to get the principal and rep to both commit skin to the growth game.

Many reps will look at this and say, “Oh, that’s all I need, another report.” That’s nonsense. It’s not a report- it’s a proactive strategic document. Look at the title: Mutual Action Plan. Mutual means both the rep and the manufacturer have committed skin to the game. Action means you have to do what you commit to. Plan means you actually have a joint strategy instead of winging it or hoping things work out. Hope doesn’t play out to well as a strategy in the competitive world. Notice the word report is nowhere to be found in the title, Mutual Action Plan, because it isn’t a report. The fact that you will communicate pertinent information as a result of the plan is true — but it’s strategic, not compliant communications.

Determining Potential

The other challenge for reps is they can’t do a Mutual Action Plan for every principal. That’s true — and it is not what we did. We performed/completed a Mutual Action Plan with our synergistic line card. Then we pulled out the pieces for each line, but it was always linked to the Big Picture plan. Going through this process at our end was also a great way to look at what lines really could (had the potential) contribute to our strategic growth and those that would (actually do something about it given the opportunity) contribute to our growth. It became a critical part of our principal evaluation process. That’s a nice little side benefit — don’t you think?

In our case, we made our one strategic Mutual Action Plan (which included market and competitor GAP analysis), and then asked each our six lines if they wanted to play. Two of them accepted the offer. So, we were dictating the game plan to the two and keeping the other four off our backs (they were intimidated by the goals, the plan, the details, and what was required of them to “play”).

For those reps that don’t feel they need to provide their manufacturers with any information for legal or IRS reasons, think about this: In the absence of real information, what does anyone do? They fill in the blanks with their own assumptions. If the rep provides no information to the manufacturer, what are the assumptions made by everyone from the regional manager on up to the manufacturer’s CEO? The rep is golfing, taking a three martini lunch, or working any line but ours. Why let them make these assumptions? Why not show them what you are doing with the line and get them involved with working for you to help grow (and make more money)?

Remember — all successful strategy is local. Why not drive that by providing information to your principals that is based on your local knowledge and your local strategy instead of their executive suite pie-in-the-sky view of what is going on and what you should be doing? As a rep agency you should be tracking prospect and customer activity anyway. Mutual Action Planning is the proactive commitment to territory growth and constructive information flow. Making money together sure beats fighting over why neither of you are making enough.