I've done B2B software sales for 8 years, including at a startup that went public recently. I can say unequivocally that any company that sells features instead of benefits (more specifically 'benefits that apply to that particular customer') is just plain wrong. That's it.

By the way, yes I can guess the answer to your question in the last paragraph. Socialtext is a pre-chasm company. Am I correct or am I correct? :)

Vikram, thanks for the link. I agree with the author - selling features and hoping your customers will themselves figure out the benefits is not the way to maximize your sales. Sell benefits, and solutions to specific problems and demonstrate the value your product will bring. That is a far superior way to product success.

Selling features may be okay for well-known horizontal products. Everyone knows how to use a hammer, so no need to specify benefits. You can focus on features like: made of forged steel, rubber handle, etc.

For a company that sells enterprise software, I think the company needs to sell benefits not features.

It seems you don't understand Web 2.0 very well. The entry and the comments are all based on very 'Web 1.0' thinking. Web 2.0 is a whole new paradigm of how human beings use software. You guys will see the light sooner or later!

For a company that sells enterprise software, I definitely think the company needs to sell benefits not just features.

If it is selling software to consumers, especially well-known software like say Tax software, then features may be sufficient.

Dave Toms: You comment seems to mean Web 2.0 products are not subject to same scrutiny as other enterprise software products. You could not be more wrong.

I assure you when an enterprise is evaluating software for purchase, it does not matter whether it is a so-called Web 2.0 product or not. Period.

Josh,

Even for consumer products, I think it is better to communicate benefits rather than features. To use your examples of a hammer, it is better to say:

• "Won't break even against the toughest surfaces - made of fored steel", instead of just "Made of forged steel", and
• "Don't get tired - rubber handle absorbs most of the shock" instead of merely "Has rubber handle"

Having said that, I'll agree that a well-known consumer product can get away with selling just features much more so than a new class of enterprise software.

Michael:

I am coming to this late, and read Part 2 before Part 1. After commenting on Part 1, I went to visit Socialtext's website. In doing so, a few things become apparent:

- Socialtext apparently doesn't believe that benefits are unimportant. Their site outlines pretty clearly who would use it and why on the front page. They do have a list of pure features, but it is somewhat buried.
- In that context, Mayfield's comments must be interpreted either as disingenuous posturing, trying to create controversy to get press, or ideas that he no longer believes.

After looking at the technology, it actually looks pretty useful, and a nicely done wiki. The thing that is most puzzling is the company name. It strongly implies social networking, like MySpace or Flickr, but that certainly isn't how I would think of a corporate wiki. I think their biggest marketing problem will not be miscommunication of benefits, but branding which implies that they are something they're not. If that confuses the Fortune 5000 customers they seek, that could be a problem in selling the product.

Hi Paul,

Excellent observations!

Socialtext website has improved a lot since I originally wrote this article.

I agree that the product itself sounds pretty good. Along with Jotspot, they're making a push for businesses to adopt wikis. Both companies are starting to have some success. I think it will be a long time before it becomes mainstream though. It is highly likely that Microsoft will soon add wikis to Sharepoint - that should help make wikis a more popular business tool.