A process model has to be chosen for systematic market cultivation. You can choose between a potential-oriented or, alternatively, a control-oriented market cultivation. There are various reasons to choose one or the other approach. However, it is important to remain true to your decision and to consistently implement the chosen procedural model.
By potential-oriented market cultivation I understand a procedure that selects target customers or target addresses on the basis of objective characteristics, which at the same time offer a special sales opportunity. For example, industry codes are helpful if certain sector trends are to be taken up or the age of the company owner in order to think about succession issues, etc. The basis for this is the information and records that are accessible to these customers in the bank or savings bank. It is possible that there were already structured client discussion formats in advance, which then can be used as a good source as well.
The advantage of this approach is that I select targets within a specific search pattern that have an increased likelihood of a specific need. This enables me to achieve an above-average degree of probability of success (i.e. “hit-rate”).
At the same time, this search template also leads to a possibly somewhat narrowed focus, which is then at the same time a disadvantage of this procedure. Important and / or attractive topics may then be overlooked.
The challenge of this method is of course the clear description of the search model that is expected to deliver the desired results. If it is too narrow, it hardly applies to any company – if it is too broad, it becomes arbitrary and the added value is lost.
By a control-oriented approach I mean a procedure in which one or more key figures (KPI) are selected for which there is a need for action or the need for increased attention from the point of view of sales and / or bank management. This can be, for example, the customer calculation, where you want to focus on customers with a negative or too low net result. For strategic reasons, you may want to focus on product usage and take a closer look at customers who only use one of the products of the bank or savings bank, or at least a below-average number of products. Of course, many other key figures are also feasible (equity consumption, interest margin, commission income, etc.)
The advantage of the control orientation is that I quickly get an effect on my problems and focus my attention on the „construction sites“ in my customer portfolio.
This also brings up the disadvantage of this model: the selected customer does not necessarily have a need or is not necessarily approachable for other topics. This makes it all the more important to take the control impulse from the key figure seriously and implement it. That may mean that the customer’s customer segment needs to be downgraded because it is a low-potential customer. Or, it can also mean that I have to part with the customer if the contribution margin is negative and I see no potential for a cure. So it is more like accepting and working with results than just use them for identification purpose only.
The challenge of this approach is sometimes in the acceptance by your own team. Because I only select individual key figures, there are often addresses that look better in other key figures. This then leads to tedious discussions and poor implementation in external relations. The internal communication for preparation and the creation of the relevant context are therefore very important in order to bring the team together behind the procedure.
In reality, it is very likely that you will only find both procedural models as a mixed version. For resource reasons alone, it will be necessary to ensure that the greatest possible overlap is generated from the two models in order to maximize the benefit for the company.
However, one of the two procedural models will be in the „lead“ – and the other will be its secondary condition.