Sales vs. Marketing: A Never Ending Feud

In corporate world, we do witness conflicts and lack of coordination among various functions (commonly known as departments or divisions). However, the friction between sales and marketing is very serious in nature and if not properly managed or resolved, it may lead to major loss of corporate resources. In the absence of pro-active resolution of these conflicts, even the corporate goals and objectives may be compromised. Such a conflict situation arises because both the players think that their objectives are much superior as compared to others’ and the very corporate sustainability (read existence) is dependent on their achieving the functional goals. In extreme cases, they assume their functional objectives as the only corporate objectives.

Such a functional biased thinking raises a critical question: what makes sales and marketing professionals think that they are leading the corporate journey and primarily their contribution towards company objectives makes the organization survive and prosper. The reasons for such divergent views include ‘mighty’ perception of their functions, lack of clarity about their respective roles and absence of any common deliverables. In this article, I will focus on friction between sales and marketing with particular reference to Pakistan and possible remedies for conflict resolution.

Pakistani Context

In order to analyze this problem of conflict between sales and marketing in Pakistan, we may classify business entities in three broad categories. First, MNCs which generally have distinct sales and marketing functions and the degree of conflict depends on clarity (or lack of) about the roles and deliverables of both functions. Second, large local companies where the seriousness of problems is directly linked with sales or marketing orientation. Pakistani companies with well established brands do witness aggressive feud between these two functions in order to claim more resources. However, large local companies with focus on sales generally keep both sales and marketing functions under same command. Marketing in these companies generally take a back seat as ‘Director Sales & Marketing’ or ‘GM Sales & Marketing’ lead both the functions. In these companies, junior managers are entrusted with branding and/or trade marketing activities which is regarded as ‘marketing’. Third, small to medium size local companies where there is generally no formal marketing function due to lack of realization on the part of sponsors/owners about the need for separate department. In such local companies, marketing is equated with advertising and point-of-purchase material drive if undertaken at all. 

Separate or Conflicting Roles

There may be a number of so-called technical and perception-related issues behind this conflict. The problem would have been different if professionals associated with these two functions working in same organization consider their roles different from each other but having same strategic objectives. Organizations suffer when two functions consider the other one inferior viz-a-viz capability to understand the business issues and overall value addition. The size and complexity of business may have direct bearing on the intensity of this conflict. Small companies with strong leadership may have active inter-departmental involvement and informal relationship, hence limiting the incidents of conflict. In such companies, marketing (or part thereof) remains under the domain of Sales which plays role of ‘big brother’. 

Another related issue may be lack of clarity about the roles of both sales and marketing that may (and does) result into business chaos, wastage of corporate resources and overall disorientation. It is therefore important that roles are duly defined and areas of responsibilities are clearly demarcated. In Pakistan, where even fairly professionally-managed companies may not have proper job descriptions of critical positions, defining the roles in minute details seems practically challenging, if not impossible. Even if the roles and responsibilities are duly defined and documented, the peculiar market and company conditions and profiles of functional heads may create a situation where one function dominates the other. Except for companies having strong brand equity for their products, Sales function gets more attention and priority over other functions in overall business matters by the senior management. Barring few exceptions, we do not find many heads of marketing as ‘direct report’ of CEO while ‘Director Sales’ being direct report of chief executive is a norm. The economic dynamics, degree of product customization and financial health of the company, among other factors, influence the power game in corporate corridors.

 Retail Audit vs. Brand Score

At a professional forum many years ago, one colleague of mine described the feud between sales and marketing as ‘retail audit versus brand score’.  After three decades of corporate journey, I now realize the wisdom of those remarks. Sales associates maintain that an objective assessment of their performance can be done through actual sales numbers, growth rate and product availability. On the contrary, they further maintain, marketing does not produce anything specific which can be measured in objective manner. They complain that brand equity, top of mind and similar brand indicators do not represent ‘hard numbers’ as sales volume and number of outlets having product do.  At various serious business meetings, I have personally seen sales colleagues blaming their marketing counterparts for changing the parameters after few years in order to get desired brand score. Likewise, marketing team points finger at sales team for pushing the volume through massive discounts and trade promos that, according to them, does not represent the reality. Even specific numbers like product availability are challenged by marketing professionals on the pretext that sales force manipulates invoicing in order to ‘manage’ distribution numbers. 

This exhibition of trust deficit is deep rooted particularly in those companies where senior management does not make serious efforts to bring alignment between these two functions. This on-going tussle between these two functions is not number game only; the desire to get lion’s share for their function is the underlying reason behind this fight in most of the cases. Sales pushing for massive price discounts and marketing asking for hefty amounts for their TVCs are not rare sights. The quantum of resources allocated to different divisions of the company is viewed as indicator of departmental strength which encourages corporate functions to fight for funds particularly at the time of annual planning. 

Role of Marketing in Sales Forecasting

Another area of potential conflict is the ‘perceived’ interference in other’s domain even though it may be done under the formal arrangement. At the time of annual sales forecasting, for instance, marketing does provide its input and actively pushes for sales numbers based on its own assessment of market potential. Sales associates resist these attempts by marketing to impose sales numbers for which, according to them, marketing is not competent to understand the ground realities at the market place. Sales consider marketing as not connected with players in the chain including distributors, retailers and even field sales associates. The similar distrust is exhibited by marketing when sales associates provide their input for marketing and more specifically brand plans. Sales tend to allege that marketing does not have their finger on the pulse of market; hence they come up with marketing plan while disregarding the ground realities. The argument becomes quite intense when Sales start giving their input about areas which marketing consider, and rightly so in many cases, their core domain e.g. consumer preferences, product attributes and the like. It has generally been observed that functional rivalry (harsh word, isn’t it) acts as a barrier because of which one department does not seriously take any feedback provided by other department.  

Reporting Line

In companies where both sales and marketing teams report to same manager, the intensity of conflict remains manageable. However, it does not mean that the only remedy to remove such conflict situation is to have unity of command.  The disagreement may become serious affecting the business operations in case two functions fight at departments’ leadership level. If there is effective coordination between the two functions as well as clear role definition, any serious conflict situation may be avoided. In many organizations, we witness one strong departmental head (generally head of sales) dominates the other because of reporting line differences. Even a ‘Director Sales & Marketing’ is generally pre-occupied with sales function and his marketing staff assumes that they are subjected to step-fatherly treatment. The fact of the matter is that proper role definition and reporting lines may play a pivotal role in such conflict situation.

What needs to be done?

This on-going feud between two functions is not something that is given; there are ways to mitigate the intensity of issue as much as practical. There are best practices in business world particularly in FMCG sector through which such issues are tackled. Depending on the seriousness of problem, some of the suggested steps include the following:

1) There has to be effective and formal ways of coordination between the two functions; this objective can be achieved by having joint teams and formal meeting schedule with specific agenda. Such protocol helps the business associates to have better understanding of other’s role that helps them to come up with ‘workable’ business solution leading to a win-win situation. 

2) The roles of both functions and individual positions within these departments need to be clearly defined. In the absence of clear demarcation of responsibilities, there is a tendency to consider the pro-active approach by other as interference in somebody else’s domain. Human Resource department can take a lead in getting these two functions agreed to meet and discuss the areas of potential (and perceived) infringement and come up with workable solution. Well defined KPIs will help resolve these issues.

3) The confusion and chaos resulting from such infighting may be mitigated to great extent by the bi-partisan approach of senior executive (CEO in most of the cases). However, the problem solving approach of senior management has to be based on corporate goals and objectivity in analyzing the issues. 

4) There has to be formal procedure for conflict resolution as only ‘good intent’ is not sufficient in such situation where two critical departments are fighting for corporate resources. A well-defined conflict resolution mechanism needs to be put in place so that all the stake-holders are well aware of communication channels instead of spreading negative voices amongst other associates not directly linked with these functions. Joint meetings chaired by senior executive will be helpful for resolving such thorny issues causing distress and potential trouble at workplace. 

5) Annual Business Planning process may be used for creating better understanding of roles and responsibilities of both departments. Before start of new business year, associates from both functions work together on a number of common goals which help them to understand the contribution made as well as challenges faced by others. This planning process brings two functions closer and creates better understanding between the two. 

6) Inter-departmental transfers may be a good way to create better understanding of two functions. There are various examples where transfer of sales associates to marketing not only led to better understanding but also robust and pragmatic marketing plans based on ground realities. Similar benefits can be reaped by transferring associates from marketing to sales that is likely to improve analytical competence and devising “out of box” sales promotion plans.