Whatchamacallit

Permit me to indulge in a potential conflict of interest. I found this post the other day talking about how CRM is dying or dead as a buzzword. On the one hand, it probably hurts me to give the post any more publicity than it's already getting since CRM pays my bills—literally, due to my job at the magazine of the same name. On the other hand, the author (Geoffrey James) makes some valid points that I'd like to discuss, and it would be rude not to give credit where it's due. Hence the conflict.

To begin with, I contest Mr. James' statement that CRM is merely the new name for SFA. The former contains the latter, along with a lot more. I admit that the magazine I work for was born under the name Sales & Field Force Automation, but even then (to the best of my recollection) it included field service as well as sales.

Mr. James also writes "Today, about half the websites selling some kind of sales technology already avoid the 'CRM' moniker. Instead, they sport a variety of terms like 'Sales 2.0' or 'Sales Enhancement Technology' or 'Sales Productivity Improvement Tools.' That's because they''re sales tools, not CRM. If it's not tied into marketing, customer service, and probably some back-office disciplines as well, it's not doing all of CRM's job.

Beyond those two disagreements, though, I have to say that the spirit of the article is spot-on. There's a discussion on the CRM 2.0 Wiki about whether the new technologies and approaches being used merit dropping the term CRM (or CEM—customer experience management) in favor of something newer and possibly more descriptive.

Mr. James writes "Many CRM systems are implemented simply to supply management with data; very few systems actually help sales pros in the day-to-day task of selling. Many sales pros feel as if they’re being asked to be data entry clerks — and give away their contacts, simply to help their managers make fancy reports." This has been and continues to be a huge problem. We have a term for what he describes: failed CRM implementation. Improved reporting is an important part of any CRM project, yes. But if that's the only purpose, the money that went for the software would probably have been better spent on resume paper for all the employees, 'coz the company is in trouble. CRM contains tools to make users more effective at their jobs, and better able to focus on the customer; the more advanced your CRM, the more you are able to support real two-way conversations with them in the manner they prefer. The reporting should be a product of that work, not an added task for salespeople.

========

On a related topic, I found this gem by Seth Godin (yeah, him) about the absurdity of motivating your skilled individuals by way of a department called Human Resources. (Thanks to Chris Carfi for reposting the link, or I'd never have seen it. I owe you a call, man.) The first thing I thought of, naturally, was one of my favorite Dilbert cartoons. I'd link to it, but either they've got that site locked down tighter than Joan Rivers' facial skin, or it's not in the archives. You can find it on p. 103 of Casual Day Has Gone Too Far, dated 9/22/1995. I won't describe it—few things are more lame than trying to explain a comic strip—but believe me when I say it's stuck with me all these years for a reason.

Taken together, these two discussions show the good and the bad of changing the name of something you already know. I'd also like to add that, at some level, this is missing the forest for the trees. The name of a thing should describe it accurately, but it's so much more important that it actually does what it's supposed to.

True story (seriously, not the "true story" you say when setting up a joke): One day in 3rd grade, one of my classmates kicked another in the groin. The substitute teacher we had that day didn't see it happen, so I informed her: "Alex just kick Mike in the balls!" Her reaction was to get that flustered, distracted, don't-know-what-to-do look on her face and say, "I really don't think you should say that," while taking a couple of baby steps toward the incident, probably 30 feet away, where the victim (who probably deserved it) was howling and writhing in pain. Precocious little shit that I was, I replied, "Fine. Alex's foot just impacted Michael's testicles. Are you going to do something?" The specific words are secondary to the information conveyed. If you can't cope, sooner or later there's a boot coming for your squishy bits.

========

I'll end with another slight conflict of interest. I try to keep my day job as separate from my blog as possible, given that both tend to hit the same topics. However, my co-workers at Speech Technology have just started a blog for that publication, and it's pretty good so far. I'm adding it to the blogroll, and hoping they keep us amused. Lauren, Ryan, Len—I'm watching you.

Comments

[Geoffrey James, Sales Machine]

Both SFA and CRM are umbrella acronyms. CRM was a bigger umbrella that "covered" the SFA acronym. It's likely that any replacement acronym (like "Sales 2.0") will be a bigger umbrella than CRM and will "cover" it.

The actual meaning of "umbrella" acronyms is always open to interpretation. When an acronym is "hot," companies will flock to it and try to get whatever they're offering included under the umbrella.

Conversely, when an acronym is in decline or getting a bad rap, companies do the opposite. That's what's happening with CRM. In the past month I have had two top software executives from two different companies selling software to sales groups say "Don't even *mention* CRM when you write about our product."

[christopher carfi]

hey there! thanks for the shout out. i'm around all week.