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

Venntive Adds Communities to Small Business Marketing Automation and CRM

It has taken me some time to form a clear picture of Venntive. It is clearly “all-in-one” sales and marketing software for small business, combining marketing automation, CRM, and ecommerce along the lines of Infusionsoft and Ontraport (formerly OfficeAutoPilot). It also includes full Web site management and social media monitoring and posting, but those are natural extensions for sales and marketing.  More puzzling was Venntive’s decision to include a full accounting system and a community management features such as private discussion forums, Wikis, events, and custom fields for groups within its database. The other micro-business systems have avoided accounting, presumably because they saw little value in trying to displace Intuit QuickBooks. And community management – well, that just doesn’t have much to do with how most small businesses operate.

The hint at an answer – a giant flashing neon sign, actually – was in Venntive CEO Lydia Sugarman’s description of its client base, which my notes recorded as “chambers of commerce, schools, Boy Scout troops, coaches, law firms, financial advisors and associations”.

You can be certain that this is the first time “Boy Scout troops” has come up as a category of marketing automation users. But Venntive makes perfect sense once you consider their needs.  A scout troop has many subgroups that need to communicate among themselves: how better to manage that field trip to the National Duck Stamp Museum?  They also have simple finances and simple Web sites. Venntive’s pricing model – starting at $25 per month for up to 1,000 contacts, with unlimited email – also fits a small organization without a big prospect list, since it would pay about that amount for basic email and Web hosting.

In fact, Sugarman said the custom fields for groups were originally added to track Boy Scout merit badges – although they’re now used more often for things like dealer certifications.

Venntive's scouting heritage notwithstanding, I want to make clear that it is suited for much larger organizations.  Venntive offers the full set of “all-in-one” system features, meaning it can serve the full set of “all-in-one” clients: those coaches, law firms, financial advisors, and others that Sugarman mentioned, plus online retailers, service companies, and small manufacturers. In fact, Sugarman said most of the company’s clients are B2B not B2C marketers.

One problem with writing about a system like Venntive is evaluating its huge number of features.  In some alternate universe where sleep is optional, I would have explored each function in depth before writing about it. But things don’t work that way on my little corner of planet Earth.  The best I could do was take a whirlwind tour of the system and capture some screenshots. Based on that limited research, I came away impressed with the sophistication of the features as well as their scope.

Let’s start with the group functions, since groups are such a key component of Venntive. At the simplest level, a group is just a list. People enter groups in the usual ways: email or form response, user-defined filters, conversion events, list import, or manual assignment. Entry can trigger an email, assignment to a drip campaign, or sales agent notification. So far pretty normal. But groups also support those community and collaboration features.  Members can share discussion forums and Wikis and be assigned rights such as access to specified information about each other. Each group can also have a parent organization, member log-in, physical location, custom fields, and its own settings for email, event, and drip campaign practices. Beyond membership organizations, those group functions could support all sorts of peer-to-peer communications, arguably making Venntive just the thing for cutting-edge, community-driven marketing.

Looking at the other functions:

- emails can be built on user-customizable system-provided templates, on imported templates, or from scratch.  They can include social sharing buttons, surveys, event links, contact data, or dynamic content selected by embedded if-then rules. Completed email can be previewed and spam scored. The system can automatically assign recipients to different groups based on their response (read, click, forward, or take a survey).

- surveys are built from a list of independent questions.  This means all answers to the same question are automatically placed in the same data field, regardless of where the question is asked. That’s the right way to do it, at least in my opinion.

- events can be either physical or on-line. The system stores details about the location, captures registrations, collects fees, offers multiple options for reminder emails and text messages, and reports on actual attendance after the fact.

- CRM goes beyond the basics (contact attributes, activity history, calendar reminders) to track opportunities and sales quotes, allow searchable tags for segmentation, and store files associated with a contact. Standard integration with RapLeaf let users add demographic, interest, and purchase data from external sources by matching on email address.

- lead scores are created in two ways: conventional user-created scoring rules, and automated predictive modeling. There are two conventional scores, one for activities and one for demographics.  The demographic score is based on contact attributes, while the activity score incorporates contact activities (email, Web, event, survey, purchase, and social behaviors) plus salesperson activities (sent an email, left a messages, etc.).  Activity values can be set to decay as time passes, which is one hallmarks of advanced lead scoring. While there's just one pair of conventional lead scores, users can have as many predictive model scores as they want.  Each score predicts visits to a different Web page, typically representing a stage in the purchase process. The system automatically looks at the demographic, activity, and CRM data to build a model formula and score the contact records.

- campaign features in Venntive are uncharacteristically limited.  Users can set up a sequence of emails, but there is no branching based on response and emails are the only action a campaign can control directly.  Users gain a bit more power from the ability of email response rules to assign contacts to different categories.  But this is still far from the process automation that adds great value to other micro-business systems. 

- Social media support includes keyword searches and alerts; real-time or scheduled posting to multiple Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook accounts; and detailed tracking of results. This is a reasonable set of features for a small business system.

- The Web site builder is much more robust.  It supports pages, blogs, member sign-in, stores, coupons, advertising, support tickets, and tracking via Google Analytics. Users can assign point values to specific pages for use in lead scoring and can see a list of who visited each page. Venntive hosts the Web site for its clients, but clients can assign their own Web address to hide this.

- Financials include account tracking, journal entries, receivables management, and reporting. Invoices are automatically added from CRM and Web orders and funds can be collected via PayPal. The system can also integrate with QuickBooks.

- There’s also project management, a media library, SMS messaging, and print integration. And probably other things I haven’t mentioned.

Given the depth of its features, Venntive’s interface is reasonably straightforward. But there's a lot to learn and users will need help.  Each screen include buttons for on-demand videos explaining individual functions. There are also video tutorials and non-video explanations (using a technology called "text") for users over age 30.

Pricing of Venntive is based primarily on the number of contacts in the system, starting at $25 per month for 1,000 contacts. A system with up to 25,000 contacts would be $200 per month. There are some additional fees for extra users, Web analytics, SMS messaging, and external data. Users can send unlimited emails.

Venntive was launched in 2006 and is nearing its 1,000th client.

Read More

Lattice Engines Automates All Steps in Prospect Discovery

There’s nothing new about using public information to identify business opportunities: it’s why lawyers chase ambulances and bankers phone lottery winners. But the Internet has exponentially grown the amount of data available and made it easily accessible. What’s needed to fully exploit this resource is technology that automates the end-to-end process of assembling the information, identifying opportunities, and delivering the results to sales and marketing systems.

Lattice Engines was founded in 2006 to fill this gap. The system scans public databases, company Web pages, and selected social networks to find significant events such as title changes, product launches, job openings, new locations, and investments. It supplements this with data from the clients' own systems including customer profiles, Web site visits, and purchases. It then looks at past data to find patterns which predict selected outcomes, such as making a first purchase, buying an additional product, or renewing. It uses these patterns to identify the best current prospects for each outcome, and makes the lists available to marketing systems or sales people. The sales people also see explanations of why each person was chosen, what they should be offered, and recommended talking points.

Each of these steps takes significant technology. Lattice Engines currently monitors Web sites of five to 10 million U.S. businesses, checking daily for changes.  The system’s semantic engine reads structured texts such as management biographies and press releases, extracting entities and relationships but not trying to understand more subtle meanings such as sentiment. Clients specify blogs to follow, which receive similar treatment. The company also monitors Twitter, Facebook company pages, Quora, and LinkedIn profiles of people within each sales person’s network. Additional data comes from standard sources such as business directories and from special databases requested by clients. Information from all these sources is loaded into a single database available to all Lattice Engine clients.

Lattice Engines also imports data from the clients own systems, although of course this isn’t shared with anyone else. Again, there’s some clever technology needed to recognize individuals and companies across multiple sources. Lattice Engines doesn’t try to link personal and business identities for individuals.

All this information is placed in a timeline so that modeling systems can look at events before and after the target activities. The models themselves are built automatically, once users specify the target activity, product, and time horizon. Users can then build a list of customers or prospects, have the model score it, and send high-ranking names to marketing or sales for further contact. Results can be exported to a marketing automation system or appear within the sales person’s CRM interface. Lattice Engines is directly integrated with cloud-based CRM from Salesforce.com, Microsoft Dynamics, and Oracle, and via file transfer with SAP CRM. Users can export lists to Excel and Marketo, with connectors for Eloqua and other marketing automation systems on the way.

The net result of this is a single system that performs all the tasks needed to exploit the wide range of information available about customers and prospects.  Marketers could theoretically use separate systems for each step in the process, and integrate the results for themselves.  But few really have the skills to do this.  And, in most cases, it would be more expensive than purchasing a single system like Lattice Engines.  It's particularly helpful that Lattice Engines supports both prospecting and customer management -- further reducing the need for multiple products, and further encouraging cooperation between marketing and sales departments. 

Pricing for Lattice Engines starts at $75,000 per year and grows based on the number of data sources and sales users. Client data volume doesn't affect the cost, since Lattice Engines’ own databases are vastly larger than any client data. The company has close to 50 deployments, nearly all at large B2B marketers including Dell, HP, Microsoft, ADP, and Staples.

Read More

3 Ways to Connect Marketing Activity to Revenue

Discussions of revenue attribution often remind me of the famous recipe* that begins “First, catch your hare”.  Specifically, they assume that marketers know which marketing-generated lead is associated with each bit of revenue, and then go on like medieval theologians to debate how credit should be shared among promotions to that lead.  The missing hare is that marketers often can’t link leads to revenue in the first place.

