Inbound Needs Outbound

New marketing strategies and tactics attract B2B marketers like moths to a flame. For some reason, marketers think that in with the new and out with the old is what's necessary to get better results. One example is the notion that inbound marketing can be used as a replacement for outbound marketing.

How do you figure? Even Hubspot, arguably the creator of the inbound concept, uses outbound marketing to enhance their engagement with inbound leads. Anyone who receives email from Hubspot is getting outbound communications.

The difference is in how outbound marketing is defined and executed.

Inbound marketing is the concept of integrating content, search and social media to help prospects find your company through the sharing of information they consider valuable and choose to engage with.

If we consider the challenge of being found by prospects, what's really changing is the approach. With inbound marketing, we're working to attract prospects to our content through the optimization of search and the use of social media. Without the content, there would be no inbound marketing.

Outbound marketing—done well—is an extension of that concept. In fact, I'd argue that the defining difference is pull vs. push, which can also be stated as choice vs. interruption.

What we really want is to create extended engagement that manifests itself with the results of more time spent with our content vs. that of competitors and is considered valuable enough for prospects to share with others.

Take a look at a few approaches that rely on a combination of both approaches for success:

• Lead Nurturing - Continuous engagement with prospects who have demonstrated interest in specific topics by opting in to download a white paper or attending a webinar, for example. Instead of random email blasts to our databases (or even worse, purchased lists), we're honoring their expression of interest by creating and sharing content that addresses their preferences.


• RSS Feeds - Once you've enticed a lead to subscribe to your blog post, technically, each and every blog post that is relayed to them via the feed is outbound. Comments are inbound. Readers who share your blog posts are a source of inbound.


• Twitter - when we post Tweets leading back to our content, we're engaging in outbound marketing. Done well, each Tweet is an invitation to share information designed to be of value to our target market. Done old school, it's a megaphone blast screaming "look at us!" The first way is engaging and the other is noise. This said, others who Tweet about our content are truly a source of inbound marketing.


• Conferences - Participating as an exhibitor or speaker at a conference is an outbound activity. Whatever you deliver to those you interact with at a conference will determine its inbound capacity. Everyone who subsequently chooses to engage with you based on that experience can arguably now be considered inbound.

The true definition of inbound is creating the interest and engagement that keeps prospects choosing to continuously access your content because they've come to know that whatever you publish has a high likelihood of being valuable to them.

Inbound is definitely critical for marketing in today's overwhelming informational environments. But I'd argue that inbound doesn't actually work without outbound. It's all in how you incorporate the two disciplines.

What do you think?

Comments

[Chad Levitt]

Thanks for writing this post Ardath. It is always a fun discussion around outbound and inbound marketing. Thank you for furthering the discussion in a thoughtful tone. The industry could use more of this.

Let me also preface the rest of my comment with a big I work at HubSpot. Take what I say with a grain of salt, maybe two. Admittedly, I am biased to the big orange. But, I am biased for a reason ;)

Here is where I think this discussion is heading in the very near future. There will be a day when inbound marketing is just called marketing. It will be the majority of the marketing budget and mix at every organization large or small. Every outbound channel is declining in effectiveness and increasing in cost. These are facts.

Some numbers behind the marketing transformation shift to inbound marketing. These figures are from HubSpot's 2011 The State of Inbound Marketing Report.

"Inbound marketing channels are maintaining their low-cost advantage: Inbound marketing-dominated organizations experience a cost per lead 62% lower than outbound marketing-dominated organizations."

"In 2011, the average cost per lead for outbound-dominated businesses was $373, while inbound businesses reported their leads cost on average $143."

"Inbound marketing-dominated organizations experience a 62% lower cost per lead than outbound marketing dominated organizations."

"Marketers are allocating more of their lead generation budgets to social media and company blogs."

"The average budget spent on company blogs and social media increased from 9% in 2009 to 17% in 2011."

"Marketers are decreasing the portion spent on PPC, direct mail and telemarketing"

"Based on the data regarding customer acquisition and lower average costs for inbound marketing. Businesses rated every outbound channel as LESS important than any inbound channel."

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Chad,

Thanks for sharing the numbers and your thoughts. I agree this is a fun discussion.

"There will be a day when inbound marketing is just called marketing."

I'll spin your words to mean that we dump the label and evolve marketing to embrace the way the buyer experience is changing to meet preferences. The principles of inbound marketing will help marketers get there. But I will still argue that outbound plays a role and always will. It will just be done differently, with inbound reflected in execution.

For example, telemarketing can be done in an engaging way. I have clients with projects that incorporate it very successfully based on a business-relevant discussion, not a sales pitch or intrusive survey. Relevance is dependent on the execution.

