Two Keys to More Effective Marketing in 2014 - How Marketing Content Must Change

With 2014 now less than a month away, most B2B marketers are well into their planning for next year. For most marketers, the ultimate question is:  What can we do to boost the effectiveness of our marketing efforts in 2014?

This is the second of two posts that are describing two key actions that marketers can take to improve marketing effectiveness in 2014. In my last post, I discussed why most B2B companies need to implement marketing automation and CRM technologies. In this post, I'll describe how marketing content needs to change in 2014.

More than nine out of ten B2B marketers now say they are using some form of content marketing, according to research by the Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs. The irony is that the popularity of content marketing is creating a new challenge for marketers. As more companies implement content marketing and publish more content, it's becoming more difficult to make your content stand out.

The key to content marketing success in 2014 will be to make your content useful. The concept of utilitarian marketing - marketing that is truly useful to the recipient - has gained increased attention in recent months largely due to the publication of two books - Youtility by Jay Baer, and Ctrl Alt Delete by Mitch Joel.

In Youtility, Jay Baer argues that there are only two ways for companies to break through the marketing and advertising clutter that engulfs today's consumers and business buyers. They can be amazing or they can be useful. Being amazing works, Baer says, but it is more difficult to do and provides less predictable results than being useful.

Being useful is what Baer means by "Youtility," which he defines as follows:

"Youtility is marketing upside down. Instead of marketing that's needed by companies, Youtility is marketing that's wanted by customers. Youtility is massively useful information, provided for free, that creates long-term trust and kinship between your company and your customers."

In Ctrl Alt Delete, Mitch Joel contends that what he calls utilitarianism marketing will be the "next great business disrupter." Joel describes utilitarianism marketing as follows:

"What is utilitarianism marketing? It's not about advertising, it's not about messaging, and it's not about immediate conversations. It's about providing a true value and utility:  something consumers not only would want to use - constantly and consistently - but would derive so much value from it that it would be given front-and-center attention in their lives."
 
In the CMI/MarketingProfs study mentioned earlier, 73% of B2B marketers surveyed said they are currently producing more content than they were twelve months earlier. There is every reason to think that companies will produce more content in 2014 than they did in 2013. With so much content available, potential buyers have little patience for content that doesn't provide real value and utility. If they don't see value in your content, they'll simply move on to someone else's.

There are several actions you can take to improve the effectiveness of your marketing in 2014, but nothing is more important than producing content that is truly useful to your customers and prospects.

Read Part 1 of the series here.

Two Keys to More Effective Marketing in 2014 - Part 1

Two years ago this month, I published a post here titled Five Ways to Improve Your Marketing in 2012. With the end of 2013 now only a month away, I thought it would be a good time to revisit this topic with 2014 in mind. How much of what I wrote in 2011 is still relevant, and what would I change about (or add to) my 2011 post.

In my earlier post, I made five recommendations:

• Develop a marketing strategy
• Shift primary responsibility for lead generation from sales to marketing
• Increase the number of leads you acquire via inbound marketing
• Develop and implement a sound lead management process
• Implement a content marketing strategy

These recommendations are as valid today as they were two years ago, although I believe that the number of B2B companies using some or all of these practices has increased substantially over the past two years.

So, what are the most critical actions that B2B marketers should take in 2014 to boost marketing performance? There are several plausible answers to this question, but I suggest that two actions stand out in importance. In this post, I'll discuss why technology has become all but essential for effective B2B marketing in 2014, and my next post will describe how marketing content must change in 2014.

Why Marketing Technology is Essential

I don't write frequently in this blog about marketing technology for a couple of reasons. First, there are many other good sources of information on that topic. In addition, the hype surrounding marketing technology can easily create the erroneous impression that technology is a "silver bullet" that will automatically improve marketing and sales performance.

It's clear, however, that marketing and technology are deeply entwined and that it's now practically impossible to build and execute effective marketing programs without the use of technology. For example, unless you're working with a very small number of prospects, it's extremely difficult and highly inefficient to run sophisticated lead nurturing programs without the right technology tools.

B2B marketing automation (aka lead management) software enables companies to execute personalized and behavior-driven lead nurturing programs. These technologies also typically enable extensive data collection regarding lead behavior and the use of automated lead scoring systems. B2B marketing automation solutions are typically integrated with CRM solutions, and this combination of technologies can significantly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both marketing and sales efforts.

The good news is, both marketing automation solutions and CRM solutions are now widely available as hosted solutions, they are relatively easy to use, and they are affordable for most B2B companies. These factors, combined with the pressing need to improve marketing performance, have made B2B marketing automation software extremely popular. David Raab, a widely-respected marketing automation industry analyst, estimates that revenues from the sale of B2B marketing automation software will reach $750 million in 2013, and the market has been growing at about 50% per year for the past several years.

If you don't have the internal skills needed to successfully implement a marketing automation solution, you should consider working with a marketing services firm that can use these technologies to execute marketing programs on your behalf.

Marketing technology is not a panacea, but it will be essential for effective B2B marketing in 2014.

Read Part 2 of the series here.

Is Account-Based Marketing Right for Your Business?

One of the hot topics in B2B marketing circles today is account-based marketing (ABM). ITSMA (the Information Technology Services Marketing Association) led the development of account-based marketing about a decade ago. Although it started in the technology sector, ABM is now used by many kinds of B2B companies.

ITSMA defines account-based marketing as:  "A structured approach to developing and implementing highly customized marketing campaigns to markets of one, i.e. accounts, partners, or prospects." (emphasis added) By this definition, the distinguishing characteristic of account-based marketing is that it entails the development of a unique marketing strategy and communications program for each target account.

Recently, some marketing consultants and software companies have been arguing for a broader view of account-based marketing. For example, SiriusDecisions has identified four varieties of ABM - large-account marketing, named-account marketing, industry-account marketing, and customer marketing. For a description of these four varieties of ABM, read this post at the SiriusDecisions blog.

Firms that advocate the broader view use the term account-based marketing to describe marketing programs that focus on a specific group of named accounts, but do not necessarily involve the implementation of a unique marketing program for each target account. While these programs are often based on solid marketing principles and can be very effective, they are not true account-based marketing, at least in the original sense of the concept. In this post, I'm using the term account-based marketing as it was defined by ITSMA.

It's now clear that account-based marketing can be highly effective in the right circumstances, but is ABM right for your business?

