Really great video! Thank you for making it, I appreciate it. I agree with most of it and like how you framed this, and the perspective around remote selling, which we’ve been doing more of as well. It also gives a great overview. I usually wouldn't comment but I think since 1. it's so well made and I can tell you put a lot of though into this and 2. you call it mathematics of sales it triggers me a bit to take this more seriously that a normal “blah blah” sales video filled with platitudes. I think some of the assumptions you made may not be true mathematically just FYI. @13:20 you are assuming that with the magic things you’ll about in a later video you can reduce this to 10 meetings (from 12) which increases the CR to 36.4% (from 28.5%), which you then conclude that that less meetings are better. But, 1. You are assuming you can keep it at 90% which is a big assumption (which I assume you’ll justify later), and 2. which is the bigger one is that it's not an apples to apples comparison because you are only applying your magic techniques to the 10 meeting scenario and not to the 12 meeting scenario. E.g. what's not to say if you also applied it to the 12 meeting scenario it could increase the 90% average CR to yield a total CR > 36.4%. All else being equal (using the magic techniques or not) more meetings should yield a higher end CR, so if your techniques in anyway increase the average meeting close rate then it’s good, but it would be good for 10 or 12 meetings. @24:36 you removed the travel time but assumed that the CR remains the same and that the sales cycle stays the same. This is a big assumption, it’s possible not being in person would decrease the CR or also increase the sales cycle. Sometimes being in person has human-to-human benefits, such as people being more open to tell you things that wouldn’t in a formal meeting. @15:01 I agree with the conclusion that it’s important to make sales calls good and that it’s more important than people may realize (because of the exponential). But the second conclusion is not clearly true to me, that having less meetings is necessarily better. It sounds like your thesis is about saving time selling by not selling in person, and not having some meetings. And you’re trying to justify mathematically why this is true. This relationship between number of meetings and average CR is described by this plot: www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+x%5Ey%2C+x%3D.30..0.99%2C+y%3D1..15. The CR = R^M as you said in your video. Taking the gradients we see R (average close rate) changes the CR as M*R^(M-1) and M (number of meetings) changes the CR as log(R) R^M. And as you can see they are quite similar when you change them through their ranges: R =www.wolframcloud.com/obj/54945236-e82c-4984-b502-1277972d6c22, sensitivity to M = www.wolframcloud.com/obj/355fb36b-a96a-460c-ba64-da1a9775afab So not really a difference in the math. @16:42 a/b is not linear. It’s only linear if your opportunities are fixed and you try and increase the win rate. If your opportunities change (here I assume win rate is fixed for simplicity) the graph looks like this: www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+1%2Fx+for+x+from+1+to+100+. @25:33 I like the meeting-less demo technique, we do this as well. But people also ask a lot of questions during the demo. I think you are missing the time where you have to answer these questions. I think there’s a case to be made there are some things missing for when the demo is not live. It also increases the necessary quality of the demo which also adds some hours for prep time. @27:30 You’re assuming a meetingless proposal doesn’t have any downside and but increase the CR to 100% on that level. I think it’s possible discussing the proposal live and iterating on it, gauging reactions, can save a lot of time. I think a lot of these techniques are great as optimizations later in the game. For example, when your proposals are solid, the demos are exactly on point, when you have all the information you need from formal calls (not dinner or drinks in person), then it makes sense to automate like this. But I think some of the data is biased to support your conclusion, while ignoring some possible downside. Nevertheless, I think this is a very refreshing perspective. This turned out longer than I hoped, but sales in math is rare. Anyways, I have subscribed, and already shared this with a few people. Cheers.
Awesome feedback. You are right in most cases, indeed this is not intended to be practical but more model correct. (in reality it would be measured over a far bigger sample not just 1 cycle, so reducing from 12-10 would be from 12.8 to 11.9 for example). There’s a lot more to it but your engagement and insights help people think things through so I prefer to let them stand as you stated. Big big thank you. Jacco.
Jacco, Thanks so much for the passion, generosity, patience and persistance. Go dude!
You are most welcome Pete.
