Marketing Interactions

Content Strategy Must Reach Beyond Marketing

Arguably, content strategy is most often thought of as a marketing application. That's a great start, but it doesn't do the practice justice. In fact, that view tends to cause siloed efforts and limit the potential of content strategy.

Content is a part of everything a business does in regards to communicating with prospects, customers, and the industries their offerings serve.

Content is anything that says something about your company, brand, expertise, or point of view that forms an impression, including:

• email
• video
• articles
• white papers
• blog posts
• blog comments
• conversations
• trade show swag
• call scripts
• sales collateral
• webinars
• advertising
• conference presentations
• newsletters
• direct mail
• solution briefs
• Tweets
• status updates
• discussion forum participation
• infographics
• referrals
• eBooks
• executive interviews
• press releases
• advocates
• data sheets
• media coverage
• customer stories
• websites
• ETC.

*Note the the focus of this blog post is on external audiences. But it also applies to internal audiences as well with another long list of formats and applications.

That's a lot of stuff. It's also why I wrote the previous post about why content should never be in a silo. Please note that much of this is created by the company, but some of it is not, such as referrals, and advocates. And some can come from the company as well as others, such as Tweets, status updates, and discussion forum participation. Regardless of source, it's still content that affects impressions about your company--good or bad.

(How content strategy applies to addressing content created by others about your company is another post)

The point I want to focus on today is that content strategy must address what lives beyond traditional marketing boundaries.

Two of the most prominent boundaries that must be dissolved are Sales Momentum and Customer Retention and Expansion.

Sales Momentum:

You may also think of this as Sales Enablement, but I don't like the term "enablement." Salespeople, by their very nature, should be enabled. The role content strategy can play with Sales is in helping them to continue to escalate opportunity momentum towards a deal, rather than stop it in its tracks if they step into the process out of sync.

I'm sick and tired of the battle for alignment between marketing and sales. There, I said it. Seems ridiculous if you ask me. I work with marketers everyday that are engaging salespeople in content strategy design and development because they realize salespeople are critical to the process. Not to mention that Sales really appreciates the help due to the constant change and shifting buyer attention in the marketplace today.Their position has changed, and they know it.

One of the interesting things I see when marketers involve Sales is that salespeople often have no real idea of what marketing actually does that may be helpful to them. This being said, just as marketers can no longer implement effective programs without getting to know their buyers, they also cannot help salespeople without knowing them, their priorities and what they're experiencing on the street that may be blocking or winning deals.

Marketers cannot provide the same content to salespeople that they provide to prospects. The context is different and the situation is different. The questions and obstacles are different.The interactions are different and so are the expectations from buyers on the receiving end.

By working with Sales, marketers can create content that salespeople will actually use to develop and engage late-stage opportunities. Once they see it's useful, valuable, and helps opportunities move to the next step in buying, marketers will find themselves inundated with requests for more. And that's a good thing!

Marketers must prove accountability. If they can do so by tracking use of content designed for sales interactions, their contribution to downstream revenues can be better substantiated. I hear a lot about salespeople taking credit for deals at the expense of marketing, but if the caveat to getting more content designed for them includes feedback on what's working, why it works, and what it helps them to accomplish, that will diminish.

Think about it.

Customer Retention and Expansion:

Most of what I see marketers focused on is new customer acquisition. But I often hear the lament that companies are having a difficult time expanding customer footprints. When I ask how their content strategy is designed to promote customer retention and expansion I hear things such as, we have an annual user conference or we send a monthly or quarterly newsletter. Or that it's someone else's problem, such as account reps or customer service.

Those are cop outs.

A few things marketers need to realize about customers is that their status quo is different than that of prospects. They solved their problem when they bought your solution, right? So what's next? What did solving that problem do to open up possibilities that can now be addressed?

That's where to start.

Expanding customer accounts is not about promoting products. It's still about solving problems - new ones. Why do companies think that rule changes once prospects become customers?

Do you have customer personas? Yes, they are different than buyer personas. See above.

Do you have content that helps them use the solution they've purchased to its fullest value? Have you made it clear why they should? Sharing your expertise should only increase in relation to customers. They are  much more of a known value to you than prospects.

And I'm not talking about using feeds and features. I'm talking about business value. Think beyond the end users of your solutions to other impacts the results of using it make to your customers' businesses.

How can you tie that into their ability to solve new problems? What's the additional business value they can gain?

