by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 16, 2016 | Blog, Leadership, Strategy, Supply Chain
Men hold 85% of all executive officer positions within Fortune 500 companies, despite research that consistently shows when women are in positions of leadership, companies perform better. In the supply chain industry, 20% to 30% of positions are held by women, but the dearth of women in the C-suite is astounding; just 5% of top-level supply chain positions within Fortune 500 companies are held by women.
As I have written about previously, the lack of gender diversity in the supply chain is not because women do not have the skillset and ability to succeed within the industry:
“Women are as capable as men when it comes to working within the supply chain industry. Indeed, it has been put forth that women are better suited for roles in supply chain management than men. Research conducted by SCM World found that the majority of men (63%) and women (75%) believe that the natural skillsets of women differ from those of men and that these differences are advantageous for supply chain management.”
Last year I was fortunate enough to interview Cathy Morris, senior vice president and chief strategy officer at Arrow Electronics, and Mickey North Rizza, vice president of strategic services at BravoSolution, about women in the supply chain. Morris was twice named one of the “Top 50 Most Powerful Women in Technology,” and North Rizza was named a “Top Female Supply Chain Executive.” Both Morris and North Rizza shared how they got started in the industry, and the steps they took to get to where they are today. They also shared their desire to increase diversity in the supply chain.
As a woman working within the supply chain industry, I believe that it is important to discuss the lack of gender diversity and point to research highlighting why the industry needs to increase the number of women in all positions, including the C-suite. Additionally, it is just as important to highlight the incredible women who already are working within the industry.
This year I’m turning my focus to showcase the work that these trailblazing women are doing. I spoke with Kendrea Durr-Smith, director of global trade compliance at Arrow Electronics, Kelli Saunders, President of Morai Logistics, Hailey McKeefry, editor and chief at EBN, and Barbara Jorgensen, co-founder and managing editor, EPS News. I also invited Tania Seary, founder of Procurious, to share what is happening at her company, and Jennifer Cortez, director of marketing and communications at Transplace, to discuss the role of quality content within the industry. These interviews and stories will be shared over the next couple weeks.
As I share the work of even more women in the future, I look forward to continuing a dialogue that will hopefully facilitate welcoming more women to the industry.
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 15, 2016 | Blog, Content Marketing, Marketing, Strategy
Cultivating a lead is just as important as finding it in the first place
If you have a solid strategic marketing plan in place that is generating a high volume of quality leads, tomorrow’s revenue should be almost assured, right? Not necessarily.
A lead is only worth as much as the effort your company puts into cultivating it. The next vital step is to convert those leads into new sales or clients. In other words, getting quality leads is only half the battle.
Your business grows through a steady stream of quality leads being nurtured and developed. If you have these precious leads in hand, it is vital that you also have a sales team that knows how to turn them into customers. If you don’t, that brilliant strategic marketing plan was a waste of valuable time and money.
There many moving parts to an effective lead-generation campaign, and often there are many steps required to cultivate those leads into sales. Your sales team should:
Conduct consistent, quality follow-up on all leads.
Committing to expedient and professional follow-up provides better conversion of leads into opportunities. This means that when cultivating a qualified lead, you don’t want your sales reps to make one phone call and simply leave a voicemail. You want real conversations to happen. What works best is having someone whose only job is to reach leads in person, overcome objections (identify and present solutions that truly meet your clients’ needs), qualify them (determining whether a lead should move into the sales process), and facilitate any needed connection to your sales teams to complete the sale.
Realize that time is of the essence.
Studies show the faster you contact the lead, the better your chances of conversion into a sale. According to a study by Franklin Covey, contact ratios improve 900% if web leads are called within five minutes of submission. While your sales team may not be able to act upon a lead with that kind of velocity, it is vital that they utilize proactive sales strategies, rather than reactive. Reactive is leaving a message and, if they hear back, responding to it. Proactive is going after the sale with confidence and commitment to engaging the lead in real dialogue.
Target the best window of time to call leads.