Jacco thank you very much, so eye opening ... (the Back To the Future scene 🤯). I'm feeling thankful, I'm going to study your stuff ✌️
Really great video! Thank you for making it, I appreciate it.
I agree with most of it and like how you framed this, and the perspective around remote selling, which we’ve been doing more of as well. It also gives a great overview. I usually wouldn't comment but I think since 1. it's so well made and I can tell you put a lot of though into this and 2. you call it mathematics of sales it triggers me a bit to take this more seriously that a normal “blah blah” sales video filled with platitudes.
I think some of the assumptions you made may not be true mathematically just FYI.
@13:20 you are assuming that with the magic things you’ll about in a later video you can reduce this to 10 meetings (from 12) which increases the CR to 36.4% (from 28.5%), which you then conclude that that less meetings are better. But, 1. You are assuming you can keep it at 90% which is a big assumption (which I assume you’ll justify later), and 2. which is the bigger one is that it's not an apples to apples comparison because you are only applying your magic techniques to the 10 meeting scenario and not to the 12 meeting scenario. E.g. what's not to say if you also applied it to the 12 meeting scenario it could increase the 90% average CR to yield a total CR > 36.4%. All else being equal (using the magic techniques or not) more meetings should yield a higher end CR, so if your techniques in anyway increase the average meeting close rate then it’s good, but it would be good for 10 or 12 meetings.
@24:36 you removed the travel time but assumed that the CR remains the same and that the sales cycle stays the same. This is a big assumption, it’s possible not being in person would decrease the CR or also increase the sales cycle. Sometimes being in person has human-to-human benefits, such as people being more open to tell you things that wouldn’t in a formal meeting.
@15:01 I agree with the conclusion that it’s important to make sales calls good and that it’s more important than people may realize (because of the exponential). But the second conclusion is not clearly true to me, that having less meetings is necessarily better. It sounds like your thesis is about saving time selling by not selling in person, and not having some meetings. And you’re trying to justify mathematically why this is true. This relationship between number of meetings and average CR is described by this plot: www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+x%5Ey%2C+x%3D.30..0.99%2C+y%3D1..15.
The CR = R^M as you said in your video. Taking the gradients we see R (average close rate) changes the CR as M*R^(M-1) and M (number of meetings) changes the CR as log(R) R^M. And as you can see they are quite similar when you change them through their ranges: R =www.wolframcloud.com/obj/54945236-e82c-4984-b502-1277972d6c22, sensitivity to M = www.wolframcloud.com/obj/355fb36b-a96a-460c-ba64-da1a9775afab So not really a difference in the math.
@16:42 a/b is not linear. It’s only linear if your opportunities are fixed and you try and increase the win rate. If your opportunities change (here I assume win rate is fixed for simplicity) the graph looks like this: www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+1%2Fx+for+x+from+1+to+100+.
@25:33 I like the meeting-less demo technique, we do this as well. But people also ask a lot of questions during the demo. I think you are missing the time where you have to answer these questions. I think there’s a case to be made there are some things missing for when the demo is not live. It also increases the necessary quality of the demo which also adds some hours for prep time.
@27:30 You’re assuming a meetingless proposal doesn’t have any downside and but increase the CR to 100% on that level. I think it’s possible discussing the proposal live and iterating on it, gauging reactions, can save a lot of time.
I think a lot of these techniques are great as optimizations later in the game. For example, when your proposals are solid, the demos are exactly on point, when you have all the information you need from formal calls (not dinner or drinks in person), then it makes sense to automate like this. But I think some of the data is biased to support your conclusion, while ignoring some possible downside. Nevertheless, I think this is a very refreshing perspective.
This turned out longer than I hoped, but sales in math is rare. Anyways, I have subscribed, and already shared this with a few people. Cheers.
Awesome feedback. You are right in most cases, indeed this is not intended to be practical but more model correct. (in reality it would be measured over a far bigger sample not just 1 cycle, so reducing from 12-10 would be from 12.8 to 11.9 for example). There’s a lot more to it but your engagement and insights help people think things through so I prefer to let them stand as you stated. Big big thank you. Jacco.