Over the weekend I came across one of the most interesting online ad placements for an asset manager I’ve seen:
Yes, Columbia Management’s multi-strat funds are being promoted on a site that caters to statistically-oriented baseball fans. Intriguing.
I spent an hour last week monitoring an asset manager’s quarterly conference call with advisors. As the call wrapped, the executive moderating the call invited advisors to follow up via the firm’s:
What was interesting to me is that is the exact order in which these outlets were introduced. Web, then Twitter, and finally the wholesalers. Besides the order, the voiceover did even more to reinforce the primacy of the Web and Twitter relative to the sales team.
Obviously this a minor, tactical part of the call. But I’m intrigued by the order. I would not claim that online outlets provide more effective follow-up than a wholesaler in this case. And the call did not have enough advisors to raise concerns about an overwhelming volume of inbound calls/e-mails.
So was this a conscious decision? Is there a reason why the Web and Twitter were prioritized? I can think of a few good explanations, and will follow up here when I get a concrete answer.
A recent Your Q&A on Ignites (subscription) focuses on ensuring accountability within a sales team, in part by having clear role expectations. As an illustration, the piece says, “For example, some teams require the internal wholesaler to call the advisor in advance of a meeting with the field wholesaler.”
The example leapt off the page for me. Why? Because I believe the external wholesaler should always be the point-person when it comes to initiating, confirming, and communicating an agenda for his/her own appointments.
The reason is perception. By having an internal wholesaler handle these tasks, the importance of the client is undermined. A signal is sent that the external’s time is too valuable to be successfully setting the table for an important prospect/client conversation.
Recently I was in an advisor’s office when a hot-selling fund family came up in conversation. The advisor said he’d never met with the wholesaler from the firm:
He’s always having his assistant call and try to schedule time with me. I don’t work that way. I want to deal direct.
The advisor felt slighted by the lack of genuine interest shown by the wholesaler. He views the wholesaler’s approach as saying “my time is more important than yours.” A harsh interpretation? Sure. An uncommon one? I don’t think so.
Salespeople, of course, want to send the exact opposite message. It’s the nature of being a product/service provider. The wholesaler who wants the meeting (and the client), should make sure his commitment is clear to the client. Direct communication is a simple and important way to do that.
Scott Welch of Fortigent recently wrote an interesting article (FundFire, subscription required) about how the mentality of high-net worth individuals has changed toward alternative investments. The big takeaway is his belief that retail-oriented, liquid alternative products will take significant market share from traditional hedge funds and fund-of-funds.
Turning toward advisors’ dealings with clients, Scott says:
An important question advisors can ask high-net-worth clients is, What is an acceptable trade-off between performance, liquidity, leverage and transparency?
A good question, but I don’t think this is the precise question to ask for two reasons:
These points reinforce what Scott is getting at – alternative products in retail packaging have huge potential. Advisors are not going to want to choose among performance, liquidity, leverage, and transparency. They’re going to want it all.
As part of a current engagement, we’re meeting with numerous independent insurance agents. It’s exciting to have time with these agents as we recognize how difficult their jobs can be.
I’ve been asking “why do you recommend one insurance provider over another?” The varied answers are interesting. But three reasons come up frequently:
The first makes sense. It’s a difficult sale to tell someone to select a more expensive plan. The second captivates me. An agent will mention that a certain company has provided insurance “for over a hundred years” with a lot of enthusiasm. I presume it’s effective because that message consistently and quickly came from each different agent.
Brand is straight-forward. Interacting with agents, you can see the “mom test” (does my 70+ year old mother know that this firm exists?) in action when using a large firm. For small firms, they revert to longevity when possible. I hear messages such as:
I imagine over time, these reasons have become easy to close a client with. Our nature to respond to them is pretty interesting and crucial for developing sales & marketing plans.