Mar 232010
 
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Pinterest
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

There’s a good conversation going on over at Focus.com about whether the sales concept of BANT — Budget Authority Need Timeframe — is no longer valid in light of how the modern B2B buying process works. The question has been asked: “Is BANT dead?”

I commented on the post, and as part of my continuous effort to drive my own personal “return on contribution” I’ve re-published my answer to the question in this space. But there are lots of great expert opinions from B2B marketing thought leaders in the original post, so hop on over and have a look!

— begin answer —

“BANT is not dead but it is definitely under the weather and needs better care from its primary care physicians (sales and marketing executives).

As a salesperson’s tool for measuring a prospect’s relative readiness to buy, BANT remains valid and useful to the sales process.

However, there are times (too many times, by my observation) that BANT is used as a rigidly applied internal service level agreement between sales and marketing (or between sales and pre-sales lead development). In some environments, BANT is set up such that the sales team literally can’t talk to buyers unless BANT is fully achieved, or until a certain score threshold has been satisfied. This is a good idea when every sales person’s time is fully utilized talking to BANT-qualified prospects. However, most of the time this is not the case. There is always some “excess capacity” in the revenue factory, which can actually be good thing. So to the extent that BANT is ever used to keep a less-than-maxed-out sales person from talking to a buyer who is less-than-fully-BANT-qualified, it’s not a useful metric.

I think BANT is most useful when applied at the level of the individual salesperson, who must prioritize his/her time as if it were money to spent (time is the salesperson’s most valuable currency). As an operational metric, BANT is not flexible enough for practical application, in my opinion.

BTW, marketers have their own version of BANT. It’s called Cost per Lead (CPL). It’s another metric that is useful in a narrow context, but can needlessly limit outcomes if applied too rigidly. For more on the perils of excessive adherence to CPL (and 3 metrics that are better to use), see this post:

http://www.focus.com/ugr/research/marketing/asdf/

— end answer —

Jan 162010
 
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Pinterest
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Over the past year, I’ve had the good fortune to speak with 80+ B2B marketers at leading U.S. companies. I’ve taken extensive notes during each of these discussions and have learned some interesting things. Here’s a few highlights:

1) In nearly all of those conversations, the topic of marketing automation and lead nurturing has come up.

2) About 50% of the marketers I’ve spoken with have already purchased a marketing automation solution. (This figure is not a proxy for overall market adoption of these solutions. The population I spoke with is generally in the “early adopter” category.)

3) Most of these marketers are, by their own admission, using only a portion of the robust capabilities available in these solutions. Essentially, these companies are using MA software to automate email blasts to current customers and prospects.

4) None of the marketers I’ve spoken to have implemented the lead scoring functionality available in these solutions. The reasons for this are several. Some have found that they have not identified or hired the right person to drive the lead scoring effort, because a specific skill set is required to do scoring right. Others have cited challenges in obtaining buy-in from the sales team – whose support and collaboration is essential to building an effective lead scoring model. And still others have said “sales is going to call all the leads anyway, so we don’t see a need to score them.”

5) Despite the limited scope of their existing deployments, all the marketers I’ve spoken to are still very committed to the category of marketing automation. They are just in first gear at the moment and planning their ramp-up strategies.

As a result of these conversations, I’ve been working on a visual aide to succinctly explain why I believe it’s critical that marketers and sales leaders commit to the lead scoring process as a part of any marketing automation project. I offer it up here as a contribution to the conversation.

Some explanatory “companion text” follows below the graphic.

 

Why We Nurture Leads

Companion Text:

  • The blue bars represent the universe of leads acquired through any marketing effort. Let’s put the number at 1000 leads. The red/pink shaded area represents the effort the Sales team will make trying to move those leads into the sales funnel.
  • The Y-axis represents a hypothetical lead score range of 1 to 100 (for what it’s worth, it’s not considered best practice to use a 100-point scale in lead scoring, but I’m simplifying here for the benefit of newcomers to marketing automation).
  • In the chart on the left, we look at the Lead Score (sales-readiness) of this 1000-lead universe in the timescale of one month after their lead capture date. In the chart on the right, we look at the Lead Score of the same population 9 months after their lead capture date.
  • According to Brian Carroll, author of Lead Generation for the Complex Sale, 70% of buyers you attract to your web site will eventually buy from someone. However, most of them are not ready to engage at the moment they appear in your CRM system (you are using a CRM system, right?). An important premise of Carroll’s argument is that the sales-readiness of these leads will increase, whether or not your company nurtures them. But only by nurturing do we have the opportunity to shape the preference of the buyers in that population of leads. And only by scoring do we have the opportunity to measure the relative levels of sales-readiness of one lead versus another.
  • But what about the argument that “sales calls all the leads, so why should we score them?” In my experience, Sales will always make an effort to call all of the leads. But it sometimes is worth repeating to ourselves that Sales is ultimately hired to one thing: sell. Not calling all of the leads is actually, really, truthfully, at the end of the day, a “venial sin” in the sales department. Not closing business is a “mortal sin.” [Or for those who prefer a more secular interpretation. Not calling all the leads will merely put the sales manager on his/her boss’ “Hurt Me” list. Not closing deals will put him/her on the “Kill Me” list.] So marketers should assume that the Sales team’s follow-up effort will result in a single touch (call, email, or voice mail) against 70% of the leads at best. Because when given a choice between calling a lead of unknown quality, and calling a prospect in the middle or bottom of the sales funnel, any successful sales person is going to do the logical thing and focus on closing business. [It’s also worth mentioning that another habit of successful sales people is to allocate 20% of their time to prospecting / pipeline development. But even the aggregate effect of that time allocation, if it’s happening across the sales team, will typically not be as effective in keeping leads warm, and certainly not as measurable, as a well-executed marketing automation program.]
  • The 1-month timescale (the chart on the left) illustrates the inefficiency of the “call ’em all” approach to lead development. Lots of calls are made and emails sent to prospects who are not yet ready to buy. The non-responsiveness of these pre-mature buyers is a contributing factor to the oft-heard judgement of the sales manager: “these leads are s#!+. We need the good leads!”
  • The 9-month timescale (the chart on the right) illustrates the benefit of a well-integrated lead nurturing program. If marketing and sales work together to define a solid lead scoring model, the effect is that sales will be spending more of their time speaking to more qualified buyers.
  • An ancillary (but very significant) benefit of this approach is that over time, marketing can actually spend less money buying impressions, clicks, and leads. This is because, over time, patterns emerge in the data to show what fish are biting, where they’re swimming, and how you can hook them.
  • Where should all that money go that you save on demand generation? Here’s a few ideas:

Six things you can do with the money you save implementing marketing automation:

  1. Tell your  CFO / CEO to hire more sales people so your company can drive more revenue. [Some marketers may accuse me of heresy for daring to suggest that they offer up any portion of the marketing budget to hire more sales people. I would just reply that the goal is to make money. And good stewardship of the marketing budget means maximizing the efficiency of spend not maximizing spend.]
  2. Spend more money on the lead sources you (now) know are *really* working.
  3. Invest in thought leadership driven content creation (webinars, white papers, social media contributions).
  4. Conduct research on your current, live, in-market prospects to better understand what makes them buy.
  5. Send yourself and/or your team to a MarketingSherpa or SiriusDecisions conference.
  6. Negotiate a raise for yourself (preferably bundled with a promotion).  :)
Dec 222009
 
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Pinterest
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Hey TLOTL readers: I just posted a discussion question on Focus.com that needs your expert opinion. Bring your A game – A stands for Answer or Advice – and see what leading B2B marketers have to say.

Here’s the question and background (the link to the question on Focus is below):

Question: What are the main barriers to a successful deployment of a marketing automation solution?

Background: By most accounts, 2009 has been a breakout year for the marketing automation space. And while the category itself is not new, we now have a robust and growing ecosystem of vendor solutions, resellers, agencies, consultants, integrators, and marketers with deployment experience. However, as we discovered over the 10-year evolution of the Hosted CRM market, there are always hard knocks and lessons learned on the way to excellence. So as we head into 2010, let’s hear from those who’ve been there and done marketing automation: what are the key issues for marketers to prepare for (and overcome) when implementing a solution?

http://www.focus.com/questions/marketing/what-are-main-barriers-successful-deployment-marketing/

Note to readers: I recommend you answer this question on Focus. (While I’d be honored to see your reply posted in my blog comments, there’s frankly a much bigger audience and more robust conversation over on Focus.) Oh, and full disclosure for our friends at the Federal Trade Commission: I do some work with Tippit, the owner of Focus.com, as Head of their Tippit Consulting group. But promoting/endorsing the Focus.com web property is not part of the scope of my relationship with Tippit.

Nov 172009
 
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Pinterest
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

TLOTL (that’s me) is honored to be chosen as a contributor to the upcoming ClickPredictions 2010 eBook from ClickDocuments, to be published in December 2009. I’m truly privileged to share valuable digital real estate with such notable marketers as  Ian Lurie, Jon Miller, Steve Woods, Doug Kessler, and others.  We’ll be sharing our predictions for what the coming year in marketing will bring.

How confident can you be in my predictions? Well, I wouldn’t advise adjusting your investment portfolio on my account, but there is one forecast I make related to tax filing dates in which you can be 99.999% confident.

My co-clairvoyants, by contrast, are 100% guaranteed to enlarge and enlighten your perspective on 2010 marketing trends. Keep an eye out for the eBook next month.