Multichannel Selling Strategies

Imagine two sellers. Same market. Same manager. Same tools. One crushes quota. The other misses it. So what gives? Is the technology they use falling short? Are expectations running ahead of reality? Or something else entirely? We surveyed 900 sellers globally to find out. And what we found came down to trust. Specifically to four specific, repeatable behaviours that separated top performers from the rest. One that stood out to me: top performers are 3x more likely to be connected to eight or more stakeholders per account. And they get there early, before the first meeting, not after. Four behaviors. All repeatable. All coachable. I walk through them in the video below. And the full research is worth your time, find it at https://lnkd.in/d_ZMS5pS #TrustAdvantage #B2BSales #LinkedInSalesNavigator

Modern Trade (MT) vs. General Trade (GT): Two Different Games, Two Winning Strategies 1- Winning in MT: Success in MT is about planogram excellence, offering the right formats and prices as per brand value proposition, securing prime shelf and off shelf space, and in-store activations. Promo bursts (BOGO, % discounts, Giraffes, Premiums, Bundling), seasonal offers and loyalty programs drive shopper engagement. Strong JBPs, ability to negotiate rebates, trade spend and credit terms are critical as MT retailers will push to squeeze out margins, maximize spend and ask for extended credit. Stock management with JIT replenishment & sell-through analytics ensures efficiency, preventing expiries and returns. 2- Winning in GT: GT success is built on maximizing coverage, ensuring availability and visibility—because what is available and visible sells! a- Optimized Reach: Balancing Direct Reach through a distributor (van sales & pre-sell for high-weighted retailers) and Indirect Reach through wholesale (for lower-tier penetration) is key to achieve the targeted weighted coverage with the optimal cost-to-serve. Wholesalers focus on SKUs with high rotation and ensure reach to lower end of the trade if given the right incentives (trade deals, margins, loyalty programs, etc). Direct reach pushes a wider range of SKUs scaling growth through trade incentives, margins, volume based deals and product education drives. b- Strategic Distributor Partnerships: Choosing the right distributor with strong capabilities and one with a portfolio that complements your portfolio is key to success. A good GT distributor requires a portfolio that encompasses a mix of fast-moving Hero SKUs (to drive volume and upselling) and high-margin SKUs (to cover distribution costs). Having exclusive distributors in GT for your business does not guarantee success and can limit penetration especially if your portfolio does not combine a mix of high volume hero SKUs and high margin SKUs. c- Disciplined Execution & Performance Tracking: Setting clear KPIs on volumes, reach, availability, and execution to drive distributor accountability is key. Regular business reviews focused on growth plans is a must. Two channels, two different approaches—but both require precision, execution excellence, and strategic management to win. The right channel strategy must be supported with differentiated format offerings for each channel, supported by the right tools (POSM, Chillers, Trays, etc) and coupled with strong brand building plans driving demand generation and salience on the path to purchase. #Nestlé #ModernGeneralTrade #RouteToMarket #ExecutionMatters #RetailStrategy

How offline stores beat Amazon at its own game A customer walks into a laptop store. They check the look and feel. They understand and compare models. Finally, they like a model. They look up the price on Amazon and realise it's much cheaper there. They make an excuse, walk out, and buy the same model online. Not only does the retailer lose the sale, their salesperson also ends up wasting time that could be used on another customer. An offline retailer can never match the price of Amazon because of high overheads. Classic economic logic says an uncompetitive business should be priced out because it has been replaced by a more efficient form. But if that happens everyone loses out. The customer hesitates buying online without having seen and touched the laptop. This affects the OEM (say Dell) as well as Amazon. Both lose out on the sale. So the retailer wasn't actually inefficient. They were just giving a free service to their competitor against their will. This service is called “showrooming” and the entire problem is called “channel conflict” - where one channel acts as a “free rider” on another channel. How do you solve this? Price matching. Today, whenever you go to an offline store and show the Amazon page, they take a photo of the page and match the price. Here's what's happened in the background. The retailer has a margin level agreement with the OEM. Suppose the retailer bought a laptop for ₹90000 and was selling it for ₹1 lakh. Now a customer comes in and shows the online price as ₹80000. The purchase price of the retailer gets restated based on this price. To maintain a 10% margin on sales, this is ₹72000. The retailer gets a credit note of ₹18000 (₹90000 - ₹72000). What was happening earlier? The costs of showrooming were being borne exclusively by offline stores. The OEM could offer big discounts online, and still be profitable at the online channel level. But this siloed thinking has now changed. The showrooming costs are collectivised across channels (as they should be) and the OEM selects the online price very carefully. If they keep it too low it will ripple across channels and cause a loss at the overall level. But this wasn't easy for retailers. Retailer Associations had to fight, threaten and stop stocking products to get them to capitulate. So today if you want to avail the full benefits of online “efficiency” you have to be an online only brand. But every brand that started out as online only, whether Xiaomi or Boat, eventually realised you can't build a strong brand on just online availability thus proving the value of offline stores! Unfortunately, OEMs still try to cheat sometimes. But that's a story for another day! #mba #iimahmedabad