Your answer to this question largely depends on the attributes of your universe of existing and potential customers. True account-based marketing is typically used only for very high-value customers and prospects because it's expensive to execute. For example:

• ABM requires both marketing and sales personnel to be deeply involved in the development and execution of each account plan.
• Many of the activities involved in ABM cannot be automated because they require the exercise of human judgment.
• Account-based marketing will usually require the development of unique marketing and sales content resources for each target account.

Because of the costs associated with account-based marketing, most companies that use ABM do so selectively. The diagram below illustrates how account value and the diversity of account needs influence which approach to marketing is most appropriate.

The lower left corner of the diagram represents accounts (existing customers and prospects) with relatively low value and relatively homogeneous needs. A mass marketing approach (i.e. "one size fits all") is probably most appropriate for this group of accounts. Note, however, that this group represents a small part of the total universe of accounts.

The top portion of the diagram represents very high-value accounts. These are the types of accounts that are suitable for account based marketing, even when their needs are fairly homogeneous. In most companies, these accounts also represent a fairly small portion of the total account universe.

As the diagram illustrates, targeted marketing (which may, in fact, focus on a specific group or set of named accounts) is the most appropriate marketing approach to use for most accounts. As I'm using the term, targeted marketing refers to the use of customized marketing messages for market segments and buyer personas, but not for individual accounts. When targeted marketing is done correctly, it enables a company to obtain many of the benefits of account-based marketing at a significantly lower cost.

So what's the bottom line? If you're a B2B company with a few existing customers who are "too big to lose," and/or if you can identify a small number of potential customers who would provide exceptionally high value to your company, then consider implementing account-based marketing for those selected accounts, and use targeted marketing programs for the rest.

How to Know if Your Marketing Strategy is Working

The foundation of all effective marketing efforts is a sound marketing strategy. Most marketing leaders feel fairly comfortable formulating strategy, but many find it difficult to measure how well their marketing strategy is actually working. The solution for this perennial challenge is a marketing Balanced Scorecard.

When Robert Kaplan and David Norton introduced the Balanced Scorecard in the early 1990's, they saw it as simply a better way to measure organizational performance. However, many early adopters started using the Balanced Scorecard as a tool for implementing business strategy. They recognized that if the objectives and measures included in their Balanced Scorecard were derived from their strategy, the scorecard would become an effective tool for describing the strategy in
measurable terms. Therefore, the Balanced Scorecard quickly evolved from a pure performance measurement system to a tool for managing strategy.

This is my third post about using a Balanced Scorecard to measure and manage marketing performance. In my last post, I described the four "perspectives" used in a Balanced Scorecard. In this post, I'll describe how a Balanced Scorecard can help you determine how well your marketing strategy is working.

The key to using a Balanced Scorecard to manage marketing strategy is something called a strategy map. A strategy map is essentially a set of linked strategic objectives that are organized using the four Balanced Scorecard perspectives. The diagram below depicts a high-level, generic version of a Balanced Scorecard strategy map for marketing.



Each of the rectangles in a Balanced Scorecard strategy map will contain objectives that are derived from your company's marketing strategy. In the above diagram, the rectangles contain descriptions of the kinds of objectives that would be included. For example, in the internal process perspective, one set of objectives will relate to the campaigns or programs that marketers design and execute.

In a Balanced Scorecard strategy map, the lines connecting the rectangles represent the cause-and-effect relationships that exist among your company's strategic marketing objectives. These causal relationships define the "logic" of your marketing strategy, and they tie the objectives together to create a cohesive strategy. Describing these cause-and-effect relationships is one of the most critical steps in building a sound marketing strategy, and using a strategy map forces you to make these relationships explicit and visible.

In a Balanced Scorecard strategy map, the cause-and-effect lines indicate that achieving one objective is what enables another objective to be achieved. For example, the above diagram is indicating that if a company successfully achieves its customer value proposition objectives, the company will achieve its objectives relating to customer acquisition and customer loyalty. And, if the company achieves its customer acquisition and customer loyalty objectives, it will be able to reach is revenue growth objectives.

The most powerful argument for using a Balanced Scorecard to measure and manage marketing performance is that it provides a mechanism for demonstrating and documenting how individual marketing activities fit into and support your marketing strategy, and for connecting individual marketing activities and programs to ultimate business outcomes. The objectives and measures used in the customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives are leading indicators of the business outcomes that define marketing success. So, by monitoring your progress toward achieving all of the objectives included in your strategy map, and by testing the validity of the cause-and effect relationships you've defined in your strategy map, you are also measuring the effectiveness of your marketing strategy.

How a Balanced Scorecard Measures Current and Future Marketing Performance

In my last post, I argued that marketers should use a Balanced Scorecard to measure and manage marketing performance. The Balanced Scorecard was introduced by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in the early 1990's, and it's become one of the most popular and effective business management tools. In the Management Tools and Trends 2013 survey by Bain & Company, business leaders from around the world ranked the Balanced Scorecard as the fifth most widely-used management tool.

The Balanced Scorecard was created to address the deficiencies of performance management systems that rely exclusively on financial performance metrics. One of the main shortcomings of financial accounting measures is that they are lagging indicators. They measure the financial consequences of actions taken in the past, but they can't measure how today's activities will affect future performance.

To address these deficiencies, a Balanced Scorecard uses both financial and non-financial metrics, and it includes measures of both leading and lagging performance indicators. This framework enables company leaders to monitor both current performance and the factors that drive future
performance.

These capabilities make the Balanced Scorecard a powerful tool for measuring and managing marketing performance. A Balanced Scorecard measures marketing performance across four perspectives - financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. The financial perspective measures the current performance of the overall marketing function, while the other three perspectives measure the drivers of future performance. The diagram below shows the basic architecture of a Balanced Scorecard.

A thorough explanation of how the Balanced Scorecard is used for marketing would require a book, not a blog post. In this post, I'll briefly describe the four perspectives of a marketing Balanced Scorecard. In my next post, I'll describe how you can use a Balanced Scorecard to measure the effectiveness of your marketing strategy.

The Four Perspectives of a Balanced Scorecard

Financial Perspective - As noted earlier, the financial perspective of a Balanced Scorecard measures the current financial performance of the marketing function. When a Balanced Scorecard is used for marketing, the ultimate financial measure is usually return on marketing investment.
This perspective will also typically include objectives and measures relating to revenue growth and the operational efficiency of the marketing function. For example, most marketing Balanced Scorecards will measure overall revenue growth. Depending on a company's growth strategy, this perspective may also contain specific objectives and measures pertaining to certain sources of revenue growth, such as growth from specific customer groups, products, or geographic market areas.