Growth doesn't just come from new customer acquisition. But, for some reason, companies seem to take their customers for granted by assuming they need less attention than potential new logos. That's not a good business decision.

Perhaps it's time to rethink your customer retention and expansion programs and how they fit into your content strategy.

Changing the Conversation

When B2B companies develop and implement a content marketing strategy it should be obvious that big change is afoot. Not just for marketers, but for everyone involved in the demand-to-revenue generation process. The most pivotal thing that needs to change in parallel across roles is the "conversation."

There are at least 3 types of conversations that will change in the marketing-to-sales process when a full-bodied, buyer-focused content strategy is put in place.

Content Conversations: These are the conversations that are generated by the valuable ideas that marketing content shares to answer questions buyers have during each stage of buying.

In fact, when a content marketing strategy is implemented, the word "campaign" should be stricken from the company's lexicon. It's no longer a stop and start endeavor, but a continuum that must be addressed ongoingly. Content marketing focused on buyer needs, preferences and priorities should get people thinking and talking about how to solve their problems using your ideas.

The interaction and engagement established via content marketing can be labeled a dialogue, two-way communications, or whatever you like, but it's still about enabling conversation.

Inside Sales Conversations: Once content conversations occur, inside sales can no longer follow-up with the lame script we've all experienced that's focused on selling or mining the prospect for qualifying information without delivering any value in return. A conversation must be mutually beneficial or it won't continue. 

As I've said in another post, content marketing changes expectations. Addressing these new expectations must be apparent in everything that follows. It's about the "experience" of the conversation. A self-serving call focused on what the company wants to know/sell/get isn't going to cut it.

The problem is that you cannot just hand inside salespeople a new script and expect that to do it. Changing the conversation requires a change management process that includes orientation, education, tools and ongoing support/coaching with a feedback loop that enables refinement.

Let's face it, content is a wonderful tool, but it's not definitive until it's validated to have done what it's supposed to do. In a complex B2B sale, that means human contact by inside sales. If the orientation, purpose and "content" of the calls doesn't reflect the expectations and experience set by your content, all that hard work and investment can be cast aside by a prospect who feels mislead by a wasteful conversation.

Sales Conversations: Salespeople are now coming into conversations with buyers differently than before. Buyers are educated, informed and self-focused. Salespeople need to understand just what that means and how they add value when they're no longer building releationships from the start - in many cases.

Stepping into the conversation where the prospect expects it to continue is the new competence that sales must embrace. But they are not clairvoyant. Marketers and inside sales both need to contribute to improving this transition. After all, they know what's transpired prior to the handoff.

Getting buy-in from sales (at all levels) is needed to change the conversation. How does changing the conversation fit into your content strategy framework?

Have you considered what it means to change the conversation?

How will you go about collaborating with all the teams involved to ensure the demand to revenue generation process will be a consistent conversational exchange that evolves as it needs to result in customer acquisition?

And finally, the end result of how well all of this works is reflected in Buying Committee Conversations. And those will play a major role in the decision to purchase.

 

The What Ifs? that Can Derail a Deal

We've all read the reports and research that shows B2B sales win rates are in an overall decline. But, it's not just losing the sale to a competitor that companies need to reverse, but the growth in "no decision" being made. CSO Insights finds that "no decision" being made in relation to a purchase has grown from 20% to nearly 25%.

In a B2B complex buying process, companies are often still focused on only one decision maker, if they have even developed a thorough understanding of the motivators, priorities, and responsibilities of that person. The problem is that a complex B2B purchase decision is never made by only one person. Never.

As marketers embrace content marketing and mapping content for delivery across the stages of the buying experience, one of the stages that gets the least attention is the one I label Step Backs.

Step Backs is the buying stage where the buying committee is actively reviewing research and considering options that can solve the problem. This is when the "funnel" swells as more people enter the conversation, bringing their own perspectives and concerns to the fore.

This is where the What ifs? happen:

• What if it doesn't work?
• What if it effects X?
• What if I have to re-engineer processes?
• What if users won't adopt it?
• What if it takes longer to implement than we think?
• What if it doesn't play nice with our other systems?
• What if...

The problem marketers face when this happens is that they rarely have content at the ready to answer the what ifs. This means that when the buyer who's championing the deal goes back to try and find the information he or she needs to answer those questions to the satisfaction of the committee and can't find content that does so, momentum halts.

Let me repeat this - momentum toward purchase stops in its tracks!

For, without consensus, the committee cannot choose.