For my first 16 years in tech sales, I averaged 240K/year W2 income. In my last 4 years, I averaged 720K/year. In order to triple my income, I had to change my sales approach entirely. Here's what I changed: I started using a new approach that I now call Yo-yo selling: 🪀 Yo-yo selling emphasizes starting at the executive level, conducting thorough discovery within the organization, and then returning to the executive with a tailored business case. Like holding a yo-yo, you are constantly in communication with the Executive Sponsor and updating them as you collect information and conduct deep discovery lower down in their organization. You are literally going up and down the organization, but always taking everything back to the Executive Sponsor to surface your findings along the way. Here's a breakdown of the framework: 🎯 𝐈𝐚𝐧 𝐊𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐤’𝐬 “𝐘𝐨-𝐘𝐨 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠” 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 This strategy involves a three-step process: 1. Start at the Top (Executive Engagement) Initiate contact with a senior executive to understand their most pressing challenges, the reasons behind the need for change, and the consequences of inaction. If your solution aligns with their needs, secure their sponsorship for further discovery within their organization. To secure the Executive Meetings, it's essential to create a tailored POV (point of view) on where you think you may be able to help them based on your initial research of their highest level goals and priorities. Chat GPT has made this research a LOT faster now. 2. Conduct In-Depth Discovery (Middle Management) Engage with department heads and key stakeholders to uncover the day-to-day challenges they face. Focus on understanding their processes, pain points, and the implications of current inefficiencies. Gather direct quotes and insights to build a comprehensive view of the organization's needs. 3. Return to the Executive (Present Findings) Compile the insights gathered into an executive summary and business case. Present this to the executive sponsor, highlighting how your solution addresses the identified challenges. Tailor your demonstration to focus solely on relevant aspects that solve their specific problems. 🚀 Why It Works 1. Accelerates Sales Cycles: Engaging executives early ensures alignment and expedites decision-making. 2. Builds Credibility: Demonstrates a deep understanding of the organization's challenges and showcases a tailored solution. 3. Facilitates Internal Buy-In: By involving various stakeholders, you ensure that the solution meets the needs of all parties, increasing the likelihood of adoption. I'm pleased to share that that Yo-yo selling was recently awarded as a Top 15 Sales Tactic of All Time by 30 Minutes to President's Club, and I received a cool plaque for entering the 30MPC Hall of Fame. Since I have no chance of entering the Hall of Fame for my baseball or golf game, this is a nice consolation prize 😁

Amazon and Flipkart own the traffic, but we own 10 lakh+ customers. That's a ₹750cr+ goldmine they'll never have. India has 800+ D2C brands in a ₹7 lakh crore market, but most of them don’t realise that while building on marketplaces, they own nothing - no data, no relationship, and no control. Whereas, even though your own channels cost more upfront, they build your loyalty and grow lifetime value. That's where real business happens. For me, D2C means owning the entire customer relationship - online and offline. For most brands, the relationship ends at delivery. For us, that's where it begins. We know who bought what - preferences, purchase frequency, touchpoints across 172+ stores. That's why 85% of our ₹750 crore revenue comes from owned channels - stores and websites combined. Here's the math: Our Channels Breakdown: 📍70% from 150+ physical stores (our largest owned asset) Our Omnichannel Advantage: 📌 Customers discover online, buy offline (and vice versa) 📌 Orders fulfilled from nearest store within few hours 📌 To build a meaningful relationship, we remember your purchase history and recommend what you'll actually needs The data backs it up. While other brands race to get listed on more marketplaces, we're focused on owning more of the customer journey. Because Amazon and Flipkart can give you reach, but they can't send one DM and activate your customers tomorrow morning. That's the difference between building a brand and renting shelf space.

