Salespeople Are Dinosaurs, and Their Meteor Is Called “Customer Centricity”
I must be creative with my headline to grab your attention, one of your most valuable possessions. But it is true that “salespeople“ or any title or function which includes the term “sales” should disappear and be replaced—especially if you have a customer-facing or interacting role. If you don’t have a customer-facing role, you can have the title you want; nobody outside your company cares.
Why is that? Follow me.
In a previous article (the elephant in the room) based on the non-sales-selling concept developed by Daniel Pink, we realized everyone is engaged in selling. This hard truth remains true for everyone, including bankers, consultants, professors, real estate agents, etc.
However, out of timidity or intelligence, I opt for the second one, their title does not carry the word “sales.” I’m sure you’re curious why that is. Well, the real question should be: Why do so many others do it?
Peter Drucker said, “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer.”
The customer should be at the center of everything. In today’s language, that would translate into having a “customer-centric approach.” If you’ve never heard about the concept or doubt its relevance, I invite you to search for “customer centricity” on the internet. Prepare to be overwhelmed by the quantity of research, books, and articles on the topic. Many companies have built their success on it.
And guess what? Customers don’t want to be sold. No, they don’t.
They want to be helped, advised, and guided. They want to believe that they made the decision by themselves (This is usually where people in marketing start smiling, confident that they had a role in it). Take yourself as an example: as a customer, how do you feel when dealing with a pushy salesperson?
What Is Wrong With “Selling”?
In B2B activities, the more complex the solution is, the more “selling” it does not work. By “selling,” I mean delivering a monologue to the customer with no questions asked while doing a belly dance on the table, hoping they will buy.
And the reason is simple:
When CTO go in front of their CEO to justify a multi-million dollar investment in a specific technology, you can rest assured that they strongly believe they made the best decision. If the choice has to be justified in front of their hierarchy, you can be sure they are the best advocates of the solution. This can only happen if they are persuaded—convinced that they made the right decision. In other words, they believe you are the best at fulfilling their needs. And obviously, you helped them all the way to get to that conclusion. Because this is your job.
You have different methodologies, practices, and approaches that have been offered over decades to get to that positive outcome:
MEDDIC,
SPIN Selling,
Consultative Selling,
Solution Selling,
Challenger Selling,
Value-Based Selling . . .
By the time you finish reading this list, a new one will emerge as the best in town.
You might sense a bit of sarcasm here. These organizations also have to sell their services. And you call them training companies, not training program sales companies. Now, don’t get me wrong. Each approach has its unique strengths and can be tailored to suit the specific needs and dynamics of different industries and customers.
But in the end, those are tools, and the more you learn how to understand, master, and manipulate those tools, the better craftsman you will be. You are the captain of your own ship: you must combine elements from multiple methodologies to create your own style that better suits your needs, especially when facing multitudes of customers (This can be the case if you cover a large territory spreading over several countries and continents). Ultimately, the customer is buying you as an individual as much as the solution you currently represent (“currently represent” because nothing is permanent).
Recently, we have witnessed a shift from a sales-centric approach to a customer-centric one. In a nutshell, we moved away from a tactic based on “monologue.” Essentially, “I know everything. Listen to me because I know what is good for you.” This strategy worked well during the era of asymmetric information, which the internet shredded into pieces.
Today, a customer might know more than you do, so we’ve moved toward asking more questions to better articulate a solution to the customer(s) problem. Note that I put an “s” after customer. That’s not by mistake.
The more complex the solution you provide, the more people, departments, and functions it might impact within your customer’s organization. Each of them will become, to a certain degree, your customers. You better be aware and consider their needs too. It’s your call to act upon them or not. But this way, you ensure you have no blind spots.
The underlying truth is that, in the context of B2B activity, it is crucial to consider the customers' perspective and ensure that interactions with them focus on helping, advising, consulting, and providing value rather than simply "selling" a product or service (Note that “helping and advising” can include a phase where you have to tell your customer that they are wrong, but you must back it up).
In B2B, and when you provide a complex solution, it usually involves a multi-year partnership (contract duration). There’s no doubt that internally, during that term, you will be asked to up-sell and cross-sell. Those words don’t mean anything to your customers.
Stating the obvious, you should never pronounce those terms in front of them. What your customers will understand (if you are good at your job) are ways to benefit more from the solution they have invested in or better ways to leverage it by using add-ons as they themselves grow, as their level of expertise and mastery of your solution grow.
Here’s a trivial real-life example:
I have seen quotes going to the customer with MRR (Monthly Recurring Revenue) mentioned. The correct wording would have been MRC or Monthly Recurring Cost/Charge. Someone had forgotten that someone’s revenue (the seller) is someone else’s cost (the customer).
So, your company has invested in different training programs. Good for you. You are now armed with new “consultative” or “value-based” skills. You are pumped up and super motivated. The world is yours to conquer. Time to reach out to new prospects!
You pick up the phone because it’s time for some great cold-calling action, and here it goes:
“Hi my name is xxx, and as my title states (i.e., sales manager), I am here to sell . . .”
All those efforts, hours, and money spent for . . . nothing.
I see two areas where the usage of function, including the term “sales,” either creates issues or becomes the outcome of one. One area is inside your company, and the other is outside of it.
Let’s Examine What’s Involved in Creating a Position’s Title within Your Company
The first question you should ask yourself is, “When your company decides on your title, is it . . .”
A. To establish your position within its organization (so you know where to find your desk)?
B. To have a partial understanding of what your role entails (i.e., your interaction with the customers and the fact that doing some magic tricks will bring in revenues) so you can identify your contribution to the overall organization?
C. To fully understand the complexity of your work (including all the ingenuity and orchestration you will be accountable for to satisfy your customer, which will at some point materialize into a contract and a financial transaction, aka “closing” the deal”) so your job is easier when facing the outside world?
My take on this is?
Option A, in the vast majority of the cases, and potentially, option B. Interestingly, as far as option B. is concerned, some companies, depending on their strategy, might prioritize market share acquisition or margin to revenues.
Yes, sometimes you must walk away from a “bad” deal if it does not fit your company strategy. And what a “bad deal” is will entirely depend on your company’s strategy. It can and will evolve in time. It can vary from product to product. And yet so far, considering this reality, I have never seen anyone carrying the title “Market Shares Hunter” or “Margin Protector.”
The second question seems trivial: when is the “sale” made or the deal closed?
Told you. But seriously. When is it? When the scope and pricing have been agreed with the technical team? But you have not yet dealt with their procurement. What about the contractual terms? Are they not the subject of an entirely new negotiation with the legal team this time? Those legal terms, don’t they have the power to either improve or significantly deteriorate your deal?
Ok, now the contract is signed. But where is the revenue? What if the contract establishes milestones for the payment, one being the customer’s implementation and acceptance of the solution?
The answer to the question, “When is the deal closed?” depends on your role within the company.
To close a complex deal, you will have to orchestrate an army of internal experts (product manager, product specialist, legal, technical expert, project manager, etc.), all having different KPIs. At a personal level, their involvement (aka the “sale” from their point of view) will end at a precise and well-determined moment in time: when the technical scope is frozen for your pre-sales, when the terms of the contract have been agreed upon and signed by your legal team, and when the project is delivered and accepted by the customer for your project manager.
But for you, the orchestrator, the “sale” will be over only when you have reached all these milestones, and your customer is satisfied. As a “salesperson,” you could also consider that the deal is closed when your commission hits your bank account. If so, depending on your compensation plan, you may have to wait a bit longer. It is, therefore, possible that by the time the deal is “closed” for everyone, including you, you are already engaged with the same customer on new topics, new problems to solve and/or cross-sell opportunities. It’s an endless circle—even multiple circles as some overlap with others.
Supporting a customer is a circle that you continually follow. There is no beginning and no end in a sales process. There are milestones. In that regard, the concept of “pre-sales” has always left me perplexed…
And Let’s Not Forget to Consider the Position’s Name Outside Your Company
“Customers don’t want to be sold.” It is a fact. They want to be helped (based on their agenda). Your promise toward them should be simple (but you must deliver):
“I will make your life easier,” not “I want to sell you something.”
This is especially true if you consider the politics at play within your customer’s organization. What am I talking about? Ok, are there any “politics” happening within your own organization? If so, why do you think your company is “special” and that the same is not happening in your customer’s organization? Isn’t finding a champion in your customer’s organization about finding someone with a personal agenda that your solution would help materialize?
By reframing the terminology used for salespeople, you will not only stop making their job more difficult, but you could contribute to making it slightly easier. By reframing the language used to characterize them, you can further emphasize their commitment to customer-centricity and establish a more consultative and collaborative relationship with their clients.
The language we use shapes our mindsets and behaviors. French speakers tend to overuse the adjective “petit” or small (i.e., a “small idea,” a “small favor,” a “small question”). It sounds cute, I guess. For English speakers, especially Americans, everything is “great” (“Great job”). This changes the narrative entirely.
What Does Adopting New Terminology for Sales Do for a Company?
By adopting alternative terms that highlight a customer-centric approach, their organization can encourage salespeople to view themselves as trusted advisors or consultants rather than mere sellers. Let’s call it an Autosuggestion approach, if you will.
