ReachLocal Provides Turn-Key Lead Management for Small Business

There are about 3 million companies with revenue between $1 million and $5 million in the U.S., according to Manta. This is an enticingly huge market for marketing automation vendors, and one that seems largely untapped. The largest marketing automation vendor in the segment, Infusionsoft, has under 20,000 clients. This is barely scratching the surface.

But this perspective is misleading. Many small businesses do their marketing through CRM, email, and search advertising. Search marketing is particularly important as online searches replace newspapers and telephone directories. Companies that provide small businesses with online directories and ratings, search engine optimization, Web sites, and paid search marketing all have client bases that dwarf the small business marketing automation industry.

Those other vendors could easily see marketing automation as a natural line extension, since it would help their clients make better use of the traffic those vendors generate. Last month ReachLocal – a $450 million public company that purchases online ads for more than 23,000 local businesses -- moved in exactly this direction.

ReachLocal’s new service, called ReachEdge, provides clients with a custom Web site, contact database, automated email streams to leads and customers, and automated alerts to company staff.  All the Web and advertising design is done for the client. There’s no automated lead scoring or branching campaign flows: when a new lead enters the system via a Web form or phone call, the user receives an alert, reviews whatever information was provided on the form or voice mail message, and manually classifies the lead as active, long term, new customer, or existing customer. Each category kicks off its own stream of messages (to the leads) and alerts (to company users), which can be spaced over time. Messages are sent by email; alerts can be sent by text, email, or a mobile app. Users can enter notes, add tags, and record revenue on contact records, providing a very light CRM option, or they can manually export the contact list to an external CRM system. Revenue can be used in campaign Return on Investment reports.

And that’s it, features-wise. If you’re used to looking at all-in-one small business marketing automation systems like Infusionsoft, Ontraport, or Venntive, the list may seem laughably primitive. But it’s a safe bet that many ReachLocal advertising clients have no interest in anything more complicated. The stumbling block facing all of marketing automation – that it takes more training, skills, and effort than most potential users can invest – is higher for very small businesses than anyone else. ReachLocal has reduced its clients' preparation to a minimum, and then left it up to them to pursue each new lead individually.

When a vendor does this much of the work, the key questions are less about the system than quality of the marketing.  ReachLocal said that each Web site is custom designed, based on interviews with each client by U.S.-based industry specialists. I looked at a samples for three different plumbers (here, here, and here) and found they were indeed different and detailed enough to be effective. I’ll assume that advertising and email are similar. ReachLocal’s service includes one hour of customization per month and a completely new Web site every two years. The price is $299 per month, which is comparable to low-end marketing automation systems although higher than simple auto-responders.

Let me be clear: ReachEdge doesn’t provide the process automation or even email segmentation of a conventional marketing automation system, let alone serious CRM, ecommerce, or external integration. So small businesses that want to market aggressively will probably find it insufficient. But small businesses that just want to generate a stream of new leads while they focus their energies elsewhere may well find ReachEdge an appealing alternative.

Read More

Marketing Automation User Satisfaction: Clearly, There's Room for Improvement (and maybe a little vodka)

Last week’s post on marketing automation and its discontents prompted several questions about whether the level of dissatisfaction is any higher with marketing automation than other systems. To some extent, this is asking whether the glass is half empty or half full; and, as the illustration suggests, the answer matters less than the fact that there’s room for improvement. But I do have some data to share on the question of relative dissatisfaction.

The first insights come from G2 Crowd, a research firm that ranks software based on user ratings and social data. I have my doubts about comparing software this way* but users certainly know whether or not they're happy.  The folks at G2 were kind enough to reformat some of their data for me.**


According to the G2 figures, marketing automation users are in fact more enthusiastic about their choices than almost anyone else. CRM in particular has a vastly worse rating, but even email, Web analytics, and Web content management show more detractors and fewer promoters. I’m not sure how to interpret this – is the average marketing automation system really easier and better than those other types of software?  Or is something else going on: maybe satisfaction is lowest in the most mature categories, like human resources, enterprise resource management, and accounting, because experienced users are the most demanding?

A second set of insights comes from Ascend2 and Research Partners, which asked its panel which inbound marketing tactics they considered most effective and most difficult to execute. Here we see a very different story: marketing automation and lead nurturing (listed separately) are clear outliers in a bad way: among the less effective tactics and the hardest to execute. In fact, they are the only two tactics where the difficulty score was significantly higher than the effectiveness score (i.e., above the diagonal line in the chart below).***

The Ascend2 study also found that 18% of respondents used marketing automation extensively, while 43% made limited use of it, and 39% didn’t use at all. This is similar to the BtoB study I cited last week, which found that just 26% of marketing automation users had fully adopted their system.  I believe those effectiveness vs. difficulty ratings hint at the reason for those results: most marketers don’t fully deploy marketing automation because they find it too much work compared with the benefit they’d gain. In other words, the hurdle to marketing automation adoption is not laziness, but a rational evaluation of the return from investments in marketing automation vs. other activities.

That rational judgment could still be wrong.  After all, marketers who haven’t fully deployed marketing automation don’t know how effective it really is. Ascend2 addressed this by asking marketers to rate their performance and comparing answers of the 12% self-rated “very successful” with the 20% who rated themselves “not successful”.

Those answers contain some positive news: of the very successful group, 45% were extensive users of marketing automation, compared with just 9% of the not successful.

But even the very successful marketers gave marketing automation only the fifth-highest effectiveness rating, which doesn’t differ much from the sixth-highest rating in the not successful group.

Similarly, the very successful marketers rated marketing automation as sixth most difficult (actually, tied for fifth) while the not successful marketers ranked it as fourth-hardest. In other words, marketing automation is indeed a bit easier than it seems before you start, but even the most experienced and most successful marketing automation users consider it pretty darn hard and just modestly effective.

So what we have here is a mixed message: marketing automation does correlate with success and its users might even be relatively satisfied, but it's still a lot of work for limited results.  You read that as good news or bad, but, either way, it shows the need for more work before marketing automation can reach its full potential.


________________________________________________________________________

* My basic objection is that users have different needs, so a system that satisfies one user may not be good for another.

** G2’s explanation: “The data for this chart comes from the over 7,400 enterprise software surveys users have completed on G2 Crowd as of Friday 10/18/13. For every product review we ask "How likely is it that you would recommend this product to a friend or colleague?" on a 0-10 scale. We segment reviewers that rate a product 9-10 as Promoters, 7-8 as Passives, and 0-6 as Detractors. The product segmentation data is aggregated to determine Net Promoter Score at a category level.”

***It's barely possible that the answers would be different if the Ascend2 study had asked about marketing in general rather than "inbound marketing purposes".  But I doubt it.

Read More

Infer Keeps It Simple: B2B Lead Scores and Nothing Else

I’ve nearly finished gathering information from vendors for my new study on Customer Data Platform systems and have started to look for patterns in the results. One thing that has become clear is that the CDP vendors fall into several groups of systems that are similar to each other but quite different from the rest. This makes sense: most of the existing CDP systems were built to solve specific problems , not as general-purpose data platforms. Features will probably converge as vendors extend their products to attract more clients. But right now the groups are quite distinct.

One of these categories is systems for B2B lead scoring. I found three CDPs in this group: Lattice Engines (which I reviewed in April), Mintigo (reviewed in June), and Infer, which I'm reviewing right now.

Like the others, Infer builds a proprietary database of pretty much every company on the Internet by scanning Web sites, blogs, social media, government records, and other sources for company information and relevant events.  It then imports CRM and marketing automation data from its clients' systems, enhances the imported records with information from its big proprietary database, and builds predictive models that score companies and individuals on their likely win rate, conversion rate, deal size, and lifetime revenue.

