COMMENTS
Thanks, all, for the discussion here; it highlights the importance of creating long term value.
If I contact a Lead who turns out not to be a prospect, it is more valuable to establish a reputation as a trusted resource, worthy of referral. I get more referrals and have built more solid relationships by value creation than from "run & gun" tactics (for you gamers).
VITO only refers valuable resources, some of whom s/he retains because of perceived long term value.
Think: Whom do you trust? Whom would you call when you need expertise? Whom would you refer and why? Strive to be that person.
Hi Trish,
Thanks for providing a forum on this topic.
Putting inbound vs. outbound religious differences aside, I believe that some important points need to made:
Do what's right for your acquisition strategy and is appropriate for you target market.
Hubspot targets small business. An inbound strategy makes sense to drive inquiries at the lowest cost per inquiry. Hubspots focus on education strikes a chord with small businesses that have not been marketed to.
Green Leads targets mostly mid-market to enterprise accounts (I hope I have that right Mike). Many of these types of buyers expect you to come to them. Inbound leads are likely to be disqualified due to company size, even if they have an interest or need. In contrast, Hubspot would probably not disqualify many accounts based on size.
Let's use a common benchmark.
It's not inquiries or responders. The benchmark is either leads that enter the sales pipeline or close.
Vendors: Let's avoid the silo thinking.
Marketers view their options in terms of a marketing mix. Customers don't respond to just one medium or inbound vs. outbound media.
It weakens our credibility if we only view our services from only one perspective.
As vendors to marketers, a narrow perspective on our services will weaken our program results. It's important that we look at the enhanced results we gain though integrated marketing, both inbound and outbound.
I will get off my soap box now :)
Best,
Robert Lesser
@RobertLesser
@ Ed...thanks for the great input.
@ Robert...don't get off your soapbox...my next post is going to use your post on outbound buyer types as the foundation for a dialogue. Stay tuned!
Hi Trish,
I think Mike is right on when commenting on how many inside ops it takes to get to your pipeline/forecast. The issue that I have found with inbound leads is that they do not discriminate. I can go onto any website and download a white paper even if I have no need or ability to buy. The same often happens with webinar leads and trade show leads. I talk to companies all the time that build up a contact database of thousands of which the sales team will only follow up on 20% (that's a true average) because the quality is so low. Outbound teleprospecting goes directly to your decision makers and gets the info you need from them. You can spend time trying to market to the fortune 500 company and get hundreds of names and the whole process will take months or you could an ISR pick up a phone and get an answer within a week from calling. The inbound approach is very reactive vs the proactive outbound and I find it much more effective in this economy.
Take a solution that costs $100k for example. My reps could find me $1.2mm in pipeline per month at that ASP, and solid forecast ready pipeline filled with decision makers and people that have the need to buy and fit the profile's I want.
All this being said you need a mix of both and when running a teleprospecting program you absolutely must have the process down from top of funnel to sales forecast.
My experience with inbound leads as an executive of HubSpot, is that they are significantly superior to other lead generation sources. The main reason for the superior quality is that inbound leads tend to have more sense of urgency and are further along in the sales process. The issue with most sales pipelines is inertia and priority and that tends to be less of an issue with inbound leads.
Interesting discussion. In my Eloqua days, we focused more on outbound leads while monitoring everything through to revenue. The question rasied above of getting to pipeline is the relevant one. But take it all the way to an revenue event.
We found that, at least for us, inbound (SEO/SEM) leads cost less, but were worth less because the people behind those leads (and the companies who employed them) didn't buy nearly as often.
With whatever platform that gives you data, finding out who actually buys - and where the lead came from - is key. We backed off of AdWords considerably once we saw the low(er)buy-through.
And yes, it's All About the Mix. Inbound, outbound and personal touch all add up to a purchase. If you can track the lead source to purchase, you can value it. But in my B2B experience selling to large SMB and enterprise, nothing beat consistent outbound work to get people to your site and show their interest.
@all,
I had the pleasure last night to have dinner with Dan Tyre of Hubspot (commenter above). We also got to mingle a bit with some of the Hubspot crew beforehand, and I tried to spark up the conversation around "Isn't there a place for both Inbound and Outbound sales/marketing?"
The results were somewhat consistent. After flexing our respective muscles and pride, we all agreed to benefits both ways. Breaking down the right doors with the right prospects using outbound techniques is great AND having thousands of people hit your website or contact you with inbound techniques is great.
Benefits with each -- when you open a door through an appointment, you capture someone's attention that may not have found you through inbound means. Conversely, with inbound, you can use lead scoring, site stats, and other techniques to weed out the noise and focus on the serious buyers that are there for a reason.
After a couple sips of Sam Adams Summer Ale the survey confirmed the results of a recent poll we conducted that shows a balanced
mix of inbound and outbound marketing provides a 1-2 punch and maximizes opportunities on all fronts.
Great article.
When it comes down to it we always calculate the actual cost to acquire a customer. Cost per lead is a good guide to what generates initial interest but as the article states you have to look at the actual cost to acquire the customer. Leads do not ultimately pay the bills.
Good posts. The key to sales is knowing your prospect. Outbound prospecting usually has some (usually minimal) level of 3rd party qualification. Inbound usually doesn't - they only "raised their hand".
Predictive lead intelligence gives you 3rd party insight into prospects (inbound and outbound) - which gives you a better idea of their real pain, motivation and financial capability
Great points by all. I think mixing the 2 methods yields a potent combination. If you can use inbound techniques to surface interested prospects (i.e. by enabling them to "self-select") then approach them with strong outbound processes you have a winner.
Cold calling on warm companies that have visited your website will be much more rewarding as they are already interested.
Excellent post you have here I agree wit you that there is a place for inbound marketing in all of our marketing budgets. In simple terms, what is the value of that lead against the amount you have invested in it so far?
Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.
Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.