You're probably thinking that they'll just call a salesperson to get the answer, right? Not necessarily. But, even if they do, are your salespeople prepared to answer those questions?

If salespeople are only called upon once the short list is selected, response time and the value of that response are critical factors for keeping the momentum of the deal moving forward. Buyers aren't the only ones who need content for that purpose.

However, consider the impact on the buyer if marketing has been providing content throughout the buying process that has helped to facilitate their buying process. Now, when it's critical to them to find an answer, they cannot find anything to quell the what if questions.

• Are they disappointed?
• Will they begin to rethink their choice of your company as their partner?
• Is this a disconnect that impacts their confidence in what they thought was the right solution?

The interesting thing to note is that as marketers become more proficient at content marketing, we also raise the expectations of our buyers based on the value that content provides. This is why the content needs for each buying stage must be addressed.

Consider that case studies need to be truer reflections of the journey to solving the problem. Reveal obstacles and show how your company's expertise was critical to overcoming the issue discovered along the way. Create a tip sheet of the "10 things that could go wrong, but why they won't" content asset and make sure it's findable - by both salespeople and your buyers.

There are many ways to address the what ifs that can derail a deal - but first, you need to figure out what those are. Do your research and ask your salespeople, new customers, and even those who didn't buy from you.

Then get content out there to address those key issues you discover.

Marketers need to address each stage of the buying process based on what buyers need at that time. Step Backs is only one stage - but it's an important one that can have a true impact on customer acquisition.

Are B2B Salespeople Thought Leaders?

I was reading Opportunity Nurturing: Sending Stuff Isn't Always the Best Solution over on the Openview Blog where Devon McDonald interviewed Trish Bertuzzi, from The Bridge Group Inc. Trish really GETS IT, so I stop whenver I see her mentioned anywhere to see what she has to say.

In response to the question: Who should be sending nurturing content, marketing or sales?

Trish said: "It depends on how far along you are in the sales process. If you are intermediate, then marketing should be coming into play. If your opportunity is later in the sales process, the message needs to be personal from the sales rep because, at the end of the day, it’s all about relationships. Also, the salesperson needs to be viewed as the thought leader, not just the company."

Notice that last sentence? (emphasis mine)

Is this a component of your B2B marketing-to-sales strategy?

Are your salespeople working to be viewed as thought leaders by prospects and customers?

My guess for most of them would be "nope - not interested - need to make quota."

It just so happens that Sales 2.0 Conference is going on this week in San Francisco (#s20c) and there are a few Tweets that back up the need for salespeople to provide more value to buyers:

@barbaragiamanco: Buyers complete 80% of buying cycle b4 interacting with #sales people.#newhandshake #s20c

@LaurenEHarper: #Social is not a quick fix. Reality is it takes effort both on and offline to connect with prospects and make a sale- @barbaragiamanco #s20c

@heinzmarketing: "Ditch the pitch - this is a conversation economy, not a sales pitch economy" @gerhard20 #s20c

@asmithspi: Sales managers typically hire for selling and people skills but customers want industry expertise and business acumen @SolutionSelling#s20c

@scoremoresales: 70% mktg & sales execs rank "inability to differentiate as primary inhibit to growth via @TMcCormick2011 #s20c

Moving on, I was just in a conversation today about how to get the knowledge out of subject matter experts within a company to create bylined articles for them and set them up as thought leaders.

Not everyone is a writer. Not everyone is a publisher. But there's a lot of value lurking in your people that should be extracted and showcased. Not just for your company's benefit, but to help them prove they differentiate your company from others, and that they're worth speaking with because they have fresh, relevant and valuable ideas. The net is credibility and trust for your company AND your salespeople. That's what wins complex sales in today's market.

So, what should B2B marketers be doing?

First of all, it's a mindset: Helping your salespeople be seen as thought leaders also helps with content marketing strategy. It's content, right? Nice, meaty late-stage content that's something other than a solution brief. Think about it.

Secondly, you need to facilitate the process:

• Interview them.
• Find out what they're passionate about - it's really more than just selling your products.
• What issues do they see that they can help customers better understand?
• Why do they believe so strongly in your product? It's deeper than the feeds and speeds.
• What do they see coming down the pike?
• If you put them in a room with a product manager, what kind of conversation develops?
• If you ride along on a customer call, what do you hear?
• Are they active in social media? Can you help them be more effective?

After all, you don't want this to happen:

@sales20conf: #s20c @TomScontras reveals with lols that he got kicked out of #LI group for pushing his message. Ditch the pitch!

