[Solution]Revolution in Sales

“Revolution in Sales: The impact of Social media and Related technology on the Selling Environment” by Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Rudd, J. M., &…

“Revolution in Sales: The impact of Social media and Related technology on the Selling Environment” by Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Rudd, J. M., & Lee, N. (2012).
Write a two-page report (font size 12, double-spaced) summarizing the article.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXXII, no. 3 (summer 2012), pp. 349–363. © 2012 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 0885–3134 (print) / ISSN 1557–7813 (online) DOI: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134320305
Change is a constant in business, and even as early as the 1960s, authors were discussing the rapid changes the sales function was undergoing at that time (Kahn and Schuchman 1961). Thus, in the past two decades, multiple studies have described the changing environment salespeople are facing, with each tending to focus on a different key characteristic of the sales environment or role (Lee 2011). For example, Leigh and Marshall (2001) spend a great deal of time discussing the importance of customer orientation in influencing enhanced sales practice, emphasizing the importance of relationships in the modern selling environment. Jones et al. (2005) focus on how changes in buyer expectations have led to higher cognitive loads on salespeople. Alternatively, Tanner et al. (2008) find that sales organizations are most interested in discovering the key characteristics of successful salespeople in the contemporary environment. Over time, myriad other studies have illuminated specific aspects of the modern selling
environment, including the rise of technology usage (for a recent review of the history of technology in sales, see Christ and Anderson 2011).
However, little research to date has explored the implica- tions for the sales force of the rise in what is known as “social media” and the “always-on” communication technology usage patterns associated with it. It would seem that this is a vital gap for sales force research and practice. In particular, social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and now Google+, and always-on communication technology, such as mobile Internet and the smartphone, appear to be more than simple extensions of traditional technology such as static phones, desktops, and even laptops. Today, salespeople often do not have a choice as to whether or not they are contactable. The rise of global busi- ness exacerbates such a situation, meaning salespeople might feel that they are on call 24 hours a day and are expected to respond to communications immediately whatever time they come through from anywhere in the world.
The implications of such a situation are by no means cer- tain. For example, one might expect that the increased ability for customer–salesperson contact can lead to an increase in the importance of relationship-oriented behaviors. However, equally, one could expect that the potential burnout caused by such an always-on environment could lead to just the op- posite. The situation could be compounded by the newfound ability for most interactions to be conducted electronically instead of face-to-face, thus thwarting a traditional relational element. Firms looking to save money in tough times could therefore invest in technology rather than people. Further, are there generational differences in the use of these new social media technologies?
Such issues and questions are the concern of the present article. Our key research objective is to gain insights on social media within the context of the sales world, including the
Revolution in SaleS: the impact of Social media and Related technology on the Selling enviRonment
greg W. marshall, William c. moncrief, John m. Rudd, and nick lee
Over the years several articles have tracked the impact of technology on various aspects of the sales domain. However, the advent of social media and technologies related to social media has gone largely unnoticed in the literature. This article first provides brief attention to changing aspects of technology within the sales environment, leading to the identification of social media as a dominant new selling tool. A qualitative approach (focus groups) is employed to explore the breadth of current technology usage by sales managers and salespeople. Analysis of the data, collected in the United States and the United Kingdom, reveals six major themes: connectivity, relationships, selling tools, generational, global, and sales/ marketing interface. Results provide evidence of a revolution in the buyer–seller relationship that includes some unan- ticipated consequences both for sales organization performance and needed future research contributions.
greg W. marshall (Ph.D., Oklahoma State University), Charles Harwood Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, and Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Marketing Group, Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK, gmarshall@rollins.edu.
William c. moncrief (Ph.D., Louisiana State University), Charles F. and Alann P. Bedford Professor of International Business, Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, b.moncrief@tcu.edu.
John m. Rudd (Ph.D., Aston University), Head of Marketing Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, j.m.rudd@aston.ac.uk.
nick lee (Ph.D., Aston University), Professor of Marketing and Organizational Research, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, n.j.lee@aston.ac.uk.

350 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
positive or negative effects of these technologies on the sales job and salespeople. To address these issues, we use a cross- national qualitative study, collecting data from sales force members in the United States and the United Kingdom. Such an exploratory approach is necessary at this stage in theory development, given the major changes inherent in the sales environment mentioned above, and existing theory may not explain the contemporary situation regarding social media in sales. To begin, we provide brief attention to changing aspects of technology within the sales environment, followed by a detailed discussion of our methodology, findings, and our at-times surprising results.
changing technology in SaleS
Over the years, a wide variety of articles has looked at specific aspects and applications of technology in personal selling. Focal topics have included technology acceptance (e.g., Robinson, Marshall, and Stamps 2005), sales force automation (SFA) (e.g., Rapp, Agnihotri, and Forbes 2008), customer relationship management (CRM) and relationship selling (e.g., Ahearne et al. 2008), telemarketing (e.g., Mon- crief, Lamb, and Dielman 1986), and business-to-consumer (B2C) sales technology usage (e.g., Ahearne and Rapp 2010). Growing interest in technology issues in sales led JPSSM in 1984 to create an “experimental new section” of the journal called “Microcomputer Applications in Selling and Sales Management,” with its own section editor, Robert Collins, and regular publication of columns and peer-reviewed ar- ticles (Collins 1984). This section later was renamed “Sales Technology Applications” and ultimately was featured for 18 years. A decade ago, Widmier, Jackson, and McCabe made the following observation:
Early academic articles (on sales technology) primarily focused on the adoption of personal computers . . . , whereas later ones have focused on the application of other technologies such as laptops . . . , cellular phones . . . , software programs . . . , electronic data interchange . . . , and group support system software. . . . More recent academic research has focused on the area of successful implementation of SFA systems. . . . However, popular literature suggests a broader role for sales force technology. (2002, p. 190)
The advent in 1984 of the JPSSM special section on tech- nology represented an important affirmation that rapidly advancing technology was changing the world of sales. Its early focus specifically on “microcomputer applications” makes sense, since the availability of increasingly more affordable personal computing began to take hold in the early 1980s. Sales technology that emerged in the 1990s accelerated the pace of mobility, productivity, and efficiency of professional salespeople.
Widespread accessibility of the Internet, developed by the end of the 1990s, may be the single biggest technological contribution to selling from that decade. Many early Web sites seemed to feature novelty over content (one can search on Google for “archived old Web sites” and find various ways to locate early examples) and early B2C “e-marketing” or “e-commerce” did not live up to its initial promise (many first- generation e-firms went out of business in the dot-com bust). Little did we know at the turn of the century how much the Internet would ultimately contribute to the ready availability and easy access of information in the business-to-business (B2B) space. Today, information has become ubiquitous— some would say a commodity—and the commoditization of information has had a profound effect on the buyer/seller rela- tionship, salesperson role, and sales organizational strategy.
The aim of the present study is to identify and describe the potential impact of the cumulative effect of sales technologies, but more specifically to gain new knowledge on the recent promulgation of social media on the selling environment. According to Kaplan and Haenlein, “social media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content” (2010, p. 62). Recent work has pointed out the importance of social media for various components of a firm’s integrated marketing communication strategy (IMC), including direct-to-customer communication such as personal selling (Mangold and Faulds 2009). Despite the clear march to prominence of social media as a marketing tool in general, the topic has captured little attention in the academic sales literature. To begin to alleviate this knowledge gap, we take a qualitative approach method- ologically that is described in the next section.
At the close of the twentieth century, Marshall, Moncrief, and Lassk (1999) examined sales force activities and documented the fact that technology was emerging as a substantially more important component of the sales job. They derived a list of new salesperson activities based on a series of focus groups. The present study has a different purpose but uses a data collection method similar to that of Marshall, Moncrief, and Lassk (1999). They conducted focus groups to obtain new data until a point of diminishing returns was reached in terms of new information, at which time they ended the focus group process (in their case, at six focus groups). In his original sales activity study, Moncrief (1986) implemented a similar approach to data collection and conducted four focus groups, at which point he reported diminishing returns. The present study uses four focus groups, two in the United States and two in the United Kingdom (see the Appendix for the format and questions for the focus groups). Because by 2011 sales

Summer 2012 351
truly had become a global enterprise, we believed it prudent to conduct two of the focus groups outside the United States. We selected the United Kingdom because of its lead in sales research within the European sphere of influence and because English is the primary language.
To ensure maximum consistency, each focus group was led by a moderator and included an observer, both from the author team. The focus groups were taped and transcribed. One of the authors (the same individual) was present at all four focus groups to enhance continuity of process. A basic set of questions was prepared and asked. After each question, the ensuing discussion was allowed to free float with the moderator encouraging participative dialogue. As technology questions were asked, each respondent was encouraged to talk about: (1) whether that technology is being used within their orga- nization and (2) in what capacity it is employed. Each session lasted from 90 to 120 minutes. After the completion of the fourth focus group, the authors reviewed the transcripts and determined that no new substantive information was being elicited. Thus, the focus group process ceased—the diminish- ing return criterion.
Participants in the four focus groups were carefully selected to include salespeople representing a diverse set of industries and product/service offerings. The number of participants in the two U.S. focus groups was 9 and 15, and the UK focus group members numbered 6 and 5. Diversity of participant age and experience was reasonably attained. Complete de- mographics are provided in Table 1. The age and experience issue is particularly important in this research because of the exploration of social media as a topic and the assumption that its emergence and acceptance has had a more dynamic trajec- tory among the younger generation. Sixteen B2B product in- dustries and ten B2B service industries are represented. There were 27 male and 8 female participants—not surprising given the industry array. Five of the participants were 30 or younger, and four were over 50. Seventeen of the 35 participants had 10 or fewer years of sales experience—a balanced split.
To identify key themes from the data, the researchers reviewed the transcripts and began to categorize each theme based on similarity of focus. The goal of this process was to ultimately reduce the transcription content into a manageable set of thematic categories that capture as discretely as possible the impact of social media and related technology on the selling environment. Toward this end, the researchers first systemati- cally evaluated the raw data (transcription) with an eye toward developing broad categories. This process resulted in 17 initial categories, with some comments crossing categories.
Toward greater parsimony, detailed analysis of the initial 17 revealed areas of overlap that allowed for a reduction to 6
Table 1 Demographics of Participants and Their Industries
Products (18) Services (17) Building supplies (1) Financial (3) Pharmaceuticals (2) Railroad (1) Promotional products (1) Advertising (2) Industrial carpet (1) Shipping (2) Paper (1) Health care/medical (3) Acoustics (1) Education (1) Beverage (2) Consulting (1) Rubber rings (1) Hospitality (2) Machinery (1) Real Estate (1) Capital equipment (1) Security (1) Software (1) Plastics (1) Air conditioning (1) Automotive (1) Defense (1) Medical (1)
Age (years) Experience (years) 21–25 (3) 1–5 (4) 26–30 (2) 6–10 (13) 31–35 (9) 11–15 (7) 36–40 (7) 16–20 (2) 41–45 (7) 21–25 (6) 46–50 (3) 26–30 (1) 51–55 (3) Over 30 (2) Older than 55 (1)
Gender Male (27) Female (8)
Note: Frequencies are in parentheses.
over-arching categories of thematic comments from the data (portrayed in Table 2), which are as follows: Connectivity, Relationships, Selling Tools, Generational, Global, and Sales/ Marketing Interface. Deeper analysis into the content of each theme revealed definitive subthemes within several of the themes. The following sections provide evidentiary details in support of each theme (and, if applicable, subtheme), each section beginning with summarizing remarks derived from analysis of respondent comments within that category. Then, we present representative respondent comments with each bul- let denoting a different comment. Later, in the Discussion and Implications section, we provide more extensive commentary and implications by theme.
theme 1: connectivity
Connectivity is the level at which salespeople are connected or available to their employers and their clients. The focus groups highlight the fact that demands for connectivity are

352 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Table 2 Themes, Subthemes, and Key Findings
Themes/Subthemes Theme Definition Key Findings
Connectivity The level at which salespeople are connected or available to employees and clients
• Technology viewed as matter of course for work • Negative influence on ability to plan
Daily Routine • Log-in morning and night No place to hide • Total access expectation
Relationship Socialness; social networking and building personal long-term contacts
• Younger salespeople are more comfortable building virtual relationships
• Technology increasing and changing the way we build relationships
Socialness • Social not important technology for building relationships Personal Contacts • Clients want less personal contact Buyer Preference • Customers have near perfect information
• Buyers are driving the mode of relationship Selling Tools Technology-based selling techniques used
by sellers in creating, building, and maintaining relationships
• Technology making revolutionary changes to selling • Not everyone embraces the new selling tools, age is a variable in
the amount of technology being used Social Media • Social media sites (Facebook, LinkedIn) are becoming common
• Twitter is being used in a number of ways to sell Facilitation Tools • Blogs help track competitors and suppliers Seven Steps of Selling • The seven steps have become more condensed because of
technology Generational Differences between younger and more
experienced reps (roughly above or below 35 years) concerning the use of technology
• Younger reps are shying away from face-to-face contact • Younger reps are combining social and work done on job • The two generations are communicating with clients
differently Global Building and maintaining world-wide
customers and relationships • Work is waiting on you when you arrive at work—the work
has come in from Europe or Asia • Answering messages (e-mail) 24 hours a day • Teammates/suppliers are located around the world
Sales/Marketing Interface The merging of sales and marketing strategies
• Branding is being affected by blogs and chatter on the Net • Twitter is becoming a major marketing and selling tool • Lines between marketing and sales are blurring because of the
use of technology
increasing from both employers and clients, and participants sense that social media technology fuels this trend. However, there is some inconsistency in the ways in which the impact of the technology is described by the participants. Some of the participants have embraced it and use it as a matter of course in their daily routine. Others, however, see it as a negative in- fluence on their ability to plan their daily activities, genuinely feeling that there is now “no place to hide.”
Information, or a thirst for information, underpins the increased connectivity whether for management and control purposes by the sales organization or for product- and service- based purposes by buyers. The results suggest that sales rela- tionships are now driven by a need for immediate and open access to all relevant information and that it is quite acceptable for this information to arrive in an electronic format, with no particular expectation of face-to-face contact. Two subthemes emerged within the Connectivity category: Daily Routine and No Place to Hide.
Daily Routine
Within the Connectivity theme, the Daily Routine subtheme captures the positive sentiment expressed by participants to- ward the impact of technology. Here, connectivity through social media technology is viewed not only as a helpful and convenient facilitator but also very much as a fundamental and integrated part of the sales planning role.
• The first thing I do every morning is log into my com- puter to check sales.
• I have no home office; the computer has become my office.
• I jump on the computer on a nightly basis to develop a regular routine and analyze numbers to get ahead in planning for the next day.
• A normal day has me 80 percent of the time on my smartphone or computer multitasking, planning, and prospecting.

