There's an infamous, oft-referenced survey in the tech world; 84% of digital transformation projects fail to reach their objectives.
Widely publicised (see via Forbes) back as 2016 dawned, the 'survey' suggests that in this pursuit, disaster is the norm.
Should I have been surprised to see this headline feature in a tech ad invading my feeds, 6½yrs on?
With The Industrial Digital Transformation Complex perhaps in apparent post-lockdown decline - after all bigtime Consultants now chase newer sexier more doom-laden traumas du jour to 'solve' - one question does linger; precisely how apocryphal is this data?
Anyway, here's the words at the time of the researcher, Bruce Rogers;
"Basically, one in eight got it right and then there were ranges of failure to really whereby more than 50 percent just didn't go right at all. In fact their expectations were neither met nor exceeded and the gap between expectation and meeting were so enormous it was considered a failure."
Well, a couple of key elements emerge.
First, skim over his maths being askew with that 1:8 figure 'misleading' (ie, wrong). I couldn't help but note how coincidental this actual return of 16pc success (1:6¼) was with the exact same proportion as those pre-disposed to be early-adopters for new tech, as built on the models of (another) Rogers (1962) & Moore's now classic Crossing The Chasm numbers (1990).
Second, gasp at the steps of gaps between expectations and outcomes. In turn leading to an incredible half of all projects totally, utterly missing their mark.
Still, there's been much chatter around its findings. Let's refresh with one such summary of the three main culprits for the slim success rate;
- Insufficient utilisation of experience and expertise of similar companies who have already been through such a journey.
- Automated solutions are not flexible and difficult to change, causing inconsistencies in different workflows and departments.
- Inability to handle expectations of senior management, teams adopting the tool, and the solution vendor.
You can't help but wail at how similar these feel to Sales Video Transformations occurring in our sector.
- Tap into someone already winning through Sales Video Transformation
- Commit to uniquely tailoring your Sales Video Transformation development
- Seek, set & study concrete expectations across all stakeholders
You might readily add to the trio above. Separate to the final pointer. Namely building on the common flagstone which can be criminally overlooked in such projects. The Big Idea. The Vision. The over-arching where we head and why we go there.
In this case, so many salespeople are seriously missing a trick. To the ultimate detriment I believe, of not just their present-day performance, but their overall career story too.
Sales Video Transformation absolutely does not mean you now do everything with a prospect over video. Quite the contrary. Yet it is this debilitating misconception that suffocates much progress before it is even a glint in an eye.
We're going back to normal. Customers want face-to-face. If we don't turn up at their place, our competition will, and beat us. No-one really likes video calls. Video meetings don't work in Sales. Video does not foster proper relationships.
I've heard all of these.
They are all mistaken.
You share their sentiment?
Then I suggest you begin to entertain this possibility:
That there is a part of your sales process which will achieve better results, on a consistently higher basis, should you adapt it from the medium through which you conduct it now, to over video.
If these datasets are accurate (& I suggest they're not far off the mark at all) then do you really want to be what Rogers refers to as the 7 in 8 that mess up? Their Sales destined to slide in the face of those who both see the light and navigate correctly towards it?
No? Then get Sales Video Transforming...