Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Browse by Tag

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Calculating The ROI Of Marketing Automation Platforms

  
  
  
  

How times have changed. It's clear that many B2B organizations now understand the need for marketing automation technologies, and the need for optimized processes and skills to leverage them, as blogs and tweets on these topics abound at an increasing rate. Ultimately, the proof of whether these purchases “worked” is often difficult to measure, time-consuming and subject to significant debate.

Unfortunately, we still see organizations purchase a marketing automation platform (MAP) in an attempt to automate processes that don’t exist; in instances where this has occurred, the technology has struggled to demonstrate results. As a result, any journey into MAP ROI must compare organizations where a MAP is implemented without strong surrounding processes, those that wisely combine technology with process, and those with no MAP.

We've been using our Demand Creation Waterfall as a framework to compare the benchmark conversion rate data we've collected for each of these three scenarios (see the graphic). While this post uses sample numbers (our clients have access to more granular benchmarking data), the results are both stark and startling, and they include the following.

No MAP, no processes. Here, there is no true demand waterfall, per se, but rather a funnel with an extremely wide top that quickly narrows to a trickle by its end. With no shared processes in place between sales and marketing (e.g. target market, lead definition, lead handoffs, service-level agreements), demand creation leaders have little choice but to flood the waterfall with hand raisers from outbound efforts. Because all but the most apparent inappropriate responses are passed on to a qualification function such as inside sales, conversion rates from response to “lead” can be high but few will convert from opportunity to close. 

MAP, but no/weak processes. Our second group is made up of organizations that purchase a MAP, but don't spend the time building all — or even any — of the processes that drive true MAP performance. In and of itself, a MAP will help marketers refine their targeting and the more surgical application of content to prospects; both combine to drive greater response rates. While the increased percentage of deals looks good on the surface, when considering the costs involved (and the ASP of your offerings) the figures are rarely impressive.

MAP with average processes. Our third group consists of organizations that purchase a MAP and drive alignment between sales and marketing around target market, lead definition, lead handoff and service-level agreements at even a rudimentary level. When this occurs, marketers are able to take advantage of broader MAP functionality, including lead scoring, portfolio marketing and lead routing versus the more simple campaign management functionality used in scenario two; the value of this functionality can be seen in performance throughout the waterfall. 

Clearly, organizations that address demand creation processes and skills, at even just a basic level, are best positioned to leverage marketing automation technology. Imagine the results your can achieve if you reach strong or best-in-class status.

Comments

You are right on the money. We find that the right "solution" includes all of these components (people, process and platform).
Posted @ Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:05 AM by Leroy Thydean
Great stuff Jonathon. These numbers confirm what I have experienced over past 5 years with clients implementing MAP for the 1st time. Though it is always better to address process before putting the MAP tools in place, the reality of the situation often dictates that the use of the MAP tools "forces" the issue on defining process and improving skills. The uptick in results for group 2 (MAP w/ weak processes) becomes a big driver to move forward and improve. And the progression to your last group 3 (MAP w/ avg processes) is not a quantum leap.  
 
The key always is the ability to demonstrate some measure of success in 90-120 day cycles that sales and senior management can see and buy into. The progression from group 1 to group 3 can realistically happen in 4-6 months, even with companies with marketing dept of 1 FT director.  
 
The improvement beyond group 3 (average) often takes longer 12-24 months to achieve market leading status, but the numbers from your research and what I have read from Marketing Sherpa and MECLABS show that the results justify the effort. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:05 AM by Henry Bruce
Good insights. They key to automation success is the same key to marketing success - strong, ongoing communications between marketing and sales. I am consistently impressed by how many (good) marketers are out of synch with their company's sales teams.  
 
Without that rapport and feedback with sales, marketers inevitably get jammed with do-it-all-now pressure that kills processes, and don't have the knowledge to stay relevant to customers.  
 
Glad to see Sirius is working on this issue. Easy to buy marketing automation. Much more of a challenge to make it work for you and your company.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:31 PM by Thor Johnson
@Jonathan, 
 
Great insights. Would particularly like to see you publish quarterly updates of your waterfall conversion rates. This would help us all understand how the "process" companies grow away from the "no process" guys 
 
@thor. You forgot to say "automation does not happen automatically" it sums up Jonathan's post in one clear phrase :-)
Posted @ Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:09 PM by Koen De Witte
Thanks for the comments everyone, and I'm glad this model is proving helpful...Jonathan
Posted @ Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:13 PM by Jonathan Block
To the comments left by Thor. The issue of a lack of alignment between marketing and sales is a direct outcome of lack of process. When done correctly, lead management process development must be a collaborative work that includes marketing and sales. Most often is also includes ops and other key areas of the organization. When this occurs, the groups align and begin to see the impact of the revenue. To much is focused on the issue of alignment when in reality is its a symptom. The real issue as Jonathan shows here is lack of process.
Posted @ Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:21 PM by Carlos Hidalgo
Great post, Jonathan! quick questions - is the graphic supposed to be in the blog? I don't see it, but would love to take a look. Thx
Posted @ Monday, May 09, 2011 7:40 AM by Jim Williams
Comments have been closed for this article.