But they first need to be convinced by their new role. If they are not, there is no point. This shift in mindset happens first within the organization (usually at the top), then at the individual level. Only once it’s accepted will it enable them to focus on understanding customer needs, providing tailored solutions, and building long-term relationships. Once the shift has happened at the individual level (inwardly), its benefits will also impact outward (customers, partners, etc.).
Changing the wording changes the mentality, impacting both the narrative and the behavior. If “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” maybe adopting alternative terms is the beginning of sanity. Look at your company product presentations and ask yourself, “Are they customer-centric or ego-centric?”
B2B sales often involve complex and strategic partnerships, not mere contractual relationships. Positioning salespeople as relationship builders or relationship managers emphasizes their role in fostering meaningful connections with clients. It conveys that the focus is on cultivating a mutually beneficial partnership rather than solely making a transactional sale.
Food for thought:
What if, at your local supermarket, the person behind the cash register was called “Last Impression Director” rather than “cashier”? Don’t you think it would change the experience from both sides since the role would be perceived differently? People would still be able to use the self-service cashier but for different reasons.
The Word “Sales” Generates Negativity
Many B2B sales processes (a sales process is nothing else than the opposite side of the mirror called a “procurement process” view from a different angle) involve in-depth consultations and problem-solving discussions. It is a reality. It is a fact.
Rebranding salespeople as consultants or solution advisors isn’t just about reinforcing their role in understanding customer challenges, offering expert advice, and guiding clients toward the best solutions. It is simply a better description of their role. You don’t call a doctor a “prescription writer,” a singer a “song seller,” or an actor a “free-time occupation option provider.” Without a collaborative and value-added relationship that prioritizes the customer's interests, no “sales” are possible.
Sales stereotypes often evoke negative perceptions associated with pushiness or self-interest. Using alternative titles that emphasize trust, credibility, and expertise (such as trusted advisors or solution experts) positions salespeople as knowledgeable professionals who are genuinely invested in helping customers succeed.
The best example of this is that many people involved in selling (bankers, consultants, professors, etc.) don’t carry that word in their title. And it certainly contributes to building stronger trust-based relationships with their customers. Customers are more receptive to engaging with professionals positioned as helpers, advisors, or partners rather than "salespeople.”
Have you noticed that there is no “salesperson” in an Apple Store? No one carries that title. And yet, their retail stores have the highest revenues per square meter (see here ). Some might say, “This is what good marketing is all about.” If it was entirely true, how would you explain the number of Apple employees in a store? By the way, in an Apple store, you pay them directly, not at the cashier.
What Titles Would Define a “Sales” Position More Accurately?
Now, let's explore some alternative names to replace the term "salespeople" or its derivatives in a customer-centric context.
Business Consultants
Strategic Partners
Relationship Managers
Customer Success Managers
Account Executives
Client Advocates
Customer Ambassadors
Solution Specialists
Industry Specialists
Value Enablers
Obviously, some might be more relevant to your industry than others. And some may already be allocated to other functions. The question, then, becomes, “Is this the best suitable designation?”
Each of these alternatives conveys a customer-focused perspective, highlighting the role of salespeople as trusted advisors, problem solvers, and partners in driving customer success. An organization should use them for any customer-facing role. You can also be creative. To do this, you may have to change your organization’s entire naming convention.
And this is what “customer- centric advocates” will tell you: This seismic change comes from the top.
Now, someone could opt for a double naming convention: one within the company and the other for the outside world (customer-facing). But it defeats the whole purpose. That would be pretending. You must commit.
For sure, some voices will protest, raising concerns that your Client Advocates or Solution Specialists will forget that they have a number to meet, a target to achieve, and an objective to reach. To those, I would say three things.
1. If you have been attending forecast calls and have witnessed their cadence and intensity, you know it is difficult to forget such a thing.
2. By its very nature, the compensation plan is a monthly reminder that they are getting paid based on results vs. target (and while the sanction can be immediate —no result = exit—the reward can take time; there is a delay between payoff and a signed deal).
3. If you have so little faith in the people you are managing and have potentially hired, there might be an entirely new set of questions you should be asking yourself.
In conclusion, reevaluating the terminology used for salespeople in B2B organizations and adopting customer-centric alternatives can help reinforce a customer-first mindset, strengthen relationships, enhance credibility, and promote a consultative approach. By focusing on helping, advising, and adding value to customers, organizations can align their sales efforts with the evolving needs and expectations of B2B buyers.
And no, it is not about being ashamed of what we do. We are all selling something to someone. It is about taking pride in what we do and in its complexity. We need to acknowledge that these current titles merely represent what we do. In parallel with Darwin’s Origin of Species theory, if “Salespeople” were a species, it could be among the strongest (based on the term's popularity). But as he claimed, “the species that survives is not the strongest (most popular) but the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.” If the way we “sell” has changed to cope and match the customers' maturity level over time, why can't its terminology?