The models are applied to new records as they enter a client’s system, creating scores that are returned to marketing automation and CRM to use as those systems see fit. The most typical application is deciding which leads should go to sales, be further nurtured by marketing automation,  or discarded entirely. But Infer customers also use the scores to prioritize leads for salespeople within CRM, to measure the quality of leads produced by a marketing program, assess salesperson performance based on the quality of leads they received, and even adjust paid search campaigns based on the quality of leads generated by each source and keyword.

Infer differs from its competitors in many subtle ways: the scope of its data sources, its matching processes to assemble company and individual data, the exact types of scores it produces, its modeling techniques, and reporting.  It also differs in one very obvious way: it returns only scores, while competitors return both scores and enhanced profiles on individual prospects.  Infer gathers the individual detail needed for such profiles, but has decided so far not to make them available. Its reasoning is that scores provide the major value from its system and profiles would detract from them – perhaps because sales people might ignore them scores in favor of profile data. Focusing on scores alone also makes Infer simpler to set up, operate, and understand.

Infer might be right, but it’s hard to imagine they'll will stick with this position once they start selling directly against competitors that offer scores plus profiles.  They will surely lose many deals for that reason alone.  On the other hand, Infer’s initial clients have been companies where free trials versions generate huge lead volumes, including Box, Tableau, NitroPDF, Zendesk, Jive and Yammer. Scores that accurately filter non-productive leads are more important to those companies than individual lead profiles.  Perhaps there are enough such firms for Infer to succeed by selling only to them.

Whether or not Infer expands its outputs, it faces another challenge: convincing buyers that its scores and data are better than its competitors. This might well be true: based on the information I’ve gathered, Infer seems to have a richer set of data sources and more sophisticated identity matching than at least some competitors. But my impressions may be wrong, and most buyers will won’t dig deeply enough to form an opinion.  Instead, their eyes will glaze over when the vendors start to get into the details, and they’ll simply assume that everybody’s data, matching, and modeling are roughly equivalent.

The only real way to measure relative quality is through competitive testing of which scores work better.  Each buyer needs to run her own tests since results may vary from business to business. How many buyers will take the time to do this, and which vendors will agree to cooperate, is a very open question.

That said, I did speak with some current Infer users, who were quite delighted with how easy it had been to deploy the system and with results to date. This is hardly a random sample – these were pioneer users (the system was only launched about a year ago) and hand-picked by the vendor. But their experience does confirm that performance is solid.

Infer pricing is based on the number of records processed and connected systems.  The vendor doesn’t reveal the actual rates but did say it is looking at options to make the system more affordable for smaller clients.

Read More

NitroMojo and Marketing Advocate Specialize in Marketing Automation for Channel Partners

As I noted in a post last year, there is a universe of specialized marketing automation systems for companies that sell through channel partners. These products address several interrelated challenges: distributing leads to partners without losing track of performance; distributing partner-customized versions of company-created content; and helping partners run their own marketing campaigns. Here are two more vendors with related offerings:

NitroMojo focuses primarily on lead distribution and tracking. Its particular strength comes from sending follow-up email surveys directly to leads to find out what happened: were they contacted by the channel partner? did they eventually buy? is there someone else at their company to talk to? is there something else they might purchase? This addresses one of the central dilemmas of selling through partners, which is losing contact with the leads and, as a result, not being able to measure effectiveness of corporate lead generation programs. NitroMojo says about 60% of leads reply to the surveys, giving enough information for meaningful analysis of program, partner, and salesperson performance.

The system also provides sales reps and sales managers with basic sales automation, including abilities to enter and rate new leads, review and prioritize existing leads, track call results, send materials from a central library, and schedule future calls. Corporate marketers can build campaigns with multiple events, create landing pages, capture revenues and costs, distribute leads with complex routing rules, score leads on behaviors and salesperson ratings, and measure performance.  Pricing starts around $3,000 per year plus $100 per user per month, which is usually less than the cost of marketing automation and sales automation systems that NitroMojo would replace. The current version of NitroMojo system was introduced about a year ago and had three global clients with more than 150 users when I spoke with the company in April.

Marketing Advocate is designed to help technology resellers who lack in-house marketing skills. It provides a resellers with a vendor-sponsored microsite that gives them access to marketing content, prospect lists, acquisition email campaigns, and automated nurture emails.  Resellers define their target prospects when they set up the system and then purchase suitable lists from suppliers including NetProspex, Jigsaw, and Harte-Hanks. These prospects, and other names uploaded by the reseller, receive standard campaign emails at three week intervals until they respond by visiting a landing page. The system then sends them personalized emails offering contents related to their behaviors. The leads are also scored and, when ready, can be passed to a telephone lead qualification service or directly to the vendor’s sales automation system. The sponsoring vendor doesn’t see the lead names until the reseller enters them into the system.

The point of all this is to minimize the effort that the resellers themselves must put into marketing. Marketing Advocate typically builds 25 to 30 prospecting campaigns tailored to different customer segments, and lets the resellers select the campaign and segments they want to pursue. The company also assembles and selects content to offer in the emails, has negotiated arrangements with the list providers, gives reports that analyze program response quantity and quality, and offers a concierge service to review results with resellers and discuss improvements. The system can also integrate with event management software and Google AdWords. Partner agencies are available for telephone lead qualification, search engine optimization, and paid search.

Marketing Advocate typically costs $500 to $700 per month per reseller, with some portion of the expense usually subsidized by the sponsoring vendor. Marketers pay $1 per name for prospects. The system is used by divisions at several major technology vendors including IBM, Microsoft, and HP.

Read More

Moving On: Lessons from the B2B Marketing Trenches

 
I’ve just ended my six month tour as VP Optimization at LeftBrain DGA, and am now returning full time to my usual consulting, writing, and general shenanigans. It was fun to work again as a hands-on marketer. Here are some insights based on the experience.

- lots of content. We all know that content is king, but sometimes forget the king has a voracious appetite. A serious demand generation program might move contacts through half dozen stages with several levels within each stage and several messages within each level. This could easily come to forty or fifty messages, each offering a different downloadable asset.  The numbers go even higher when you start to create separate streams for different personas. Building these materials is major undertaking, first to understand what’s appropriate and then to create it. But deploying the initial content is just the start: you then have to monitor performance, test alternatives, and periodically refresh the whole stream. Finding efficient ways to do this is critical to keeping costs and schedules within reason. (Note that I’m talking here about email programs to nurture known contacts, not acquisition programs to attract new names. That takes another massive content collection.)

- content isn’t everything. It’s an old saw among direct marketers that the list determines most of your response rate and the offer controls for most of the rest.  Actual creative execution (copy, graphics, format, etc.) accounts for maybe 10% of the result. We proved this repeatedly with tests that used the different content at the same stage in the campaign flow: basically, results were similar even with content originally designed for different purposes. Conversely, the same piece of content had hugely different results at different places in the flow. What this meant in both cases was that response was primarily driven by the people at each stage, not by the specifics of the materials presented.

- simplicity helps. That results are primarily driven by audience doesn’t mean that content doesn’t matter. We did a fascinating (to me, at least) analysis of 100 emails, logging specific features such as number of words and readability scores and then comparing these against open, click-through, and form submit rates. A clear pattern emerged: simpler emails (shorter, fewer graphics, easier to read) performed better. In fact, the pattern was so clear that there's a danger of over-reaction: at some point, a message can be too short to be effective (think of the mayor in The Simpsons, who just repeats “Vote for Me”). So the real trick is to find an optimal length, and even then to recognize that some messages truly need to be longer than others.

- simplicity isn’t everything, either. We did a lot of testing – it was my favorite part of my job – but the content tests were often inconclusive: sometimes shorter won, sometimes longer won, most often the difference was too small to matter. Given that we were starting with competently-created materials, that’s not too surprising. On the other hand, we consistently found that forms with fewer questions yielded better results, typically by a ratio of 3:1. This is one example of a non-content item with major impact; another was contact frequency (more is better, but, as with simplicity, only up to a point). There were other aspects of program structure that I would have tested had time and resources permitted; the goal was to focus on variables with the potential for a substantial impact on over-all results. This generally meant moving beyond individual content tests to items with larger and more global impact.

- test themes, not details. Don’t misinterpret that last sentence: I’m not against content tests. What I'm against is tests that only teach one small, random lesson, such as whether subject line A is better than subject line B. The way to build more powerful tests is to build them around a hypothesis and then try several simultaneous changes that support or refute that hypothesis. (I’ve shamelessly stolen this insight from Marketing Experiments, whose methodology I hugely admire and highly recommend.) So, if you think simplicity is an issue, create one test with shorter subject line and less copy and fewer graphics and a simpler call to action, and run that against your control. This is exactly the opposite of conventional testing advice of changing just one thing at a time.  That approach made sense back in the days of direct mail when you were running a handful of versions per year, but isn’t an option in the content-intensive environment of modern online marketing. And even if you had the resources to run a gazillion separate tests, you’d still need to see larger patterns to guide your future content creation.

- multivariate tests work. As if the infinite number of potential tests were not enough of a challenge, most B2B marketers also have relatively small program quantities to work with. We multiplied our test volume by applying multivariate test designs, which let us use the same contacts in several different test cells simultaneously. This probably needs a post of its own, but here's a quick example: Let’s say you need 10,000 names per test cell and have 20,000 names total. Traditionally, you could just run one test comparing two choices. But with a multivariate design, you’d create four cells of 5,000 each. Cells 1 and 2 would get the first version of the first test, while cells 3 and 4 would get the second version. But – and here’s the magic – cells 1 and 3 would also get the first version of the second test, while cells 2 and 4 would get the second version of the second test. Thus, each test gets the required 10,000 names, but you can still see the impact of each test separately. (Here’s a random article that seems to do a good job of explaining this more fully.). We generally limited ourselves to two or three tests at a time. More complicated structures are possible but I was always concerned about keeping execution relatively simple since we were doing all our splitting manually.

- metrics matter. As it happens, most of the programs we executed rely heavily on form submissions to move people to the next stage. This meant that form fills were the key success metric, not opens or click-throughs. Although these generally correlate with each other, the relationship is weaker than you might expect.  Some exceptions were due to obvious factors such as differences in form length, but the reasons for others were unknown.  (I often suspected but could never prove reporting or data capture issues.)  Of course, most email marketers are used to looking at open and click rates, so it took some gentle reminding to keep everyone focused on the form fill statistics. The good news is we prevented some pretty serious mistakes by using the right measure.  Note that form fills are especially important in acquisition programs responders are lost altogether if don't complete a form that let you add them to your database.

- test results need selling. As you’ve probably guessed by now, I spent much of time lovingly crafting our tests and analyzing the results. But others were not so engaged: more than once, I was asked what we found in a test whose results I had published weeks before. This wasn’t a complete surprise, since other people had many other items on their mind. But we did eventually conclude that simply publishing the results was not enough, and started to go through the results in person during weekly and monthly status meetings. We also found that reviewing individual results was not enough; when we found larger patterns worth reporting, we had to present them explicitly as well. Again, there’s no surprise in this, but it does bear directly on expectations that managers will find important data if reporting systems simply make it available. Most will not: the systems have to go beyond reporting to highlight what’s new, what it means, why it matters, and what to do next. Although some parts of that analysis can be automated, most of it still relies on skilled human effort.

- reports need context. Reporting was another of my responsibilities, and we made great strides in delivering clearer and more actionable data to our clients. One of the things I already knew but was reminded really matters was the importance of putting data in context. It wasn’t enough just to show cumulative quantities or conversion statistics; we needed to compare this data with previous results, targets, and other programs to give a sense of what it meant. To take one example, we reported the winner of a series of email package tests, without realizing until late in the analysis that the response rate for the test as a whole was much lower than previous results. This was a more important issue that the tests themselves. We had other instances where entire waves were missing from reports; we only uncovered this because someone noticed they were missing – whereas, a proper comparison against plan would have highlighted it automatically. Again, such comparisons are widely acknowledged as a best practice: my point here is they have immediate practical value, so they shouldn't just be relegated to the list of “nice but not necessary” things that no one ever quite gets around to doing.

- survival is more important than conversion. That phrase has a vaguely religious ring to it, and I suppose it’s also true in a theological sense. But right now I’m talking about reporting of survival rates (how many people who enter a nurture program actually end up as customers) vs. conversion rates (how many people move from one program stage to the next). Marketers tend to focus on conversion rates, and of course it’s true that the survival rate is mathematically the product of the individual conversion rates. But we repeatedly saw changes in program structure or even individual treatments that caused large swings in a single conversion rate, which was often balanced by opposite changes in the following stage. Looking at conversion rates in isolation, it was hard to see those patterns.  This was an even bigger problem when each rates was calculated cumulatively, so the impact of a specific change was masked by being merged into a larger average. More important, even when there was an obviously related change in two successive rates, the net combined impact wasn’t self-evident. This is where survival rates come in, since they directly report the cumulative result of all preceding stages. Of course, conversion rates and survival rates are both useful: I'm arguing you need to report them both, not just conversion rates alone.

- throughput matters. Survival and conversion rates show the shape of the funnel, but not the dimension of time. We did report how long it took contacts to move through our programs – in fact, a sophisticated and detailed approach was in place before I arrived – but the information was largely ignored. That was a pity, because it contained some important insights about contact behaviors, opportunities for improvement, and results of particular tests. A greater focus on comparing expected vs. actual results would have helped, since calculating the expectations would have probably required a closer focus on how long it took leads to move through the funnel.

- acceleration is hard. A greater focus on timing would have also forced a harder look at the fundamental premise of many B2B campaigns, which is that they can speed movement of prospects through the sales funnel. The more I think about this, the more doubts I have: B2B purchases move according to their own internal rhythms, driven by things like budget cycles, contract expirations, and management changes. Nurture programs can educate potential buyers and build a favorable attitude towards the seller, thereby increasing the likelihood of making a sale once the buyer is ready. They can also track, through lead scoring, when a buyer seems ready to act and is thus ripe for contact by sales. That’s all good and valuable and should more than justify the nurture program’s existence. But expectations of acceleration are dangerous because they may not be met, and could unfairly make a successful program look like a failure.

- drip needs attention.  Like that leaky faucet you never quite get around to fixing, drip programs often don't get the attention they deserve.  In practice, the vast majority of people who enter a nurture program will not move quickly to the purchase stage; most will stall somewhere along the way. This is where the drip program must work hard to keep them engaged. Again, every marketer knows this, but it’s easy to focus attention on the fascinating and complicated stage progressions (remember all that content?) and relegate the drip campaigns to a simple newsletter. Big mistake. Put as much effort into segmenting your drip communications and encouraging response as you put into stage conversions. If you want a practical reason for this, look at your mail quantities: chances are, you’re actually sending more drip emails than all your active stages combined.