The issues will be painfully familiar to anyone who’s ever tried this. For those who haven’t, let’s start with the mechanics.  In most configurations, leads are created in marketing automation and later transferred to Sales, which creates an opportunity that eventually becomes a closed sale with revenue attached.  If all goes smoothly, the original marketing campaign and marketing-generated lead are named on the opportunity to provide the lead-to-revenue connection. 

But – spoiler alert! – things don’t always go smoothly.  When Sales creates the opportunity, it often links it to a contact record other than the original marketing lead.  Perhaps the salesperson was already working with someone else, perhaps the marketing lead wasn’t the real decision maker, or perhaps Sales just doesn’t want to give acknowledge Marketing’s contribution.  The original marketing campaign is often lost for similar reasons.


All those beautiful attribution recipes are moot if you don’t know which lead is linked to which revenue.  So let’s put down the cooking pots and go hare hunting.



The first approach is simply to get Sales to retain the marketing information when it creates the opportunity.  Let’s not dismiss this out of hand – yes, salespeople can be uncooperative, but appropriate training and management support can convince them it’s important to retain the information.  So it’s worth a try.

But let’s say you don’t have time to wait for better data or can’t get Sales to do what you need.  Now you’ll need to work a bit harder with the data on hand. 

One approach is to look for matches at the account level: build a list of marketing-generated leads, find the accounts associated with them, find the revenues associated with those accounts, and assume there’s a connection.  This could hugely overstate marketing-related revenue, since it potentially takes credit for sales that had nothing to do with marketing activity.  So you’ll probably want to put some parameters on the matches such as only including accounts with no pre-existing contacts, leads that Sales followed up on, and opportunities created soon after the marketing lead was submitted.  Setting these rules may take some serious discussion between Sales and Marketing, but that’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that Sales will retain the leads sent by marketing or attach them to the correct accounts.  Nor is it certain that the companies listed in the marketing automation system will match the accounts listed by Sales.  In this case, you may need to build an even looser relationship, looking at company names in both systems – or even ignoring the Sales system altogether and taking data from accounting records.  Because the same company may be listed differently in different systems, this sort of matching requires either knowledgeable people or comprehensive reference databases that can make the non-obvious connections.  Fortunately, this is a well understood problem and plenty of resources are available to help.

Company-to-company matching casts an even wider net than lead-to-account matching, so it’s correspondingly harder to give marketing credit for every connection.  But you can rate how likely it was that marketing played a role in a given opportunity by looking at factors like timing, pre-existing relationships, and amount of marketing activity.  This could translate into allocating a fraction of the revenue to marketing, ultimately a more realistic, if less satisfying, approach than taking full credit for some deals and no credit for others. 

If fractional allocation strikes you as too complicated, you can also start with a much simpler question: did companies that interacted with marketing programs show more sales than similar companies that didn’t interact with marketing programs?  You won’t be able to prove that any particular contact generated any particular deal, but a strong correlation between marketing programs and revenue growth is good evidence that marketing had an impact.  Once you’ve captured that hare, you can think about the details of how you’ll cook it.

__________________________________________________________________________

*Jugged Hare in Hannah Grasse’s The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, although it apparently  doesn’t include the “catch your hare” part.

Read More

Treehouse Interactive Refines Its Features and Targets Larger Firms

Summary: Treehouse Interactive has been slowly enhancing its marketing automation system with features that appeal to experienced users. Its new clients are larger firms and half are switching from another marketing automation product that they found inadequate. This might foreshadow attrition problems at other vendors.

It’s been nearly two years since my last review of Treehouse Interactive. Here's an update.

The big news is, well, that there’s no big news. Treehouse has been quietly but steadily growing its business (up 30% this year), improving its product, and attracting more demanding clients. One telling statistic is that about half its new customers are replacing an existing marketing automation system – a sure sign that Treehouse offers features that only an experienced marketer will realize are missing from other products.

A bit of background: Treehouse started in 1997 with the Sales View sales automation product. It added Marketing View marketing automation in 1999 and Reseller View partner management after that. Its marketing automation system offers the usual range of functions: email, Web analytics, landing pages, multi-step campaigns, lead scoring, CRM integration, ROI reporting. The greatest divergence from industry norms is Treehouse contacts always enter campaigns by completing a form. Other systems select campaign members with rules that can access a broader set of data.

In addition, Treehouse originally required all subsequent campaign steps to execute the same actions on the same schedule. This is considerably more rigid than the branching capabilities built into most marketing automation products. Treehouse has since enabled imported data to trigger campaign actions, and promises behavior-based triggers in the near future. See my original post for more details.

Treehouse’s developments since that post have largely played to its strengths. I’ll group these into themes, with the caveat that I’m combining enhancements introduced at different times in the past year and a half.