Summer 2012 353
• I have to be “plugged in” constantly all day to get ev- erything done.
• I do my planning at night and also spend at least 45 minutes on the computer before leaving the house in the morning.
No Place to Hide
Within the Connectivity theme, the No Place to Hide subtheme includes more negative sentiment expressed by participants toward the impact of technology. Here, con- nectivity through technology is viewed as something that reduces efficiency and effectiveness, generally when compared to memories of halcyon days long passed.
• In a normal day I spend 80 percent of my time on my smartphone or computer multitasking, planning travel, and prospecting (10 minutes of free time is a luxury).
• Now something comes through on e‑mail, somebody will have phoned me up, and there will be voice mails left because we now have a business culture where ev- erybody’s always available, always responsive, and the expectation is that whatever happens, you drop every- thing. I’m not actually convinced that productivity is getting any greater. I think we’re just allowing ourselves to get distracted because these tools are all high tech and glossy and they have nice graphics on them, so you think, “Oh, this must be important.” But it’s not, I’m not organized, I’m actually less focused and there- fore doing less quality work than I used to.
• I feel a need to be “plugged in” and constantly going all day. I can’t turn the phone off because there’s an ex- pectation for total access.
• Reflective practice is absolutely crucial to effectiveness and you [reflect] by switching these bloody things off. But nobody ever does. So we’re not having that time for reflection, we’re not sitting there and really under- standing what’s working and what isn’t and how do we improve it. We’re constantly reacting and I think ul- timately there’s a significant efficiency loss that comes out as a result.
• You can be a slave to technology and just work for the technology. Sometimes you have to say, “Enough! Technology doesn’t control me.” There has to be time when you actually are thinking. Otherwise, we are bombarded all the time. It’s almost an invasion of pri- vacy. At one point e‑mail was like that; then text mes- saging came along. So what is the next step?
• A salesperson actually has a disadvantage because of technology—rarely have “me” time. Much more is asked of the salesperson now.
• My job has changed because of the technology aspect of it. I can remember when I was out on the road and
I couldn’t have a mobile phone or a Blackberry, and it was great because you could plan your day, you could plan your week, and you could organize your time. My success was dependent on organizing myself effectively to a large extent. Now, my success is largely depen- dent on how quickly I can put fires out because there are constant demands and constant interruptions! There’s no such thing as a “typical day” because I have a plan for what I’m going to do and I can guarantee by 11 o’clock in the morning it’ll be out of the window.
• I think technology gives all of us an excuse to run around and look very, very busy sometimes without necessarily being that productive.
theme 2: Relationships
From the focus group data, relationships are defined as a func- tion of (1) socialness, or the degree to which social networking is utilized in business situations, (2) personal contact, or the amount of face-to-face contact in sales networks, and (3) buyer preference, or the degree to which a buyer utilizes social media technology in their relationship with sellers.
Face-to-face contact is being used less often by salespeople to build and maintain client relationships. Although some of the responses suggest that “younger” salespeople are more comfortable building relationships through virtual means, it is clear that organizational buyers are also driving this mode of working in an attempt to function more effectively and to streamline the number of face-to-face meetings with sellers. An interesting finding is that few of the participants discussed the reduction in face time with clients as having a negative impact on particular aspects of their relationship. Indeed, the partici- pants felt that for younger generations, virtual relationships actually may be preferred and may lead to higher performance as face-to-face skills and techniques will be largely redundant. The majority of the comments used virtual relationships as a proxy for more efficient and effective working.
Three subthemes are evident in the Relationships category: Socialness, Personal Contact, and Buyer Contact, with exem- plar quotations as follows.
Within the Relationships theme, the Socialness subtheme is defined as the degree to which social networking is utilized in business situations. Participants varied on how work and nonwork relationships were defined and used.
• I think that the whole term “social” (as in social media) is kind of strange. I’m not really trying to be social. Social media forms are really a means to an end. I have a deliverable to my customer. There’s no value in hang- ing out with you online. It’s almost like you’re taking

