Posted by Tony Jaros on Fri, Jul 16, 2010 @ 09:47 AM
One of the most common inquiries analysts within our Demand Creation Strategies (DCS) service conduct is to evaluate — and troubleshoot — lead scoring schematics being used by B2B organizations to “improve” the quality of leads fed to sales. We put the word improve in quotations because it often only takes a few minutes to see that the manner in which these schematics have been created not only won’t help lead quality, it will hurt it.
Mathematical errors. Overweighting individual demographic characteristics at the expense of the organization the individual represents. Scoring scales that barely differentiate prospects with vastly different characteristics. Ignoring activity-based scoring. Straight, linear scoring vs. taking a more curvilinear approach. Relying too much on BANT (budget-authority-need-timeframe) attributes when it’s inappropriate to do so. These are just a handful of the types of fundamental errors in schematics that we’re seeing virtually every week.
When marketing works with sales to score leads, it is implying that it will be able to deliver better leads at a more reliable rate. When a scoring model is broken, marketing will almost certainly break this implied promise, and disappoint sales (yet again, in the perception of many sales leaders).
A large number of B2B organizations that have purchased a marketing automation platform (MAP) over the last several years have yet to score leads in any meaningful way; perhaps they’ve heard some of the horror stories, or the lack of experience with scoring has made them hesitate. There’s nothing wrong with this hesitation, but it shouldn’t devolve into fear and inaction.
Your organization’s first forays into lead scoring will certainly be works-in-progress, and mistakes will be made. That’s OK, as long as the organization commits to evolving the way it scores leads over time, and vigorously pursues best practices.
As planning season arrives for many of you, now is a good time to either evaluate scoring schematics already in place, or to start to draw up prototypes for testing. Either way, we’d love to help.
Posted by Megan Heuer on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 @ 10:51 AM
One topic dominated conversations during my travels and on client calls the last several weeks: marketing tactic return-on-investment (ROI). This is hotly debated by analysts and consultants, not to mention pretty much anyone who has ever had to run or defend budget for a marketing program. Like any good question for the ages, the answer is “it depends,” but we can offer some clarity around what it depends upon and what can be measured.
Let’s start with the definition of a lead, because that’s where the ROI calculation trouble usually begins. For the record, we don’t believe every inquiry is a lead. It’s an inquiry, which means someone who has raised his or her hand to take some action you have made available. An inquiry can be anything from a newsletter sign up to a whitepaper download to an event registration and more. On its own, an inquiry does not signal readiness to buy, which means it is not a lead (yet). Our years of benchmark data show companies who treat every inquiry as if it is a lead and send it to sales do not perform as well as those who have a process to nurture contacts from inquiries until they are properly qualified and ready for sales. When marketing teams follow this pattern of sending every inquiry to sales, they reduce potential to deliver against goals in the most effective way possible, and by extension this reduces potential for sales to be more effective and efficient. Now in the rare case where an inquiry says “call me I’m looking to buy,” the qualification process is a lot shorter, but this type of inquiry is less common than, say, a whitepaper download. Case in point: this week alone I got two calls from companies after I completed forms to download whitepapers in which I clearly stated I was an industry analyst and not looking to buy. In both cases, a competent and polite sales rep called and asked me about my inquiry. If they had read the form, they would have known the call was a waste of time. Calls are not free, so sending an unqualified contact to sales also wasted money.
Based on this thinking, let’s tackle the tactic ROI question. Specifically, marketers want to attribute dollar return based on closed deals to a single tactic, when no single tactic deserves that much credit. If you know your sales cycle involves multiple touches from marketing before you can consider a lead qualified and ready for sales, then it is impossible to attribute revenue from a closed deal to any single tactic. Some systems are set up to attribute a first or last marketing touch to each lead that is passed to sales and that’s the tactic that gets credit for the close. This results in a flawed view of what really works because all you see is one touch, when in fact there may have been tens of touches over a long period of time that in combination supported qualification of a lead. It’s just not that simple in B2B, and trying to make it simpler can hurt marketers’ ability to allocate resources. Instead, take a more realistic and practical view of the role of tactics by monitoring cost per response (from new or existing contacts) and cost per contact added to the database. Next look at the appearance of those tactics in the buyer’s journey. First look at the number of touches it typically takes to qualify and what those are, then look at the touches present all the way from qualification to close. This will provide a more accurate view of the relative success of various tactics vs. their cost. The key is not to confuse tactic ROI with overall marketing ROI, because doing so sells them both short.
Posted by Jonathan Block on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 @ 10:31 AM
While more and more companies understand that a response to a campaign or program is not in itself a lead, the question still remains: when is a lead a lead? Marketing often interprets a prospect’s characteristics and actions as those of an ideal buyer, but sales refuses to act, believing the prospect requires more nurturing. In the end, the only way to view reality through a common lens is to develop a language that defines a “lead’s” place along a continuum.
Developing this language can be achieved when sales and marketing begin to understand and speak each other’s language, and build a common taxonomy that describes the state of a prospect. One way is to agree to gather necessary information about a prospect’s attributes. As a group, you must agree whether the information can be collected, and whether specific pieces truly contribute to lead definition (or are just nice-to-knows). This information can then be used to build a scorecard to help determine whether a lead is qualified or not based on a threshold of criteria that must be met. This needed information will be different by product or solution, but often contains the following:
- Demographics: Not only company data such as revenue size, industry, sub-industry, geographical region and employees, but also the prospect’s individual demographics, including title, function, power level and buying role.
- Attributes: What helps to determine the viability of one lead vs. another, such as functional budget allocations, parent vs. subsidiary or competitive situation.
- Activity: Specific activities that a prospect engages in, such as downloading of a white paper, attending a live or online event, or submitting a survey.
- Buying Status: This may include BANT (budget, authority, need, timeline) characteristics, but a critical consideration is agreeing what (if any) of this information can be reliably collected by marketing, and what needs to wait for interactions from either inside or field sales.
Even though sales and marketing often hear each other, that doesn’t mean they’re listening to what the other is saying. In the case of demand creation, without a jointly developed lead taxonomy, good opportunities (and revenue) will almost certainly be lost. Don’t lose ground to your competitors because you find your sales and marketing functions in a war of words; get working on your own lead taxonomy today.