- form integration. Treehouse has continued to expand how clients can use its forms, which were already more powerful than most. The system can now generate HTML code to embed forms within external Web pages, allowing users to create standard Javascript or Facebook-compatible non-Javascript versions, or both. It can also post form responses using HTTP Send commands, which can send data to GoToWebinar (replacing GoToWebinar’s own registration forms) or to other systems such as product registration, CRM and customer support. The HTTP Send avoids API calls or Web Services, although Treehouse offers data exchange through Web Services as well. The system also has an “instant polling” feature to embed surveys within any Web page.

- CRM synchronization. When I last wrote about Treehouse, it had just added Salesforce.com integration. It has since added a connector for Oracle CRM On Demand. It has also improved its CRM integration to synchronize data in real time, show Treehouse events within the CRM interface, and allow salespeople to add leads to campaigns and remove them. CRM integration is handled through forms that map fields from one system to another. These forms also contain update rules (controlling when data from one system replaces data in the other) and action rules (specifying when to take actions such as sending an email or updating a list subscription). The action rules are particularly significant in the context of Treehouse’s forms-based campaign design, since they provide a way to modify lead treatments that isn’t based on the original form entries.

- Web analytics. The system now builds separate Web activity profiles for individuals (whether identified or anonymous, so long as they have a cookie), for all individuals associated with a company, and for companies identified via IP address but lacking an associated individual. An individual’s lead score can be based on both individual and company Web behaviors. The system has expanded its referral reporting to track results by the exact referring URL. The CRM integration can now capture the search phrase and other referral details for leads imported from Salesforce.com Web to Lead forms: this required special processing since Salesforce.com embeds the information within a text string.

- download and document management. Treehouse can now tie multiple downloads to a single request form. It can list the leads that downloaded a specific document (a feature Treehouse says is unique, although I can only confirm that it's rare), as well as counting total downloads and downloads by unique leads. Downloads are now part of contact history along with emails, campaigns, purchases, click-throughs and form actions. The system also maintains a library of available documents. These can be stored outside of Treehouse so long as there’s a tag for Treehouse to call them.

- social media integration. Marketing messages can include a button that lets recipients create social media messages with an embedded URL. The messages will be sent under the recipient’s own identity in systems including Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn and Digg. Although many demand generation vendors now offer some type of social sharing, Treehouse introduced this feature back in May 2009. Emails and forms can also include a forward-to-a-friend button that allows recipients to enter several email addresses at once.

- other advanced features. These include fine-grained access permissions, split and multivariate testing, easy addition of new tables linked to contact records, and support for non-Roman languages such as Chinese. All are features particularly relevant to larger or more sophisticated clients.

Treehouse pricing has changed a bit since my original post, now starting at $749 per month for up to 7,500 contacts in the database. This is still firmly in small business territory, although Treehouse’s advanced features really make it a better fit for more sophisticated marketers, who are usually at larger companies. The company is a particularly good fit for channel marketers who can benefit from its Reseller View system.

Treehouse now has nearly 200 total clients, of which more than half use Marketing View. This makes it one of the smaller players competing for mid-to-upper size clients, a particularly crowded niche. But the firm is self-funded and profitable, and it's selling on features, not cost. So I'd expect it to be a reliable vendor, even if someone else eventually dominates its segment.

Read More

Marketing Automation System Trends: What We Found in the Raab Guide

Summary: Social media and access for sales people were the two big trends among demand generation vendors last year. But enhanced reporting was the most common improvement of all. Could marketers finally be ready to spend on measurement?

I’m pleased to report that the 2010 edition of the Raab Guide to Demand Generation Systems is officially available today, with updated entries on all vendors (alphabetically: Eloqua, Manticore Technology, Market2Lead, Marketbright, Marketo, Neolane and Silverpop Engage B2B).

Preparing the updates gave me a good review of where developers focused their efforts last year. Even though this is limited to the vendors in the Guide, it's a pretty representative sample of the industry as a whole. Here’s a quick look at what I found.

- Social media. At least three vendors (Eloqua, Marketo and Silverpop) introduced new features aimed at improving marketers’ ability to use social media. What’s most interesting is that no standard approach has yet emerged. Eloqua focused on making it easier to embed sharable links within conventional marketing assets. Marketo added features to capture Twitter posts and Helpstream customer support interactions within a lead’s activity history. Silverpop made it easier to add social media handles to lead records so these could be used to send messages.