We were 25 minutes into the call when they asked: Prospect: “So… can we get some ballpark pricing?” Me: “Happy to share. Just curious - are we currently the vendor of choice? Or are we still in the mix with others?” Prospect: “We’re still evaluating about five different vendors.” Me: “Got it. And what are you evaluating us all on?” Prospect: “Mostly features and pricing.” Me: “Appreciate the transparency. Mind if I be blunt for a second?” Prospect: “Go for it.” Me: “We don’t like to win on price. We don’t like to lose on price. We like to win on product.” Me: “If you’re telling me we’re the best solution for your team, then we can figure out how to make the pricing work. But if you’re not there yet, I’d rather not pretend price is the blocker.” Prospect: “Fair. We’re still figuring out what we really need.” Me: “That’s what I figured. And that’s why I hesitate to get deep into pricing. If you’re still defining the problem, every number’s going to feel too high.” It shifted the energy. Too many teams ask for pricing before they even know what they’re buying. They want quotes before clarity. Discounts before direction. Numbers before need. But pricing only makes sense once the value is clear. So here’s what I’ve learned: Make sure you’re the vendor of choice first. Make sure they know what they’re solving and how you solve it. Then have those money conversations. That’s how you avoid racing to the bottom. And win on the thing that matters most... The product.

This is bigger than it seems. 140+ of the world’s biggest financial players are launching a stablecoin that challenges the traditional stablecoin business model. 𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆, 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻:  • A company issues a (typically USD-backed) stablecoin. • For every stablecoin issued, the company holds an equivalent amount of assets - typically cash or short-term US government securities. • Those assets generate interest income. • The issuer manages those assets, controls the governance, and keeps most of the economic value they generate. • Banks, PSPs, wallets, exchanges and fintechs distribute and integrate the stablecoin, but typically do not share in those economics. The above is a vertically owned model. Meaning that the ecosystem builds around that one issuer. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?  • The more successful a stablecoin becomes, the more value is created for the issuer, while the rest of the ecosystem depends on infrastructure it doesn’t own or economically participate in. • The result is a market where both economics and strategic influence are concentrated around a small number of issuers. This is what the new initiative, 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗨𝗦𝗗, wants to address: • Instead of one company controlling the stablecoin, Open USD is governed by an independent organization representing 140+ players. • Any participant can mint (create new stablecoins by depositing US dollars) and redeem (convert stablecoins back into US dollars) without fees or artificial volume restrictions. • The reserves still generate interest income, but the earnings are distributed to participating members after covering operating costs. • Every participant therefore has an incentive not only to use Open USD, but also to help grow and govern the ecosystem. The launch partners include some of the biggest names across the financial ecosystem: from payment networks and banks to fintechs, technology platforms and digital asset infrastructure: Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, Coinbase, BlackRock, Google, BBVA, Standard Chartered, American Express and more.  𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲?  • No single participant has enough scale to challenge the largest stablecoin issuers on its own. • By sharing the underlying monetary infrastructure, each participant can focus on competing where it differentiates: products, distribution and customer relationships. • The consortium creates stronger incentives to promote a common stablecoin than to simply distribute someone else’s. • If enough major players align behind one shared standard, network effects could work for the ecosystem (vs. a single issuer). If successful, Open USD could do for stablecoins what payment schemes did for cards: create infrastructure competitors can build on. Opinions and graphics: my own 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

If You are running an omnichannel brand, one of the most actionable and impactful analysis that you can do with your data is look at the ratio of online to offline sales, benchmarked against your national average. You can cut it by city/state/product/SKU and each cut tells you something different. Start by establishing your national average online/offline ratio. Say it's 45:55. Now look at every city, state, and product model against that baseline. Few scenarios: Scenario 1: Higher-than-average online share (say 80:20 in a city where the national average is 45:55) = distribution problem, not a demand problem Consumers want your product and that is evident from your online sales. To buy your product, they are waiting for delivery and forgoing the in-store experience. Your brand has demand in that market. What needs improvement is availability, visibility and advocacy in retail counters. Every rupee you invest in distribution here has a higher probability of generating returns because demand is pre-validated Scenario 2: Lower-than-average online share (say 10:90 in a state) = one of two things, and you need to figure out which. Either your offline distribution is so strong there that consumers don’t have too many reasons to buy online, which is the healthy version, and you'll see it reflected in strong secondary sales numbers. Or your brand simply don’t have demand/PMF and consumers aren't searching for you online or finding you offline. The way you distinguish between the two: check absolute volume. If the 20:80 market is also a high-absolute-volume market, your offline game is strong and the low online share is a sign of distribution maturity. If it's a low-absolute-volume market with a low online share, you have a brand salience and demand problem. And trying to pressurize Distributors and sales team will not work. In fact it will only lead to more churn which will further reduce the sales volume in that geography. Here the Product and marketing team needs to get to work and solve for product market fit and brand salience in that geography. Now apply the same logic at the model level. If a specific SKU has a 50:50 online/offline split nationally while the rest of your portfolio sits at 30:70, that SKU is under-distributed relative to its demand. Retailers either aren't stocking it, don't know it exists, or aren't being incentivised to push it. This is an assortment and trade marketing problem, not a product problem The beauty of this ratio is its simplicity. You don't need a sophisticated data platform to compute it. You need your e-commerce order data by pincode and your secondary sales data by pincode, both of which any omnichannel brand will always have. One simple table gives you the diagnostic. The ratio doesn't tell you why a market is over- or under-indexed. But it tells you where to look, and whether the problem is distribution, brand, or product. And that's usually enough to make the next decision.