354 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
a tool that was designed for socialness and you’re try- ing to find a business application, and that’s where the trouble is.
• It’s about relationships and the thing is all of these people have tens of millions of MySpace “friends,” but do they really have a relationship?
Personal Contact
Within the Relationships theme, the Personal Contact sub- theme represents the amount of face-to-face contact in sales networks. It is very clear from most participants that technol- ogy has affected the degree to which face-to-face relationships are used and required. A general lessening of face time between buyer and seller, and also between salesperson and sales man- ager, is highlighted.
• People do not want personal contact anymore (they rely on technology). Postmodern thinkers are not thinking logically anymore.
• I think there will be a generation of people who have lost the ability to interact face-to-face because they never do it. There are people who will never travel any- where or go and see people. They’ll live in their little pods in their high-rise development, and if they want a night out they will Skype each other. There’ll be a virtual cyberspace.
• It is becoming more difficult to get face‑to‑face (easier to say “no”). I find that I have to push younger folks to not just rely on e-mail to get business.
• Younger people are more comfortable and fall back on the computer, when they really need to be face-to-face to build relationships.
• Sometimes I just haven’t got the time to see somebody in person to establish a relationship, so how can I use technology to build that relationship without physi- cally driving down the [freeway]? How can I give this guy enough confidence in me through the Internet?
• So much information is thrown at both us and the customer—there’s no time to meet face-to-face.
Buyer Preference
Within the Relationships theme, the Buyer Preference sub- theme is the degree to which an organizational buyer utilizes technology in relationships with sellers.
• I have a lot of clients that prefer to do business via e-mail. But it is extremely hard to start a relationship through e-mail. Although I must say that I do have one client and we have never met but have great rela- tionship via e-mail and phone.
• I think customers have almost perfect information now. Customers are so much better informed and so
much more aware of what’s going on out there today. So, I guess in a way, the power has shifted a little bit and maybe that’s a good thing. The power has shifted to the customer in terms of the way that the relation- ship is managed and therefore, it becomes much more about trust than persuasion.
theme 3: Selling tools
Selling tools are defined here largely as the array of technology- based techniques used by sellers in creating, building, and maintaining relationships. Importantly, three distinct but associated subthemes emerged within this category—Social Media, Facilitation Tools, and the Traditional “Seven Steps of Selling” or traditional sales process model. The latter sub- theme is quite interesting to uncover, as clearly the other two subthemes are affecting and reforming its execution.
Representative quotations follow for the three Selling Tools subthemes: Social Media, Facilitation Tools, and the Traditional “Seven Steps of Selling.”
Social Media as Selling Tools
Within the Selling Tools theme, the Social Media subtheme reflects the way in which these technologies are now embedded into the sales process and the outcomes of such.
• I think we’re getting totally wrapped up in responding to the technology rather than sitting back and saying “How can we actually use it effectively to work for us?” Instead, we’re serving it more and more at the moment.
• I think one of the problems may be too much avail- ability. Once you are on Facebook and LinkedIn people just feel they can contact you but they waste a lot of your time.
• It just seems like such an intuitively good idea to get professional people to keep in touch, share interests, and point each other in the direction of useful websites and interesting articles. I haven’t quite been able to get my head around how I can do that yet.
• We use social media as part of the sales process when- ever we talk to anybody. We went to see a woman who was marketing director for a large, about 190-person- strong bathroom retailer in the UK. We’d never met her before, so we looked her up on LinkedIn, found a picture of her, found her previous roles, found out that she’d been in purchasing at Tesco and she’d been at Carphone Warehouse, and that she’s very, very sharp and astute with a retail, marketing, and purchasing background. That information changed our whole sell- ing approach.
• A financial adviser for a big firm here in town that I worked closely with decided it was time to go out on

Summer 2012 355
his own. He’s had unbelievable success using social media through the contacts he made on Facebook and LinkedIn. He’s actually been able to build a significant portion of his book of business through LinkedIn such that a potential client can see other people who trust him and then connect with them and ask about their experience with him. It really adds a lot of credibility.
• I work with a girl who’s younger than me and she’s kind of got us all LinkedIn. I think we’ve got a Face- book page. I get a couple of e-mails from the latest discussion in my area, but I find it a bit trivial. I don’t think it adds a huge amount of value to my day.
• All the members of our executive team are on Linked- In and I don’t know why. The middle managers group, in which I would fall, is not really on LinkedIn. I don’t see the value of it to me yet. Maybe somewhere down the line, when it becomes more popular with manag- ers and commercial people generally, maybe we will all join in but at the moment, no.
• I am a big proponent of LinkedIn—it is helpful in building a network, gaining access to customers, and making background checks.
• I use LinkedIn to research when meeting with a cli- ent. It is a great conversation starter—another way to relationship build. I use Facebook for prospecting cli- ents. My observation has been that if someone is under 35 years old they use Facebook for social purposes. If older than 35, they use it for business.
• One of my associates in Paris regaled me with how she thought LinkedIn was the most fantastic, brilliant thing ever. She always makes a point whenever she goes to a conference to ask everybody, “Are you on LinkedIn?” She adds them to her network. She’s got all this network of people all over Europe and she thinks it’s fabulous. And that kind of energized me for about 15 minutes and then I thought, “Okay, she’s got this enormous network, has she actually done anything with it?” I just think the whole thing is far too trivial, strange, and slightly creepy for it to work at a business level.
• I set up Facebook to “ping” me when it’s a client’s birthday. We tweet on Twitter for company events, and I take a USB drive with me instead of a laptop on calls (some clients won’t allow us to use our own PC in their offices anymore).
• We’ve just launched an around‑the‑world internal social network. Everyone who works at McCann’s has to go on and list about 20 interests. Management puts you in the center of this circle and then puts all these pins to different people to actually help you connect with people with like-minded interests professionally and socially.
• I would say that social media is a tool. I have devel- oped a real relationship with some of the people we sell to and they look for you on Facebook—just you—and so I’ve had to delete certain pictures on my personal page and take away a lot of the content that was on there. Two years ago, I wouldn’t have done that, but because the world has gotten so much smaller and ev- erybody is on Facebook I’ve done it now.
Facilitation Tools as Selling Tools
Within the Selling Tools theme, the Facilitation Tools sub- theme provides evidence of how a variety of technologies that are closely related to social media are utilized to enhance the sales environment.
• I have a personal blog, but don’t use it for business. I also belong to other industry groups and blogs. I use them to keep an “eye” on and track competitors. It is easier to keep up with new products in the tech industry (new developments daily). I also subscribe to RSS [Really Simple Syndication] (to track competitor blogs).
• So we did an iPhone with apps. You press the app and up come the PowerPoint slides providing the details. And these guys about fell over when we took it to them and said, “Look, this is our presentation.” “Okay, where is it?” “It’s there, it’s on your iPhone—all you need is to press a button.” And they said, “Wow!”
• I would say we’re using our phones—smartphones. We’re using our phone as our computer.
• People now have Skype meetings and I think they are quite effective if you’re located all over the place. You can have a conference call with somebody or with a number of people. With Skype you can physically see the customer or colleague and thus you can see the body language, the intimation—it comes across a lot better.
• I link to industry sites/trade publications online. • I used to subscribe to trade publications, but now they
are online.
Traditional “Seven Steps of Selling” as Selling Tools
Within the Selling Tools theme, the Seven Steps of Selling subtheme reflects participant comments regarding the impact of technology on what traditionally has been considered the unequivocal foundation of “good” sales practice.
• We still follow the basic selling steps, but it’s more con- densed now from the traditional “7 steps” to maybe 2 or 3 basic steps.
• My firm’s “steps” of selling went from 10 to about 3.