Customer Perspective - The customer perspective of a marketing Balanced Scorecard will contain a set of objectives and measures relating to customer acquisition and to customer retention, growth, and satisfaction. This perspective will also typically include objectives and measures that focus on the most important aspects of your customer value proposition. Some of the measures commonly found in this perspective include number of new customers acquired (or number of new customers of a particular type) and average deal size. The "logic" of a Balanced Scorecard is that if a company achieves the objectives included in this perspective, the company will achieve the revenue growth objectives in the financial perspective.

Internal Process Perspective - This perspective will contain objectives and measures relating to the internal activities and processes that are critical to (a) understanding your current and potential customers, and (b) communicating your value propositions to prospects and customers. Some of these processes relate to how you gather and use data from and about your customers and prospects, and some will relate to how you design and execute marketing campaigns and programs. So, for example, this perspective is where you track the performance of lead generation and lead nurturing programs. The internal process perspective will also include objectives and measures relating to the operational processes in the marketing function that affect efficiency and productivity.

Learning and Growth Perspective - The fourth and final perspective of a Balanced Scorecard is the learning and growth perspective. This perspective measures the intangible assets that your company must posses in order to perform your critical internal processes with a high level of competence. This perspective will typically contain objectives and measures relating to three types of intangible assets - human capabilities, technological capabilities, and organizational/cultural attributes.

So, how do you determine what objectives and measures should be included in a Balanced Scorecard? In my next post, I'll explain why objectives and measures should be derived from your marketing strategy. When this is done, the Balanced Scorecard becomes a powerful tool for managing your strategy and measuring its effectiveness.

Why Marketing Needs a Balanced Scorecard

Earlier this year, ITSMA, VisionEdge Marketing, and Forrester Research surveyed marketing leaders about how they demonstrate marketing's value to the business. The survey revealed that marketers are producing more performance data than ever, but that most of the data doesn't resonate with senior company leaders. For example, the survey found that only 9% of CEO's and 6% of CFO's rely on marketing data to make business decisions.

The study authors contend that most marketing metrics don't do a good job of communicating the value of marketing for three reasons.

• They measure marketing activities, but not important business outcomes.
• They measure operational efficiency, but not the effectiveness of marketing.
• They measure past performance, but they don't provide predictive insights about future outcomes.

Measuring the impact that marketing has on company revenues and profits is a critical aspect of managing marketing performance, but an effective performance management system for marketing must also perform several other functions. For example:

• It must measure the performance of individual marketing activities and programs so that marketers can make investment and marketing mix decisions that will maximize results.
• It must enable marketers and other business leaders to evaluate how well their company's marketing strategy is working.
• It must support both strategic and tactical decision making.
• It must enable marketing leaders to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of operational marketing activities and processes.

In order to perform all of these functions, a performance management system for marketing will necessarily include several types of metrics, including some of the kinds of metrics that are now being criticized. Specifically, a comprehensive marketing performance management system will include:

• Financial and non-financial measures
• Metrics for leading and lagging performance indicators
• Measures that focus on the strategic impact of marketing and metrics that support tactical decision making
• Measures of ultimate business outcomes and measures of activities, outputs, and intermediate outcomes
• Revenue and cost metrics

To prove the value of marketing to C-level executives and manage the marketing function effectively, marketing leaders need a balanced scorecard for marketing. Since its introduction by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in the early 1990's, the balanced scorecard has become one of the most widely-used and effective tools in the business management arsenal.

In my next post, I'll describe what a balanced scorecard for marketing looks like.

Why There's Still So Much Bad Content

In a recent article at LinkedIn, Joe Pulizzi, the Founder and Executive Director of the Content Marketing Institute, observed that most of the marketing content produced by companies is "flat out awful." He wrote, "In many cases, the content is self-serving, not useful and, maybe the worst, pointless."

Pulizzi argues that companies produce bad content for three reasons.

• The vast majority of companies do not have a formal content strategy.
• The content marketing efforts at most companies lack focus. Many marketers feel compelled to develop content around all of the products and services they offer. The result is often content that is too broad (and too shallow) to be effective.
• In many companies, no one is accountable for the overall content marketing program.

I agree that the lack of strategy, focus, and/or accountability can result in "awful" marketing content. I also believe, however, that there's a more fundamental problem contributing to the continuing use of bad content.

We now know that most effective B2B marketing content is primarily educational and non-promotional. The goal of content marketing is to provide potential buyers information that is insightful, useful, and valuable, and thereby demonstrate your company's expertise, credibility, and trustworthiness.

The problem is, this approach runs counter to the basic paradigm of marketing that's existed for decades. For years, we've been trained to think that the best way to sell more stuff is to effectively promote our brand and our products or services. In the traditional paradigm of marketing, content is primarily about us - our company or our products or services.

Shifting from promotional content to content that's primarily educational and non-promotional is a difficult and counterintuitive change to make for most marketers.

In his new book, Ctrl Alt Delete, Mitch Joel provides an example that illustrates just how entrenched the traditional marketing mindset still is. Joel writes:

"Last year, I was in a business meeting when the idea for an iPhone app came up. It was a smart idea (you know, the kind of idea that you wish you had thought of). The chief marketing officer smiled during the presentation, put his hand up to ask a question, removed the glasses from his eyes and placed them on his notebook, folded his hands, leaned forward, and said, 'It's genius. . . but can we put our four key brand messages in there as well, because if we don't force people to look at them, what's the point of this app?'"

Companies are still producing "awful" content primarily because many marketers can't resist the urge to "always be promoting." Strategy, focus, and accountability are all important to building an effective content marketing program, but the starting point is adopting a different mindset about what constitutes good content and what role content plays in the marketing function.

Why Third-Party Content Should Be Part of Your Content Marketing Mix

Two recent research studies have caused me to rethink my views regarding the role and value of third-party content in the marketing efforts of B2B companies. I have always argued that most of the marketing content resources used by a company should be developed internally or with the assistance of outside professional content developers. Either way, the "authorship" of the content is attributed to the company or to an executive or other internal expert. With third-party content, another person or firm creates the content and is shown as the author.

The ultimate objective of content marketing is to cause potential customers to view your company as a trusted resource for valuable information and insights and as a capable and reliable business partner. To accomplish this objective, most of the content you publish should be "yours." It must communicate your company's expertise and capabilities. As a general rule, third-party content just isn't as effective for those purposes.

