Are Marketer's Priorities Skewed?

I just read an article on DemandGen Report that discusses the highlights of a recent survey done by Silverpop, Survey Shows Converting Leads Into Opportunities Tops B2B Priority List. From the title I thought, wow, they're really getting it. Marketing needs to prove contribution to downstream revenues. Yeah!

But, what I learned instead was that their intentions may be great, but their strategy for getting there leaves me wondering how they ever will.

One of the things that told me they won't overwhelmingly prove their value is this:

"When asked what metrics they report to senior management, 59% said email opens and clicks and 49% said number of inquiries."

Say what? And then I came to this:

"18% said filling the top of the sales pipeline with as many “inquiries” as possible would be their top goal going forward. More concerning, of those who plan to focus on the top of the pipeline, 53% don’t score leads and 69% don’t nurture them."

Oh, my. There's definitely lots of work to be done. How is it possible in this day and age that jamming as many contacts as possible into the top of the funnel is a valid goal? Then again, since they don't score or nurture, what else would they focus on achieving?

Okay, I'm being a bit tough here, but staying rooted in status quo tactics is only costing your company potential growth, goodwill and, yes, bigger—and more—deals.

Comments

[Eric Gagnon]

Ardath--You are so right. Passing unqualified leads over to sales is one of the biggest complaints made by sales about their marketing staff. Lead qualification is a necessary part of every marketing program, and is the only way to insure measurability of return on marketing programs. Will marketers ever learn?

[Leah Neaderthal]

Thanks Ardath for your post! In these days of limited budget and longer, more difficult sales cycles, marketing should be looking to make an impact further into the sales process: leveraging marketing to understand the sales and buying process and accelerate deals. Not only is this critical especially today, but it's often times more cost-effective.

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Eric,

I agree. Unqualified leads are a huge problem. That's why it's key to involve sales and get everyone in the same boat about what sales needs in a lead to have a shot at getting them to buy.

Hi Leah,

Agree with you too. And cost effective is a good way to put it, although keeping sales focused on buyers who will buy also hits the top line. And we all need more of that!

When will the two learn to play together?

BTW - great post by John over at the Savo Blog recently - "Game On" in Sales Enablement
http://blog.savogroup.com/2009/08/game-on-in-sales-enablement/

[Todd]

I think we may be falling into the trap of delivering what our requestors ask for, and not educating them on what they need. We report on opens and clicks because that's what senior management ask for. We stuff the sales pipeline with inquiries because sales asks for names and say they'll do the rest. I've run into both situations quite often. It's not that they are wrong, they just don't know there's a better option.

[Leah Neaderthal]

Thanks Ardath! I'll pass along your kind words!

[trish bertuzzi]

Said it before and I will say it again...I blame the CEO. When you compensate a Marketing Executive on quality v. quantity....you get crap poured into the top of the funnel. We talk about sales and marketing alignment but how about "C" level executive alignment with goals that are meaningful....something to think about.

[Ardath Albee]

Todd & Trish,

Thanks much for chiming in.

I agree that education is key. Marketers need to stop being so reactive and adopt more proactive approaches.

Which will only happen when - as Trish says - companies achieve "C"-level executive alignment.

So what will it take to create goals that are meaningful coupled with the strategies to achieve them with top-down support?

Sitting in Status Quo is definitely not the answer to business growth and sustainability.

Are we so caught up in tactics that we've lost sight of strategy?

More to think about. Thanks!

[Colleen]

Trish touches on something that is important. Expectations and perhaps even compensation should be tied to what those at the top of the organization what to achieve. If, for example, you determine that 50% of your sales pipeline should be sourced by marketing and that your quarterly or yearly revenue goal is $xxx, then you can work backwards to determine what your win rate is and how you need to fill the funnel in order to achieve your goal. You can pull in data from your CRM, Marketing Automation tools, etc. and create dashboards to track how you are measuring against your objectives, what your cost per lead, cost per oppty, etc are. The idea is to measure what is really relevant to achieving your objectives as a company. Email opens, etc. do not tell us much, but knowing that xx% of all deals last year were sourced through email nurturing campaigns tells us quite a bit in terms of where you as a Marketing organization should be investing.

[Mike Frichol]

Been there, seen that, pushed back against it, but if you're in a company with a sales-driven culture it's all about measuring marketing volume and activity. Agree with Todd & Trish - those are key problems. Unfortunately education has little effect until the company aligns with more of a market-driven culture driven from the top.