356 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
• Our sales steps went to 3 steps: (1) find needs/solu- tions, (2) negotiate price/time/closing, (3) close that day or sometimes maybe a year or longer later depend- ing on the client.
• I know someone who uses dating Web sites to prospect for new customers.
• We give customers wikis and chat rooms that they can use for follow-up learning.
• I send text messages to about 10 percent of my clients as follow-up.
• We do some traditional follow‑up in terms of customer visits, but it’s mainly if it’s a technical problem. I very rarely speak to anybody. I very rarely visit anybody anymore. It costs so much money.
• Customers are now gathering information and not asking for explanation/interpretation from the seller. Customers are forming their own opinions.
• The biggest change I’ve seen is that customers are more knowledgeable. In that sense, they have higher expecta- tions. Like for my business, clients do a lot of research online, so they come in knowing what they want.
• When you talk about customers, they are knowledge- able. The knowledge they have at their fingertips. They can do in a matter of hours what would take weeks to do in the past. They research through Google and all sorts of other sources on the Internet. It’s just amazing how critical customers are now, how quickly they can criticize, and how far the reach.
theme 4: generational
The data reveal clear generational differences in the use of social media technology. A perception exists among par- ticipants that younger people are more likely to use, and feel more comfortable using, social media. The comments collected suggest that younger buyers and sellers are likely to prefer virtual, social media technology–based relationships, as opposed to the face-to-face relationships favored by their older colleagues. Older participants suggested that this trend works to the detriment of relationships in general, but it is clear from the data collected that there are situations where positive outcomes had occurred through removing the face- to-face element. Whether these positive outcomes result from a buyer or seller being more favorably predisposed to the use of technology, or if instead through practice the buyer or seller simply had developed effective communication skills vis-à-vis social media, is not identified.
Representative quotations from the Generational theme follow.
• I have found that a majority of younger people tend to shy away from personal contact and prefer e-mail
contact. This is a lousy way to communicate and detri- mental to business.
• It’s harder to get face‑to‑face in general. I find that I have to push younger folks to not just rely on e-mail to get business.
• Younger people are more comfortable with virtual relationships and fall back on the computer. What they really need is to be more face-to-face to build relationships.
• It’s almost as if members of the younger generation have just naturally taken what they do outside work via technology and brought it into work.
• I can see that this generation communicates differently (my kids are 16 and 14). They communicate on Face- book, etc. When they are 26 and 24 that is the way they will run their business lives. So there is a bit of a generational gap.
• Etiquette when using technology is important. You don’t check your Blackberry when you’re with some- one. When you use e-mail, use proper grammar/ spelling. You need to use manners (people tend to forget to use “please” and “thank you” in e-mail or text messages).
• One of the things I’ve seen change drastically over the last four or five years is that customer loyalty is not there like it used to be. Now the younger customers come out with no loyalty whatsoever. Today you can have their business and tomorrow they’re with some- body else.
theme 5: global
The increasingly global nature of sales creates significant opportunities for increased revenues and also presents pro- portionately larger problems. The positives stem from access to new markets and subsequent incremental revenue streams. The negatives center on managing relationships across time zones in an age where instant responses are the norm. Hence, the notion of one person developing deep trust-based re- lationships with buyers is called into focus across different time zone boundaries, especially if the time differences are significant. One human cannot be constantly available 24 hours a day, a situation that is not only infeasible but also managerially undesirable in a technology-driven sales model. Thus, there is a direct link between this theme and Theme One (Connectivity).
Below are several supporting quotations for the Global theme:
• This morning, first thing I straight away just looked at my Blackberry and the first e-mail that comes in is an order from Colombia that’s from a guy who is out in

Summer 2012 357
the mines somewhere asking me to ship it into Florida by DHL. And then, I get another one coming in from China for an order that’s just got to be shipped to Hong Kong.
• I found myself in the pub on Friday night answering e-mails from America because of, obviously, the time lag. The connectivity has its ups and downs but I’ve probably saved a considerable amount of business this way over the past four years.
• Business is more global than in the past, offering more compensation but at a cost to personal life (expected to work longer hours).
• If you’re managed across global boundaries and your manager happens to be in another time zone, then you may start out in your morning time zone thinking this is what my day is going to look like, but your manager in the other time zone says, “I want this report by 9 a.m. your time,” and bang goes your plan for the day.
theme 6: Sales/marketing interface
Marketing, rather than sales, has tended to be a focus of so- cial media deployment strategies within most organizations. The age-old mantra that dissatisfied customers tell 8 to 16 other customers is no longer relevant, since through social media they are much more likely to tell a few hundred or a few hundred thousand (depending on how many “friends” they have). This development presents significant potential challenges for selling firms (and hence, salespeople), which now are likely to have to overcome an ever-escalating number of customer objections based on this word-of-mouth/buzz. Buyers have access to more information than ever before about the products and services being offered and are likely to use this knowledge/power as leverage in any subsequent negotiations.
Below are representative quotations related to Sales/ Marketing Interface.
• Social media is 100 percent acceptance of a complete stranger’s perception of an experience versus the com- pany’s view of it. Nobody will trust the branding from the company, but they will trust somebody that they’ve never met who maybe had a negative experience and now says on some blog, “Well maybe I shouldn’t pur- chase that product.”
• I actually manage the social media for our company and we use Twitter to push our offers and promotions to get guests to come in and stay. But there’s kind of a differentiation for our Twitter page—the majority of the followers are bloggers, convention and visitors bureaus, and big resorts. Our Facebook page is where many of our guests who actually stay at our resort are.
• I know that Twitter with us is just about putting out content for people to follow on us, but our Facebook page is really where we have our ads, let people know we’re having a promotion, and push out information. We are just now linking our Web site with our Face- book page with “like” buttons by each product so you can “check” liking this box of product. Now, when people visit the page they can see what everyone is buying.
• Social media has huge limitations in business because most businesses block social media access internally.
• Our marketing is managed at the national brand level. We’ve got people that sit on Twitter and Facebook all the time and at the national brand level the monitor- ing is constant.
• We are finding that we are actually doing more stra- tegic selling as opposed to having a separate specific marketing function. For us, it’s a traditional marketing responsibility that is really now a sales responsibility. It’s trying to understand what’s going on in the market, feeding it back into the business.
diScuSSion and implicationS
Taken in sum, the evidence generated by this research reveals a revolutionary change in the way contemporary selling is conducted—it is driven in large measure by social media technology. The implications for theory development and practice in this area are widespread and potentially game- changing. In this decade, the increasing pervasiveness of social media is fundamentally altering the methods by which, and through which, buyers and sellers interact. Information has become ubiquitous—some would say a commodity—and the commoditization of information has had a profound effect on the buyer/seller relationship, salesperson role, and sales organizational strategy. In addition, the focus groups provide insight into the potential for a negative effect of technology on salespeople and the selling process and environment. Al- though considerable work has occurred regarding the impact of technology on salespeople (e.g., Christ and Anderson 2011), the positive influence of technology most often is the focus. However, in this case we uncover and posit a range of negative outcomes that urgently require follow-up research.
Each of the six key themes from our research is debriefed below in the context of relevant theoretical and managerial implications.
theme 1: connectivity
Our results suggest that salespeople are using social media more and more to demonstrate connectivity to both their host organization and clients. Evidence is strong that this is