- Sales access. The same three vendors also added new tools to give salespeople better access to information the marketing automation system has captured about their leads. But in contrast to social media applications, the sales access modules were remarkably similar. All aimed at showing the activities of selected leads, typically by showing overviews and trends, and then letting users drill into details. The vendors also charged additional per-user fees for these modules. This contrasts with traditional demand generation pricing on database size and/or activity volume, but is the way sales automation systems like Salesforce.com are usually sold. These modules open up a major new revenue stream for the demand generation systems while simultaneously giving sales departments a greater reason to support marketing's purchase of the systems. Even though the modules clearly trespasses on the CRM vendors turf – inviting a potentially devastating counter-invasion – the opportunity seems irresistible.

- Upgraded reporting. You already knew that vendors were adding features for social media and sales access, but did you realize that nearly everyone (five of my seven vendors: Eloqua, Market2Lead, Marketo, Manticore Technology and Marketbright) also made substantial improvements in their business intelligence and reporting capabilities? Popular new features included user-customizable dashboards, better user-defined reports and more extensive standard reports. I take this as evidence that marketers are demanding more sophisticated reporting from their vendors, and suspect further improvements are on the way.

- New user interfaces. Market2Lead, Manticore Technology and Silverpop all introduced major interface upgrades. The focus was less on adding new capabilities than on making existing functions more accessible. I don’t need to remind you that usability is a critical point of competition among industry vendors. But as older vendors revamp their interfaces, it will become harder for buyers to differentiate along those lines. This might lead vendors to highlight the structural differences in their campaign engines, which are ultimately more important for usability than the visual interface. But, the structural issues are much harder for buyers to grasp, so this might not be an effective marketing approach. Could this lead vendors to compete on other grounds entirely?

- Anonymous user look-up and data enhancement. At least three vendors added or enhanced features to use IP address to identify the company of anonymous Web visitors, and/or to look up prospect names and other data about those companies in directories such as Jigsaw and Hoovers. I won’t name those three because the other vendors may have similar capabilities. In fact, anonymous visitor identification and enhancement have become pretty much standard features: today, it would be an exceptional vendor who did NOT make them available. These features also tie into both social media and sales access modules. They illustrate how the role of marketing has changed from simply gathering leads and handing them to sales, to building and managing prospect relationships.

So much for 2009. Many of these trends will surely continue in 2010, but I think we can expect some new directions as well. I'll talk about those in my next post.

Read More

B2B Marketing University: For Now, Marketing Automation and CRM Are Still Separate

Summary: Marketing automation and CRM systems may eventually converge, but for now marketers need help explaining why they need a system of their own.

I hugely enjoyed yesterday’s Boston session of the Silverpop-sponsored B2B Marketing University. (You can catch another session in Atlanta next week and in Seattle on December 1.) I won’t try to recap four hours of insights from Adam Needles from Silverpop, Carlos Hidalgo of Annuitas Group and Joe Moloney of Conselltants (no Web site, it seems), as well as Yours Truly. But there were a couple of topics that caught my fancy:

1. People still don’t understand the difference between marketing automation vs. CRM.

I really thought the distinction was pretty clear by now, but the question came up more than once. My own answer boiled down to a perhaps-not-convincing “trust me, they’re really different”, although I’ve addressed the question in depth in the resources section of the Raab Guide Web site.

Joe Moloney gave a more detailed answer about limits in Salesforce.com in particular, including lack of CAN-SPAM compliance and limits on mass emails. Someone (I think it was end-of-day panelist Meg Heuer of Sirius Decisions) also pointed out that CRM data is often very dirty, which isn't a problem for salespeople working with one record at a time, but making it hard to use for marketing.

The immediate take-away here is that the industry still needs to educate prospective buyers on why marketers need a separate system. Vendors take note.

2. Will Marketing automation and CRM remain separate?

The discussion also segued into whether marketing automation and CRM will merge in the long run. I still suspect they will, driven by the need for ever-closer cooperation between marketing and sales teams in managing prospect relationships. But the other presenters disagreed, largely arguing that the separate groups have distinct needs. (See Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? Is Salesforce.com a threat to vendors of marketing automation solutions? by Market2Lead CMO Kevin Joyce for a good statement of the separatist position.)

Part of the reason I expect convergence to happen is that it’s already taking place. (The past is so much easier to predict than the future.) The movement is coming mostly from the marketing automation side, presumably because there is more money to gain by moving into sales from marketing systems than vice versa:

- marketing automation systems for small businesses (Infusionsoft, Office Autopilot, Net-Results, etc.) typically include a CRM option for clients who don’t want to pay for a separate Salesforce.com or other license.

- firms aimed at larger installations (Marketo, Eloqua, Pardot, Genius.com, Active Conversion) are providing widgets that give sales people direct access to marketing automation information.

3. Technology may impede Software-as-a-Service sales automation vendors from adding marketing automation.

As Joe Moloney was listing the limits that Salesforce.com places on mass access to client data, I recalled that these are in place fundamentally to avoid large analytical queries that could slow down response for all other users of the shared systems. This isn’t an inherent problem with Software-as-a-Service itself: remember, the B2B marketing automation vendors themselves all operate on a SaaS model, and there is a growing number of SaaS business intelligence systems too.