- proving value is the ultimate challenge. It’s relatively easy to track contacts as they move through the marketing funnel, but it’s much harder to connect them to actual revenue in the sales or accounting systems. I whined about this at length in June, so I won’t repeat the discussion. Suffice it to say that some sort of revenue measurement, however imperfect, is necessary for your testing, reporting, and program execution to be complete.

Whew, it’s good to have all that out of my system. As I said at the beginning, I did enjoy my little visit to the marketing trenches. Now, it’s goodbye to that world and hello to what’s next.

Read More

3 Ways to Use Lead Scoring Within Your Marketing Automation Programs

I wrote last week about the difficulty of linking marketing leads to sales results. One reason the topic was on my mind is I’m also thinking a lot these days about lead scoring. The practical use of lead scoring is to decide which leads to pass from marketing automation to sales, or, even more pragmatically, to predict which leads will be accepted by sales.* But the ultimate goal is to identify the leads most likely to generate revenue. Building an accurate scoring model therefore requires an accurate view of how leads and revenue are connected.

For all the reasons I discussed last week, that lead-to-revenue connection is hard to make. This is one reason that most lead scoring projects focus instead on the criteria that salespeople use in judging which leads to accept. The other reason is that salespeople can decide which leads they’ll work on – so giving them what they want, regardless of whether it’s what they really need, is the key to lead scoring being considered a success.

Many companies today have inserted a phone call between marketing automation and the sales department, screening every plausible lead before sending them to actual salespeople. This reduces the need for scoring accuracy because the phone call will clarify whether the lead is sales ready.  Since the cost of a missed opportunity is much higher than the cost of a wasted phone call, scoring in this situation must simply find all leads with a reasonable chance of success.

In short, scoring programs face two scenarios:

- for scores that directly determine which leads are sent to sales, accuracy is needed but data on past results (necessary to build a good model) is scarce

- for scores that determine which leads get a screening call, accuracy isn’t very important.

Perhaps this is why so few companies use lead scoring (just 19% in a recent MarketingSherpa study) and why the scoring models tend to be simplistic. Investment in more sophisticated techniques, such as statistically-based predictive models, is rarely worth the cost.

There is, however, another use for lead scoring: assigning leads to stages as they move through the marketing funnel.**

Conceptually, assigning leads to funnel stages is quite different from calculating their probability of making a purchase. A funnel stage is defined by meeting specific criteria such as BANT (budget, authority, need and timing) and engagement (downloading a paper or providing contact information). This is more like a checklist than a numeric score, although items like the number of specified behaviors may be calculated. Still, it's sometimes convenient to use score ranges as stage definitions.

In this context, scoring can be used in three ways.

- assign points  to directly to stage criteria.  For example, imagine a three-stage funnel of Respondent (replied to an email), Qualified Respondent (meets BANT conditions) and Sales Ready Lead (demonstrates engagement). If the scoring rules give 100 points for a response, 100 points for meeting BANT criteria, and 100 points for demonstrating sufficient engagement, then people with 100 points are Respondents, people with 200 points are Qualified Respondents, and people with 300 points are Sales Ready Leads. This is a common approach, although it’s not much different from applying the same rules to classify leads directly.


- treat the score as a probability estimate of reaching the final goal (sales readiness, sales acceptance, or revenue). Under this approach, a Respondent might be someone with a goal probability of under 10%; a Qualified Respondent might have a goal probability of 10% to 50%, and Sales Ready Lead might have a goal probability above 50%. This method avoids the need to define specific lead stage criteria, replacing them with objective predictive modeling methods that are likely to be more accurate.

- treat the score as a probability estimate of reaching the next stage (Respondent, Qualified Respondent, etc.). This retains the explicit stage criteria, which may help marketers visualize who is in each stage and how best to treat them. The predictive model provides additional segmentation within each stage, so marketers can focus their efforts on the most promising leads. Since linking leads to stage movement is easier than linking them to revenue, these predictive models are easier to build.

Today, most companies probably do a hybrid of the first and second options. That is, they assign points based on specified criteria (first option) but assign stages based on point ranges (second option). This combines the familiarity of criteria-based scoring rules with the convenience of numerical stage definitions, making it the easiest method available. But it is also doubly arbitrary, since neither the point values nor the range boundaries can be measured against an objective standard.

I’d suggest that marketers move towards a purer version of the second method, building statistical models that predict the final goal (revenue if available; sales acceptance or sales-ready lead criteria if not). Stage definitions can be arbitrary ranges but correlated against existing stage criteria. Eventually, marketers may want to move toward the third method, with separate models for each stage. This makes it easier to focus on advancing leads from one stage to the next while retaining the rigor of a statistically based approach.


______________________________________________________________________________

* For example, Marketo’s Definitive Guide to Lead Scoring defines lead scoring as “a shared sales and marketing methodology for ranking leads in order to determine their sales-readiness.”

**Eloqua’s Grande Guide to Lead Scoring puts it nicely: lead scoring “helps marketing and sales professionals identify where each prospect is in the buying process.”

Read More

The Easiest Way to Get Started with Marketing Automation? Answers in the Pictures.

Here’s more proof that the apocalypse is near: I’ve discovered the “remove background” feature in Powerpoint. This makes it even easier for me to doctor photographs for my presentations. The fabric of reality cannot long survive so much stress.

The immediate subject of my attentions is next Tuesday’s Webinar “Marketing Automation: One Step at a Time”, sponsored by Act-On Software.

The dominant image of this Webinar, and the eponymous white paper (available on the RaabGuide web site), is a high stone wall representing the effort required to deploy a marketing automation system. More specifically, the wall represents the effort of a traditional best-practice approach, which requires reviewing all marketing processes, designing new programs, creating new content, and working out alignment with sales. It’s a high wall indeed, and many companies just can’t climb it.

As I wrote in a post last December, several strategies have emerged to deal with this challenge. Now I’m delighted to be able to illustrate them.

Training: The wall is high but marketers can learn to jump higher. What they need is training in the pole vault.

Ease of use: Let’s lower the wall so marketing automation is easier. Apply a jackhammer to knock it down a few feet.

Incremental deployment: Break the deployment process into small, manageable stages. Let’s add a staircase with someone taking baby steps.

Service: Marketers should let specialists do the heavy lifting. The experts can carry them over the wall with a crane.

You’ll be pleased to know that the focus of the Webinar isn’t my new-found graphic capabilities. It’s how to succeed at incremental deployment, the strategy recommended by Act-On. Without giving too much away, the key is starting with the right tasks so you get some immediate benefit and build a foundation for future growth but don’t take on too much at once. Yes, I have some specific suggestions…but you’ll have to tune in to hear them.

Read More

CallidusCloud Buys LeadFormix Marketing Automation for $9 Million Cash

The list of independent marketing automation systems shrank by one yesterday when Leadformix  was purchased by sales enablement vendor CallidusCloud for $9 million.

The price is surprisingly low for an established marketing automation vendor. In my VEST report from last July, LeadFormix reported 210 clients, concentrated among mid-size firms, and 82 employees. This would translate to around $7 million revenue, for a price of just over 1x revenue, compared with 4 to 5x revenue in other recent acquisitions.  I suspect the actual LeadFormix revenue was considerably lower than $7 million, but, even so, the price may give pause to investors in other marketing automation firms who are hoping for a great payout.  But bear in mind that LeadFormix was largely self-financed, so they may have sold at a bargain price because they couldn’t afford to compete with better-funded competitors.

Or maybe these comparisons are irrelevant because LeadFormix was never a standard marketing automation system to begin with. While its feature list covers all the usual marketing automation categories, the company's real focus was always on providing the most useful information to sales people. In particular, LeadFormix infers visitors' “intent” (i.e., interests) and sales stage from the Web contents they choose to view. This is a clever and largely unique approach, although Right-On Interactive does something broadly similar.

LeadFormix combines its behavior analysis with anonymous visitor identification (inferring their company from the IP address), access to external prospect lists and enhancement data, and collaboration with partners and affiliates to share lead access. Indeed, the LeadFormix tag line is “aligning marketing with sales” – something that’s important to all marketing automation vendors, but never their primary benefit statement.

This is why Callidus is a good buyer. Callidus isn’t a sales automation system like Salesforce.com, but it does provide a range of other systems that help sales departments. These include products for hiring, training, collaboration, content distribution, proposals, incentives, quota management, and analysis. LeadFormix will give Callidus another offering for its existing 900+ customers and access to 200 more companies now using LeadFormix.  I don’t know whether Callidus will also try to expand LeadFormix sales among "pure" marketers.  But even if they back away completely from “marketing automation”, the deal makes sense.

A bit of background on Callidus: it’s a public company with about $80 million annual revenue, no profits, and a $200 million market value. It made at least five acquisitions last year, all software-as-a-service companies selling some type of sales enablement. These include:

• Salesforce Assessments (salesperson hiring /assessment) 03/28/11
• Litmos (learning management) 06/10/2011
• iCentera (on-demand portal software for sales enablement) 07/06/2011
• Rapid Intake (collaborative rapid e-learning authoring) 09/08/2011
• Webcom Inc. (product configuration, pricing, quoting, and proposals management) 10/04/2011

In short, LeadFormix fits nicely with Callidus from strategic, financial and operational perspectives.  Because this is such a unique match,  I don’t think the acquisition says much about larger trends in the marketing automation industry.  At most, it could be part of the long-expected shakeout as the industry consolidates around a small number of winners. But, while that consolidation is inevitable, it will take more than one deal to show it has started in earnest.

Read More

Book Review: Adam Needles' Balancing the Demand Equation

Business marketers can find plenty of books on broad strategies and plenty of other books on specific tactics.  But a framework for connecting tactics to strategic goals has been missing.  Adam Needles’ new book Balancing the Demand Equation (available here from BN.com and  here from Amazon) closes the gap.

Needles is a well-known industry leader who is Chief Strategy Officer at demand generation agency Leftbrain DGA. His book starts with a review of changes in the B2B buying process and the new demands these place on B2B marketers.   While this is an oft-told story, he summarizes it nicely in two requirements: focusing on the buyer relationship, not on the sales process; and, replacing disconnected push campaigns with an operations mindset of continuous processing. 

The discussion then switches to tactics.  These fall under two major headings of content marketing and lead management.  The book provides practical hints for each topic, such as changing who signs your emails as buyers progress through the purchase cycle.  (Spoiler alert: early emails should come from industry peers, later emails from vendor experts.)  Much of this advice is sourced from other industry leaders – which is to say that it’s useful but not new.

Needles saves his own contribution for last.  This is the concept of “Demand Process Integration”, which he calls a framework to connect content management with lead management so they reinforce each other.  Actually, “framework” doesn’t quite do this justice: what Needles presents is really a step-by-step methodology that includes defining buyer personas, planning the dialog for each persona, mapping the dialog steps to lead stages, defining nurture logic (with separate tracks for active buyers, buyers who need follow-up offers, and inactive buyers), creating lead scores for different personas and stages, and rerouting leads who enter in the middle of the process or should be moved to a different track.  The concepts are illustrated diagrams from Needles’ work at Leftbrain.

The design methodology is followed by advice drawn from operations management theory on process execution, monitoring, and optimization.  Key metrics include process capacity, throughput time, and system balance.  Needles tailors these to demand generation by recommending that marketers check for nurture logic integrity, conversion rates by stage, lead scoring accuracy, and routing errors. 

This may start to sound painfully detailed, but marketers wondering how to connect grand strategic visions with practical execution will find it hugely helpful.  If you want something more inspirational, that’s here too: the book closes with a list of big-picture implications including re-conceptualizing the role of B2B marketers, changing the relationship between marketing and sales, and paying marketers based on results.  As Needles himself puts it:

“Let’s be clear; we’re not talking about a minor course correction here.  This is not a book filled with tactical best practices.  We’re talking about a massive overhaul of how we approach B2B demand generation and a significant re-orientation for B2B marketers.  The stakes are pretty high.”

Indeed they are.  Consider this a guidebook for how to play the game and win.

Read More

Pardot Stays Focused on Small and Mid-Size Clients

I caught up last week with Pardot  co-founder and Chief Operating Office Adam Blitzer.   It had been over a year since I’d had a serious briefing from Pardot, although we do keep in touch and I have current information on them in my VEST report on industry vendors.  Pardot is funny that way: with nearly 700 clients, they’re arguably the third-largest B2B marketing automation vendor and have a broad industry presence, but their formal marketing is relatively quiet.  For example, their Web site lists eight press releases during 2011, compared with 46 for Eloqua and 30 for Marketo.

The company’s product strategy takes a similarly modest approach, favoring incremental improvements over bold new directions.  The biggest news in its latest release, announced August 31, was using Qwerly to copy public social media profiles into the marketing database.  Nice, but not unique: Eloqua, Net-Results and SalesFusion have similar connectors and there are probably others.  The new release also included sending pre-scheduled social media messages from within the system and tracking social content consumption and resharing at the individual level.  Again, good stuff but not revolutionary.

The previous release, announced last May, also featured a number of small steps, including better tagging of marketing content, more precise control over data synchronization, and a plugin to capture Gmail messages within the Pardot database. 

Pardot can limit itself to small refinements because it already provides all the basic marketing automation features.  This approach also reflects the company’s disciplined focus on small and mid-size businesses, which don’t want the complexity added by advanced features.  Less positively, the modest enhancements may also reflect Pardot’s constrained resources – the company has no outside funding and sells at relatively low prices of $1,000 to $3,000 per month.

This doesn’t mean that Pardot lacks some interesting features.  One is an ability to capture the search terms used by individuals, both when they find the company Web site through search engines like Google and when they search within the company site itself.  In-site search is a powerful indicator of intent and not one I recall seeing in other marketing automation systems.  Pardot also has connectors for SugarCRM, NetSuite, and Microsoft CRM as well as Salesforce.com – not unique, but a broader range than most.  The company is adding Webinar integration, starting with Webex and soon to be followed by ReadyTalk.

But features are just part of the equation for marketing automation buyers, especially at small and mid-size businesses.  Ease of use, pricing, and support weigh at least as heavily, and Pardot scores well on all three counts.  Pardot still uses only inside sales people to keep down its selling expenses, which is one way keep down its prices.  Blitzer argues that still lower pricing would require cuts in customer service and support, which he sees as essential to long-term customer success.  Of course, other vendors disagree.  Maybe there’s no single answer because different approaches will suit different clients.  All we can say right now is that Pardot’s approach seems to be working for them.

Read More

Can CRM Add-Ons Replace Marketing Automation?

I’ve long believed that B2B marketing automation is just a passing phase: that, ultimately, B2B marketing automation systems will be absorbed into CRM systems instead of operating independently. It’s a view I discuss sparingly in public, since so many of my friends in the marketing automation industry have a vested interest to the contrary. But there are also a few vendors who have bet in favor of merged systems, so it wouldn’t be fair to ignore their view entirely.



Vendors have made the bet by building marketing automation add-ons to a CRM system instead of building a stand-alone marketing automation product.* I wrote in February about ClickDimensions, which adds advanced email campaigns and Web tracking to Microsoft Dynamics CRM. Of course, the jackpot here is Salesforce.com. At least two vendors have tried to hit it: Predictive Response and BizConnector, whose product is Lead Follow-Up.



Of the two, BizConnector’s Lead Follow-Up is more tightly focused, offering primarily a rules engine that allows lead nurturing and other workflows. It also provides real-time alerts and landing pages. Predictive Response has a broader range, with more advanced email features, including split tests, content templates, and branching campaigns, as well as Web visitor tracking, lead scoring, dashboards, and some data cleansing on form entries. Neither matches the scope of even a mid-tier marketing automation product, but many of the “missing” features would be available in other Salesforce add-ons. So the real question is whether the core campaign management features are adequate substitutes for a marketing automation product.



That question has no simple answer. Lead Follow-Up would probably suffice for small organizations, although it’s targeted more at individual salespeople than marketing departments. Predictive Response (which I have not examined in depth) might serve small and mid-tier marketing groups but probably not large enterprises.



Beyond these particular products lies the larger question of whether their CRM-based approach makes more sense than the separate-but-synchronized platforms offered by most marketing automation vendors. Each method has advantages:



- separate systems can present specialized marketing functions without getting in the way of sales activities.



- separate systems can use database designs optimized to process the entire database at once, instead of the one-record-at-a-time transactional processing needed for sales and service interactions.



- separate systems give each department complete control over its own system, something both groups often prefer.



On the other hand….



- unified systems avoid the need for data synchronization, which reduces complexity, eases cross-department coordination, and eliminates most risk of inconsistency.



- unified systems simplify deployment and support, especially from the perspective of the IT group (although this should be a minor factor in Software-as-a-Service systems, since most work is handled by the vendor).



- unified systems should save money, although it's not clear they do in practice.



The main technical issue here is whether marketing and CRM systems need different database structures. But even if that’s true, one vendor can provide and synchronize both structures at least as easily as separate vendors. Similarly, if separate user interfaces are really necessary, one system can offer both. So the technical differences are largely irrelevant.



Instead, the argument for separate systems really comes down the political desire of each department to have its own system, and a somewhat related expectation that a vendor focused exclusively on marketing automation will build a better system than a small division within a CRM company.



I actually accept those arguments. Vendors serving either marketing or sales will probably do a better job than vendors trying to serve both. But I don’t think this will matter in the long run. As marketing automation requirements become better understood, the CRM-based products will come closer to meeting marketers’ needs. As the functional gap narrows between the two sets of products, the convenience and cost advantages of a unified system will swing the balance in their direction. This will be reinforced by the business need for tighter coordination between sales and marketing, as well as the larger role played by corporate IT groups in selecting customer-related systems. Only marketing departments with very sophisticated needs will be able to justify buying a specialized marketing automation product.



In short, the merger between B2B marketing automation and CRM seems inevitable. In the B2B world, where sales is generally the dominant department, this means that CRM will encompass marketing automation rather than vice versa. The mechanics of the process are less predictable: CRM vendors might expand their features incrementally, acquire add-on systems, or buy a marketing automation product and integrate it. Different vendors may take different paths and move at different rates. But however they get there, I think the destination is clear.



_________________________________________________________

* For very small companies, vendors including Infusionsoft and OfficeAutoPilot have made the bet by offering their own CRM / marketing automation combination.

Read More

Silverpop's Latest Release Targets Sophisticated Marketing Automation Buyers

Summary: Silverpop has continued to extend the marketing automation capabilities of its Engage platform. The latest release adds features that are most important to enterprise marketers.

More than a year has passed since Silverpop merged its email and marketing automation systems into a single product, Engage 8. The combined product offered advanced email but was missing some capabilities available in the previous marketing automation product. These included revenue reporting, anonymous visitor lookups, marketing calendars, and advanced scoring features such as caps on points from one event type. Clients who needed those features had to remain on the previous system (Engage B2B). Prospects who wanted them had to look elsewhere.

Silverpop has been steadily enhancing its new product since that time. The latest version, Engage 8.3, was released last month. It still doesn’t offer all the features of the oldl B2B product because Silverpop decided that some were not worth duplicating. But it does offer other capabilities that are improvements. Here are some highlights from the latest set of additions:

- multiple scores per lead. This is important in large companies that need to score leads against multiple products. It also allows different scoring rules for different customer segments. Scoring models can now include data values, such as a score that was calculated externally and imported.

- progressive profiling. Online forms can automatically remove questions a visitor has already answered and replace them with new questions in a user-specified sequence. Silverpop's form builder handles this quite elegantly, without requiring the user to embed rules or a scripting language.

- social sharing. The system can publish directly to Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn accounts. Content can include sharing buttons for a wide range of other systems. The system can track the number of shares and reshares for each message and identify traffic from those shares. It also captures the identity of the original sharer although this is not currently exposed.

- revenue tracking. Engage still relies on Salesforce.com to produce revenue reports. But it now feeds Salesforce all campaigns that touched the lead and flags both the original source and the campaign that generated contact information. This will allow advanced attribution analysis.

- Salesforce.com integration. Users can now embed campaign codes within a URL link, making them easier to capture. They can have the system create Salesforce.com tasks when a new lead is created, use Salesforce.com opportunity stages within campaign rules, and add leads to a Salesforce.com campaign at any step in a marketing automation program.

- enhanced security. Silverpop suffered a widely-publicized security breach in December 2010. The new release tightens access in several ways, including user-specific IP restrictions, challenges to log-ins from new IP addresses, two-factor authentication, and narrower restrictions on administrative rights. Given subsequent breaches at other firms, most recently Epsilon and Sony, it's possible that vendors and marketers will start paying more attention to security issues.

- email controls. Merging the email and marketing automation systems does have the advantage of giving B2B marketers access to features developed for Silverpop’s advanced email business. These include send-time optimization, which automatically sends campaign emails at the most effective time of day, and a “snooze” option that lets recipients halt email messages for a specified time period instead of opting out completely.

These are all valuable additions to Silverpop’s B2B capabilities. But Silverpop faces an uphill battle in regaining lost momentum and competing with the advanced analytics now touted by several competitors. Silverpop may be positioning itself to serve the upper end of the market, where companies with multiple products and world-wide organizations need advanced features like multiple scores, dynamic content, enhanced security, and high scalability. That’s a plausible strategy, although it means competing against both high-end B2B marketing automation vendors and B2C products like Neolane and Teradata/Aprimo. Given the costs of product development, it would be tough to remain a first-tier system by selling to large enterprises alone.

Read More

MakesBridge Offers Powerful Features to Small Business Marketers

Summary: MakesBridge offers a full set of marketing automation features with some special strengths that will appeal especially to small companies.

I’ve written quite a bit recently about marketing systems for very small businesses – a category I’ve tentatively labeled “micro-business” and pegged at under $5 million revenue. This group of marketers has different needs from even slightly larger companies. In particular, they want a highly-integrated combination of standard marketing automation (email, landing pages and individual-level Website behavior tracking) with customer relationship management (tracking personal and telephone contacts with individuals). Leaders in the space are Infusionsoft and OfficeAutoPilot, which both also provide integrated shopping carts for e-commerce. HubSpot also has many micro-business clients but is not focused on them exclusively and – probably as a result – has a slightly different feature set: more Web traffic generation and no built-in contact management or shopping cart.

There are plenty of other vendors serving micro-businesses. I’ve previously reviewed Genoo, which supplements the standard marketing automation features with Web hosting and built-in CRM but no shopping cart. Canterris , NurtureHQ , and mKubed all provide email, Web visitor tracking, nurture campaigns, lead scoring, and CRM integration ((Salesforce.com for Canterris and NurtureHQ; its own CRM for mKubed) for under $500 per month. Canterris and mKubed also host Web forms and landing pages but NurtureHQ apparently does not. See my List of Demand Generation Vendors for other options.

MakesBridge is another contender. The company started in 2001 as an email service provider and still offers a $29.95 per month email product. It greatly expanded its features in 2010 and now offers a marketing automation system starting at $500 per month. This includes the full rig: outbound email, multi-step nurture campaigns, landing pages and forms, lead scoring, Web visitor tracking (licensed from VisiStat and quite impressive), and a sales automation module that can work as a stand-alone CRM system or integrate with Salesforce.com, NetSuite, Google Apps, or Capsule CRM, a $12 per month per user system also aimed at small business. There’s no shopping cart or Web site hosting but I don’t yet consider those standard features, even for micro-business systems.

MakesBridge does a particularly good job of taming the mass of Web pages that are critical to reacting to lead behaviors. It does this by letting users write rules that reference sets of Web pages rather than individual pages. This can be done by either assigning a shared label to several pages or by assigning page attributes and selecting on those. This is a helpful middle ground between rules that treat all pages the same (e.g. “visited any Web page”) and those that require users to list a specific page or several individual pages. These rules can be used in segmentation, lead scoring, and sales alerts.

The system also has a solid campaign engine, which breaks campaigns into steps and allows multiple options within each step. Each option has a filter that determines which leads are eligible, in addition to actions and an execution schedule that apply to those leads. Users can view reports on performance for each step and for each option within the step. A “circuit breaker” enforces limits on the total number of emails sent during any time period, alerting the user and limiting the damage from what MakesBridge calls "automation run wild".

MakesBridge also supports automated direct mail production, another feature favored by micro-business marketers. For this, the company has integrated with Cloud2You, a Salesforce.com App Exchange partner that loads selected records directly into templates to produce personalized mailing pieces. Cloud2You handles the actual printing and mailing without any additional effort by the user. Mailings can be triggered by steps within a MakesBridge campaign,

The sales automation module gives salespeople access to detailed information about their leads, including their current campaigns. Salespeople can remove a lead from a campaign, suspend the campaign, or skip a particular message. Although MakesBridge is designed to integrate with external CRM products, some clients use its sales automation module as their primary CRM system.

Pricing of MakesBridge is based on the modules used, number of users, email volume, and number of leads in the database. The system currently has more than 150 clients. Most are small businesses but some are large corporations.

Read More

Infusionsoft Helps Clients Map Their Marketing Strategy

Summary: Infusionsoft is making it easier to build campaigns and taken a new approach to helping clients plan their marketing programs. Both are needed for marketing automation to reach to a wider audience.

Infusionsoft this week staged the official coming out party for its latest release at its annual Infusioncon users conference. The big news was a one-step “web lead campaign” generator that automatically creates a Web landing page and three cross-linked email flows: a set of follow-up messages after the initial Web form; a “hot lead” track for people who click on a link in any follow-up message; and a “nurture” track for people who complete the follow-up sequence without clicking on anything. Users still need to build the initial Web form and put copy into all the blank emails. But Infusionsoft said that the automated set-up itself saves six to eight hours of work and even more time puzzling out the underlying concepts.

This may seem underwhelming: Infusionsoft has simply added campaign templates, which higher-end marketing automation systems have offered for years. Indeed, you could sniff that Infusionsoft is only now adding campaigns, in the sense of a container to link separate process flows. As if to drive the point home, the company was also previewing early designs for its next release, which will apparently center on a visual flow chart to build campaign diagrams: Dude, welcome to 2003!

Okay, that was totally unfair. First of all, some of these features are pretty impressive. For example, the system-generated forms and emails automatically include campaign-specific tracking codes, which most systems require users to add manually. And true branching campaigns – as opposed to sequential campaigns with splits inside each step – still aren’t found in most marketing automation systems (although those vendors argue they’re not needed. See last week’s post on eTrigue for details).

More important, the significance of Infusionsoft’s new features isn’t that they’re playing catch-up with systems built for larger companies. It’s that Infusionsoft has been tremendously successful – more than 6,000 clients and 20,000 individual users – without them.

In fact, the company’s research has found that nearly half its clients do almost no email, using the system instead primarily for sales automation and service. Others have used its sequential processes either separately, to automate a variety of annoying manual tasks, or by painstakingly stringing them together by themselves or with professional help.

Another to look at it is this: campaign management is just one application for Infusionsoft, and to date it hasn’t been the dominant one. Rather, Infusionsoft clients have valued labor savings they gain from having one integrated system for marketing, sales, e-commerce, and service. Some of those savings are inherent in the integration itself – that is, files don’t need to be moved from one place to another. Other savings come from running simple automated processes against that integrated data. Only a few Infusionsoft users have added value by running more complex processes, although the crowd at Infusioncom was clearly eager to join them.

The other big announcement at Infusioncom wasn’t about technology at all. It was a new planning methodology called the “Perfect Customer Lifecycle”. It made immediate sense to me, in good part because it somewhat resembles the Customer Experience Matrix that long ago gave this blog its name.

Like the Matrix, the Perfect Customer Lifecycle is organized around the stages in a customer’s relationship with the company, from Attract Traffic through Collect Cash to Get Referrals. Infusionsoft developed it after realizing that few clients could see how the pieces of their marketing programs fit together, which made it difficult to prioritize and maintain focused.

The Perfect Customer Lifecycle replaces a previous Infusionsoft methodology that based on standard marketing programs shared by Infusionsoft’s most successful clients. Although Infusionsoft doesn’t put it this way, the critical difference I see is that one methodology is built around the customer while the other is built around the company. As with the Customer Experience Matrix – still used by my friend and the concept’s original developer, Michael Hoffman of ClientXClient – the customer-oriented approach makes it easy to track every step in the customer relationship and pinpoint opportunities for improvement.

The Perfect Customer Lifecycle illustrates how much effort Infusionsoft puts into helping its customers succeed. I don’t want to make too much of this, since many vendors – and surely all the good ones – care deeply about their customers’ success. But there's an extra passion at Infusionsoft that I think comes from serving small business people. (The company and its clients prefer the term “entrepreneur”; I’ve been toying with “micro-business” as a label. From a practical standpoint, I draw the line at $5 million in revenue and having a professional marketer on staff). The micro-business owner's life is tied to the company’s success in the way that even the most loyal employee's or corporate manager's life is not. I see the same passion for helping customers at other firms serving this market, notably OfficeAutoPilot.

(It doesn’t hurt that micro-business owners often see themselves as self-created Ayn Randian heroes and are more than little susceptible to flattery along those lines. But they're also passionately loyal to anyone who genuinely seems to care about helping them.)

That brings me to my central observation. Marketing automation for micro-businesses is fundamentally different from marketing automation for larger firms.

The technical difference is that micro-business systems expand beyond marketing to integrate marketing, sales, and service. Of course, this is the same scope as traditional CRM, but the micro-business systems add stronger process automation than most CRM products.

The integration and the process automation share the same root cause: small businesses lack the resources to build custom integration or tolerate process inefficiency. Larger firms are organized into departments where the costs of separation are less obvious, intra-departmental efficiency is often hidden from top management, and, probably most important, department heads want separate systems they control directly. Those departmental fiefdoms don’t exist at a micro-business because the owner makes all important decisions personally,

Micro-businesses also need more vendor services because they lack internal marketing expertise. Remember, pretty much by definition, these companies have no professional marketers on staff. The exceptions are small marketing agencies and business coaches, who form a major segment of successful micro-business marketing automation users. This makes sense: they’re the one group of micro-business owners equipped to figure out how to use the systems for themselves, or at least to ask vendors for the right kinds of help. Other micro-businesses nearly all rely heavily on the vendors for both technical and marketing assistance.

By contrast, the pioneering users of larger-company marketing automation systems have largely been technology firms. I think the driving force with this group has been comfort with technology – almost verging on blind faith – even when specific applications were unclear.

If micro-business marketing automation (which obviously shouldn’t be called “marketing automation”) is distinct from the rest of the industry, the next question is whether the adjacent segment is one group of firms from $5 million to $500 million in revenue, or that segment must be divided. My first instinct to look for a division, but when I think about the systems used by companies in that range, their functionality is not very different. You may I recently pointed out that Eloqua, Marketo and Pardot all have about half of their clients with under $20 million revenue (but I suspect very few under $5 million). So even the more powerful marketing automation systems have a lot of small(er) clients.

I do suspect that some mid-tier vendors skew towards the smaller end of the scale and others skew towards the higher end. But that has more to do with pricing and sales models than the products themselves. So maybe one big segment from $5 million to $500 million makes sense after all.

Regardless of how you split the market, it’s clear that both the micro-business and other (regular? corporate? grande?) segments are moving beyond pioneers towards mass adoption. Furthermore, both groups face exactly the same challenge: to make marketing automation easy enough for non-pioneers to adopt it.

Infusionsoft’s move towards campaign templates and visual flows is a big step in this direction. But those features alone won’t solve the problem: if they could, other products that already have them would be more widely adopted. The need to supplement simplicity with marketing training is why Infusionsoft is simultaneously moving ahead with the “Perfect Customer Lifecycle” and related programs.

Vendors selling to larger companies have also been stressing education. So far, though, their focus has seemed more tactical (“how to run a Webinar”) than strategic (“optimize the customer lifecycle”). Maybe that’s because their clients are professional marketers who already have the big picture or rely on marketing agencies and other service partners to provide it. Or – and this is my bet – the marketing automation vendors just haven’t yet recognized that they need to offer strategic frameworks. This is a delicate task since you don't want to insult your prospective buyers. Perhaps the frameworks will be disguised as deployment methodologies and best practices. If I’m right, it doesn’t bode well for vendors who believe that greater ease of use by itself can greatly expand adoption.

This line of thought (plus lack of sleep and coffee – most of this was written on a late night plane ride) leads a final question. If micro- and non-micro-marketing automation vendors are converging on features and strategy training, will the micro-business focus on process automation also be duplicated at larger companies? I can’t point to any evidence yet, but it wouldn't surprise me. Certainly all marketers are subject to the same pressure to operate more efficiently. If process automation does become more important, it will further increase the pressure for process optimization as part of successful deployments. Not to beat a dead horse.

Read More

eTrigue Puts a New Interface on Mature Marketing Automation Features

Summary: eTrigue's new product is aimed at small-to-mid size businesses who want an easier alternative to leading marketing automation systems. With mature features and a $1,000 per month starting price, the system is worth a look.

eTrigue officially announced its new DemandCenter marketing automation system on Tuesday, replacing an earlier product dating back more than five years.

The system is positioned as “marketing automation for the rest of us”, meaning that eTrigue considers it much easier to use than leading marketing automation products. If that sounds familiar, it’s because I recently mentioned similar claims from Net-Results , Act-On Software, and tMarketbright. All believe that the complexity of standard marketing systems is the major reason they have not been more widely adopted and that they can offer a simpler alternative.

Bear in mind that’s a two-part proposition. Even if these vendors are right that complexity is the key barrier to adoption, there’s no business opportunity unless their systems are simpler. Otherwise, they’ve simply explained why marketing automation can never succeed, or at least won’t succeed until a critical mass of marketers have been trained to handle a new level of complexity.

So let’s cut to the critical question: is DemandCenter easier to use than systems like Pardot, Marketo, and Genius? The answer is a definite…maybe. DemandCenter has a campaign flow interface that does seem easier to use than standard products. But the rest of it, while nicely done, doesn’t strike me as materially different.

What makes the campaign builder different? Well, most systems use some variation of two basic approaches. One is to create a classic branching flow diagram, like a Visio chart. Here’s a state-of-the-art version from Eloqua:


This has the advantage of displaying the exact flow of leads, including branches that split apart and come together. It allows complex flows and is pretty much the way that most people diagram a campaign when they're planning it. But flow diagrams get confusing once you move beyond a handful of branches.

The other option is to build a list of steps without any branching. Rules within each step can still deliver different treatments to different segments, but everyone moves to the same next step at the same time. This is easier to follow but it lacks flexibility and you must look inside each step to see the details. Here is Marketo’s version:


DemandCenter lies somewhere in between. It lays out the steps within a single sequence on a row – similar to the list of steps but sideways. But it also allows distinct branches, showing each branch as its own row. This isn't perfect – you can’t draw lines to connect different boxes across branches, as in a flow diagram – but it’s probably more intuitive than the other approaches for moderately complex flows. Users can also collapse an entire, multi-branch campaign onto a single row and show multiple campaigns on the screen.


(Of course, nothing is truly unique. DemandCenter’s approach is conceptually similar to the interface introduced by Silverpop last year, which also showed branches as horizontal tracks. I liked that one too.)


So let's grant that eTrigue has built a somewhat better mousetrap. How much does it really matter? The campaign interface is just one of many components within a marketing automation system. A better campaign interface by itself is not enough to radically change the complexity of marketing automation as a whole.

Now, if all DemandCenter features were easier than the competition, that might change things. But while the rest of DemandCenter is well designed, nothing struck me as different enough to make a substantial difference in usability. So if superior ease of use is the only way for eTrigue to distinguish itself, it will have a very hard time.

But marketing automation systems actually compete on more than ease of use. eTrigue’s original product was originally developed in 2004/2005 by Silicon Valley marketing agency 3marketeers, which couldn’t find a system that met its own needs. The system has since been sold to about 150 clients. This long experience has led eTrigue to include capabilities that are missing in most low-to-mid-tier marketing automation products. These include:

- anonymous visitor look-up, based on IP address, with automatic exclusion of ISP addresses
- reporting on anonymous visitors as individuals (not companies) and indefinite retention of anonymous visitor histories (most systems erase the related cookies after a few months)
- real-time sales alerts triggered by lead behaviors
- ability to send leads directly from one campaign to another
- statistics for each campaign step visible in the campaign flow diagram
- a cube-based data mart for time-series analysis and other advanced reporting
- automated execution of reports on user-defined schedules
- precise user- and group-level security, including options to limit specific campaigns to specific users
- ability for Salesforce.com users to send emails through eTrigue
- tailored dashboards for each user

These are in addition to the usual marketing automation functions: email campaigns, landing pages and forms, lead scoring, and bi-directional integration with both Salesforce.com and Microsoft Dynamics.

That's a richer feature set than most marketing automation systems targeted towards the small and mid-size business. But pricing of DemandCenter is actually lower than most vendors in that segment, starting at $1,000 per month for a 10,000 name database. This includes implementation and training. The combination of mature features, a new interface, and low pricing makes eTrigue an attractive alternative even if it doesn’t break any major barriers for ease of use.

eTrigue also has a product aimed at salespeople, called SalesPro. This works directly from a Salesforce.com database, using the Salesforce.com email engine but applying eTrigue email authoring, campaign structures, Web tracking, and lead scores. The system doesn't include landing pages. It's priced at $500 per month for 10 users.

Read More