Here it is DWB:
<<The Right Sales Force
The key to success in these vertical markets is hiring and retaining good and knowledgeable sales people. We had to radically change the way that the sales force operated.>
Why would they need to radically change the sales force methods? The management got it wrong in the first place, that's why. Whatever it was, they got it wrong.
<We are not in the business of competing for contracts based on price.>
Yes, they are. They might not know it but they are. All contracts where dollars change hands are competed for on price. Yes, I understand that what they mean is that they don't just go in and whack a low price on the table and say take it or leave it and you might as well take it because it's so good. But along with the rest of the context, it reads to me as though they are denying the importance of price in any contract. Price is what it's about and how the value is measure. This is warning number one.
If they have a great new super-efficient product, price should be a number one part of what they offer.
<If a customer needs a simple solution to a simple problem, then they should hire one of our competitors.>
No. If a customer needs a simple solution to a simple problem, they GX should sell it to them and go on their way to the next customer. I saw that some SI people say GX has no competitors. Well, this suggests they have. Anyway, there are always competitors, even if they are another way of doing things or another way for the shareholders of the customer to invest their money. Any customer is a good customer. Maybe they need to be on COD or handled by internet contact only or other low cost way, but I have come across no customer who I preferred to go to a competitor, especially if they wanted a simple solution to a simple problem.
<If on the other hand a customer has a complex problem that requires a sophisticated, custom-designed solution, then Global Crossing is uniquely positioned to provide them with a competitive advantage.>
This sounds very labour intensive and nothing to do with a single network capital-intensive worldwide fibre telecosm. It sounds like flim-flam to me. How complex can the problems be?
< This is why our large customers come to us. >
This sounds screwy. If the large customers are 'coming to us', then they are an easy sell. Get them to queue over there and start signing them up flat out. What about small customers? Small customers are the best customers because they are higher margin, less hassle, shop around less and can't screw such cheap prices out of suppliers, they matter less if you lose one and the competitors aren't chasing them morning noon and night. If they go broke, it's no great worry. I don't like the suggestion that 'large customers' are so important.
<We need to grow our sales force with 230 of the right kind of people, and we needed to cycle out several hundred sales people who were not going to close the right kinds of business for us. We are looking for people with the expertise to understand our customers' business. >
What the heck is this?! Who was in charge of hiring? The management should be cycled out, not the sales people [necessarily]. Why on earth wouldn't the several hundred sales people not close the right kinds of business? This is seriously weird.
They want sales people who can understand the customers' businesses? Well duh! Who the heck else would they hire. That is like saying they want a salesperson who can talk and won't shout at the customers. Of course GX should get the right kind of salespeople. What the heck else?
But worse is the implication that there are magical salespeople out there. There are, but they can't build a sales force of hundreds around premium sales people. They won't be able to get that many winners. They have to be able to succeed with the normal range of humans available for the pay they are offering. They have to build their success around humans, not fantasy salespeople. If they are firing hundreds [already] and hiring hundreds, the management are incompetent.
<Customer Benefits
Seven thousand financial institutions are connected to our network in 190 countries. We have the most secure network in the world. Our customers choose Global Crossing because of the strategic advantages that we provide them. First, we understand their business better than any of our competitors do because our sales people come from their industry.>
Is this true or they want it to be true? If true, why are they 'cycling' so many salespeople?
< Second, we offer the biggest and broadest network in the world.>
So? I guess that means a one stop shop, which is good. I believe it also means the network operates more quickly, which is good. But the benefit of big and broad isn't clear to me. I wonder if it is to the customers. It's perhaps more of an ego thing for the GX bosses. I used to follow an Imperial Oil salesman around who told customers that Imperial Oil was the biggest and broadest [which was true]. I told them I was the littlest and really needed the business and would look after them attentively [which was true]. I loved following him around and sold a lot of oil to his prospects and customers.
<Third, a large number of the companies that our customers want to work with are already signed onto our network. The moment a company connects to our network, they can immediately publish their software or services securely to all of the financial institutions already on our network. >
>
I suppose that's good. It sounds as though they are trying to get a network effect going. Maybe trying too hard? Does that mean that GX customers can't publish their software or services securely from GX to all of the financial institutions NOT on GX's network? Or perhaps that those NOT on GX can't publish to the GX customers?
Is it a service or a gaol?
That's the way I read it. I know I'm being harsh. But that's the way I read it. I don't like the look of it. Blaming the salespeople is dodgy.
Avoiding price fixation is reasonable, but that might be an excuse for overcharging. Keep in mind that Globalstar wasn't predicated on selling to J6P either. Globalstar was a business phone service [for the most part] - not that I agreed with that idea, but that's the way it was priced and sold.
I never came across a customer who didn't have price as a top of mind question. Which is not to say they fixate on price [I was always selling premium prices and services]. Just that they use price as the arbiter of the allegedly superior services and products.
The parallel with Globalstar seems striking. It is a hugely capital intensive business [apart from the custom-built comments they make]. It is built out and ready to roll. It makes no money sitting empty and has a near-zero or actually zero marginal megabyte cost. I admit I do NOT understand GX very well, so am guessing and perhaps need correction on these ideas. I'm just saying what I think so far.
I even tangle up Globalstar and Globalstcrossing when I type them [that's how Global Crossing comes out before I correct it].
Do I get banned for writing all that? I see a suggestion that Robert Sheldon is banned; I thought he's a good guy.
Mqurice
PS: To readers who leap to conclusions, no I am not a short. No, I am not trying to beat the price down so that I can buy. I have never shorted a stock. I don't believe my comments would cause the price to drop. That's such a silly idea for such a big and liquid company. |
