If the issue is customer contact ... no you shouldn't just "check in" and see how they are doing.

Have a purpose and an objective. Have a prepared opening statement that will pique their client to want to continue the conversation.
 

• A Reference and link to the specific item that interested me
  Far too often, Inside Sales Reps will make passing mention of "the whitepaper you downloaded". By being specific, it shows that the Rep is tuned in to the topic that originally got my attention and make the email instantly relevant to me.
   
  
• A conclusion based on the report
  Better than a reference to the item I downloaded, Reps can share their impression, or a notable conclusion, from it. While not requiring profound analysis, these comments will set Reps apart in that they aren't simply "following up," but have some insight into why I would have downloaded the report in the first place.
   
  
• It offered addtional value
  I particularly like that (at right) another related and relevant piece of content is offered to me. This isn't simply the next webinar or latest download piece, but a complimentary report to what I already responded to.
   
• It sells the conversation
  I've shared my thoughts on that topic before. I appreciate the way that the Rep gives me the option to raise my hand and say "You know what? You seem like you might get what is is I do here. Let's talk."
   

In essence, checking in must become selling the conversation. Checking in is tactical. Selling the conversation is strategic. It's a different mindset. The process of selling the conversation helps companies focus on prospects, instead of on themselves. And that's what matters to your buyers.

1. Outbound Prospecting is ranked 1st.
   Every day I read about how outbound prospecting is dead. Now personally I believe an intelligent combination (with both inbound & outbound strategies) is the way to go, but I am just telling you what I read. It data suggest that Sales Organizations are in agreement with me.
    
   
2. Inbound calls and email campaigns are tied for 3rd.
   This suggests to me that a prospect who picks up the phone and calls is not necessarily, in the long run, any more qualified than someone who responds to an email campaign.
    
   
3. Events and tradeshows sit pretty much in the middle of the pack.
   I expected this category would have had its butt kicked by Social Networking Sites, but I guess not yet.
    
   
4. Webinars are ranked as the lowest source of Opportunities.
   Let me see... how many invitations to webinars do I receive on a daily basis? Answer: dozens. If Sales Organizations don't consider them a good source of leads, why are we doing them? Is this scenario yet another case of confusing "activity" with "opportunity"?

Linda, I have a two- part question for you. It seems to me that many sales people are no longer responsible for talking with prospects in the earliest stages of the sales process. Do you think we have made a mistake in only delivering to them those that pass BANT?

Second part of the question which is related, marketing budgets are shrinking and yet Marketers are taking over more and more ownership of the sales process - are we getting process creep?

Well, I agree with the second part of your question, but not necessarily the first part.

I don't want my Sales people talking to just anybody. It really is Marketing's job to do some filtering. For example, if an opportunity is too small and there is no way they can afford our product, I don't want to waste sales time on those prospects especially when their time can be better spent closing business this quarter.

I agree with the premise of getting Sales focused on the most qualified opportunities that have the highest probability of advancing through the sale process. But, Sales also needs to take a longer view and continually be contributing to their own pipeline. Like a financial portfolio, they need to have a diversified sales pipeline with opportunities at various stages of the sales cycle that will close next quarter and then the quarter after that.
 

How do you see marketing automation playing into this scenario? At some level I almost feel like the vendors are driving this movement. What are your thoughts?

I recently read an interview with Laura Ramos of Forrester on the marketing automation space and she commented on how the proliferation of new players entering on a daily basis has already led to some market consolidation. But the larger issue to adoption is that there really aren't established best practices on how to drive measurable results because there is so little experience. In fact just this week we participated in a webcast with Forrester on the topic of lead nurturing and it was apparent that most of the B2B marketers are really just getting started with it.
 

So let me give you a for instance: Marketing goes through all time, effort & energy of developing a lead - right company, right guy, right pain and hands it over to Sales.

Sales calls him twice, leaves two messages, moves on and shifts the lead back to Marketing for nurturing. Does Marketing now own the responsibility for re-engaging that prospect even though they had already raised their hand once?

Yes! If Sales doesn't have the bandwidth or the time to devote adequate follow up, it is better that a prospect re-enters a nurture flow than being neglected altogether. But I do see the threat here, again, of contributing to the enablement issue.

Actually, I look at the objective of lead nurturing as more upstream than your example. We have a notion of pre-leads: we acquire a list or attend a trade show but don't speak to a number of attendees. They might be the right contact at the right company but haven't yet expressed an interest or responded to us.

So we put those cold contacts into a pre-lead nurture flow with the goal of warming them up to the point where it is worthwhile for Inside Sales to work them. So we are replicating the same sort of qualification processes that we've historically done for Sales and shifting it upstream for Inside Sales.

This nurturing process should be Marketing's responsibility to oversee and monitor. We're in a highly competitive market with a long sales cycle, so we don't always catch a prospect when they have budget or an identified need. And with so much competitive information so accessible on the web, we need to stay top of mind with these "suspects" or they'll easily buy from a competitor. Let's say you've attended a webcast and were interested in the topic, but weren't really in a position to engage with Sales. Inside Sales has tried to entice you for two months without success, so now we'll put you in an automated nurture campaign until you respond and score enough points that it's worthwhile for a sales rep to reach out again.

Great discussion! To me, the bottom line is not that sales & marketing are converging but that marketers are rightly being held responsible for proving the contribution of marketing to revenue.

"Sales-ready" leads, lead scoring, and other terms are simply tools to assist in measuring marketing results. If the systems and processes are too rigid so that leads get silo-ed away and hidden from a Rep until some magical formula is reached, that's the wrong approach.

1. Being clear about what the goal is of the call. In most cases, its two-fold:  Figure out whether you should keep talking (score) and, if so, get them to the next step in the sales process (demonstration, appointment, and so on).  This is where follow-up fails: Lead-qual reps think their job is to sell the product (bad call), figure out if they have read the whitepaper (hilarious).  Every objection can be answered by the question "Are you the person involved in ...?" Seriously.
   
   
2. Training and management - repeat after me: training and management.
   
   
3. Marketing automation and lead nurturing.
    

1. "They don't remember downloading the whitepaper":
   Yes, I know.  Since the advent of online whitepaper syndication, it has been the new buyer objection. Suckers get derailed from this objection. Seriously, why do you care?  YOU know they did, so leverage that knowledge to keep on fighting.  How about, "no problem, are you in charge of...?"
    
2. "They won't call me back":
   That's right, because buyers (even when buying) can't wait to call back someone so they can be subjected to BANT qualifying questions. Don't just leave "checking in and seeing if you have any questions" voicemails of the early 90s.  The buyer's job is to NOT call you back or email you back (even when they LIKE you). Winning organizations have the following:

   - Coordinated call/email campaigns designed to get people to connect.

   - Outbound dialing service like Connect and Sell www.connectandsell.com

   - An understanding that not everyone will answer their phones in 3 weeks, so nurture.

3. "They don't know who we are":
   Now this one CAN be solved to an extent with the lead sources that you are using, but again, is that the ultimate opening question?  Who are you? Don't mind if I do.
    
4. "They don't have a project":
   Sorry that they don't have a project today, but seeing as this is the right person who is requesting information about your market, you may want to talk to them. Just to note, from  our marketing programs at Tippit, we have one simple lead definition, "Right Person, Right Interest."  We will pay for that.  We know over time, they will buy. Just get us started.
    
5. "They aren't the decision maker":
   I know, I know, you need to talk to the CEO or VP.  Well, they aren't going to download things on the Internet.  I understand why we need to get to the C-suite at some point, but that's not going to happen with industrial grade, lead-generation machinery. Particularly with companies that want to do LOTS of business.  If you want to hit the C-suite, put together a VITO campaign leveraging execs, make sure you have experienced outbound callers on the project and be happy with a couple leads. But don't expect your lead machine to punch out CEO's.
    
6. "They have a project but...":
   You can't have it both ways from lead gen. The perfect project ready to buy in one month with no warts attached is just NOT going to happen. If you do get projects, be happy you did. These are still leads. Here are some of my favorites:

   - "They fit our employee parameters, but they only want a small amount of licenses"

   - "They are already down the road"

Have fun. Try things. Measure & repeat.
If I learned one thing from 2009 it's that doing the safe thing is often the riskiest approach.

The companies that inspired me this year were human (they seemed to be having fun). They mixed it up (they had the Hollywood mindset - not every picture will be a blockbuster). They measured early, often & doubled down on winning ideas (they got in front of the ideas that spread and gave them support - on the flip side, they ID'd the dogs and killed them early).
 

• ARDATH ALBEE - CEO & B2B Marketing Strategist - Marketing Interactions
• CLAUDINE BIANCHI - VP, Marketing - Marketing Consultant
• DIANE CARLSON - VP, Marketing Communications - Sparta Systems
• GARY MCNEIL - VP, Marketing - Parature
• HEATHER STOKES - Field Marketing Manager - Kadient
• KIM LEGELIS - VP, Marketing - Core Security

• Firehose
• Trickle
  -and-
• Alternating firehose & trickle

• Why me?
  Of all the people you could be calling, what makes me so perfect for your solution?
  
  How did he do that? He told me, upfront, that his solution was for B2B Marketers who use Salesforce.com and care about lead management. I thought: I am. We do. And I do.
   
• Why me now?
  With everything else I have on my to-do list, why is now the time to listen to what you have to say?
  
  So how did he do that? He quoted me a MarketingSherpa stat (this is my rough recollection) that only 35% of B2B Marketers were using a tool for xyz. But those that did, saw a 125% increase in their abc conversions.
   

Let me add a twist. Lead definitions are fluid. Sometimes sales cares more about "activity" and other times more about "opportunity".

"Activity" based lead definitions often occur when you have just introduced a new product and need to talk to anyone and everyone. Or, when you have a significant number of new sales reps and need to get them out there talking to prospects as quickly as possible.

"Opportunity" based lead definitions often occur when you have a mature and stable product and sales organization that want well qualified leads that have true potential.

I agree with Brian Carroll when he talks about the need for sales and marketing to have consistent huddles to discuss this topic because the requirements of sales are often fluid and they need to communicate that effectively to and with marketing.

Tiffany's gives the jewelry away for free. It's the box that costs money. Because the box is all the person getting the thing talks about. They say "I can't believe you cared enough to spend 3-4x as much."
 

A quick Google search tells me that humans take around 780k steps a year. Now let's say prospecting is like a familiar walk around a favorite park.  We are on auto-pilot. Our journey doesn't take significant levels of active thought as we've done this literally hundreds of times before.  We start our walk and the end result holds no surprises.

Now let's say its mid-January in New England. That familiar trail is now covered in ice & snow. That favorite walk is a lot more complicated and requires more preparation and much more active attention.  If you are not prepared for the conditions, you can end up on your rear wondering what happened to the lovely walk you envisioned.

This is the reality of prospecting today. Buyers are smarter, they can find out as much about you as you can about them.  You can't just go sail out the door unprepared and expect to not lose your footing.  Did you ever hang up after a prospect call and think "Well, that didn't go as well as I thought it would"?