While I still say that companies should rely primarily on content they create, I also now believe that many companies can benefit from using third-party content on a selective basis. My reasoning is based on two recent research studies that provide important insights regarding the types of content that B2B buyers trust.

The CMO Council recently published a white paper - Better Lead Yield in the Content Marketing Field - that is based on a survey of more than 400 B2B content consumers. When survey participants were asked what types of content they most value and trust, vendor-created content came in last.

As the table below shows, survey respondents said they value and trust professional association research reports and white papers, research reports and white papers created by industry groups, customer case studies, reports and white papers written by analysts, and independent product reviews more than vendor-created content.

The 2013 B2B Content Preferences Survey by DemandGen Report showed similar results. In this survey, B2B buyers were asked which of four types of content they give more credence to. The table below shows that vendor-branded content doesn't fare as well as third-party content.

It seems clear that potential buyers are inclined to trust third-party content more than content created by potential vendors, and B2B marketers should take advantage of this inclination. Content authored by a third-party expert and sponsored by your company can be particularly effective for persuading a potential buyer to begin a relationship with your company. This type of sponsored content can include white papers, eBooks, and research/analytical reports. It could also include a webinar sponsored by your company and presented by a third-party expert.

Content that you develop should always play the predominant role in your content marketing efforts. There are several ways to make your content more trustworthy and credible to potential buyers, and I discussed this topic in an earlier post. However, the right third-party content used in the right ways can be a powerful addition to your content marketing program.

Stop Wasting Your Time on Superficial Personalization

For more than two decades, experts have urged marketers to use personalized messages to boost the effectiveness of marketing communications. Many marketers have heeded this advice, and they are now using various technology tools to create personalized marketing messages in a variety of media and formats, including web pages, e-mail messages, and printed materials such as direct mail documents.

The most common way to personalize a marketing message is to include specific facts about the recipient in the message. Some examples would include the recipient's name, her job title, company affiliation, the industry in which she works, or information about a recent purchase.

The reality is, this type of explicit personalization no longer has much impact with potential buyers, largely because so many marketers are using similar personalization tactics. Two recent research projects have confirmed that explicit personalization alone has become an anemic tool for improving the effectiveness of marketing communications.

Earlier this year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) conducted two concurrent surveys sponsored by Lyris. One of the surveys was directed at consumers, and it asked survey participants about the effectiveness of various marketing channels and tactics, how they prefer to engage with brands, and what influences their purchase decisions. You can obtain an executive summary of the EIU survey report here.

The major findings from the EIU consumer survey regarding personalization include the following:

• More than 70% of survey respondents said that the volume of personalized messages they receive has increased over the past five years.
• Seventy percent of the respondents said that many of the personalized messages they receive are annoying because the attempts at personalization are superficial.
• Sixty-three percent of respondents said that personalization is now so common that they have grown numb to it.
• Only 22% of respondents said that personalized offers are more likely to meet their needs than mass market offers.

Research by the CEB Marketing Leadership Council also shows that explicit personalization has lost much of its impact. In July of this year, CEB surveyed 1,500 consumers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia regarding how, why, and what they buy, and about their attitudes regarding the tactics brands use to engage them. One of the survey questions asked participants how they felt about some of the more common forms of explicit personalization. The table below shows how the survey participants responded.

The lesson here is that explicit personalization alone is not sufficient to make marketing messages more effective. The real key to improving the effectiveness of your marketing messages is to use what you know about your potential buyers to craft messages that will be more relevant and useful to those buyers. Relevance and usefulness (what Jay Baer calls "Youtility"), not mere personalization, are the real drivers of better marketing results.

This doesn't mean that you should stop personalizing marketing messages. It does mean that the personalization should be contextually appropriate (not just a gimmick) and that personalization shouldn't be the core component of your messaging strategy.

B2B Marketers, Be Careful What You Ask For

For the past few years, B2B marketing thought leaders and practitioners have been advocating that marketing should play a larger role in the demand generation process. Proponents of this view argue that marketing should have the primary responsibility for acquiring new sales leads via inbound and outbound marketing programs and for nurturing and qualifying leads until they are ready to begin a meaningful engagement with a sales rep.

According to its advocates, this model of demand generation is more consistent with how today's business buyers learn about issues and possible solutions and make buying decisions, and it also uses a company's demand generation resources more effectively and efficiently.

While the arguments supporting this demand generation model are compelling, implementing it will constitute a major change for many B2B companies. To understand how just big the change is, we only need to look at where leads are coming from today.

The following table is based on the annual Sales Performance Optimization surveys conducted by CSO Insights and includes data from the survey results published in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The survey question asked respondents to specify what percentage of their sales leads are self-generated by sales reps, what percentage are generated by marketing, and what percentage originate from other sources. As the table shows, B2B companies are still relying on salespeople to generate almost half of all new sales leads.



 

The distribution of lead sources shown in the above table has been fairly stable now for several years. The following chart is also based on data from the Sales Performance Optimization surveys and shows the percentage of total leads generated by marketing from 2005 through 2013. As the chart shows, marketing has been producing between 24% and about 30% of total leads for the past seven years.



 

The CSO Insights data makes two important points. First, it clearly shows that B2B marketers will need to "step up their game" if they want marketing to take the lead in lead generation. They must be ready to demonstrate to senior company leaders that they have a strategy that will produce enough sales-ready leads to enable their company to achieve its revenue goals.

 

Perhaps more importantly, the CSO Insights data makes it clear that successful lead generation will require the involvement of both marketing and sales (and other business functions as well), at least for the foreseeable future. Even if marketing significantly increases its lead generation results, it is likely that, for the next few years anyway, between 40% and 50% of leads will still be produced by sales reps and other sources.

How to Avoid Lead Genocide

Several days ago, I came across a great blog post by Jill Konrath. If you're not familiar with Jill's work, she is a well-respected sales consultant/trainer and the author of SNAP Selling and Selling to Big Companies.

In her post, Jill describes an experience with a provider of CRM software. You can read Jill's post to get the full flavor of the experience, but I'll provide an abbreviated version.

Jill received an e-mail from the CRM provider offering an ebook on the social sales revolution. Jill registered to obtain the ebook because she was interested in the topic. She had zero interest in acquiring a new CRM solution.

Just a few minutes after downloading the ebook, Jill received an e-mail from the CRM provider suggesting a "brief 10 minute call" to answer questions and "explain how our different products and services could bring value. . ." This call would help "shorten your evaluation process" and provide "exactly the information you need to help make any comparisons or decisions."