358 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
largely driven by a hunger for increased levels of real-time information, more often and at a faster rate than was previ- ously the norm.
Organizational demands are greater due to the unceasing use of e-mail and mobile communication technology. A perception exists that salespeople are no longer able to effectively engage in daily, let alone long-term, planning due to constant inter- ruptions. Salespeople who previously were viewed as remote now are actually incredibly connected 24/7. Anyone in the host organization as well as any client can make a request for information at any time during and outside the traditional workday, in many cases when doing business across multiple time zones. The expectation is that a salesperson’s response will be made very quickly, as the recipient is presumed to be work- ing within a similar paradigm—one that settles for nothing less than an immediate answer. Hence, salespeople feel pressured to conform to a culture of immediacy.
Sales managers are also able to exert greater levels of control and accountability over their sales teams, but the degree to which this is a good or bad thing for selling practice can be de- bated. At any given moment the precise activities of salespeople can be identified and scrutinized, in many instances remotely and virtually. A real sense of “big brother” is prevalent in the focus group discussions, which appears to enhance levels of frustration and stress in participants. Clients also expect total access to information from their designated salesperson. Like sales managers, clients are not prepared to wait and expect prompt responses to any queries, at any time. The resulting pressure on the sales role is considerable.
The results suggest that variance does exist in the acceptance and use of social media by salespeople. However, others clearly embrace the technology and use it to serve them and help them achieve their objectives. Some of these folks spoke of using it to help them plan, also highlighting an ability to “turn it off ” if need be. But for some, its increasing use and higher perceived levels of scrutiny are seen as a negative and threatening notion, in essence something to be avoided at all costs.
Sales practitioners are presented with a central challenge based on this theme of Connectivity—how do I best utilize social media to enhance selling and sales productivity? From a client perspective, creative solutions exist that can ease the fulfillment of expected prompt responses to queries, even those outside “normal” working hours. Options might involve third parties, or automatically rerouting certain queries during non- contact hours. The core of the issue here is expectations manage- ment, and it is essential that realistic expectations be set jointly with the client. Certain response parameters can be agreed on and, if necessary, written into a contract. The same is true for salespersons’ host firms, with the responsibility squarely on management to not exploit salespeople through technology.
What ultimately is unsustainable is a 24/7—or nearly so— response from a single salesperson to both clients and their host
organization. This mode of operation has a high likelihood of leading to stress, burnout, increased turnover, and ultimately a significant drop in productivity. Then, customers will be negatively affected and lost. It is clear that while social media technology can indeed enhance sales productivity, sales man- agers must have a strategy to deal with any deleterious conse- quences of the technology. It is not enough to merely possess the technology and be aware of its existence. Effectiveness and efficiency will flow from those taking a thoughtful, strategic view of the implications of social media implementation.
theme 2: Relationships
Face-to-face creation and maintenance of salesperson/client relationships, and subsequent trust building, are central tenets in the sales literature (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990). But today, social media technology appears to be affecting tradi- tional approaches to these central characteristics of the sales role to the point that in certain instances, salespeople are hav- ing completely virtual relationships with clients—sometimes at a client’s insistence. Focus group evidence suggests that two main factors are responsible for this trend. First, society at large is increasingly using social networks, and this practice is mi- grating into use in organizational and especially salesperson– client relationships (although it is noteworthy that not a small number of our respondents expressed doubt and confusion about the efficacy of this trend for sales organizations).
Second, pressure is being placed on sales organizations (and just about every other facet of modern business) to be more cost effective and efficient, which of course, may include closer scrutiny of travel budgets. Concurrently, there is a corresponding need for buyers and their own firms to be more defensive and aggressive in pursuit of cost reductions. It is clear from respondent comments that if the conditions of the relationship (or contract) are being met, and the parties are receiving the information they require in the right format at the right time, many contemporary organizational buyers are more than happy to have a purely virtual relationship with their sellers. Are the days of traditional face-to-face sales calls rapidly coming to an end? Not entirely, of course. The meta-analysis by Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal (2011) suggests that just because buyers may have access to huge amounts of information does not necessarily imply they possess the time and knowledge to effectively combine and use it—creating an important and opportunistic role for salespeople. Neverthe- less, as more organizational buyers from younger generations populate their positions, the likelihood that the face-to-face relationship will continue to predominate may diminish.
For sales managers as well as sales scholars, our findings suggest that a fundamental rethinking is in order about what a “good” relationship is likely to entail within a social media technology paradigm in sales. Previously, the literature has

Summer 2012 359
predominantly suggested that salespeople for whom buyers have positive affect (liking) have been more likely to be suc- cessful (Leigh and Summers 2002; Nicholson, Compeau, and Sethi 2001). However, positive affect is unlikely to account for proportionately as much variance in salesperson success within a virtual environment in which buyers have the advan- tage of ubiquitous information. Thus, quality and timeliness of information flows that may or may not be generated by a designated contact (i.e., the salesperson) are heightened as key success factors. Indeed, sales organizations may have to develop virtual sales teams that fuel clients’ demands for information, possibly across time zones when working globally.
theme 3: Selling tools
Our results suggest that through social media and facilitation tools, sellers and buyers are much better informed about the dimensions of their relationships than ever before. A sea change is occurring in the nature and symmetry of the relationship be- tween buyers and sellers, and as such, organizations that persist in the tried-and-true Seven Steps of Selling approach are likely to find themselves quickly left behind competitively.
We saw strong evidence of a social media impact across the traditional Seven Steps of Selling, and respondents see the steps as changing and condensing. For example, sellers are using social media when prospecting for clients, with a significant amount of informal pre-qualifying of key decision makers occurring online and prior to any initial sales approach. In addition, gathering of detailed background data on potential clients is occurring through social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn—the traditional pre-approach step within the Seven Steps of Selling model. This can involve research on client-sponsored social network sites as well as on less formal, mass-subscribed social networks, with results potentially uncov- ering problems/opportunities in a prospect’s business directly from the “horse’s mouth.” The astute salesperson can use the findings from these searches to customize a sales presentation, setting up the client’s real problem as something that can be rectified (magically and very specifically) only by working with the salesperson’s organization. The ethics of these practices may on the surface seem somewhat questionable, but they are now widely used and actively encouraged in many organizations.
Buyers today are better informed than ever about the mar- kets in which they operate. As mentioned earlier, information about market conditions, their competitors, potential suppliers, and new innovations and developments in their markets are literally at a buyer’s fingertips. The previous information asym- metry that existed between buyer and seller has been mitigated, and the time of the seller being the expert in their field likely is shifting in many industries and markets. Indeed, our results suggest that, in certain circumstances, clients may know more than the seller about the selling firm’s own products.
The implications of this trend for selling practice are clear. Now, more than ever before, sellers have to work very hard to sell on value. The value sold has to be very real and readily discernible by buyers. Most certainly it cannot be the kind of value that in reality is also delivered by every other organization in a particular market—that is, having no strategic differen- tiation. The commoditization of information ensures that a buyer is likely to identify true value added very quickly. Sellers have to know their clients’ businesses intimately and deploy social media effectively to convey how they can add this real, discernible value to clients.
Of course, Marketing 101 holds that if additional value can be added, then an incremental price can be levied. If not, and if instead all offerings in a market are broadly similar, then commoditization, price wars, and reduced margins are a fait accompli. This outcome is ultimately a zero-sum game strategi- cally, but given the ubiquitous nature of information today in most markets and the largely undifferentiated offerings therein, in many cases it may very well be a reality. A natural extension of this thought process could be to speculate on whether some degree of movement from a relationship-focused selling para- digm back toward a more transactional focus may be possible in the future. To our knowledge, this interesting prospect has not been considered in the literature.
theme 4: generational
Our results identify that younger salespeople are using social media in every aspect of their lives—bringing their non-work world into the workplace. Participants agree that this demo- graphic segment is adept at identifying and embracing new technology. However, many of the older participants regard so- cial media as a gimmick and not something that they feel par- ticularly comfortable in dealing with at all. In many instances, the massive increase in the use of this technology appears to be viewed in a very negative way by the older generation. Clearly, what we see here is a not unexpected resistance to change by the older salespeople to the new paradigm of social media as a new driver of selling, a finding consistent with prior work on sales force acceptance of “traditional” technology (Robinson, Marshall, and Stamps 2005).
The challenge for sales-based organizations is to better identify and strategically manage the technological match-up between specific salesperson and specific buyer. More precisely, if a sales team has an older age profile, then it is to be expected that some resistance to the use and deployment of social media technology will be experienced. It is likely that if the latest so- cial media are deployed, or made available, the technology will not be embraced without a structured and on-going training package. In addition, it is likely that the age demographic of a buyer will dictate the degree to which social media should be used. This will manifest in the degree to which new data is