Hey Salespeople: Do you truly understand the Challenger sales methodology (teach, tailor, take control)? It does not mean being aggressive. TEACH – Provide insights that challenge the prospect’s current thinking and help them see an unrecognized problem or opportunity. This approach positions the salesperson as a trusted advisor rather than just a vendor. Example: Instead of just pitching accounting software, show a CFO data revealing they're spending 40% more time on compliance than industry peers, costing them $200K annually in labor inefficiency. TAILOR – Customize the conversation to align with the prospect’s industry, company priorities, and individual stakeholder concerns. Example: When speaking with the IT Director, focus on integration and security features; with the CFO, emphasize ROI and cost reduction; with end-users, highlight ease of use and time savings. TAKE CONTROL – Taking control involves guiding the sales conversation confidently, addressing objections proactively, and steering the prospect towards a decision. This doesn't mean being aggressive, but rather being assertive and value-focused Example: After demonstrating value, saying "Based on what we've discussed, I recommend starting with our enterprise package at $85K annually. To hit your Q3 goals, we should begin implementation within three weeks. Does your team have the authority to move forward, or should we include someone else in our next conversation?"

(FMCG Blueprint) Direct vs. Indirect Distribution in FMCG - In Fun & Simple Way! Imagine you’re craving Rajma Chawal (because why not?). Now, you have two ways to get it: 1. You cook it yourself – You buy raw ingredients, prepare everything, and serve hot Rajma Chawal. (Direct Distribution) 2. You order from a restaurant – The restaurant sources the ingredients, cooks the dish, and delivers it to you. (Indirect Distribution) Now, let’s apply this to FMCG distribution! Direct Distribution – “You Cook, You Serve” This means the company sells its products directly to retailers (or even consumers) without middlemen. Example: Amul & ITC (Ashirwad Atta) • Amul supplies milk directly to retailers through its own supply chain. • ITC delivers its atta to supermarkets using its own distribution setup. Pros: ✔️ More control over pricing and brand visibility ✔️ Faster delivery & response to market trends ✔️ Better margins (no middlemen taking a cut) Cons: ❌ Expensive to set up (warehouses, logistics, manpower) ❌ Difficult to scale quickly in all geographies 📊 Fun Fact: Coca-Cola tried direct distribution in India but struggled with reach. They now use indirect distribution in most parts! Indirect Distribution – “Order from a Restaurant” Here, the company sells to distributors, who then supply to retailers. Example: Pepsi, Nestlé, HUL • Pepsi sells to a distributor, who then supplies Kirana stores, supermarkets, and even pan shops. • Nestlé’s Maggi is available even in the smallest village – thanks to an army of distributors! Pros: ✔️ Wider reach – even the smallest paan shop gets your product ✔️ Lower operational costs – distributor takes care of logistics ✔️ Better cash flow – company sells in bulk to distributors Cons: ❌ Less control over pricing & promotions ❌ More dependency on distributor’s efficiency ❌ Risk of stock hoarding – when distributors hold stock to create artificial demand 📊 Did you know? HUL has 3,500+ distributors in India covering 9 million+ retail outlets! Which One is Better? • If you’re a premium brand (like Apple or Tupperware) – Direct works better. • If you’re an FMCG giant (like HUL or Nestlé) – Indirect is the king. • Some brands use both! (Amul sells dairy directly but uses distributors for chocolates) So next time you eat Rajma Chawal, remember – Are you the cook (direct) or is Zomato (indirect) bringing it to you? Would you like me to refine this with more humor or data?