Exactly 34 minutes after this message, Jill received a second e-mail. The second message indicated that the sales rep had been unable to reach Jill by telephone and asked Jill to "let me know if it makes sense to connect." Two minutes later, Jill received a third e-mail asking her to answer nine questions regarding her CRM environment, including what she wanted her CRM system to do for her business, how many users she would have, and what other solutions she was evaluating.

Jill's post provoked numerous comments, and many of the people who commented said they had experienced something similar. One person said that she called this kind of marketing lead genocide rather than lead generation. I've had several experiences similar to Jill's, and I suspect many of you have also.

Practices like this are the epitome of bad marketing. In some cases, these aggressive practices may be the result of an honest, but mistaken, belief that just because a prospect has downloaded one white paper or ebook or attended one webinar, he or she is actively evaluating a potential purchase and is ready for a sales-level engagement.

More often, though, these kinds of practices result from an erroneous belief by sellers that they can push or drive or advance prospects through the buying process. The reality is, prospects control the buying process, and they determine how quickly they will move through the cycle. As I wrote in an earlier post, the only way you can consistently accelerate the buying process is to eliminate the friction that slows prospects down. Anything else is, at best, wasted effort, and it will usually do more harm than good.

To avoid the kind of marketing malpractice described in Jill's post, resist the urge to treat a prospect's first interaction with your business as an invitation to begin a late-stage sales conversation. And remember that, while you can facilitate your prospects' decision-making process, they ultimately decide when and to what level they will engage with your business.

An Inconvenient Truth About B2B Demand Generation

If you're a B2B marketer, describing the major attributes of your lead-to-revenue funnel and measuring the dynamics of your funnel are critical to understanding how well your demand generation system is performing. Funnel metrics will help provide the answers to three basic questions:

• Volume - Are our marketing programs generating a sufficient number of raw leads (sometimes called responses or inquiries) to produce the revenues that marketing is responsible for?
• Conversion - What percentage of leads are "converting" from each lead stage to the next across the entire lead-to-revenue cycle?
• Velocity - How long is the overall revenue cycle? In other words, now much time does it take, on average, for an initial response or inquiry to result in a closed sale?

Many B2B companies use the Demand Waterfall model developed by SiriusDecisions to describe and measure the lead-to-revenue funnel. The graphic below shows the major stages in the Demand Waterfall and the conversion rates achieved by average B2B companies, according to SiriusDecisions. (Note:  SiriusDecisions recently revised the Demand Waterfall to add several lead stages, but the framework shown below is still widely used by B2B companies.)

Now for the inconvenient truth. Research strongly suggests that the demand generation system in many B2B companies is horribly inefficient. Based on the conversion rates identified by SiriusDecisions, the average B2B company needs to generate 351 inquires to acquire one new customer. That equates to an overall lead-to-revenue conversion rate of only 0.3% (4.4% x 66% x 49% x 20%).

Forrester Research has found similar levels of demand generation performance. According to Forrester, the average overall lead-to-revenue conversion rate is 0.75%. What makes this issue important is that your overall lead-to-revenue conversion rate has a big impact on your company's overall cost of sales, which obviously affects company profitability.

 

The good news is that companies can significantly improve the performance of their lead-to-revenue funnel. In addition to identifying the lead conversion rates achieved by the average B2B company, SiriusDecisions has also studied the conversion rates achieved by Best Practice companies, and their research shows that Best Practice companies perform substantially better across the board. The table below shows how the higher conversion rates achieved by Best Practice companies impact lead-to-revenue funnel performance.

 

 

 

As this table shows, Best Practice companies must generate only about 70 inquiries to acquire one new customer, while average firms need five times as many. Best Practice companies also achieve an overall lead-to-revenue conversion rate of 1.4%, which is about five times higher that the rate achieved by average firms.

The performance of your lead-to-revenue funnel will tell you a great deal about the effectiveness of your marketing and sales efforts. So, if you aren't currently using funnel metrics, now would be a good time to start.

How to Boost the Performance of Channel Marketing

Every day, thousands of companies sell products and services through independent or quasi-independent channel partners such as franchisees, independent agents, or value-added resellers. Most companies that sell through channel partners operate in a distributed marketing environment. Distributed marketing refers to a marketing model in which both a corporate brand owner and channel partners plan and execute marketing campaigns and programs. The defining attribute of a distributed marketing model is that the "local" business organizations - i.e. channel partners - have some degree of autonomy when performing marketing functions.

Many B2B companies derive a significant portion of their total revenues from sales made by channel partners, and these companies face marketing challenges that firms with "regular" marketing operations don't typically encounter.

• Brand owners and channel partners often have different marketing priorities. Corporate marketers tend to focus on building the brand, while channel partners want to run marketing programs that will generate leads and drive short-term sales.
• Maintaining consistent brand messaging and brand presentation is extremely difficult when dozens or hundreds of channel partners are executing marketing programs.
• Many channel partners are small organizations that don't have the in-house expertise to create effective marketing campaigns and/or the resources to run campaigns as frequently as they should.
• Brand owners often have little visibility regarding the effectiveness of the marketing programs run by their channel partners.

Because of these and other challenges, channel marketing operations are often far less effective and efficient than they need to be, resulting in excessive marketing costs, poor response rates to marketing programs, and missed revenue opportunities for both brand owners and their channel partners.

To address the complexities of channel marketing, a growing number of companies are turning to a relatively new category of marketing automation technologies known generally as distributed marketing solutions.

A distributed marketing solution is a combination of technological capabilities and marketing support services that are designed to streamline and simplify marketing activities and processes for both channel partners and brand owners. At the most basic level, distributed marketing solutions are designed to facilitate two core marketing functions - the creation, execution, and measurement of marketing campaigns, and the management of marketing materials.

Distributed marketing solutions can provide brand owners and channel partners a range of important benefits. Specifically, they enable companies to:

• Increase the frequency of local marketing by making it easy for channel partners to create and execute marketing campaigns and programs
• Enhance the effectiveness of local marketing by making it easy for channel partners to create and use more customized marketing messages and materials
• Improve the consistency of brand messaging and presentation through the use of a centralized repository of marketing assets combined with controlled customization of those assets
• Reduce marketing support costs by eliminating the manual processes typically used to manage and fulfill requests for marketing materials and to manage materials inventories
• Reduce obsolescence waste by eliminating the need to acquire marketing materials in large quantities.