360 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
actively gathered about products and services in the industry, but also in the nature of the relationship required in order to be perceived as being an effective supplier. More specifically, a more virtual relationship may be required or preferred by a younger demographic of buyer. This would by nature limit the opportunities on the part of sales organizations for some present value-added differentiation, especially through tradi- tional in-person relationship selling, but would also open the door to new ways to add value to clients.
theme 5: global
The results suggest that organizations are increasingly likely to pursue sales opportunities outside traditional (national) boundaries. Although participants acknowledge the organi- zational benefits of such strategies, a great deal of negative sentiment is expressed regarding the impact on the role of salespeople within this trend.
Participants were very much aware of the competitive chal- lenges posed by the current economic climate and viewed the need to investigate and exploit new market opportunities for the long-term success of their own organizations in a gener- ally positive light. However, most felt that the link between the strategic imperative and operational implementation is weak. It is expressed that senior managers tend to focus on the identification of new market opportunities and the incumbent revenue streams, with less time devoted to strategic discussions regarding issues of implementation. Participants suggested that organizations tend to simply replicate existing business models in new markets, rather than discuss and agree on a new and adapted organizational form customized to the needs of the new market. Within this context, issues regarding expectations and deadline-setting across time zones were discussed.
Organizations entering new markets and attempting to compete effectively must be flexible. Although ultimately there may be no need to adapt existing administrative pro- cesses and management procedures, at least an examination and discussion of such is imperative to identify possible areas of competitive weakness. Organizations that refuse to do this end up placing too much reliance on those individu- als primarily tasked with achieving the additional revenue streams—salespeople. In a similar way to Connectivity, this outcome can lead to increased levels of stress, burnout, and employee churn within the sales organizations, thus negating the net benefits sought.
theme 6: Sales/marketing interface
Results highlight the growing importance of social media at strategic and tactical levels in organizations, and the implica- tions for combined sales and marketing practice are many.
We suggest that the driver of much participant discussion regarding social media and the sales/marketing interface is variance in (1) the policy and practice of the host organization and (2) the degree to which social media is used by clients, customers, and competitors in a particular market.
Importantly, no “one-size-fits-all” approach exists for this complex issue. What is clear is that organizations must exam- ine their specific competitive situation and decide whether their level of engagement with social media places them at an advantage or disadvantage to market competition. Where advantage is available, organizations must decide on the ap- propriate responsible split between sales and marketing for the collection and dissemination of this information. What is of primary importance is that the information is collected in a systematic and appropriate way and that it is discussed and disseminated effectively for firm use in strategy devel- opment and execution. If not, there is a danger that social media engagement will go down the same unfortunate path of many underutilized and ill-deployed customer relationship management (CRM) initiatives, in which case the strategic imperative is lost.
It is noteworthy that in the organizations where social me- dia had been banned at work, participants suggest that they still use it “off the record” to inform decisions about clients and key contacts. In a number of instances, salespeople cite information gained through social media as verbatim client feedback in order to improve product and service offerings. This is quite impressive.
It is likely that at this point, organizations refusing to engage with social media and the informational opportunities thereof are strategically product focused instead of customer or market focused. In product-focused firms, a great deal of emphasis is placed on sales to perform and the role of marketing is largely tactical (the mind-set being “this is what we make so please buy it”). In such cases, the role of sales is often extremely pressured and much attention is focused on issues of price. Strategically, this means in these cases cost (and therefore price) leadership is, or indeed should be, central to all decisions. Whether this approach is sustainable will be decided by the relevant market and the available customers therein.
futuRe ReSeaRch oppoRtunitieS and limitationS
The findings of this study provide impetus for several opportu- nities for further research. We divide these opportunities into two broad areas: (1) relationship selling and (2) maximizing the new social media technology in sales.
First, based on our findings, the relationship-centered future for selling and sales management theory and practice that has been envisioned by many researchers as a fait accom-