[Chad Levitt]

This is the real quote ;)

"There will be a day when inbound marketing is just called marketing. It will be the majority of the marketing budget and mix at every organization large or small."

[Robert Dempsey]

I agree with you Ardath. I'm an ex-HubSpot customer and a big fan, and it always amazes me that people say they don't do any advertising, which is false. Either way to your point...

Anything where messages are being sent out is outbound is it not? As you said there's a line between pushy sales outbound marketing and value providing outbound, say an advertisement to a piece of opt-in content, something I've seen HubSpot do.

For many companies a combination of inbound/outbound is perfect for lead generation and sales. The key to it all is in building the relationship.

[Carmenhill]

Very insightful, as always, Ardath. Combining inbound and outbound tactics is a like baking a cake. Flour and sugar and chocolate are all perfectly fine ingredients, but (with the possible exception of chocolate) they're much better when mixed together in the right way.

[Eric Karaszewski]

Ardath, I posted on your blog on the B2C website as well. First off, great points and discussion. Working for a company that provides an alternative (spectate.com) to HubSpot, we certainly agree that outbound compliments inbound. Yes, Spectate is an inbound marketing software platform, yet we're incorporating outbound processes every day and so is HubSpot. Both products even have outbound features incorporated into them (email marketing).

I really like Robert's comment above, "The key to it all is in building the relationship." Inbound marketing practices really help with the relationship-building process (some examples being helpful blogs & videos, as well as pertinent and valuable news through social media).

[Ardath Albee]

First off, I'd like to make really clear that this blog post is not about putting HubSpot in the hot seat - it was merely an example of how inbound and outbound work together, rather than one in place of the other.

I applaud what HubSpot has achieved and believe they accomplished it so well by integrating both methods within their marketing. They have also shown us all how to understand the concept of inbound and to make the best use of inbound concepts.

Thanks to Robert, Carmen and Eric for your comments. I like the focus on mixing it all together in favor of building a relationship - not choosing one engagement type over another.

[Steve Watts]

We definitely take a middle-of-the-road approach, even though the products we create and sell are primarily outbound-oriented.

We take inbound marketing very seriously, and have distinct strategies for inbound content, conversion, nurturing, etc.

One problem that hasn't been talked about in the conversation here, however, is that even when companies are GETTING inbound leads, many are frankly bad to horrible at responding to them.

We've done thousands of "audits" of companies to see how they respond to lead inquiries by submitting information requests on forms directly on their Web sites.

Historically, around 1 in 3 inquiries receives zero response AT ALL--no email, no phone call, nothing. Again, these are requests to a Web form directly on each company's Web site, the panacea of inbound.

Of the 66% that do respond, half don't make their initial contact attempt on average until 40 hours has passed.

Also, even those who do respond don't do it enough--our numbers show that the average rep who receives a direct inbound inquiry makes 1 phone call, and sends 2 emails. That's it--an average of 2.6 total "touches," of which 1 is a live phone call.

Inbound is where we all want to be, obviously. Inbound leads are the warmest, and much easier to engage with.

But even then, there's a lot of companies that aren't doing the outbound follow-up and nurturing work to do anything with the inbound leads they generate.

Here's some data compiled by the Harvard Business Review:

http://hbr.org/2011/03/the-short-life-of-online-sales-leads/ar/1

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for sharing all the information. It seems ridiculous that companies go to so much trouble to generate interest only to ignore those who express it.

Process is key. Most don't have good ones or adhere to them if they do. An age-old problem of a black hole in the middle of the funnel.

[trish bertuzzi]

Before we start chugging to much inbound Kool Aid there is a data point that needs to be put on the table. Just because a lead is inbound doesn't mean it fits your Ideal Customer Profile and is "worthy" of time and attention. We are a small business (and a Hubspot user) and we get roughly 20 inbound leads a day. We follow up on about 10% of them and the rest we nurture to have them self identify because they are outside of our sweet spot.

Leads are not the precious commodity here people...sales people are. Our ebook Sales Speaks: Perceptions & Ponderings on Marketing Leads http://tinyurl.com/3bptk8s (Ardath was a contributor) shows that sales follows up on 80% of the leads but only 31% fit their sweet spot. What a waste of valuable time!

So let's be careful before assuming inbound leads are the holy grail. Lead Scoring is critical and a sales process based on that value is even more critical. Thanks for listening!

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Trish,

Point well made, (as usual) but you ARE nurturing those you don't consider hot. Steve's point was that most companies aren't responding at all - in any form.

Totally agree that time and effort need to be justified for people involvement. Nurturing is the answer for those without that justification.

[C.B. Whittemore]

Thanks, Ardath! Fabulous conversation on this post. Best, CB

[גני אירועים בשרון]

Inbound Marketing is the concept of integrated media management, social research and to help find prospects for your business.