But even though modern database technology allows one system to handle both CRM transactions and analytical marketing queries, this does take an appropriate design. I strongly suspect that existing SaaS CRM vendors like Salesforce.com would need to fundamentally rearchitect their systems to support serious marketing automation processing, especially for clients with millions of contact records. This may impede them from adding marketing automation capabilities, although newer SaaS CRM systems could emerge that are designed from the start to do both.

From this perspective, another reason combined marketing automation/CRM systems are first being offered to small companies may be that it’s easier to provide good performance for both applications when volumes are small.

Yesterday also triggered another set of thoughts regarding the importance of marketing content. But since one of these was the need to keep materials short, I’ll put them into a separate post.

Read More

OfficeAutoPilot: Simple, Powerful, Low Cost Demand Generation for Small Business

My personal definition of demand generations systems (see Introduction to Demand Generation Systems from the Raab Guide site) explicitly states that they do not incorporate sales automation. The division makes sense in most organizations, since marketing and sales are separate. (See Should Demand Generation and Sales Automation Be Separate Systems? for whether this will change.)

But small businesses are different. Sales and marketing are often handled by the same department, if not the same person, and owners want as few systems as possible to keep costs to a minimum. So it’s pretty common for small-business-oriented systems to support both marketing and sales. Of products I’ve written about recently, Infusionsoft is the best example of this, extending beyond sales and marketing all the way to order processing. (See my Infusionsoft review.)

OfficeAutoPilot from MoonRay LLC is another small-business-oriented product that combines marketing and sales automation. The latest version actually offers integration with Salesforce.com as well, making the system more suitable for larger organizations. Indeed, the functionality of OfficeAutoPilot compares favorably with conventional demand generation systems, while the pricing – starting at just under $600 per month for 50,000 contacts and 100,000 monthly emails – is hugely attractive. Business marketers who can’t afford to pay more or want a low-risk way to get started with demand generation will find OfficeAutoPilot an intriguing option.

The basics are certainly there. Users can create personalized emails, landing pages and Web forms with the system’s tools or import externally-created HTML. Emails are sent from the OfficeAutoPilot server while forms can either be hosted by OfficeAutoPilot or externally. Web pages are built by dragging and dropping objects in the way you build a Powerpoint slide. Although most demand generation systems use an interface more like building a Word document, OfficeAutoPilot’s approach is a fairly common alternative and perfectly acceptable. Some marketers may even find it easier.

OfficeAutoPilot actually does a better job at split testing than most demand generation systems. Users can define two versions of an email or Web page when they set it up, and the system will automatically alternate between them during execution. Standard reports compare the performance of the two versions. This is the easiest approach I’ve seen to split testing. The only other demand generation system I’ve seen use it is Marketo.

OfficeAutoPilot takes a straightforward approach to multi-step campaigns. Users lay these out as a series of steps timed relative to a single date. This can be the start of the sequences, a fixed date such as a birthday, or an activity such as the last purchase. Leads can enter a sequence when they fill out a Web form, are manually added by the user, or trigger the conditions specified in a “global rule”. The system checks each lead against all the global rules every time the lead’s data changes, allowing real time response to lead activities.

Each step in a sequence does one thing: send an email, postcard or voice message, add the lead to a fulfillment list, create a sales automation task or execute a user-defined rule that triggers an action if its conditions are met. Available actions include adding or removing the lead from a sequence, adding or removing a tag from the lead profile, changing a data field, sending the lead an email or post card, sending an email to someone else (a sales rep or program administrator), adding or removing the lead from a fulfillment list, and sending the lead to the sales system.

The rules let OfficeAutoPilot react to new behaviors even though the sequence itself is fixed in advance. There is no true branching within a sequence, in the sense of sending different leads down different multi-step paths. But this isn’t necessarily a problem: it’s how linear campaign designs work in most demand generation systems and, as I argued last week, helps to avoid confusion. If anything, OfficeAutoPilot’s combination of steps, rules and actions makes it more flexible than the average demand generation product.

Treatment of tasks illustrates the tight connection between marketing sequences and sales automation. Tasks can be scheduled relative to the date of the step in the sequence, and the system can pause the sequence until the task is complete. Tasks can be assigned to the lead’s salesperson or another owner; the system can notify the owner by email, telephone or adding the task to their to-do list; and the system can notify the owner’s manager if the task is not completed on schedule.

Messaging capabilities are designed to help small businesses whose own resources are limited. MoonRay has negotiated with VoiceShot for outbound recorded voice messages and with a network of printers for low-volume personalized post card printing and mailing. Users design the post cards with the same interface used to build Web pages. Fulfillment lists accumulate names in a queue and then periodically send them to a list for a call center, warehouse, or other destination. The user specifies how often the list is generated, who it will go to, and what data it contains. Emails and postcards can include a personalized URL to help with tracking. The system also provides a pool of telephone 800 numbers that can be assigned to different promotions and will automatically route to a central number.