I've recently released a white paper that describes the challenges faced by channel marketers and explains how distributed marketing solutions work. The new white paper is part of our portfolio of marketing content resources for providers of distributed marketing/marketing asset management/web-to-print solutions. If you'd like to see a review copy of this white paper, just send an e-mail to ddodd(at)pointbalance(dot)com.

Stop Thinking in Terms of Marketing Campaigns

For decades, marketers have thought in terms of campaigns when planning their marketing efforts. The campaign model provided a useful way to organize marketing activities and link those activities to specific marketing objectives. Today, however, effective B2B marketing requires new kinds of marketing tactics and methods that have an entirely different structure and rhythm from traditional marketing campaigns. Therefore, the campaign model no longer provides an effective paradigm for thinking about and planning all marketing efforts.

The word campaign was first used to describe a connected series of military operations intended to achieve a particular objective. Surprisingly, the online dictionary provided by the American Marketing Association doesn't include a definition of marketing campaign. However, the AMA dictionary does define an advertising campaign as a group of advertisements, commercials, and related promotional materials and activities that are designed to be used during the same period of time as part of a coordinated advertising plan to meet the specified advertising objectives of a client.

With a few changes, this definition can be applied to marketing campaigns, which we can define as:  A group of coordinated marketing activities (as opposed to a single activity) that are performed during a defined period of time and are designed to achieve a specified marketing objective.

As this definition indicates, the campaign model assumes that a marketing campaign has a fixed and defined lifespan. It begins, runs for the specified period of time, and ends. The problem is, many of today's most critical marketing tactics and methods don't fit the campaign model because they don't have predetermined lifespans. Many inbound marketing techniques fall into this category.

For example, if you want to have an effective company blog, you can't publish new content once a week for six months and then stop publishing for the next six months. That's one sure way to lose your audience. The same principle applies to other inbound marketing techniques, such as search engine optimization and most kinds of social media marketing. Once you begin these kinds of marketing activities, they will continue indefinitely and require more or less continuous attention. Therefore, the term blogging campaign is an oxymoron.

Lead nurturing is another critical B2B marketing activity that doesn't fit the campaign model. An effective lead nurturing program operates continuously. The timing and content of nurturing communications are either designed into the process or are triggered by the behavior of individual prospects. The nurturing process for an individual prospect will end under certain circumstances, but the nurturing program continues to operate as long as there are prospects to nurture. That's why the idea of a lead nurturing campaign doesn't really make sense.

As companies face the challenge of creating engagement with increasingly empowered and independent business buyers, the importance of always-on, continuously running marketing programs will continue to grow. These types of programs operate very differently from traditional marketing campaigns and require a different kind of thinking and planning.

Marketing campaigns won't completely disappear. The campaign model still works reasonably well for some kinds of outbound lead acquisition programs, but, it's time to ditch the campaign paradigm for a growing segment of B2B marketing.

Why Marketers Need a Revenue Growth Theory

For the past several years, marketers have faced growing pressures to prove the value of their activities and programs. In a 2011 survey of CMO's by IBM, nearly two-thirds of respondents said that return on investment will be the primary measure of the marketing function's effectiveness by 2015.

Despite all the recent focus on measuring and quantifying the performance of marketing, it is clear that marketers still have work to do to build credibility in the C-suite. A study conducted earlier this year by ITSMA, VisionEdge Marketing, and Forrester revealed that only 9% of CEO's and 6% of CFO's use marketing data, metrics, and analyses to make business decisions. In a study last year by The Fournaise Marketing Group, 80% of CEO's said they do not really trust marketers. According to Fournaise, most CEO's believe that marketers are disconnected from the financial realities of their companies.

This lack of credibility exists primarily because marketers don't typically demonstrate the connection between marketing programs and important business outcomes. Most marketers focus instead on measuring marketing activities, spending, and the immediate results of marketing programs (response rates, etc.).

The principal mission of marketing is to drive revenue growth. As Sergio Zyman, the former CMO of The Coca Cola Company, wrote more than a decade ago, "The sole purpose of marketing is to get more people to buy more of your product, more often, for more money." (The End of Marketing As We Know It, 1999)

Every marketing activity or program is (or should be) designed to generate revenue either directly or indirectly. It's up to marketers to explain the links between marketing activities and revenue growth and make those links visible and understandable to the CEO and other senior company leaders.

To effectively demonstrate the connection between marketing activities and revenues, marketers need a revenue growth theory. I know from experience that many business and marketing leaders have a deep-seated aversion to anything that's "theoretical," but in this case, a theory is essential.

At the most basic level, a marketing strategy is a theory or a hypothesis about revenue growth. It's a big if-then statement that essentially says, "If we do A, B, and C, then our revenues will grow."

More specifically, a marketing strategy is a collection of if-then hypotheses that collectively describe a company's theory for growing revenues. The individual if-then statements are combined to create chains of cause-and-effect relationships that connect individual marketing activities to revenue generation. A simplified version of one of these cause-and-effect chains might look something like this:

• If we publish an effective blog that offers readers access to compelling content resources, then more potential buyers will identify themselves and consume our content.
• If more potential buyers identify themselves and consume our content, then we will generate more sales leads.
• If we generate more sales leads, then we will also generate more qualified sales opportunities.
• If we increase the number of qualified sales opportunities, then we will close more sales.
• If we close more sales, then we will produce higher revenues.

With a clear understanding of how individual marketing activities fit into an overall revenue growth theory and the right metrics in place, it becomes relatively easy to demonstrate how individual marketing tactics contribute to revenue growth.

Marketing Metrics Must Predict as Well as Describe

In a recent post at Marketo's B2B Marketing and Sales Blog, Jon Miller identified six categories of marketing metrics to avoid. Jon's primary criticism of these metrics is that they relate very little to the financial outcomes (revenue growth and profitability) that are of the greatest interest to CEOs, CFOs, and other senior company leaders. When marketers use these kinds of metrics, it doesn't help their credibility in the C-suite.

Here are the six categories Jon identified:

• Vanity metrics - These are "feel good" measures such as press release impressions, Facebook "Likes," and names gathered at trade shows.
• Measuring what is easy - These are metrics that take the place of revenue and profit measures because they're easier to capture.
• Focusing on quantity, not quality - A good example is measuring the quantity of leads generated, but not their quality.
• Tracking activity not results - Senior company leaders care about results, not activities.
• Efficiency instead of effectiveness - Effectiveness metrics do a better job of convincing company leaders that marketing delivers real business value.
• Cost metrics - Jon contends that these are the worst kinds of metrics to use because they frame marketing as a cost center, rather than a revenue generator.