@sales20conf: #s20c @TomScontras In person or phone, reps know how to join conversation. But how do you show up in a social convo? @GlanceNetworks

A lot of marketers think helping sales makes them subservient, but you need to get over it. If salespeople are not successful in adjusting to today's buyer and giving them what they want and need, your marketing efforts are headed for the nearest drain.

Can you afford not to incorporate salesperson thought leadership into your marketing-to-sales strategy?

Treat Your Content with More Respect

This morning I attended a webinar by IDC and IDG Connect, 2012 Sales Enablement Strategy: Content is King so Why Does Sales Feel Like a Jester?. Yep, it was the subtitle that got me!

To set the stage, we need to understand what buyers are doing while they're buying. Many of you have probably heard the rumor that salespeople are being limited in their participation during the buying experience. According to this data from IDG Connect, it's true.

Take a look at how buyers say they spend their time during their buying process:

• 23% in discussions with colleagues
• 21% with sales team interaction
• 19% searching the web
• 19% with educational content
• 18% reviewing promotional content

Have you noticed where they spend the most time? Time spent with content or searching for it comprises 56% of the buying experience.

Unfortunately, when IDG asked buyers what was lacking with the content that salespeople provided to them, their responses reflect that not a lot of respect is being paid to content by those who produce it.

Buyers top complaints abuot content include:

• 33% say there's too much content that's not useful
• 29% say content is not relevant
• 24% say content does not meet the needs of all the people involved in the decision
• 23% say there's not enough educational content

Other observations included content that was too long, too much text and not enough video or audio, and their inability to easily share content with others. In the age of social media, that's hard to believe.

The kicker is that only 7% of buyers said that nothing was lacking in the content sales provided to them.

There are some critical points to consider in regard to these responses. According to IDG, the number of influencers in a purchase decision have increased by 20%. When they are brought into the deal, then come with their own questions and concerns. This halts forward momentum and they turn around and go back to find answers. (I refer to this as the step back stage of the buying process)

IDG Connect also shared that buyers say 7 pages is plenty for a vendor white paper, but that most white papers they review are still running 20 or so pages. Buyers say these take too much time and effort to read. This is not new information. Eccolo Media's B2B Technology Collateral Survey has been reporting this trend for the last few years. Apparently we're not paying attention.

Short is the new black and variety of content formats is growing in importance.

But the fact that 62% of buyers say that content is either not relevant or is not useful should be a huge wakeup call for marketers. This is - yet again - validation for using personas as the foundation for content strategies and development. We've got to know our buyers (all of them) if we're going to create content that engages them.

Buyers aren't the only one finding that content needs to be treated with more respect.

Salespeople say that only about 1/3 of the content that's available to them is useful in the pursuit of sales opportunities. But, wait, there's more at issue here that needs to be rectified.

When asked why they found shortcomings with available content, their responses included:

• 41% say they don't know what to use, how to use it effectively or when to use it.
• 30% said that it required customization before they could use it.

Additional comments included that it was in the wrong formats, hard to find or outdated.

This is akin to more "tossing stuff over the wall" from marketing to sales.

Here's the bright side of the research IDG Connect presented:

68% of buyers say their sales reps have become more important to them as a source of insight and guidance over the last three years in relation to other sources.

Buyers may be spending less time with them, but they're counting on them to filter through the clutter and noise they'd otherwise have to sift through on their own.

Marketers and sales support staff need to work more closely together and spend more time helping salespeople understand how to use content more effectively and when during the buying experience specific content is most beneficial.

Make sure to ask salespeople what types of content they use and how they use it. If that differs from buyer preferences, show them the proof and teach them how to use other forms of content to improve their effectiveness. Map content for sales and set them up to have the right conversations.

Apparently there's still a lot of work to be done. Just because marketing creates content and deploys it in marketing campaigns does not mean they're done. Tossing content to salespeople without context or as an afterthought is costing your company customers.

The real kicker - the majority of buyers that IDC surveyed said they want shorter buying cycles. But the lack of relevant information to educate them, and all other influencers, is slowing things down.

Think about it...

 

Related articles

• Sales Conversations Must Improve Buyer Experiences (marketinginteractions.typepad.com)

Sales Conversations Must Improve Buyer Experiences

The last couple of years have turned the B2B buying process inside out. Instead of seeking out salespeople to gain answers to their questions about solving problems, buyers now push sales conversations to the end of their purchasing process. The information they need for most of their research and consideration is now in plentiful supply on the Web.

This is downright frustrating for salespeople who are used to establishing a relationship at the start and guiding their prospective customers toward a purchase decision across the entire process. Because buyers now decide when to involve sales, stepping into the relationship in mid-stream is a new skill that requires salespeople to focus more on extending conversations than on starting them.

The way in which online dialogues are transitioned into 1-to-1 sales conversations can either keep your prospects’ buying momentum moving along or stop it cold.

The reality is that there’s a critical gap between what salespeople know well and what buyers want to discuss. According to the buyers who participated in a Forrester Research study, the sales meeting would be considered effective 65% of the time if the salesperson was capable of addressing the problem.

Unfortunately, this level of competence is not the norm. Considering that 53% of purchase decisions are made based on the buyer’s perceived quality of sales conversations, companies need to take action to transform the buyer's experience.

Step 1: Take Steps to Shift the Reality

Buyers are looking for vendors who can become strategic partners in helping them achieve business results they need. It’s not about products and solutions. It’s about what they enable your customers to achieve that they couldn’t do before. By enabling your salespeople to have relevant conversations based on business concerns and objectives the value-add becomes clear, moving price negotiation to the back burner by eliminating the commodity perception.

Giving buyers what they want should be built into our DNA. If your marketing strategies are pulling buyers farther through the purchasing process to the point where they’re willing to engage with a salesperson, your company has the intelligence available to help salespeople become value providers. By connecting the dots and contributing valuable ideas, salespeople will keep the momentum going that turns prospects into buyers.

Step 2: Connect the Dots

Buyers are busy. The new priority that just landed on their desk is not a replacement to their other responsibilities, but an addition to an already full plate. The complexity of solving problems in today’s dynamic business environment can be overwhelming. The speed of change is making knowledge obsolete faster than ever, lessening the confidence buyers used to have in the quality of their decisions. The following factors can help your salespeople become sought-after resources buyers search out to help them find the answers they need.

• Make Introductions: In my work with clients, I’ve heard a lot of salespeople say they want better transitions into their conversations with buyers. Instead of marketing (or inside sales) sending a qualified lead on to sales and expecting the salesperson to call in blind, provide an introduction. You do this for peers and colleagues, so it should be a natural extension to do so for your buyers. Given the brief, introductory email example below, you can see how much easier it will be for the salesperson to extend the conversation this buyer is already having with the company.
  
  Bill, I’d like to introduce you to Nancy Smith. Nancy is one of our best resources for insights about how to reduce costs in your data center without reinventing the wheel. She has been instrumental in helping companies just like yours increase efficiencies with virtualization.
  
  Nancy, please allow me to introduce Bill Jones. Bill is the CIO for ABC Corporation and is concerned about the escalating costs in his data center. He would like to ask a few questions raised for him by our white paper, How to Gain Economies of Scale in the Data Center.
  
  
• Simplify the Complexity: Your solution may have 57 whiz-bang features, all of which your salespeople are well-versed in discussing. But, your buyer’s immediate concern is about the few that will impact their immediate problem. With access to the prospect’s online activity history, a salesperson can easily see their highest interest points and come prepared to discuss the impact of the most closely related features to the problem at hand.


• Compare Apples to Apples: There are probably many alternatives to your product or solution. The ways in which companies talk about—and package—their products, makes it tough for buyers to compare the functionality head-to-head. Provide your salespeople with accurate assessments of “like” features including scenarios that showcase the performance of your offering.
  
  It’s important to provide as unbiased a view as possible. This can be difficult as it goes against the nature of selling—especially for passionate salespeople who believe your product is the best. Trust me. Your company’s credibility will escalate as a result. Disparaging competitors creates friction for your buyers that will have them wondering if what your salespeople say is true. That means they’ll be spending some time thinking about the competitor. And that’s not in your best interests.

Step 3: Contribute Ideas

A complex purchase is accompanied by the need for education. If your company is producing thought leadership content and comprehensive customer success stories, you likely have the insights salespeople need to weave valuable ideas into their conversations with buyers.

• Provide Unexpected Outcomes: The goal for solving a problem either increases or decreases something critical for the buyer (e.g., increased revenues, decreased expenses). Look deeper and prepare your salespeople to introduce additional outcomes buyers may not have considered when they set out to solve the problem. Take an in depth look at what your customers are achieving beyond the outcomes your solution is most commonly known to deliver.


• Address Overlapping Considerations: Buying committees are getting larger. This means there are more stakeholders, each with their own expectations about the way a problem is solved. It’s likely that implementing your solution will affect other departments and processes beyond your buyer’s immediate focus. Your salespeople need to be prepared to intelligently discuss the impact of your solution across the enterprise, to address the perspective of each member on the buying committee. 


• Overcome Obstacles: Even when buyers are tasked with solving a problem, that doesn’t mean they have a clear path to doing so. Salespeople must be able to help buyers overcome obstacles from a variety of sources—from executive misconceptions to the personal preferences of influencers to the internal competition over securing budget dollars for other projects.
  
  Building a business case is not one-size-fits-all. The components may be similar, but their order of importance will vary based on the culture of the prospective customer’s organization. The more salespeople know about which triggers are most important to buyers in specific situations, industries or in relation to primary goals, the better they can position your product—and your company—as the best choice for achieving the ROI buyers need.

Sales Conversations Must Create Movement

Every sales conversation must be focused on creating continuous momentum across the buying process. With increased competence in understanding how buyers make the necessary progress to complete a purchase decision, salespeople can be prepared to have conversations that drive desired outcomes. In the case of a complex sale, momentum is usually incremental. In other words, the purchase won’t result from one meeting. Enticing buyers to take the next steps is a critical outcome for each and every interaction.

Although learning about a buyers’ timeline, purchasing authority and budget are critical to helping the salesperson assess the value of the opportunity, they also need to become proficient at serving the buyers’ needs in parallel. The longer buyers stay in the same state, the less likely they are to purchase. Inertia causes friction and doubt. Continuous movement driven by sales conversations is the key to conversions—even if the movement is one step at a time.

Marketing and Sales - Two islands, no bridge?

Last week I was in Minneapolis speaking at Confab and attending AA-ISP. It's the first time I've gone directly from a conference focused exclusively on content strategy to an inside sales conference. Can I just say, Whoa!

It was like hoping from one island to another without a bridge.

First, a snapshot of my impressions of Confab:

• Wonderful conference with a tight focus on a topic that's my passion
• Commaraderie that spawned comments such as "I found my people!"
• Inspiring conversations with people who actually "get" content
• Met a number of people I've been watching/stalking from afar
• Had a great crowd at my presentation that asked very thoughtful questions - bless all of you!
• Cake (lots of CAKE) and our own cocktail - the Lorem Sipsum - and it was GOOD!

Overall, it was inspiring! I thought, WOW, marketers are making a lot of progress. In a number of conversations, I met marketers who were rocking it, but weren't sure they really were. Yes - all of you, take note - you're on the right track.

I felt great - cake not withstanding.

Then I went two blocks down the street to sign books and attend the AA-ISP conference.

As a marketer, it was like walking into a foreign land. And I say this having worked and collaborated wtih a number of inside sales organizations on successful projects. I actually knew as many people at this conference as I did at Confab. Many of them on board with the alignment imperative between the two professions.

Unfortunately, what I found in several of the presentations that I attended was either a total lack or respect for marketing or no mention of them at all. In all fairness, many marketers don't mention sales much, but it does come up more often since marketing actually serves sales (or they should be).

Here's the part that really sets me back. There were a number of really terrific ideas presented at AA-ISP. Really good, with the potential to be great collaborative efforts with marketing in order to create higher efficiencies and greater momentum in the sales process. Wonderful opportunities for overlays.

But the emphasis was on sales owning, controlling and keeping all of these ideas on their island. No sharing.

I can't help but wonder that if this is what salespeople are learning at conferences, no wonder the subject of alignment is still as controversial today as it ever was. And going nowhere fast.

Which brings me to a question that my friend, Trish Bertuzzi (@bridgegroupinc) posed in a recent Focus roundtable we did together:

If prospects are spending up to 70% of their buying process with marketing, why is it that only 50% of sales reps are meeting quota?

Seems to me that both marketing and sales need to bridge this gap and work together if we're going to improve the prospects' experience during their buying process to the point that objectives are met on both sides of the equation.

I'm not placing blame on sales, I'm just noting that something's gotta give if we're going to reach higher levels of success for our companies. It really shouldn't be this hard. Ultimately we're all working toward the same goals...aren't we?

On the high side - I watched Anneke Seley (@annekeseley) receive her Lifetime Achievement Award and was proud to be there clapping and cheering for her. Congrats, Anneke!

These B2B Leads Suck! Really?

How many times has a sales team told a marketing team that the leads they source for them suck? My guess is that this has happened more times than we want to count. And, many of those times it was for good reason. But, even with marketers working harder to qualify leads and develop them to the point of sales readiness, I'm not seeing a huge shift in how sales teams approach them after the handoff.

This is evidenced by:

• Cherry picking and leaving the rest to sit unattended.
• Lag time in responding to leads sourced by marketing.
• Lack of formalized closed-loop processes that results in "those leads suck" when sales is pushed for feedback.

Therefore, I'm not convinced that the sales team's evaluation of marketing leads is all that accurate. In fact, research on sales effectiveness makes me even more suspect.

This includes:

• Less than half of all sales deals forecast result in wins. (CSO Insights)
• Only about half of salespeople are making quota. (CSO Insights)
• 20% of executive-level buyers said salespeople lacked knowledge about their products or those of their competitors. (McKinsey and Company)
• Only 15% of executive-level buyers are willing to accept a second meeting with a sales rep. (Forrester)

So, do the leads suck, as sales would have us believe? Or, are they avoiding taking responsibility for their lapse in developing the knowledge and skills that it takes to engage with buyers in today's buying process?

After all, in the case of those last two bullet points, salespeople got the meeting, but couldn't progress the relationship any farther. Not because of the quality of the lead, but because of the experience the buyer had with them. That's not a lead that sucked, it's a lacking in the salesperson.

Have salespeople been too slow to adapt to buyers taking control of the process—including that they have access to information they used to only be able to get from a sales rep? And, if marketers have stepped up their game to truly catch and keep the attention of buyers in the earlier stages by developing great content, is the transition to sales shining a light on these shortcomings by comparison?

Okay, before salespeople come after me, I'm not picking on you. I'm seeing the lack of alignment and enablement as an out-of-balance teeter totter. If one side goes up in value for buyers, it appears that the other side goes down.

Leads don't suck. If we think they do, it's our fault - collectively. In other words, both sides need to contribute to solving the problem. Otherwise we're spinning our wheels and getting stuck in the cycles of ineffective processes. And that helps no one.

If sales says leads suck then they need to say why and provide ideas for how to improve their development into opportunities. What's lacking? How would you do it differently?

If marketing is amassing all the research and insights to up their game, they need to share that information with the sales team to help them improve on having conversations that buyers find valuable. And I'm not talking an information dump that sales has to wade through. I'm talking about packaging that information up in helpful, easy-to-use ways.

Share the knowledge. Spread the wealth. I would hope that both sides can get behind those goals.

Just remember that a high majority of the leads you don't sell to end up buying a comparable solution from your competitors within about 18 months. So, do those leads really suck?

Is Marketing a Numbers Game?

I get very frustrated when I hear salespeople talk about numbers in relation to sales. Like if you need $X in revenues, then you need to generate X number of leads because you'll only close X% of them. That kind of thinking gives permission to lose deals because a rep is only expected to close a certain percentage.

Seems to me that's setting most sales reps up to only ever make the X%. Research shows that only 50% of reps are making quota today.

What's interesting is that marketing's #1 challenge is generating high-quality leads. Likely because they've been tasked with front-loading the top of the funnel with as many "leads" as possible so that sales reps could make that convoluted formula work. Therefore, the focus on volume over quality has meant that they weren't defining quality, but rather a type of contact that might have some interest in acquiring something your company sells. And, dare I say, sometimes not even that.

After all, I get tossed to sales teams at the download of a white paper I'm accessing for research. If most of those companies ever bothered to look at my website they'd realize that I'm not, nor will I ever, become their customer.

So does this fascination with formulas keep sales and marketing from alignment?

Marketing is being charged with generating more qualified leads as well as accountability for doing so.

Sales is charged with meeting a revenue quota which many of them thinks is defined by a formula.

Yet one of the outcomes of generating quality leads means less volume because you've removed the unlikely candidates and extended the dialogues with those who remained. But it also means those leads will have a higher propensity to convert into customers.

What do you suppose that does to the sales formula?

If we turn it on its head, what will happen?

What if your company said to sales: Here's 10 high-quality leads. Close 6 of them. How would that change the sales process? What would it do to collaboration between marketing and sales?

What would it take to empower marketers to share a better story and for salespeople to have better conversations that provide more recognizable value to prospects?

What would it take for marketing to provide leads with quality high enough for sales reps to be able to close 6 out of 10?

Sales Support as B2B Marketing Leadership

I saw this Tweet from Adam Needles during Dreamforce and it's really bothering me. In all fairness to Stacey - I don't have the actual context, so I'm taking this at face value for this post.

@abneedles: "Good marketing doesn't matter. What matters is sales." via @staceyepstein at @Dreamforce #DF10 #B2B

My first knee-jerk reaction was something along the lines of, "Are you bleeping kidding me?" I couldn't believe that sentence would come from a VP of Marketing. Then I took a few (read a lot) of deep breaths and considered that perhaps what she meant was that if marketing doesn't result in sales, then it doesn't matter how brilliant it is.

Okay - that I can get behind, because truly at the end of the day, revenue must be the outcome of both marketing and sales. Then I saw this Tweet:

@abneedles "Salespeople feel they ... translate what they see as marketing's theoretical arguments into a practical message." @staceyepstein #DF10 #B2B

If this is indeed true, which could be illustrated by the hours that salespeople spend re-inventing or creating their own collateral, then marketing needs to step up. They're obviously missing the translation capability to get to the ground level of their buyers' perspectives.

This said, if salespeople really believe this, then why aren't they taking steps to show marketing how to translate? According to Sirius Decisions, buyers are 70% of their way through the buying process by the time they allow a sales conversation. If sales truly believe that marketing is irrelevant, then it would seem prudent to help them correct that misstep considering how much longer marketing has impact on the buying process before sales gets involved.

Why does it feel like marketing is the one who's supposed to do all the heavy lifting in the marketing-to-sales alignment endeavor?

Wouldn't it make sense to have sales actually help ensure that the 30% of time they get with a prospect is positioned to help them close deals? Or, even better, what if by working with marketing your salespeople could get into the buyer's process earlier - expanding the time they have to impact the buyer relationship? Ever considered that?

Marketing at 30,000 feet no longer counts. It's too far out of reach to be relevant to the people grasping with issues your offerings address. Vague pleasantries (as I call them) are from the old school of universal umbrella branding and awareness. The problem is time. There's less of it - a lot less. Specificity counts. Take that a step further to personalized specificity and you're a heck of a lot closer to content that buyers will find interesting.

Next up, the Tweet about a perspective that could put marketers back in the basement:

@abneedles Sounds like our session-track speakers int he sales/marketing alignment session see marketing in a sales-support role. Yikes. #DF10 #B2B

But, does it have to? The interpretation is dependent upon how "sales-support" is defined. If you consider that everything marketing does is focused on helping sales sell more by helping buyers buy (or it should be), then we are in a sales support role. However, sales support doesn't mean subservient. Adam gets to that with this Tweet:

@abneedles In a Web 2.0 world, #B2B marketing must become the leader of a holistic demand gen process -- not just tactical lead gen. #B2B #DF10

And, consider that sales doesn't have all the answers either. When exactly does that practical messaging translation come into play given this statistic?

KBlalock: RT @cahidalgo: 31% of reps r not prepared to speak to a prospect at time of first engagement via IDC #B2B #df10

Could this be due to a lack of respect for the work marketers are doing to get to know prospects well enough to catch and keep their attention for longer periods of time as cycles increase? Perhaps it's because many reps are schooled in products and solutions, but not so much about their prospect's reality, industry trends, influencers and competitive alternatives (Hint: Think beyond the obvious competitive choices).

This Tweet points out an interesting observation:

hoovers: RT @abneedles Sales-driven marketing is 'like driving with the rearview mirror.' via McAfee marketer #B2B #DF10

This is because salespeople are usually concentrating on the end-stages of the deal. They aren't paying attention to all that time prior to transition that's involved in the development of a sales-ready opportunity. If you only look at the buying process from the point at which sales will agree to pursue leads, you've missed a lot. (Read 70% of their buying process).

This Tweet gets to the goal. This is where marketing can create a noticeable impact. The skill sets that marketing needs to evolve are based on achieving this:

abneedles: Now listening to a top marketer at @InformaticaCorp talk about getting to predictable revenue via marketing. #B2B #DF10

As a final thought, consider that sales support is not just about your sales team. It's also about your buyers. Marketing needs to support the needs, priorities and interests of both. The more proactive they are about doing this, the more of a leadership role they can attain. Developing end-to-end lead management processes is a great place to start.

After all, isn't leadership about supporting the evolution and sustainability of success?

I missed being at Dreamforce this year. But, I'm thankful for all the Tweets that shared what was going on and made me think.