Lead scoring in OfficeAutoPilot is handled by an independent process similar to the “global rules”. That is, users define point values to different conditions and the scores are recalculated whenever the lead has an activity or data change. There’s even a standard feature to reduce activity-based score values by a specified percentage for each day after the activity occurs. This is more than some conventional demand generation products provide.

Leads can be sent to sales by actions within a sequence or by a global rule triggered by the lead score or other conditions. The system provides standard sales automation features including lead routing (“round robin”, weighted and others), contact management, task scheduling, sales funnels, call notes and disposition tracking. Dispositions can be tied to rules to automate follow-up actions. Since these are the same rules used elsewhere in the system, the actions can encompass any option available to the automated sequences. This is another benefit of running marketing and sales on the same system.

The system also handles user rights like a sales automation system, which is to say, more precisely than imost demand generation products. The system administrator decides which functions are available to which users, and users see only their authorized features. This is an important usability benefit when companies have many different types of users.

OfficeAutoPilot’s sales automation is not as sophisticated as specialized sales automation systems like Salesforce.com or even Goldmine. For example, there is no separate account or company level.

MoonRay says about 20% of its clients use its bi-directional Salesforce.com synchronization. This shares data between the two systems and can display a history of the lead’s OfficeAutoPilot activities within the Salesforce.com screens. Another adapter lets users view and edit contact records from within Microsoft Outlook and will add Outlook emails to the OfficeAutoPilot history. Data from other sources can be posted to the system through a standard SOAP API or by importing structured email messages. This is most typically used to add purchase information. Users can add new fields to the lead profiles as needed.

The system tracks marketing results from the lead source all the way through the sales funnel, and on to revenue if available. A marketing dashboard provides standard reports on Web activity and emails. Users can also drill into the details of each campaign sequence, listing the leads in each stage and drilling further to see the individual messages they received.

Pricing of OfficeAutoPilot is based largely on the number of users, subject to some fairly generous volume constraints. A five-user system with up to 50,000 contacts and 100,000 emails per month costs $597 per month. A dedicated email IP address adds $147 per month for up to 500,000 messages.

MoonRay also offers simpler systems at lower costs, including a new product called SendPepper scheduled to launch today (March 30). SendPepper includes outbound email and postcards, Web forms and landing pages, and simple auto-response sequences. Two versions are available, priced at $29 per month and $79 per month.

The original version of OfficeAutoPilot was introduced in 2003. The system currently has more than 100 active accounts. It is sold directly by MoonRay and through partners.

Read More

Should Demand Generation and Sales Automation Be Separate Systems?

I’ve been focusing (obsessing?) recently on the idea that the boundaries between marketing and sales are breaking down because leads now interact with both departments throughout the purchase cycle. This is clearly inevitable: if nothing else, leads still visit your Web site (controlled by marketing) even after they are “turned over” to sales. More fundamentally, the very idea of a lead being “turned over” is now obsolete: today the buyers are in control; neither department ever owns them in the first place.

The sheer volume of interactions also means that sales can’t cost-effectively handle every contact, even for the highest-priority individuals. Rather, salespeople must focus on what only they can do – provide nuanced, personal service – and delegate other tasks to resources that can handle them more cheaply and often more quickly. In many cases, those resources will be automated systems that are run by marketing. (Yes, sales could duplicate those systems for itself. But buyers would still sometimes enter through marketing-run channels, so marketing and sales would still need to coordinate. Remember, the buyer is in control.)

The immediate implication of this is that marketing and sales must work together to ensure that every lead is treated appropriately in both marketing and sales systems. Today, this is accomplished by synchronizing data between demand generation and sales automation systems. But that is inherently complex. The obvious (or perhaps simple-minded) solution is to skip the synchronization and have marketing and sales work on one shared system.

This isn’t a new idea: indeed, “marketing, sales and service” have long been the three components of Customer Relationship Management products. But marketing was always the weakest link, and, typically, was pretty much separate when you looked under the hood. There was a sound technical reason for this: sales and service are operational systems with a transactional data architecture, while marketing databases are structured for analysis. But this distinction is less important given the power of modern databases, particularly at the relatively low volumes of most business-to-business marketers.

In fact, the division between demand generation and sales automation today is probably more a reflection of organizational divisions than technical imperatives. But as the two departments become more intertwined, this will increasingly be an anachronism that presents an obstacle to success.

So are independent demand generation systems doomed to be assimilated into larger CRM products? If so, the obvious but unspoken threat looming over the industry (“the elephant in the room of Damocles”) was always Salesforce.com, which is the main data source for most demand generation products. That particular, um, shoe may have dropped, according to a BNET article yesterday from Michael Hickins (Marketing Automation Next For Salesforce.com)

Whether Salesforce.com would really do this, how quickly they would move, and whether they would build or buy are all intriguing questions. But regardless of what Salesforce.com does in the short term, it's worth asking whether independent demand generation systems really have a long-term future.

Read More

Marketo Aims to Simplify Demand Generation

As I wrote last week, demand generation vendors have a hard time differentiating their systems from each other. One company that has made a concerted effort is newcomer Marketo. Marketo has a one-word elevator speech: simplicity.

That’s not to say Marketo is a simple product. Functionally, it covers all the demand generation bases: outbound email, landing pages, Web site monitoring, lead scoring, multi-step nurturing programs, prospect database, analytics, Salesforce.com integration. It even adds A/B testing for landing pages, which you don’t see everywhere. The depth in each area is perfectly respectable as well.

Where simplicity comes in is the user interface. Like every other demand generation vendor, Marketo has wrestled with how a branching, multi-step lead nurturing campaign can be made easy enough for non-specialist users. The traditional approach has been a flow chart with lines and boxes. This is, after all, the way “real” process diagrams are built by programmers and engineers. It does express the logic of each flow precisely, but it also can get incomprehensibly complex very quickly.

Marketo’s solution is to do away with the branches. Each campaign flow is presented as a list, and any deviation from the sequence is treated as a diversion to another flow. The list itself can be presented in a collapsed format with each step as a numbered item, or an expanded format where the actions taken at each step are exposed. (Or, users can expand a single step at a time.) Actions include adding or removing the lead from a list, changing a data value or score, sending an email, moving the lead to a different flow, removing it from all flows, and waiting a specified period of time. The system can also add the lead to a Salesforce.com database, assign or change the owner in Salesforce.com, and create a Salesforce.com task. Each action can be associated with a set of conditions that determine whether or not it is executed. One step can include multiple actions, each with its own conditions. The system can be told to execute only the first action whose execution conditions are met, which is one way to implement branching logic .

Other components of Marketo are more conventional, although still designed with simplicity in mind. Users can set up Web landing pages and email templates using a drag-and-drop interface modeled on PowerPoint—the one tool, as Marketo points out, that every marketer is guaranteed to know how to use. These templates can include variables selected from the Marketo database for personalization. Users can also create forms to capture data provided by site visitors or read automatically from the form or URL parameters. Forms can be reused across campaigns.

Campaign lists are built with another drag-and-drop interface, allowing users to layer multiple selection conditions. These can be based on lead data and constraints such as Web search terms, event frequency, and date ranges. Lists can be frozen after selection or dynamically refreshed each time they are used. Users can review the members of a list and click on a name to see its details, including the log of messages sent and activities recorded in Marketo. Like other demand generation systems, Marketo uses cookies to track the behavior of anonymous Web visitors and merge these into the lead record if the visitor later identifies herself. Lead scores are calculated by adding or subtracting points for user-specified behaviors. These values can automatically be reduced as time passes after an event.

Leads can also enter a campaign through triggers. Trigger events can include clicking on a link, filling out a form, changing a data value, creating a new lead record, and being added to a list. The system reacts to triggers as soon as they happen, rather than waiting for lists to be updated.

Campaigns can be scheduled to run once or at regular intervals. So can the wide range of standard reports covering, covering campaign results, email performance, Web activity and lead statistics. Users can run a report against a specified list and can have a report automatically emailed to them on a regular basis. A custom report builder is due by the end of July.

Marketo’s integration with Salesforce.com also bolsters its claim to simplicity. The system feeds data to Salesforce in real time and receives data from Salesforce every five minutes. This will go to real time as soon as Salesforce permits it. The integration is based on the Salesforce Force.com platform, which allows new installations of Marketo to connect with Salesforce in minutes. It also allows Marketo fields to appear within the regular Salesforce tabs, instead of a tab of its own. The lead activity summary from Marketo does appear separately within Salesforce.

It more or less goes without saying that Marketo is sold as a hosted service. This, combined with the automatic Salesforce.com integration, enables new clients to get started very quickly. The company cited implementations in as little as 24 hours, although I’m not sure this is a standard promise. They do say users become proficient after two hours of training. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the system is easy to install is that the company doesn’t charge a separate set-up fee—definitely not something all its competitors can say.

In fact, Marketo pricing is about as simple as it gets: a straight monthly fee ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 depending on the number of leads, page views and email contacts.

Marketo was founded in late 2005 by veterans of Epiphany. Its leaders spent the first two years researching market requirements and raising capital. They officially launched the Marketo product in March of this year and now have about 35 clients. These are primarily mid-to-large business-to-business marketers.

Read More