I agree with Jon that marketers should usually emphasize revenue and profit metrics when communicating with CEOs and CFOs. However, it's often necessary to use other types of metrics to provide a complete picture of marketing performance. This is particularly true when you need to communicate to senior company leaders why and how current marketing activities and programs will drive future revenue growth.

One limitation of financial measures is that they are lagging indicators. They measure the financial consequences of past marketing activities, but they can't measure how today's marketing activities will affect future financial performance. You can, of course, use financial projections, but unless those projections are supported by sound and convincing evidence, their accuracy and value will be questioned.

In many cases, therefore, the most meaningful marketing metrics will be non-financial measures that are leading indicators of future financial results. When marketers use these kinds of metrics, they must be prepared to demonstrate that the metrics they've selected are truly leading indicators of future financial performance. In other words, you must be able to "connect the dots" between the metrics you're using and the financial results that senior leaders care about.

For example, a company blog rarely produces revenues directly for a B2B company. Not many people will read your blog and immediately call you to make a purchase. However, a blog can be an effective tool for attracting the attention of potential buyers and generating leads for your business.

The most obvious metric to use with a blog is "number of readers," but that metric will not be compelling to senior company leaders if it's used in isolation. To make this metric meaningful, you need to demonstrate that increasing the number of blog readers will contribute to future revenue growth. More specifically, what you need to do is "connect" blog readership to revenues by providing your senior leaders answers to the following questions:

• How many blog readers register to obtain access to other content resources?
• How many of these identified leads are affiliated with organizations in your target market?
• How many of these identified leads become sales-ready leads?
• How many of the sales-ready leads become legitimate sales opportunities?
• How many of these sales opportunities result in a closed sale?
• How much revenue is produced by these sales?

When you answer these questions, you can link blogging to revenues and demonstrate the value of your blogging program to senior leaders.

Including non-financial leading indicators in your marketing measurement system is particularly critical if your company offers complex products and has a long revenue generation cycle. In these circumstances, many marketing programs will contribute to revenues that won't show up on the income statement for several weeks or months. Leading indicator metrics provide the mechanism for demonstrating the value of marketing programs that take time to bear fruit.

Why Intuition Still Matters in Marketing

There's no doubt that data and data analysis are fundamentally changing the way marketing is practiced. Big data is one of the hottest topics in marketing circles today, and many thought leaders argue that extracting insights from customer data is now an essential driver of competitive advantage.

Because data has become so important to effective marketing, some pundits contend that it should be the primary tool for making marketing decisions and that human intuition no longer plays a significant role in marketing.

Rich Beatty with CMG Partners addressed this topic in an article for AdvertisingAge titled, "Data Guides, But the Gut Decides." In this article, Beatty asks whether the growing importance of data, analysis, metrics, and data scientists in marketing means that science will kill the need for the art of marketing. Beatty says that most CMOs define art as the process of using intuition in making marketing decisions and science as the process of using data to inform decisions.

Beatty argues that both science and art play important roles in effective marketing. He writes, "Science provides the foundation for informed decision-making, while art is an accelerant that brings the insight to life in a more impactful way."

I agree that art (intuition) still has a place in marketing, but you need the right kind of intuition. There are three basic kinds of human intuition. Ordinary intuition is what we typically call hunches or gut instinct. We experience ordinary intuition as an emotional feeling. When you meet someone for the first time and after a half-hour of conversation say to yourself, "I feel like I can trust this person," that's ordinary intuition at work.

Expert intuition (the kind of intuition described by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink) is a form of rapid thinking where you jump to a conclusion when you recognize something familiar. When we use expert intuition, we essentially draw on memories of what we've experienced or learned in the past and use that stored knowledge to solve a similar problem. We do this very quickly, and we're not usually aware of the process our brain is using. We just "know" what decision to make. Expert intuition can play an important role in making routine, repetitive marketing decisions.

When faced with major marketing decisions that present new issues or challenges, the kind of intuition you need is what William Duggan has called strategic intuition. Duggan is a professor at the Columbia Business School and the author of several books on this topic, including Strategic Intuition:  The Creative Spark in Human Achievement.

Duggan describes strategic intuition as a flash of insight that occurs when a person taps memories of what he or she has experienced or learned in the past and combines that stored knowledge in a new way to solve a new problem. This is the fundamental difference between expert intuition and strategic intuition - expert intuition is used to deal with familiar problems, while strategic intuition is used when we need to solve a problem we've never encountered before. Duggan argues that strategic intuition has played an important role in most forms of human intellectual achievement, from scientific discoveries to military and business strategy.

Strategic intuition will remain critical for effective marketing because data and data analysis have inherent limitations. I'll have more to say about this in a future post, but one of the major limitations merits a brief mention here. Data and data analysis rarely provide a clear answer when a major marketing decision is involved. This lack of clarity can exist because:

• We don't have data regarding some important aspect of the decision.
• The data we have doesn't conclusively indicate that one decision is better than the alternatives.
• The success of the decision made will depend on future events, and data can only describe what has happened in the past.

I'm a strong advocate of evidence-based decision making, and I believe that marketers should use sound data to inform and guide their decisions. But data and analytics do not eliminate the need for strategic intuition in marketing.

Measurability Doesn't Equal Effectiveness

I suspect that most of you have heard the story about the drunk man and the lamp post. One version goes like this:

An inebriated man loses the keys to his house and is looking for them under a street light. A policeman comes over as asks what he's doing. "I'm looking for my keys," the man says. He points to a spot about twenty feet away and says, "I lost them over there." The policeman looks puzzled and asks, "Then why are you looking for them all the way over here?" "Because the light is so much better over here," the man replies.

Unfortunately, I believe that some marketers may be falling into a mindset that is similar to the one illustrated in this story.

For the past several years, marketers have faced growing pressure to prove the value of their activities and programs. As a result, they are placing greater emphasis on measuring the performance of marketing channels, tactics, and programs. Some marketers are allocating budgets and basing investment decisions on marketing performance measures.

Overall, this is a positive development. It's hard to argue that marketers shouldn't track and measure the performance of their campaigns and programs, and use performance measures to guide marketing investments. Common sense says that this approach should lead to better marketing decisions.

The problem arises when measurability becomes the primary criterion for using a particular marketing channel or tactic. For example, the ability to measure the results produced by many digital marketing tactics, such as e-mail and paid search, is frequently cited as a major reason to use these tactics. In an environment where proving the value of your work can mean the difference between keeping or losing your job, marketing methods that are easily measured can appear to be the safe choice.

The problem is, the measurability of a tactic or program is not directly proportional to its effectiveness or impact. Some marketing activities that are highly effective and valuable are also difficult to measure. In fact, it can be nearly impossible to calculate an accurate ROI for some of these activities. This doesn't mean, however, that such activities should be excluded from your marketing mix. If you take that approach, your marketing efforts may not be as effective as they could be.

The primary responsibility of a marketer is to create and execute marketing programs that maximize profitable revenue growth for his/her company, not merely to execute programs that can be easily measured. One way to keep this idea in  mind is to remember a saying usually attributed to Albert Einstein:  "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

How Much is a Marketing Asset Management Solution Worth?

Pressed by senior business executives to maximize the return on marketing spend, astute marketers are aggressively seeking ways to boost the productivity of marketing operations. They now recognize that increasing the efficiency of marketing operations can be a powerful way to stretch limited marketing budgets.

In response to these demands, many marketers are turning to marketing asset management solutions to streamline and enhance the productivity of the marketing supply chain. MAM solutions can enable companies to eliminate costs, significantly reduce obsolescence waste, and expand the use of customized, more relevant marketing messages and materials. For companies with distributed marketing models, MAM solutions can also enhance the marketing efforts of sales channel partners.

Despite these powerful benefits, however, many marketing and financial executives don't have a clear picture of how valuable a marketing asset management solution would be for their company.

How Marketing Asset Management Solutions Create Value

For a business organization, the value of any product or service is ultimately based on how it affects bottom-line financial performance. The best definition of value in a B2B setting is the total monetary worth of the benefits that a company obtains by purchasing and using a product or service. Essentially, this means that a product or service can create value for a business in three basic ways. It can enable the business to reduce existing costs, avoid future costs, or increase revenues. The value of a marketing asset management solution is based on these same factors.

MAM solutions will provide two broad types of benefits for most companies. One group of benefits includes those that improve the efficiency of the marketing supply chain. These benefits create value primarily by enabling a company to reduce existing costs or avoid future costs. The second group of benefits includes those that improve the effectiveness of a company's marketing campaigns and programs. These benefits create value primarily by enabling a company to increase revenues.

To estimate the value of a marketing asset management solution for your business, you'll need to identify the benefits you'll obtain from the solution and then quantify the value of each benefit. The diagram below shows some of the marketing value chain benefits that companies typically obtain by using a marketing asset management solution.

I've just released a white paper that describes the benefits that a marketing asset management solution typically provides and explains how to measure the value of these benefits. If you'd like to obtain a copy of this resource, send an e-mail to ddodd(at)pointbalance(dot)com.

Why Hasn't Traditional Marketing Died?

In marketing circles, it's been fashionable for several years to proclaim the impending demise of traditional advertising and marketing tactics. Marketing thought leaders have advanced this view in many of the best known and most influential marketing books published during the past two decades. For example:

• 1993 - Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, The One To One Future - "We are facing a paradigm shift of epic proportions - from the industrial era to the Information Age. As a result, we are witnessing a meltdown of the mass-marketing paradigm that has governed business competition throughout the twentieth century."
• 1999 - Seth Godin, Permission Marketing - In this book, Godin argued that all forms of "interruption marketing" have become ineffective, primarily due to the amount of advertising and marketing clutter that fills the environment. Godin wrote, "Is mass marketing due for a cataclysmic shakeout? Absolutely."
• 2007 - David Meerman Scott, The New Rules of Marketing and PR - Scott argued that the Internet enables organizations to "disintermediate" traditional advertising and marketing methods and reach potential customers directly with low-cost, informative, and interactive online content. He called traditional advertising "A Money Pit of Wasted Resources."
• 2010 - Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah, Inbound Marketing - "For the last 50 years, companies such as Procter & Gamble, IBM, and Coca-Cola used large amounts of money to efficiently interrupt their way into businesses and consumer's wallets using outbound marketing techniques. The outbound marketing era is over. The next 50 years will be the era of inbound marketing."

Based on these predictions (and many others like them), we would expect to see the use of traditional advertising and marketing methods in a free fall. But that isn't happening. According to a forecast published by ZenithOptimedia in December 2012, worldwide advertising spending will grow from about $482 billion in 2011 to almost $574 billion by the end of 2015. In North America, the firm expects advertising spending to grow from $165 billion in 2011 to $195 billion in 2015.

These estimates cover spending in seven types of media - newspapers, magazines, television, radio, cinema, outdoor, and Internet. Except for the Internet, all of this spending relates to traditional advertising and marketing tactics. According to ZenithOptimedia, the Internet will be second largest category of advertising spending by 2013, but it will still lag behind television by a significant margin (19.8% of total spending for the Internet vs. 40.1% of total spending for TV).

In addition, Winterberry Group has estimated that spending on direct mail (another traditional marketing method) has enjoyed modest annual growth since 2009.

So, what's going on? Were Don Peppers, Martha Rogers, Seth Godin, David Meerman Scott, Brian Halligan, Dharmesh Shah, and many others simply wrong? I don't think so, at least not completely. The projections by ZenithOptimedia and research by Forrester and other firms clearly show that digital marketing, content marketing, social media marketing, and inbound marketing are the fastest growing segments of the marketing industry. And to some extent anyway, they are growing at the expense of more traditional marketing methods and tactics.

It's also clear, however, that many companies - particularly consumer products companies and large B2B firms - are not close to abandoning traditional advertising and marketing methods, even if the effectiveness of those methods is questionable.

I suspect that the relative slowness of change results from a combination of factors.

• Inertia - There's a lot of inertia in human organizations, especially in large companies. Even when company leaders believe change is needed, it is often implemented gradually and incrementally.
• Fear - Probably the primary cause of inertia. Even when company leaders recognize the need for change, the fear of the unknown and/or the fear of making a mistake can deter them from implementing change. ("Better the devil you know . . .")
• Traditional advertising/marketing still works (sort of) - Some marketers may perceive that traditional advertising and marketing methods are still at least somewhat effective, and perhaps they actually are for some companies.

Whatever the cause, traditional advertising and marketing tactics and methods are likely to be with us for quite some time.