So what is going on here? I've got two theories. One is based on the notion of perception which is a point my colleague was contemplating and the second is based on something completely out of left field but reflective (in my opinion) of the human condition.
- Theory 1 - The company that achieved the number 1 ranking figured out a way to convince its target market that it was going to be the eventual winner of that market. As a result...humans wanted to go with the winner and the overall market win sort of became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This proselytization occurred in a way as to not alienate the prospects in that target market. SAP did this very well in the energy sector. They convinced prospects that since their competitors had bought SAP...they too needed to buy SAP in order to keep up. In other words...the message was that SAP was going to be everywhere and that the prospect couldn't afford to be left behind. This implied that SAP was going to win the market...and it didn't tick people off.
- Theory 2 - The company that ended up number 2 had a better technology. Their beliefs about their technical competencies were worn on their sleeves in a way that became sort of a mark of arrogance. The arrogance was observed by sales prospects. Since buying technology is, in part, somewhat emotional...the affront of arrogance factored into the relationship DNA and killed many sales cycles. I have seen this many times...company has a big couple of quarters and then decides it knows what's what and is going to teach the customer this and that....then "pow!"...the customer says get lost. The company has then taken a step back at the most important point in its life. It must then apologetically change its ways. By then the hubris has poisoned its host.