This, of course, has many variables and will be relative to your particular business and potential-client demographic. But, one study suggests that Thursday and Friday offer the highest productivity in lead conversion, and the hours between 4 and 6 p.m. often produce optimum results.
Have the ability to listen and offer viable solutions.
Your sales team needs to be well informed about the products, services, and solutions that they are selling. They also need to remember that it’s vital to take the time to discover and understand the potential customer’s needs and wants first, then make the move to match and sell the appropriate solution.
Capturing successful leads is only the first step in generating greater sales revenue. Your sales team must be able to follow up quickly with proven fundamental steps that turn leads into customers.
Related articles:
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 14, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain
There is no easy answer to the burning question why the onshoring movement refuses to truly take off.
The issue of onshoring is frequently painted in black and white. While the media often likens the return of companies to the United States from overseas to a stampede, skeptics may be too quick to downplay the positive impact of the recent movement in manufacturing.
Nevertheless, those who were looking for a true Renaissance of American manufacturing have reason, at least so far, to be disappointed. Even among some high-profile companies — most notably Apple and GE — that announced their return with great fanfare, reality has set in. GE has battled high turnover rates at its re-opened Kentucky plants, as workers reportedly refused to perform certain tasks, while Apple has been stumped by the shortage of engineers.
Although the number of companies bringing production back home has risen significantly in recent years — from 64 in 2011 to 300 in 2014 — they are still outnumbered by those going in the opposite direction.
However, the issue is more complex than net gains or losses. According to new research by Morris Cohen, a Wharton School professor of operations and information management, and Hau L. Lee at Stanford University, “There is an unprecedented amount of restructuring going on.” In some cases, departments within the same company are onshoring and outsourcing at the same time, each weighing the perceived pros and cons differently.
In a Knowledge@Wharton interview, Cohen elaborated on the trend: “I’m going to go to China. I’m coming back from China. The same company simultaneously is making what seemed to be opposing decisions. And when you asked them why, they would give the same reasons. It’s because of labor costs. It’s because of market access. It’s because of this and that.”
In fact, they found there appears to be no dominant reason why companies make one decision or another in favor of onshoring or staying put.
And barriers seem to remain the same as when the onshoring movement began to gain momentum: The lack of skilled workers, coupled with an aging workforce, still rank high on the list of negatives. The rapid pace of offshoring in 1990s and early 2000s made younger generations lose faith in the viability of a manufacturing career.
Patrick Van den Bossche, the Americas lead partner at A.T. Kearney’s Strategic Operations Practice — which released its inaugural Reshoring Index last year — explained the problem on Manufacturing.net: “Think about it — if you have a kid in school, with everything that happened in the last few years, with manufacturing moving overseas as fast as it did, would you feel comfortable to tell your kid to develop a career in manufacturing? I don’t think so.”
At the same time, countries like China, Brazil, and Eastern Europe, previously known for their low-skilled labor, are quickly improving and investing in high-tech industries. With a greater pool of skilled workers abroad, a move back to the United States will seem less urgent. And with the arrival of robotics, the issue of labor costs will likely take on even less significance.
So the big question is, how should the United States stand up to the competition? What do you think?
A version of this article previously appeared on EBN Online.
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 10, 2016 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain, Talent
Manufacturing could offer a career with upward potential for STEM students at low-profile colleges.
The college graduates of 2015 were the most indebted ever — until the next round of grads wave their diplomas in the spring. But is sinking deep into debt really the ticket to a great career? If you have the means (and brains) to invest in an Ivy League degree, all stats seem to indicate you get ample payback for the $200,000-plus expense.
But among those high school grads who may not qualify for generous financial aid packages and at the same time cannot afford — or even want — an Ivy League degree, there are still lucrative options, especially if they study science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing, for example, is well known. While as many as 60% to 70% of executives say their current employees lack sufficient skills in technology, computer, and math, the problem is exacerbated by the lack of qualified job prospects — an expected 2 million manufacturing jobs will go unfilled due to the talent gap during the next decade, according to a Deloitte study.
As I’ve said before, herein lies opportunity. There is no reason seeking a career in manufacturing should break the bank if students weigh their choices wisely. Picking a low-profile school may “pay off big both in terms of getting a good job and salary,”according to John Walsik, a Forbes contributor and author of The Debt-Free Degree.
The opportunity is best illustrated by Business Insider’s recent list of underrated colleges in America in which the US News and World Report’s rankings of the best universities was compared with PayScale’s 2015-2016 College Salary Report. Rather than pursuing degrees from the highest rated schools, high school grads should also consider schools that, although ranked relatively low on the US News list, yield high mid-career salaries.
Interestingly, Missouri University of Science and Technology, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and University of Massachusetts at Lowell, known for their science and engineering programs, all ranked in the top 5 (Pace University in New York City topped the list), with mid-career median salaries ranging from $94,700 to $102,000. Within six months of graduation, for example, 80% of New Jersey Institute of Technology graduates were either employed — top employers include IBM and ExxonMobil — or enrolled in graduate programs.
A college degree from a prestigious school means little unless your earnings quickly make it worthwhile. If only manufacturing could shake its lackluster reputation, a growing number of students may discover it holds the key to a career with a lot of upward potential — without necessarily going into big debt.
What is your take on the cost of college versus the payoff?
A version of this post previously appeared at EBN Online.
by Elizabeth Hines | Mar 9, 2016 | Blog, Content Marketing, Marketing
The other day a client called to express his frustration with content marketing. Not only was he disappointed with the number of leads that his company had obtained to date, he was also disappointed with the number of sales. He was ready to call it quits and pull the plug on all content marketing efforts.
This client was not the first to call and express frustration, nor will he be the last. Unfortunately, there is a misconception that as soon as a company incorporates a content marketing into their strategy, they will be flooded with leads — leads served on a silver platter and leads all boxed up and tied with a bow. I wish content marketing could do this — it can’t. That being said, walking away from content marketing is a big mistake — content marketing is an effective strategy that companies should employ.
The buying process for B2B buyers has become more complex and longer. The 2015 B2B Buyer’s Survey Report found that 53% of respondents reported their purchase cycle was longer than it was the previous year. The buying process has gotten longer because the majority of buyers (82%) are using more sources to research and evaluate products and services, and they are spending more time in the research phase itself. A full 80% of respondents reported they spend more time on research alone — this is up from 58% in the previous survey.
Social media and vendor-focused content are two key places where buyers turn to conduct research. More than half (53%) of survey respondents reported that social media plays in their research process, and 86% of respondents reported that content such as case studies and product data sheets influence purchase decisions.
The increased focus on research has changed when the buyers engage with a sales rep. Today, the average buyer progresses nearly 60% of the way through the purchase decision-making process before engaging with a sales rep.
Back to my client. I walked my client through these facts, and then we walked through the metrics we track on the monthly basis. Since my client had started using content marketing, traffic to his company’s website had increased significantly, visitors to the website were spending longer on it than they had before, and they were looking at more pages. Additionally the company’s social reach had grown and engagement — with customers, prospects, and others within the industry — had increased considerably. All of these things, I pointed out, were positive. I then reminded my client that the typical sales cycle for his company and industry was 12-18 months — far longer than the few short months that he had been using content marketing.
I spent the next few minutes going over the company’s content marketing strategy. We decided to make a few tweaks, and then discussed both goals and expectations going forward.
It is important for companies to recognize that content marketing should be a part of their strategy — more than ever, B2B buyers are looking for information and are using that information to make buying decisions. Companies need to be using social media. Companies need to be creating and curating quality content. It is equally important, however, for companies to realize that content marketing is not magic. Content marketing doesn’t shorten the buying process; rather it changes it. Moreover, content marketing doesn’t deliver sales — sales people still play a large role in lead nurturing and closing deals.
You may also like:
This was originally published on Electronics Purchasing Strategies.