Summer 2012 361
pli seems less definitive. Further work is required to identify and delineate the factors impacting the relative effectiveness of relationship selling versus a more transactional paradigm, given the presence of different and previously unimagined information flows (see our discussion of the commoditization of information above). Results here suggest that technology- facilitated information flows within competitive situations likely are increasingly tempering the impact of trust (and, in fact, the meaning of trust in buyer–seller relationships). More broadly, the degree to which competitive advantage is based on relational drivers may be unclear going forward. If, as some of our participants intimated, value added for organizational buyers is shifting to expediency over relationship, the implica- tions for the development of sales and marketing theory in this area are potentially quite important. Ultimately, what is the nature of a relationship within the rubric of social media and related technology? This serious question must be addressed by sales scholars.
Second, the increasingly important role of social media in selling and sales management is clear from our results, as is the role of context. Considerable future research is required in order to provide practical advice and develop theory on several issues:
1. What is the precise role and impact of social me- dia relative to efficient and effective selling and sales management?
Our results provide evidence to suggest that social media can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of salespeople. However, the impact cited by some sellers as positive is not echoed by all participants. Hence, where in the sales process does social media have the most potential impact (positive or negative) and what is the precise nature of this impact?
2. What types of social media produce more efficient and effective results for salespeople and sales managers?
Can salespeople use a portfolio approach whereby certain combinations of social media provide dispro- portionately better results than others? In this way salespeople and sales managers might invest their scarce resources in the most efficient and effective ap- proaches possible.
3. Do experience, generational effects, and related learning preferences impact the propensity of salespeople to engage in and benefit from social media?
We found evidence to suggest a generational effect on engagement with and attitude toward social media. Research highlighting specific differences by age and related learning preferences would be invaluable to sales organizations and could help to highlight train- ing and development needs in these areas.
4. Do issues of organization-level technology strategy (spe- cifically implementation) impact salesperson effectiveness and efficiency?
Our results suggest that much is left to the individual with regard to developing knowledge on issues of social media. It is likely that organizations that have a clear, market-facing rationale and policy for their approach to social media will be more effective and efficient in its use.
5. How does information commoditization impact the future of selling and of buyer–seller relationships?
The issue, manifest across several of the themes, clearly deserves attention. Given that ubiquitous in- formation leads to commoditization of this aspect of a salesperson’s potential for value added, it is impor- tant that future research seeks new and more accu- rate/relevant models of the salesperson role within the context of a business model.
In terms of limitations of the present work, the nature of qualitative research tends toward a smaller number of partici- pants when compared with the standard survey approaches that predominate in the sales literature. Nevertheless, our approach is based on solid methodological grounding and benchmarking off prior studies with similar approaches in re- lated domains. The number of participants herein is adequate for the purpose of this research, and we would argue that the depth and richness of the data collected through this method could not have been duplicated through a survey approach nor would such an approach have been consistent with our research objectives.
Ahearne, Michael, and Adam Rapp (2010), “The Role of Tech- nology at the Interface Between Salespeople and Custom- ers,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 30 (2), 111–120.
———, Eli Jones, Adam Rapp, and John Mathieu (2008), “High Touch Through High Tech: The Impact of Sales- person Technology Usage on Salesperson Performance via Mediating Mechanisms,” Management Science 54 (April), 671–685.
Christ, Paul, and Ralph Anderson (2011), “The Impact of Technology on Evolving Roles of Salespeople,” Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 3 (February), 173–193.
Collins, Robert H. (1984), “JPSSM Introduces New Section,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 14 (1), 56–57.
Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles (1990), “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An In- terpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68–81.

362 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A. Weitz (2005), “The Changing Environment of Selling and Sales Management,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25 (2), 105–111.
Kahn, G.N., and A. Schuchman (1961), “Specialize Your Sales- men!” Harvard Business Review 39 (1), 90–98.
Kaplan, Andreas M., and Michael Haenlein (2010), “Users of the World Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media,” Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59–68.
Lee, Nick J. (2011), “The Changing Sales Environment: Implica- tions for Sales Research and Practice,” in Oxford Handbook of Sales Management, Nigel F. Piercy, David W. Cravens, and Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh, eds., London: Oxford University Press.
Leigh, Thomas W., and Greg W. Marshall (2001), “Research Priorities in Sales Strategy and Performance,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21 (2), 83–93.
———, and John O. Summers (2002), “An Initial Evaluation of Industrial Buyers’ Impressions of Salespersons’ Nonverbal Cues,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (1), 41–53.
Mangold, W. Glynn, and David J. Faulds (2009), “Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix,” Business Horizons, 52 (July–August), 357–365.
Marshall, Greg W., William C. Moncrief, and Felicia G. Lassk (1999), “The Current State of Sales Force Activities,” In- dustrial Marketing Management, 28 (1), 87–98.
Moncrief, William C. (1986), “Selling Activity and Sales Position Taxonomies for Industrial Salesforces,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (August), 261–271.
———, Charles W. Lamb, and Terry Dielman (1986), “Devel- oping Telemarketing Support Systems,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6 (2), 43–51.
Nicholson, Carolyn Y., Larry D. Compeau, and Rajesh Sethi (2001), “The Role of Interpersonal Liking in Building Trust in Long-Term Channel Relationships,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (Winter), 3–15.
Rapp, Adam, Raj Agnihotri, and Lucas P. Forbes (2008), “The Sales Force Technology-Performance Chain: The Role of Adaptive Selling and Effort,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28 (4), 335–350.
Robinson, Leroy, Jr., Greg W. Marshall, and Miriam B. Stamps (2005), “An Empirical Investigation of Technology Accep- tance in a Field Sales Force Setting,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (May), 407–415.
Tanner, John F., Jr., Christophe Fournier, Jorge A. Wise, Sandrine Hollet, and Juliet Poujol (2008), “Executives’ Perspectives of the Changing Role of the Sales Profession: Views from France, the United States, and Mexico,” Journal of Busi- ness & Industrial Marketing, 23 (3), 193–202.
Verbeke, Willem, Bart Dietz, and Ernst Verwaal (2011), “Driv- ers of Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-analysis. Have Salespeople Become Knowledge Brokers?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (June), 407–428.
Widmier, Scott M., Donald W. Jackson, Jr., and Deborah Brown McCabe (2002), “Infusing Technology into Personal Sell- ing,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (3), 189–198.

Summer 2012 363
appendix foRmat and QueStionS foR the focuS gRoup
instructions for facilitator
The following are the basic questions to be asked in each focus group. Take the answers of a respondent and build on it with the respondent and ask others if they agree or if they have differences. Try to get all or most to talk about each question until there is no further contribution being made by the group.
1. Have each participant introduce him- or herself, organization, time/experience in selling, time with their company. If they held a previous sales job, name the company/industry. (Ask each focus group member these questions in turn.)
2. Tell me about a typical sales day. Specifically, we are looking for the activities that your salespeople perform. (See list of activities from the Marshall, Moncrief, and Lassk 1999 JPSSM article for initial guidance.)
3. Describe how you specifically sell a product to a customer—What are the steps that you take? Have they changed over time?
4. Tell me how you are using any form of technology in the sales job. Describe any issues that have risen from the tech- nology. (Follow up on any new technologies and probe how it has changed the selling process.)
5. Describe any social networking strategies that you or others in your company use. (Probe to find out how the social networking strategy has changed the selling process.)
6. For those that have been selling over 10 years, please relate how the job has changed. 7. Provide any last comments regarding your job, how it has changed, or how technology is related to your job.
Keep the meeting time for the focus group to about 90 minutes. Thank them for their time.


Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Assignment status: Solved by our experts

>>>Click here to get this paper written at the best price. 100% Custom, 0% plagiarism.<<<

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *