Marketing Interactions

Crossing the Chasm: The New Obstacle for B2B Buyers

I've come to the conclusion that evolution is lopsided. Especially when it comes to B2B marketing vs. sales. It seems to me that either one or the other is evolving, but much of the time it doesn't seem to be both. At least not within the same organization.

The best marketers are on a quest to get to know their buyers. They're doing the hard work to create personas, develop content strategy and execute content marketing in a way that moves the needle by building relationships.

On the other side, salespeople who are in tune with their markets are spending the time to do research on prospects, learning how to apply the content that marketing is developing to supporting relevant dialogues with customers. And with all of this in hand, they're adding value to keep the progression established earlier in the buying process moving toward the decision to buy.

Then there's everyone else. What the heck happened?

Why is it that in so many companies these two ends of the buying process never join in the middle? It's like buyers need to cross the chasm on their own to get from one side to the other.

What makes you think they have the motivation?

I'm hearing a lot lately that marketing is doing great getting leads into the early stages of the buying process, but that there's a bottleneck in the middle that is somehow keeping them from moving farther.

Take a look and see if any of the below sound familiar:

• Marketing doesn't have a content strategy so what was appealing once, has nothing to build on so prospects are left to languish
• The attempt to get prospects into sales conversations goes something like this: "I see you downloaded a white paper. I'd like 30 minutes of your time to give you a demo of our solution..."
• You don't have a nurturing program with any real chutzpa. It's more of a keep us in mind when you decide to do something worth our while type of email series.
• Salespeople decide the lead that marketing sent over isn't the right contact so they try to go around him to get to someone more important. Only that someone more important tasked the contact with building the business case. Or he was the champion without whom you will never get the deal.
• Sales contacts the lead as if this is the first time they've interacted with the company and starts the conversation over - paying no attention to what the prospect has expressed interest in previously
• Inside sales is still trying to qualify on BANT, but the problem is new, so there isn't any budget defined, nor timeline because they don't know what that looks like yet; and the person evaluating is not the actual buyer / decision maker.
• The nurture process stops when sales gets the lead but they don't keep in contact by providing more parts of the story. They just "check in" from time to time.

There are a ton of things that could be represented in those bullets above. But each of them has one characteristic - the focus is on the company, not the customer.

When are we going to learn that it's not about what we want, but what our customers must have?

Our customers do not want:

• Irrelevant follow up
• To educate our salespeople
• To waste their time
• To start over as if they've learned nothing during the 8 months they've been engaging with your content when sales comes into the picture
• To experience Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as part of their buying process

What they do want is:

• Information that helps them solve a problem
• Credible expertise that can take them beyond the content
• Reasons to keep moving forward
• Confidence that they're making the lowest risk decision possible
• Proof that the outcome they'll get will do what they need it to

Relationships are the highest currency we can build in today's "social" business environment. I spend a lot of time failitating introductions for my clients to vendors who can bring expertise to the table that's not in my wheelhouse. They like this. It makes them feel important and they get darn good treatment from those I recommend.

Why is it that marketers don't facilitate introductions of highly qualified prospects to salespeople? Why is it that we don't help our sales team see the value in pursuing the leads we've worked hard to nurture to a readiness for conversation?

Why is it that marketers don't share the background of prospects with salespeople? Sure, marketing automation can help improve visibility to what they've seen or clicked on up to now, but do your salespeople know what other content you have that would enhance that prospect's experience moving forward?

There's a wide gap in B2B companies between the marketing and sales organizations. What are you going to do to close it?

Or are you relying on your prospects making the leap across the chasm on their own?

Feeling confident about that?

Hey Marketers: Sales Doesn't "Get" Your Content Strategy

When I saw the first bullet in the summary for this survey done in collaboration between Selling Power and Richardson I couldn't help but download the Content Marketing and Sales Effectiveness report. For, if nearly 50% of sales reps and 35% of sales managers don't understand the content strategy, there's a problem. No wonder there are statistics such as 80% of marketing content goes unused by salespeople and hear they spend some ungodly amount of time creating their own content and collateral. What a waste of time, resources and duplicated efforts.

But it's not just a matter of them understanding. It seems to go further than that. After all, approximately 80% of reps and managers say they do read the content that marketing publishes. Not sure what the other 20% are doing, but 80% is higher than I would have expected.

However, what I usually see in surveys — and this one is no exception — are gaps in meaning. It's hard to get around this, but it also goes to highlight additional issues that we should take a look at.

For example:

I am confident in using thought provoking content to:

First of all, the statement doesn't indicate that the thought-provoking content comes from the company, but we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The interesting thing to me is that both reps and managers are pretty confident in using content for prospecting, generating opportunities and influencing opportunities in their favor. Seems that they've got a pretty good handle on the early stages.

Where it gets a bit shaky is when the salesperson needs to be involved, such as in motivating customers to buy and in cross and up sell. So, is this the content's fault? Or is it that the salespeople aren't carrying their end of the conversation?

In all fairness, if marketers aren't guiding salespeople in the best way to use the content or what arguments it can be used to support, then that could be a gap to fill.

It also strikes me that sales managers have much less faith than sales reps. Don't you find that interesting?

But, what bothers me with these responses the most is the last use in the list; disrupting a customer's mindset. This could be a sign that marketing content isn't being provocative enough to sway status quo - not making the case for change. Although, the way it's referenced in the chart (final stages) leads me back to the question of the reps ability to amplify the ideas in the content to provide enough recognition of value for a customer's mindset to shift.

Now take a look at this set of responses to:

How can your company better help you use thought-provoking content to support your selling efforts?

There are a lot of disconnects for me in these responses, but let's take a look at the two outlined in pink.

Salespeople and managers want marketers to increase the relevance of the content for customers AND they want a tighter focus on the solutions the company sells. In some cases those two can work together, but often, talking more about your solutions instead of solving the customers' problem is not a great choice.

But, that aside, it's interesting to me that the interest wanes in relation to sales reps' desire to understand why content is relevant to customers, how to use it for prospecting or for winning deals or to grow accounts.

I don't think the point here is that salespeople don't understand content strategy, it's that they don't want to understand how to use content, period. If it's easy, they'll do it. If it's not, then they'll say it doesn't work.

Okay - that wasn't a really fair statement and I've got a number of projects running where salespeople use every piece of content marketing can give them, but it just strikes me as odd that the content is taking the hit for poor sales performance without a corresponding interest in changing that outcome.

Thanks to Richardson and Selling Power for publishing the report. It's eye opening to get a look at what sales thinks of content. You can get your copy here.

My interpretations, of course, are subjective. Do you see something different?

Why BANT is Bunk for Today's B2B Buyer

In my work with B2B companies, I spend a lot of time on the phone with salespeople while doing research for the creation of buyer personas and the development of content strategies that dovetail with sales objectives. One of the questions I always ask is for the salesperson to define what they consider to be a qualified lead.

What I still mostly hear is the definition of BANT:

• Budget
• Authority
• Need
• Timing

And salespeople are adamant about these criteria. Most likely willing to wrestle for them :)

Yet, when I interview buyers and customers about their buying process, some of those criteria are found to be, well, bunk. BS. Irrelevant.

Salespeople need to start thinking differently. Unless they do so, BANT will be one of the reasons why the leads marketing passes to them will continue to be considered low quality. This is because today's markets are dynamic. Buyers have changed, but BANT hasn't. So some of the BANT criteria for your hottest leads will likely be missing. Thinking this means the leads aren't qualified could be a big mistake.

Let's take a look at why BANT needs a bit of renovation.

Budget

Unless you sell something that is a line item for your customers, it's highly likely that budget may not exist until after the business case has been built. Why? Because when the budget was developed 8 or 9 months ago, they hadn't recognized the need to solve the problem - or even that the problem existed. But it can also point to a larger problem that needs to be solved that may be pulling funding from across lines of business, so it's not evident where the money is coming from.

In fact, 48% of buyers surveyed by DemandGen Report say their purchase of a complex B2B product/solution was initially unbudgeted. According to the report, "[the purchases] were deemed necessary after looking at the solution's impact on other adopters and building an internal business case for the solution." Only 11% said so in 2011, showing just how much the budgeting process is shifting.

When you consider that another 14% say the budget was determined after soliciting multiple bids, that means 62% of purchases were made without an initial budget in place.

Budget is no longer a static criterion that sellers can expect to see in place. This makes it a bit moot as a qualifier. Perhaps it would be better to evaluate the company or account to determine if they could buy from you if they decide it's a worthwhile choice. Company characteristics might be better drivers than budget. Then again, that puts the onus on your company to do the heavy lifting to make it so.

Authority

This is one that makes me grit my teeth. Salespeople all want to speak to the person that signs on the dotted line. (We need a CIO persona is something I hear a lot) But, guess what? That person isn't usually the one building a relationship with your company or reading your content, attending your webinars or sharing your infographics. Nearly all the executives I speak with who have signing authority are too busy to do their own research or talk to vendors until the short list is formed.They put that responsibility onto their staff. And I'd suggest you make friends.

Depending on which research you believe, there are 7 to 21 people involved in a complex buying decision. Maybe only 1 of those people can sign off, but if a bunch of them say "NO" then you're out. Instead, it would behoove you to understand the hierarchy of the buying committee and what each of them cares most about. (Personas) Choose wisely based on influence level.

In my opinion, authority is also a rather dynamic term these days. Considering that most of the people I interview say they turn first to colleagues and peers for referrals, their authority shouldn't be under estimated, either. In fact, think cultivation; it's much more productive.

Only 9% of the 170 B2B buyers who responded to the DemandGen Report survey represented themselves as buyers who allocated or approved budgets. Most of the rest regarded themselves as influencers and recommenders. And 50% of overall responders say they're inviting more internal members to the input party.

Need

This one is probably the most valid of the BANT criteria for without it there's no possiblity of making a sale. But think carefully about how you define this; is it a need or really a want? How important is the problem that's being solved in the scheme of things? For the buyer? In relation to company objectives?

I agree with this criteria. It needs to be there. This being said, it's important to realize that it may not look like what you expect. Developing buying insights about how the different members of the buying committee view the issues they're trying to resolve is critical to aligning conversations that are relevant - as well as for lead qualification.

For example, I just did a round of interviews where the customers were almost always switching from one vendor to another. The problem being resolved? Responsiveness and a consultative approach by the vendor they selected to help them improve related processes and workflows. Their current vendor's solution was fine, it was their attitude that needed adjusting. There's a different approach to this issue than the one you might have thought of originally when trying to prove your solution was a worthwhile investment. What if it's not about that?

Timing

Salespeople are driven by urgency. They need to close deals in short windows. One salesperson told me recently that without an established deadline, he wasn't interested. Yikes. I get it - really I do. Salespeople have quotas to meet at the end of the month. But, given the way the other criteria have changed, there needs to be a plan. I've seen deals that were projected to close in 30 days drag on for months and deals projected at 6 months out close in 30 days.

Business needs evolve quickly. There can be a long period of feet dragging, but once everything clicks into place, then things can happen pretty fast. The issue here is who's going to get everything to click into place? If not you, then it will be a competitor that sees what could be hidden potential.

Do you know where the value levers are for each member of the buying committee? How can you pull them in a way that gets each of them to convince the others? Rather than relying on the prospect for the urgency, perhaps that's something we should be bringing to the table.

No - not with desperate attempts to close a prospect that's not ready, but by showing them the value of the impact they're unable to have today—without our solution.

The Need for Dynamic Criteria

So, if not BANT, then what?

The main difference between what worked in the past and what works now is how dynamic the business environment has become. Speed of change is crazy. We need qualified lead criteria that can continually shift in response to changing buyer situations and behavior patterns. I don't have all the answers, but here are a few ways to look at some criteria I'm seeing have more impact in lead quality definition in today's markets.

• Need stays - but I'd work on defining which types of need are a sweet spot for your customers. All needs are not pivot points for success. And one need doesn't look the same across the stakeholder group, depending on roles and responsibilities of who interacts with your company. How might "need" be defined better? Has something changed recently that reframes a need you fulfill?


• Connections - if the prospect you have access to isn't the one who can make the decision, does he/she have a direct connection to who can? How many contacts from the prospective company are in your database? What type of organizational hierarchy are they dealing with? Which one has the perspective that will allow for the most urgency to be recognized based on value add?


• Company - how closely does the company resemble your best customers? In other words, even if the contact you have is interactive, interested and highly engaged, if the company isn't a good fit and won't likely buy from you then you're wasting your time, no matter how great the lead score. Additionally, if you don't have other customers in the prospect's industry, can you prove your solution will be relevant for them? Based on what? How will you convince them that your expertise will continue to pay off after the purchase is completed?

What do you think? What would you add to this list?

Is Social Selling in Need of Sales Enablement?

In my last post I wrote about some of the ways Marketers could benefit from LinkedIn in relation to the report Jill Konrath and I released recently, Cracking the LinkedIn Sales Code.

Today, I’d like to write about some opportunities that surfaced during our analysis of the data that point to the need for sales enablement that can help your company’s social selling initiatives, as many salespeople appear to be struggling to find the value.

• The fact that only 4.9% of the 3,094 survey respondents are identified as Top Sellers is a wake-up call.


• The idea that gaining access to InMail is critical for being able to “pitch” more people directly – as expressed in many comments from the survey – is a wake-up call.


• The conclusion that, since prospects don’t like to be pitched to via LinkedIn means that LinkedIn is not a valuable tool for the sales process is also a big, fat wake-up call.

Comments like these sum up the need for a bit of intervention:

“[I] don't have the right content and approach yet to really engage with potential customers on LinkedIn to gain new prospects, thus new sales.”

“I send InMails ongoingly and the majority [of them] are ignored. I'm beginning to think it's a waste of time....”

LinkedIn Has a Bit of a Learning Curve

I’ve been using LinkedIn so long and so much that the idea it’s not easy to grasp and use effectively was a bit of a surprise to me. Although it shouldn’t be. I see crappy stuff posted out there all the time. But I also see great stuff!

The thing that’s bugging me a bit is that the majority of marketers asked in numerous research studies say they’re using content marketing. Many of them say they know their prospect audiences well. Many of them maintain blogs for their companies. And, many of them participate on social media. Heck, social media has been in the top 3 for marketing priorities in most research reports I’ve read for the last couple of years.

If marketers are actually doing all of the things stated above, I’d submit that they are  in the perfect position to create a “social sharing” support program for their sales teams.  And it doesn’t have to be difficult.

Create a weekly primer that includes:

• Relevant groups for sales reps to join based on who they sell to, what they sell and their specific area of expertise or industry knowledge
• A list of appropriate content resources based on the above point; include links, a summary of key points, and suggestions for discussion prompts they can use
• Ideas that promote sharing expertise or asking questions to stimulate discussions

Include a tips section that includes ideas that will help them gain proficiency with the tools that LinkedIn has to offer. Just one or two tips per week that they can master quickly is plenty. I’d start with Signal and give them some keyword phrases to set up so they can easily keep track of what’s going on in their area of focus so that they can more easily join in on relevant discussions.

For those of you thinking – wow – that weekly primer thing is going to be a lot of work, stop and think about it.

• You know what content you’re publishing and online events you’re scheduling
• You know what the key points are
• You have the links – or you should

If you’re using other social networks you’re already curating content that aligns with the story you’re sharing, right? So include those links, too. After all, social sharing isn’t just about your company’s content.

Sure the group recommendations will take a bit of effort, although not so much if you’re already tracking them for insights that inform your marketing programs. And I’d stipulate that you should be doing this.

And the tips for tools may also take some thought and experimentation if you’re not using them, but you should be doing this, too. The benefits are profound.

So, ultimately, creating a social sharing support program is a win-win situation in the end, right?

Both of you can learn together and you can help to ensure that the story being shared in LinkedIn by your sales team aligns with the story marketing is sharing. And that’s pretty huge!

Once you get the primer format down, it’s a simple process to update it each week to ensure your sales team has fresh content and ideas to share. And, it’s important to remember that appropriate sharing and participation are two of the habits that Top Sellers rely upon to drive the generation of opportunities on LinkedIn.

If you haven’t downloaded your copy of Cracking the LinkedIn Sales Code, go get it!

And don’t forget to download the companion eBook (Link in the report) to read the stories that top sellers shared with us about what’s working for each of them. You may find some ideas you haven’t thought of.

And, for fun, see my Madlibs post on Funnelholic where I predict that sales enablement will be the next hot thing for marketing. Seriously!

Cracking the Code on LinkedIn is For Marketers Too

Jill Konrath and I recently released a report, Cracking the LinkedIn Sales Code, that details what we learned from a survey of 3,094 salespeople about their use of LinkedIn as a sales tool. As a marketing professional, I found the responses fascinating and began thinking about how the data crosses boundaries to inform the marketing side.

In the report, we looked at two sides of the coin; Salespeople who could attribute lots of sales opportunities to LinkedIn (Top Performers) and the others who generated a few—or none at all. The differences were quite striking—as was the admission by 58% of respondents who said they lacked an understanding of how to use the capabilities of LinkedIn.

LinkedIn provides a wealth of tools and insights about our markets. I nearly live on the site most of the time because it contributes so much to the work I do.

In this post, I’d like to pull out a few key findings from the report and discuss them from a marketing perspective. And I’d also like to add a few insights of my own that may help marketers find more value in LinkedIn.

Establishing a Professional Presence

41.3% of Top Sellers rate their profile as well done,
compared to 15% of all other respondents

One of the things about LinkedIn that’s not necessarily true about other social platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, is that marketers cannot hide behind their company logos. Whatever you do on LinkedIn is tied directly back to your personal profile. This puts a lot of pressure on marketers who can only talk knowledgeably about their products and their jobs, but not necessarily about the needs and priorities of their customers.

While I see a lot of marketers on LinkedIn participating in marketing-focused groups and learning to improve their skills or asking and answering marketing-related questions, I don’t see a lot of them involved in effective engagement with prospects. Posting a link to a blog post in a group without adding commentary designed to initiate a useful discussion, doesn’t count—and “useful” relates to the value seen by the group’s members.

Things to consider:

• How many groups do you belong to and participate in where your prospects hang out?
• How many times each month do you share relevant content or participate in discussions?
• Starting a group related to what your prospects care about
  
  One respondent to the survey told us, “LinkedIn is an extremely valuable part of my career. The group I moderate has now become an inbound ‘business opportunity’ marketing machine.”

Why it’s important:

• Your participation is a reflection of your company’s value
• Uncovering qualified sales opportunities is part of your job
• What if you could establish engagement and introduce a warm lead directly to a salesperson?

The Market Research Tool You Shouldn’t Ignore

 

LinkedIn is probably the best prospect research tool I’ve ever come across. Marketers need much more insight than is made available through buying lists or sites that only provide demographic information. LinkedIn is a community of real people who share their perspectives about what they do and what they value and the jobs they do. While some people still use the site as a boring resume exercise, others provide a wealth of insight previously unavailable to marketers.

For every project I do, I use LinkedIn as a source of insight. Some of the tasks I frequently perform include:

• Using advanced search to find a list of prospects who could be representative of my clients’ target markets. I review hundreds of profiles to uncover insights, priorities, aspirations, and more. Granted, I use the professional version which allows me cool ways to filter lists, but it’s worth every penny. This research not only helps me understand how to conduct persona interviews, but also helps keep me updated on trends as time passes.
  
  
• I use Signal (under News in the navigation) to do searches on keyword phrases, such as “oil production” that I need for insights about a project I’m working on. I also have searches saved for subjects, such as “content strategy,” to keep up with my own industry.
  
  
• When I’m reviewing profiles, I always look to learn about which groups potential prospects belong to and check them out. One of the best things LinkedIn did was make it possible to open up groups – and many have taken advantage. This removes the conundrum about how to qualify to gain access to specialized groups and allows me to learn about the trends being discussed among the members.

Using LinkedIn for research can help you identify market trends, prospect priorities and topics that will resonate with different groups. Just like it doesn’t work to create one-size-fits-all content, it doesn’t work to post the same links to a bunch of groups and hope for the best.

Next post I’ll share insights to sales enablement that relate to the report.

Download your copy of Cracking the LinkedIn Sales Code

Why Marketers Must Care After the Handoff

I'm still speaking with a lot of B2B marketers who draw a hard line in the sand at the sales handoff. Each time I hear the disinterest and see them disengage, I cringe a bit. Well, a lot. Comments vary, but often include flavors of:

• It's not my job.
• Our sales team is dysfunctional.
• They can write their own emails.
• We're sending over quality leads, what more do they want?
• They don't want us touching their leads after they accept them, so why should we care what they do next?
• What they do on their side has nothing to do with what we do on ours.

Seriously? And we wonder why alignment between the two disciplines is still on the table year after year? Not to put all the blame on marketers, but I'd like to point out that this stance is doing you more harm than good. Perhaps even career-damaging harm.

Think about it. I've seen companies survive without marketing, but I've never seen one survive without sales.

If a marketing department has the attitude expressed by the bullets above, I'd pretty much bet you that the company position about the two departments is a version of:

Sales produces revenues. Marketing spends it.

Marketers who are not helping their roles/departments to be seen as a valuable contributor to the revenue cycle are not thinking very clearly about their futures.

A number of ripple effects take place when B2B marketers insert the hard stop at the sales handoff:

• Insight to leads is lost
• Impact of marketing efforts is not fully known or validated
• Marketing gets no/less credit for won deals
• Sales messaging is probably telling a different story
• Brand confusion is imminent
• Salespeople are creating their own content
• Salespeople are likely restarting leads rather than stepping into the dialogue that's already in action.

When marketers remove themselves from the sales process, they're maintaining a self-focused perspective that narrows the big picture, leaving gaps that can undo the relationships with buyers that they've worked hard to build.

With buyers self-educating and admittedly holding sales at arm's length during a longer period of their buying process, the transition to person-to-person conversation is even more important than it's ever been. It needs to be seamless, stay relevant and continue forward progress. If sales is stopping that momentum to get up to speed, buyers will quickly lose patience and move on.

However, if marketing works collaboratively with sales to design content that keeps the story unfolding after sales steps in, then chances of success increase. Meeting expectations when your buyers know more about your company than, well, maybe your salespeople do, means the orchestration of the handoff becomes a critical component.

What companies fail to recognize is that it's not about about marketing vs. sales. It's about your buyer's choice to continue with your company or cut you from their short list. Why would you want to give them any reason to do the latter?

An even better question marketers should figure out how to answer is what you'll do if contribution to revenues begins to figure into your compensation plan. That's a trend gaining steam...

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?