Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Are Marketers Still Enablers?

Posted by Trish Bertuzzi on Thu, Apr 01, 2010
 
In January we posted the first part of our conversation with Linda Duchin, VP of Marketing from PowerSteering Software -  Are Marketers Becoming Enablers. Shame on me for taking this long to get the 2nd half of the conversation out there! Make sure to check out the comments as well!

As a refresher, we were discussing:

  • Is Marketing being forced to assume too much of the sales process?
  • Are pipelines at risk because our Sales people are waiting for perfection as opposed to getting out there and converting interest to 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.


------

So, what is the right answer? I like this comment that Scott Mersy of Genius.com contributed to the first part of this post:

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.

 
What do you think? What process are you using to ensure that leads get to the right resource at the right time?

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

The answer is SMARKETING- the process of combining sales & marketing to deliver better results- greater yield per lead, rep productivity and better customer acquisition at a lower cost. Effective combination of duel objectives is critical to win. Marketing automation fails if the vision & execution of senior management is still stuck in separate departments, but can help save time, effort and money. SMARKETING is written up in a Harvard Business school case study.

posted @ Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:57 AM by Dan Tyre


I don't agree that marketing "enables" bad sales behavior. Nor do I agree that it is appropriate for marketing to nurture leads.  
 
 
 
The problem is that in many companies so few leads passed to sales are high enough quality that they warrant sales follow-up. This is the proverbial "chicken and the egg" problem. Did marketing default to a cost per lead mentality because of lack of sales follow-up and feedback, or did sales stop following up on leads because the leads they get mostly suck?  
 
 
 
Should marketing or sales nurture leads? My answer is "NO". This links you to a blog that prescribes solutions to these problems: http://tinyurl.com/y8p5qjm 
 
 
 
Thank you for the question. It is a good one!

posted @ Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:06 AM by Dan McDade


Sales needs to SELL.  
 
Otherwise they should be called FULFILLMENT and take the lower organizational standing they too often aspire to.

posted @ Friday, April 02, 2010 12:13 PM by Jeff Foster


The real issue here is "who is providing the definition of what a lead really is". 
 
 
 
The biggest problem sales has (often) is letting others define just what constitutes a lead. We have added pain, measured and monetized and urgency to the standard BANT ctiteria. It provides a stronger understanding.

posted @ Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:48 AM by Barry MacGregor


It was hit right on the mark when mentioned 'lets really define what a lead is". 
 
A lead is not just a record in SalesForce or ACT! or whatever to call. It is simply a record, a contact, a person, a suspect ( unless, however, that person has begun to play ball with us). If we throw them a frisbee and they toss it back, now we have engaged with a prospect. 
Outside of this, you have NOTHING. A black/white name. Why do people / companies talk about 'leads' so much,... hey how did you do with that lead ? Then an outside sales rep. ( or whomever) gets upset if there is not enough action or traction ( possibly a different corporate issue / performance),... but you can't say we have 'X'% of success rate with these leads,... unless you are talking about people with whom now are engaged with you in conversation and possibly are open to a next step of some sort. Outside of this, a prospect, you have a suspect, a group of people who went to trade show,... whatever. You've got a big pile of 'nothing at all' until you engage them in a meaningful way.

posted @ Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:52 PM by Neibold


I just have to say, once again, just because in marketing ( inside sales,... or whatever) we've spoken with the 'right' person, the 'right' company, has the 'right' pain,.... all of the stuff we want to qualify up front and then hand to sales for a meeting ( webinar or on-site),..... I can see calling this a lead because the person has caught my ball and agreed to a next step with us. Though, if we force someone to just be on the webinar, and if we are really not engaged, we are really not doing lead development ( until we have a real 'fish on' ) at all. We are just tricking ourselves into thinking we are "nurturing" whatever / whomever it is that we think we are. I love the terms,.... leads, nurture, sales,.... all good stuff... BUT until a suspect has shown that they are interested in more that we have to say,... and, let's face it, some of them trick us into thinking they are now prospects, when indeed they could still be more a 'suspect',... we have nothing until we engage a person or group of people, etc..... far enough along into the sales process to begin even thinking of them as prospects. A lead is a long way from calling someone on the phone and getting a referral.  
Ask me some technical questions and show me some love and that we could be in the running as a possible solution, now we have a lead, and still that's all we have is a lead, 
 
I love these whatevers that load a list of webinar attendees in a CRM system and call them leads. They are anything but until we qualify them, and they still might not be. 
I guess just be careful on how we throw verbage around is something important to thing about.

posted @ Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:03 PM by Neibold


Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics