Top Banner
© 2011 Televerde All rights reserved. Market Says… Research and Analysis from Televerde Televerde Business-to-Business Marketing Research Report Lead Generation & Conversion Marketing Contact Data Lead Nurturing Marketing Automation Third Edition Published: April 26, 2011
52

Data report2011

Aug 31, 2014

Download

Business

Televerde Business-to-Business Marketing Research Report, 2011
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Data report2011

© 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Market Says…™ Research and Analysis from Televerde

Televerde Business-to-Business Marketing

Research Report

• Lead Generation & Conversion • Marketing Contact Data • Lead Nurturing • Marketing Automation

Third Edition

Published: April 26, 2011

Page 2: Data report2011

2 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Table of Contents About the Research ............................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5 Section 1: General Background ............................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Department ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Public or Private Status ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Core Focus in High-Tech Sector ........................................................................................................ 7 1.4 Sector Identification if Not High-Tech ................................................................................................. 7 1.5 Company Type ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Channel Partner Type ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.7 Revenue Range .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.8 FTE Staff Size ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2: Sales & Marketing Background ........................................................................................... 9 2.1 In-House Marketing Staff Size .......................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Inside Sales Rep Staff Size ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Direct Sales Staff Size ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Channel Partners .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.5 Sales & Marketing Outsourcing ........................................................................................................ 11 2.6 Activities Outsourced ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.7 CRM Application ............................................................................................................................... 13 2.8 Sales Process Complexity ................................................................................................................ 13 2.9 Average Sales Deal Value ................................................................................................................ 13 2.10 Average Length of Sales Cycle ...................................................................................................... 13 2.11 Average Steps in Sales Process .................................................................................................... 14 2.12 Target Audience Factor Values ...................................................................................................... 14 Section 3: Leads ................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Use of Demand Creation Activities ................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Demand Creation Activities .............................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Lead Source by Quantity & Quality ................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Qualified Lead Criterion .................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Most Commonly Used Lead Criterion ............................................................................................... 18 3.6 MQLs Distinguished from SQLs ...................................................................................................... 19 3.7 Lead Conversion Metrics Tracked .................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Lead Conversion Metrics Not Tracked ............................................................................................. 20 3.9 Average Conversion Metrics ............................................................................................................. 21 3.10 Multiple/Single Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................... 22 3.11 Ability to Track Stakeholder Engagement ...................................................................................... 22 3.12 Lead Leakage Recognition ............................................................................................................ 23 3.13 Lead Leakage Lost Revenue Identification ..................................................................................... 23 3.14 Sales Feedback Process ................................................................................................................ 24 Section 4: Marketing Data .................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Marketing Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Data Providers .................................................................................................................................. 26 4.3 Marketing Databases ........................................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Primary Marketing Database ............................................................................................................ 26 4.5 Quantity of Company Records .......................................................................................................... 27

Page 3: Data report2011

3 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

4.6 Quantity of Contact Records ............................................................................................................. 27 4.7 Recognition of Data Segmentation Need ........................................................................................ 28 4.8 Actual Data Segmentation ............................................................................................................... 28 4.9 Marketing Data Challenges .............................................................................................................. 28 4.10 Top Five Marketing Data Challenges ............................................................................................. 29 4.11 Importance of Data Strategy Improvements .................................................................................. 30 Section 5: Nurturing ............................................................................................................................ 31 5.1 Nurture Program Outcome Priorities ............................................................................................... 32 5.2 Terms to Describe Lead Nurturing .................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Current Nurture Methods .................................................................................................................. 34 5.4 Most Effective Nurture Methods ....................................................................................................... 34 5.5 Leads Nurtured Based on Sales Cycle Stage .................................................................................. 35 5.6 Sales Cycle Stage Distinctions ......................................................................................................... 35 5.7 Nurture of Recycled Leads ............................................................................................................... 36 5.8 Nurture of Disengaged Leads ........................................................................................................... 36 5.9 Nurture Process Responsibility ......................................................................................................... 37 5.10 Nurture Effectiveness Rating .......................................................................................................... 37 5.11 Organizational Ability to Effectively Manage Nurture ...................................................................... 37 5.12 Needed Improvements to Nurture Program .................................................................................... 38 5.13 Material Used to Nurture ................................................................................................................. 39 5.14 Most Effective Types of Nurture Material ........................................................................................ 39 5.15 Quantity of Nurture Touch Points ................................................................................................... 40 5.16 Lead Scoring ................................................................................................................................... 40 5.17 Prospects’ Benefits from Nurture .................................................................................................... 40 Section 6: Marketing Automation ........................................................................................................ 41 6.1 Status of Marketing Automation ........................................................................................................ 42 6.2 Marketing Automation Tools Evaluated ............................................................................................ 42 6.3 Duration of Marketing Automation Application .................................................................................. 42 6.4 Status of Marketing Automation Deployment ................................................................................... 42 6.5 Reasons for Purchase of Marketing Automation .............................................................................. 43 6.6 Benefits Derived from Marketing Automation Application ................................................................. 43 6.7 List of Benefits of Marketing Automation Application ........................................................................ 44 6.8 Conversion Rate Improvement Since Marketing Automation Deployment ....................................... 44 6.9 Conversion Metrics Since Deployment ............................................................................................. 45 6.10 Total Cost of Marketing Automation Tool Ownership ..................................................................... 46 6.11 FTE Staff Allocated to Marketing Automation ................................................................................. 46 6.12 Processes Changed as a Result of Marketing Automation ............................................................ 47 6.13 Challenges of Marketing Automation Deployment .......................................................................... 47 6.14 List of Challenges in Marketing Automation Deployment ............................................................... 48 6.15 System Integration Challenges Between Marketing Automation and CRM .................................... 48 6.16 Ranking of Marketing Automation Tool Success ............................................................................ 49 6.17 Marketing Automation Purchase Timeframe .................................................................................. 49 6.18 Reasons to Consider Marketing Automation .................................................................................. 50 6.19 Reasons for Not Purchasing Marketing Automation ....................................................................... 50 6.20 Purchase Driver of Marketing Automation Adoption ....................................................................... 51 About Televerde .................................................................................................................................... 52

Page 4: Data report2011

4 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

About the B2B Marketing Research Report

Research Objectives & Relevance The main objective of this research is to assess the challenges, successes and general state of key practices in terms of demand creation, marketing data, marketing automation and lead nurturing within the B2B sector and namely within the high-tech segment. This report is beneficial to Marketing and Sales executives as it creates a better understanding of the issues and practices that they and their peers are experiencing. It provides reality checks and benchmarking opportunities as well as identifies areas for improvement.

Methodology The research was conducted online from surveys sent via email and from visitors to Televerde’s website (www.televerde.com) since January 2010 and the published date of this report. Additional research was conducted by Televerde at the SiriusDecisions 2010 Summit as well as at various B2B sales and marketing conferences and events throughout 2010 and 2011. A total of 82 questions and their corresponding responses are featured in six distinct sections. Respondents were given the option to not respond to questions that were not relevant, and a smaller set of questions was featured in the survey used at some of the conferences and events. Due to both of these variables there are varying numbers of respondents associated with some of the questions. Respondents were given the option of responding anonymously. A prize-drawing incentive was offered to those who did provide their contact information. Contact information provided by the respondents has not and will not be shared with other respondents or with third-party organizations.

Composition of the Respondents The targeted markets for this research included a variety of key business sectors and revenue ranges, with a majority of the surveys distributed within the U.S.-based high-tech sector. Targeted survey-taker titles included Sales and Marketing executives at director-level and above positions. The results of this edition of the survey represent the responses of in some cases up to 180 individuals representing 156 unique organizations although, as stated in the Methodology section, not all participants responded to every question so the quantity of respondents to each question will vary. Below is a summary of respondent demographics (more detailed information on respondents demographics can be found in Sections 1 and 2):

Titles/Departments: 61% are Marketing executives, 28% are Sales executives, and 11% cited their position as “General Management.”

Public and Private: 53% of the companies are public and 47% are private.

Company Type: 39% represent IT software companies, 25% represent IT services companies, 20% represent IT hardware companies, and 16% are not in the high-tech sector.

OEMs and Partners: 57% represent OEM companies and 43% represent Channel Partner companies.

Revenue Ranges (in order of greatest to least percentages): 36% represent companies of $500m+ annual revenue, 16% represent up to $10m, 12% represent $10m-$25m, 11% represent $250m-$500m, 10% represent $100m-$250m, 9% represent $50m-$100m, and 6% represent $25m-$50m.

Response Tendencies As with any research study, the results are biased toward the composition of the respondents. The respondent composition reflected above should be taken into consideration when comparing the relevant issues, challenges and practices of your own organization. As examples, since approximately two-thirds of the respondents represent the Marketing area of their respective organizations, the responses throughout the survey have a tendency to lean more toward the Marketing view of issues, challenges and practices. Based on the fact that more than one-third of the respondents represent companies over $500m in annual revenue, larger organizations would tend to have more advanced sales and marketing practices so you should assume the results reflect this tendency.

Reliability of the Results Because there are varying quantities of respondents to each question, a single margin of error cannot be calculated for the entire research study. Depending on the quantity of responses, the margin of error throughout this study ranges from 7.3% to 13.1%. The greater the quantity of responses to a particular question the lower the margin of error, and vice versa. Contact Information For more information about this research project, contact Televerde at +1 888-925-7526 or +1 480-736-8137 or via email at [email protected]. To view updated editions of the research results as participation increases, visit us at www.televerde.com/resources/research/.

Page 5: Data report2011

5 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Executive Summary of Key Findings Outsourced Demand Generation: Most respondents are outsourcing up to 20% of the work in key demand creation and associated categories, including Lead Generation, Lead Nurturing, Lead Qualification, Appointment-Setting, Market & Customer Satisfaction Research, Event Recruitment, Data Acquisition, Data Cleansing/Enrichment, and Content Development.

What’s Important to Prospects: Most respondents feel that the cost and value of their products/services are the most important decision-making consideration to their targeted customers and prospects, followed by technical expertise and their knowledge of challenges and pains.

Common Demand Creation Activities: The most commonly used demand creation/lead generation activities include email, outbound calling, marketing events (face-to-face and webinars), web sites and blogs. Social media and online advertising activities are gaining popularity in comparison to more traditional activities.

Lead Quality and Quantity: In-person marketing events are at the top of the demand creation activity list in terms of quality and quantity of the leads they produce, followed closely by email campaigns. Websites and blogs along with outbound calling campaigns take the third spot. The biggest disparity when comparing quantity to quality of leads within the same type of demand creation activity is email marketing where the quantity of leads they generate is notably greater than the quality of those same leads by a 22% margin. Podcasts and social media activities are generating minimal value leads in terms of both quality and quantity.

Most Important Qualified Lead Criteria: Authority of the contact to make or influence the purchasing decision and a clear need stated for the product/service are most often factored by respondents to define what they consider to be a qualified lead.

Lead Conversion Metrics: Many organizations (one-third of the respondents) are not distinguishing the characteristics that constitute a Marketing Qualified Lead from a Sales Qualified Lead, which is symptomatic of continuing sales and marketing gaps. The lead conversion metric respondents are not tracking today but would most like to if they could is Initial Contact to Close. Other than the Initial Contact to Close conversion rate, respondents are reporting percentages below (and in some case far below) industry averages for other lead conversion points, revealing much room for improvement and opportunities to adopt better practices for demand creation and acceleration.

Lead Leakage: Nearly two-thirds of the respondents recognize lead leakage/loss as a problem within their organizations, yet most do not quantify/calculate the financial value of this lost revenue.

Marketing Data: A significant volume of data (more than 50,000 organizational records reported by almost one-third of respondents) is being managed within proprietary databases. However, the quality of this data is highly suspect as nearly all of the respondents indicate they recognize marketing data challenges, namely incomplete contact information, invalid and insufficient email addresses, and generally uncleansed and unenriched records.

Lead Nurturing Practices and Outcomes: Respondents report that their most effective lead nurturing practices include providing information, education and relevant content to their prospects as well as ongoing contact via email and telephone-based dialogues/engagement. Two-thirds of the respondents feel that better pipeline conversion rates are a primary desired outcome of an effective lead nurturing program, followed by more efficient use of sales staff time, an accelerated sales cycle and, in general, improved business intelligence, metrics and reporting.

Lead Nurture Stages and Types: Nearly two-thirds of the respondents do not make a distinction between how they nurture their leads based on their stage of the sales cycle. Most say they are nurturing sales-rejected and disengaged leads. More than half of the respondents gave themselves either low or moderate ratings in terms of their ability to effectively nurture their leads.

Most Needed Nurturing Improvements: Respondents most often mentioned identifying a better frequency and relevancy of touch points as well as deployment of marketing automation to improve their lead nurturing effectiveness.

Marketing Automation Adoption and Optimization: One-third of respondents are considering the purchase of a Marketing Automation Tool. Amongst those respondents that have a MAT in place, one-third report high reliance on the tool’s features/functionality; however, only 17% report they are receiving many of the benefits they anticipated. Half of the respondents report the most common challenges in MAT adoption/use include finding the bandwidth needed for effective deployment/management, followed by one-third who have difficulty identifying an appropriate lead scoring methodology. One-third of respondents report that their tool has made fairly significant contributions to their demand creation and lead nurturing success (as demonstrated by “8” and “9” ratings out of a possible 10).

Page 6: Data report2011

6 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 1: General Background

Page 7: Data report2011

7 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Private47%

Public53%

Based on 166 Respondents

0%

4%

5%

6%

8%

9%

12%

13%

20%

23%

Public Administration

Mining

Construction

Wholesale Trade

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing

Retail Trade

Transport, Comm., Utilities

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

Manufacturing

Services

Based on 87 Respondents

Marketing61%

Sales28%

Other 11%

Based on 180 Respondents

IT Hardware

20%IT

Software39%

IT Services

25%

We are not in the High-tech

sector16%

Based on 158 Respondents

1.1 Your Department: 1.2 Indicate your company’s public or private status:

*Other includes: General Management 1.3 If your company is in the high-tech sector, indicate your core focus.

1.4 If your company is not in the high-tech sector, identify your sector?

The survey respondents to date represent a nearly equal split between public (47%) and private (53%) companies. More than one-third of the respondents represent IT Software companies while one-quarter represent IT Services, 20% represent IT Hardware, and less than one-quarter are not affiliated with a company in the IT sector. The majority of the respondents (61%) are on the marketing side of the house.

Page 8: Data report2011

8 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Channel Partner

43%OEM57%

Based on 56 Respondents

ISV16%

IT Consulting

12%

VAR72%

Based on 25 Respondents

1-1010%

11-252%26-507%

51-1007%

101-2509%

251-5007%

More than 500

58%

Based on 87 Respondents

$100m-$250m10%

$10m-$25m12%

$250m-$500m11%$25m-

$50m6%

$500m+36%

$50m-$100m

9%Up to $10m16%

Based on 160 Respondents

1.5 Indicate your company type:

1.6 If you answered “Channel Partner” to the previous question, indicate your Channel Partner type:

1.7 Indicate your annual revenue range:

1.8 Total number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff

The survey respondents represent a close split between OEM companies (57%) and Channel Partners (43%), and amongst the Channel Partner respondents nearly three-quarters represent Value-Added Resellers (72%). A little more than a quarter (28%) of respondents are affiliated with “Small” companies (revenue range under $25m), 36% are “Mid-Size” ($25m-$500m), and 36% are “Enterprise” (over $500m). More than half of respondents indicated that their Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff size is 500 employees or larger.

Page 9: Data report2011

9 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 2: Sales & Marketing Background

Page 10: Data report2011

10 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

None5%

1-1032%

11-2511%

26-5014%

51-10010%

100+28%

Based on 158 Respondents

1-1026%

11-2517%

26-505%

51-1007%

More than 100

29%NA – my company

is a channel partner

7%

None9%

Based on 153 Respondents

None13%

1-536%

6-1012%

11-157%

15-244%

25+28%

Based on 138 Respondents

None6%

1-544%

6-1012%

11-159%

15-244%

25+25%

Based on 138 Respondents

2.1 Number of in-house marketing staff:

2.2 Number of inside sales reps:

2.3 Number of direct sales staff:

2.4 Number of channel partners:

Those respondents with five or less in-house marketing staff represent almost half of the population, while a quarter of the respondents report to have more than five and a quarter of all respondents have between 6-24 staffers in the marketing department. The percentages are very similar when comparing in-house marketing staff size with the number of inside sales reps, demonstrating a close relationship between size of marketing staff and inside sales staff.

Page 11: Data report2011

11 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Yes79%

No21%

Based on 71 Respondents

2.5 Do you outsource any of your sales and/or marketing activities?

More than three-quarters of the respondents outsource some or all of their sales and/or marketing activities. These activities include all aspects of a sales cycle, from initial go-to-market content, research and data provisioning to demand creation and customer satisfaction. The following graph (2.6) details the volume of each activity outsourced.

Page 12: Data report2011

12 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

2.6 If yes, please Indicate which, if any, of the following sales and marketing activities you outsource and the percentage of related work for each activity that is outsourced vs. retained in-house?

8%17% 15%

10%18%

12% 13%8%

17% 13% 11% 10%3%

38%

50%

43% 54%47%

43%

60%

46%

48%47%

45%

33%

65%

25%

17%

19%12%

18%

19%

15%

14%

16%

15% 19%

31%

12%13%

9%13%

6%

4%

2%

7%

20%

5% 13% 13% 14%

14%

9%

4%2%

7%

5%

7% 9% 6% 9% 11%

10%

5% 8%2%

15% 12%17%

5% 5% 6% 3% 2%10%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Based on 114 Respondents

NA Up to 20% 21%-40% 41%-60% 61%-80% 81%-100%

This graph may be a bit difficult to follow so here’s how to read it: Using the first “Lead Generation” bar on the far left as an example, what this tells us is that almost a tenth of the respondents don’t outsource any of their lead generation activities, more than one-third outsource up to 20% of this work, 15% outsource between 21%-40% of these activities, etc. It appears from these responses that most of the respondent’s claim they typically outsource up to 20% of the work in all categories. In the 21%-40% outsourced category, the work that is being done most often with these external resources is lead generation and content development.

Page 13: Data report2011

13 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Fairly simple &

basic20% Multi-stage

& somewhat complex

48%Multi-stage & very

complex21%

Custom multi-stage

selling model &

extremely complex

11%

Based on 71 Respondents

Microsoft CRM14%

Other27%

Proprietary5%

Salesforce54%

Based on 150 Respondents

Within 1 month

6%

1-3 months

16%3-6

months34%

6-12 months

39%Over 1 year5%

Based on 155 Respondents

Up to $5k9%

$5k-$10k6%

$10k-$25k15% $25k-

$50k22%

$50k-$100k21%$100k-

$250k12%

More than

$250k15%

Based on 133 Respondents

2.7 What CRM application are you currently using?

2.8 How would you describe your sales process?

*Other includes: SYSPRO CRM, Sage CRM, Siebel, Oracle CRM On Demand, Avidian, ConnectWise, Goldmine, Harland Touche DRM, SalesLogix, Vantage, LandSlide CRM, ACT!, Efficio. 2.9 What is your average sales deal size?

2.10 What is the average length of your sales cycle between initial contact with a prospect and a closed sale?

The respondents are generally evenly split among average per deal sales value, with a combined 30% having deal sizes under $25k, nearly half (43%) with average deal sizes of $25k-$100k, and 12% at $100k-$250k. Given the fact that more than half of the respondents (55%) have deal sizes over $25k, there’s a reasonable association with an average 6-12 month sales cycle length stated by the greatest percentage of respondents (39%).

Page 14: Data report2011

14 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

1%

4%

7%

12%

12%

17%

22%

25%

Other

Current customer references

Their TCO of your products/services

Your knowledge of their business

Their relationship with you

Your technical expertise

Your knowledge of their challenges/pains

Cost and value of your products/services

Based on 136 Respondents

2.11 From initial contact with a prospect to the closed sale, on average how many discreet steps are in your sales process (e.g., needs analysis, trial/demo, proposal, agreement, contract, etc.)?

1-531%

6-1044%

11-1514%

16-203%

More than 20

1%

Don't know7%

Based on 71 Respondents

2.12 Which of the following do you believe are the most important to your target audience?

*Other includes: Clients' confidence that we have all of the above qualities and their trust in us; How we solve clients' problems.

Almost half of respondents report that there are typically six to 10 steps of engagement in their sales cycle — from initial contact with a prospect to the closed sale, while one-third state they typically have five or less steps to a closed sale. The most common response (25%) related to what respondents feel is most important to their target audiences is, not surprisingly, the most fundamental – the cost and value of their products/services. Other common responses include the respondent’s knowledge of their market’s challenges/pains (22%), their technical expertise (17%), and the relationship with their customers (12%).

Page 15: Data report2011

15 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 3: Leads

Page 16: Data report2011

16 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Yes95%

No5%

Based on 61 Respondents

3%

3%

24%

40%

50%

53%

54%

57%

68%

76%

79%

86%

87%

NA

Other

Podcasts

Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising

Print advertising

Search engine optimization (SEO)

Direct mail campaigns

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Webinars

Outbound calling campaigns

Web sites and blogs

In-person marketing events

Email campaigns

Based on 117 RespondentsMultiple Responses Allowed

3.1 Do you use demand creation activities to generate new prospects?

3.2 Which, if any, of the following activities do you use to create demand for your products and services?

*Other Includes: Gift Incentive Campaigns, PR, Partner/Customer Referral Program, and Video

In today’s increasingly blended marketing toolbox, the demand creation activities most commonly used are still the most fundamental, including outbound calling, websites, blogs, webinars and in-person marketing events, with email campaigns at the top of the list (87%). Podcasts and Pay Per Click advertising are trailing in popularity, while Social Media and SEO campaigns are rising in popularity since the last version of this report was published one in April 2010.

Page 17: Data report2011

17 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

3.3 Identify the top sources of your leads in terms of the quality and quantity they generate?

1%

8%

7%

14%

11%

14%

21%

18%

43%

54%

45%

53%

70%

1%

6%

6%

16%

14%

16%

27%

29%

53%

54%

51%

75%

75%

Podcasts

NA/Don't Know

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising

Print advertising

Other

Direct mail campaigns

Search engine optimization (SEO)

Webinars

Outbound calling campaigns

Websites and blogs

Email campaigns

In-person marketing events

Based on 137 Respondents

Quantity

Quality

*Other includes: Referrals - Employees, Software Trials, References, Microsoft, Direct Sales efforts, Tradeshows, Traditional Broadcast Media (radio and TV), Industry Conferences, and Incentive Gift Campaigns.

As shown on the graph on the preceding page (graph 3.2), these same top responses were cited for question 3.3 in terms of the most deployed demand creation activities. So, not surprisingly, marketing and sales execs are aligning their activities with those that also demonstrate the best results in terms of lead quality and quantity. Some noteworthy observations though: The biggest disparities when comparing lead quantity to quality within the same activity is found with email campaigns with a 22% delta, search engine optimization with an 11% delta, and webinars with a 10% delta. All these deltas are quantity over quality. There were no respondents who reported experiencing marketing activities that were providing quality but not quantity. However, outbound calling campaigns are equal in terms of both quality and quantity.

Page 18: Data report2011

18 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

4%7%

13%

21%

56%

Decision-making timeframe

Other Budget amount Authority of the individual to

make or significantly influence the purchasing

decision

Clear need stated for our

product/service

Based on 134 Respondents

11%

54% 58%

77% 81%

Other Decision-making timeframe

Budget amount Clear need stated for our

product/service

Authority of the individual to

make or significantly influence the purchasing

decision

Based on 115 Respondents

3.4 What criteria do you use to define a qualified lead in your organization?

. *Other includes: MEDIC methodology for Inside Sales, 'Willingness to examine their needs', Fit (i.e., “Do we have a solution that will fit their needs?”), Desire Level, Risk vs. Reward 3.5 If you use multiple criteria to define a qualified lead in your organization, what is the most commonly used?

*Other includes: Available budget, and All BANT.

The most commonly used criteria to qualify a lead include the “Authority of the person to make/influence the purchasing decision” followed closely by a “Clearly stated need for the product/service.” Interestingly, “budget” is not a consideration as often as these other two qualification points. When respondents were asked “What is the most commonly used criteria if multiple are considered,” having a “Clearly stated need for the product/service” is by far used most often, implying that the organizational need for the solution is clearly more important in the initial lead qualification process than is identifying the decision-making/influencing individual.

Page 19: Data report2011

19 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

3.6 Do you distinguish between a “Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)” and a “Sales Qualified Lead (SQL)”?

Don’t know13%

No41%

Yes46%

Based on 116 Respondents

While many respondents do distinguish between an MQL and SQL (46%), it is surprising that an almost equal amount (44%) do not and that 13% do not know if their organizations do or don’t make this distinction. As knowledge is broadening of the importance for clearer lead definition distinctions and for cleaner hand-offs between marketing and sales, we would have expected far more responses in the “Yes” category and definitely smaller numbers in the “No” and “Don’t know” category. In the absence of this, it is clear that some fundamental sales and marketing gaps remain wide.

Page 20: Data report2011

20 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

6%

20%

21%

21%

22%

23%

27%

45%

Other

SQL to Closed Business

Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)

Initial contact to forecast

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL)

MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL)

Initial contact to close

None

Based on 110 Respondents

5%

16%

20%

37%

43%

44%

44%

50%

Other

Initial contact to forecast

None

Initial contact to close

MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL)

Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL)

SQL to Closed Business

Based on 135 Respondents

3.7 What lead conversion metrics do you currently track?

*'Other includes: We track for bigger deals', Existing vs. New Contacts, and Initial lead to Sales Opportunity Created. 3.8 What lead conversion metrics would you like to track but cannot track today?

*Other includes: “We can track these but the consistency is needed” and Lost Business, Sales Cycle Times. Of all the key conversion rates that should be tracked, SQL to Closed Business, SAL to SQL and Initial Contact to

MQL are the most monitored, followed closely by MQL to SAL. The two metrics that a smaller number of respondents would most like to track if they could? Initial Contact to Close and MQL to SAL.

Page 21: Data report2011

21 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

29%23%

17%

17%

15%

2% 8% 5%

18%21%

17%

10%

11%11%

11% 8%

15% 17%

10%

17%

12%11%

10% 8%

16% 19%

20%

8%

5%5%

3% 5%

20%24%

21%

3%

7% 4%

7%

27%

31%5%

38%

37%

1-10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% Over 50% NA Don’t Know

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Conversion Rate Ranges

Based on 137 Respondents

Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL)

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) SQL to Closed Business

Initial contact to forecast Initial contact to close

We track conversions differently*

3.9 What are your average conversion metrics for the following?

This graph may be a bit challenging to follow so here’s how to read it: Using the first bar on the far left-hand side of the graph, what this tells us is that 29% of the respondents are experiencing Initial Contact to MQL conversion rates of between 1%-10%, 17% are experiencing MQL to SAL conversion rates of between 1%-10%, and 17% are experiencing SAL to SQL conversion rates of 1%-10%. The next bar tells us how any of the respondents are experiencing 11%-20% conversion rates for each of the color-coded conversion points. Of those respondents who are aware of their conversion metrics, most are seeing a 1%-10% conversion rate range for “Initial Contact to MQL” (which is in-line with the 4% average practice company conversion metric cited by SiriusDecisions). Most of the respondents are either experiencing a 1%-10% or 11%-20% conversion metric for “MQL to SAL” (far below SiriusDecisions’ 58% metric for even just average practice companies). Many of the companies are also seeing a 1%-10% conversion metric for “SAL to SQL” (also far below the SiriusDecisions metric of 49% for average practice companies). And for “SQL to Closed Business” most are seeing either an 11%-20% or 21%-30% conversion rate (so either close to or within the range of the 23% conversion rate cited by SiriusDecisions for average practice companies). Clearly, there is room for improvement in conversion rates based on comparisons to industry metrics overall, which should be anticipated as the respondents adopt strong and best practices for demand creation and acceleration. Disappointingly, many of the respondents claimed to not know their conversion metrics or said the metrics are “not applicable.”

Page 22: Data report2011

22 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

It depends*13%

Multiple stakeholders

68%

Single stakeholder

19%

Based on 114 Respondents

NA14%

No because our systems

don’t accommodate

this6%

Yes and our systems

accommodate this62%

Yes but it is difficult due to

system limitations and

challenges17%

No because of other reasons

1%

Based on 109 Respondents

3.10 Do you engage/sell to single or multiple stakeholders within a prospect’s organization?

*Depends on: Size of Company, Complexity, and Customer 3.11 If you do engage/sell to multiple stakeholders within a prospect’s organization, are you able to track the multiple points of contact?

More than two-thirds of the respondents engage more than one stakeholder in the selling process while slightly less than one-quarter sell only to a single stakeholder. Of those engaging multiple stakeholders, most claim that they are able to track all these points of contact, while a combined 24% either don’t track them or have a difficult time doing so due to systems issues and other challenges.

Page 23: Data report2011

23 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

3.12 Do you recognize lead leakage/lead loss (i.e., leads that are not acted upon or followed up on) as a problem within your organization?

No39%

Yes61%

Based on 107 Respondents

3.13 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, can you identify the annual value of the lost revenue opportunities associated with this problem?

More than $5m1%

$1m-$2.5m

1%

$2.5m-$5m1%

$500k-$1m3% NA

24% No – we cannot or

do not calculate

this61%

Up to $250k

9%

Based on 92 Respondents

Almost two- thirds of the respondents admit that lead leakage exists within their organization. Of these, almost two-thirds admit not being able to identify the value of the lost leads while a combined 6% quantify the lost revenue at a minimum of $500k and upwards of $5m annually.

Page 24: Data report2011

24 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

3.14 Do you have an effective process in place that enables you to obtain useful feedback from your sales team on the quality or quantity of the leads they are receiving?

No40%

Yes60%

Based on 111 Respondents

More than half of the respondents indicate that they do have an effective process in place that allows them to acquire meaningful feedback from the Sales team on the quantity/quality of leads they are receiving, implying that these organizations have taken this necessary step to help close the Sales and Marketing gap.

Page 25: Data report2011

25 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 4: Marketing Data

Page 26: Data report2011

26 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Don't know7% No

48%

Yes45%

Based on 110 Respondents

CRM64%Marketing

Automation Tool18%

Other18%

Based on 130 Respondents

Other5%

Our own proprietary database

72%Third-party leased or

purchased data23%

Based on 133 Respondents

NA15%

Jigsaw16%

Hoovers26%

D&B16%

Harte Hanks

8%

Other19%

Based on 83 Respondents

4.1 What is the primary source of your marketing data?

4.2 If you use third-party leased or purchased data, which provider do you use?

*Other includes: Mixed - Own data and third-party, Organic Search and Referrals, and Both.

*Other includes: DiscoverOrg, Guide Star, Callahan's, Televerde, One Source, Private Prospect Database, Mintel, Euromonitor, AC Neilson.

4.3 Does your marketing data reside in more than one database?

4.4 What system/application do you use as your primary marketing database?

*Other includes: ConnectWise, MCIF, Eloqua, Salesforce and/or Internal.

Most (72%) of the respondents say their own database is the primary source of their marketing data (i.e., contact

lists) while almost a quarter rely on third-party data sources. Amongst those who do use their own marketing data (either solely or in combination with third-party data), the responses were almost evenly split in terms of whether the data resides in only one or multiple internal databases. Not surprisingly, nearly two-thirds of the respondents (64%) state that CRM is their primary marketing database, but the movement toward using their marketing automation tool as a primary marketing database is apparent with 18% reporting this.

Page 27: Data report2011

27 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

4.5 Approximately how many total organizational/company records are currently in your marketing database?

Up to 1,0007%

1,001-2,5006%

2,501-5,00010%

5,001-10,00012%

10,001-50,00019%50,001-

100,0008%

Over 100,000

18%

Do not know20%

Based on 111 Respondents

4.6 Approximately how many total individual contacts that are associated to the organizational/company records are in your marketing database?

Up to 1,0002%

1,001-2,5005%

2,501-5,00010%

5,001-10,000

6%

10,001-50,00021%

50,001-100,000

7%

Over 100,000

28%

Do not know21%

Based on 109 Respondents

Almost one-quarter of the respondents (19%) are managing a marketing database comprised of between 10,000- 50,000 organizational records and over one-quarter are managing a database of 50,000 or more records, so the volume of data being self-managed is significant. The fact that 20% of the respondents don’t know how many organizational records are in their database and another 21% don’t know how many individual contacts are associated with these organizations could be due to the fact that this information is simply not within their area of knowledge or that their data information/volume is difficult to quantify.

Page 28: Data report2011

28 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

No6%

Yes94%

Based on 110 Respondents

No23%

Yes77%

Based on 112 Respondents

4.7 Do you recognize the need to segment data for various marketing objectives?

4.8 Do you actually segment data for various marketing objectives?

4.9 Do you recognize any marketing data challenges in your organization today?

No18%

Yes89%

Based on 107 Respondents

Nearly all of the respondents (94%) indicate they are aware of the need to segment data for their marketing programs, and many of them actually do (although fewer – a delta of 17%). A large percentage of the respondents (89%) admit they have marketing data challenges. This is not surprising given that nearly half of the respondents told us in question 4.3 that their marketing data reside in multiple databases (which presents inherent challenges) and for question 3.12 nearly two-thirds of the respondents said that lead leakage is a problem within their organization (which is in part attributable to a marketing data challenge).

Page 29: Data report2011

29 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

1%5%

23% 24% 25% 27%30% 33%

37%43%

62% 64%

Other NA Data resides in disparate databases

No data relationship

between multiple contacts within the

same organization

Data not stored,

structured or

segmented in a way

that allows for relevant marketing

Not enough bandwidth to deploy or manage a

data refresh process

Data cannot be extracted

quickly or easily from

the system(s)

No indication of

recent marketing or

sales activity with the prospect

Invalid or insufficient

email addresses

Difficult to segment the good data from the bad data

Data not cleansed, updated or enriched

Incomplete contact

information

Based on 115Respondents

4.10 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what are the most significant marketing data challenges in your organization?

*Other includes: Speed of change in the data.

Although a small minority of the respondents (18%) to question 4.9 indicate not having any marketing data challenges, of those that admit to having challenges among the most common are incomplete contact information, lack of good data hygiene/enrichment, good/bad data segmentation, and invalid/insufficient email addresses – all of which are essential to effective marketing and therefore creating critical challenges for these organizations.

Page 30: Data report2011

30 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

4.11 How important would you rate the need to have a marketing data strategy that is better than the strategy you have today with “10” being “very important”?

"1"1% "2"

3% "3"2%

"4"3%

"5"12%

"6"12%

"7"23%

"8"13%

"9"11%

"10"20%

Based on 128 Respondents

When asked to rate the level of importance of data strategy improvements, 44% of the respondents say this need is “very high in importance” (indicated by a rating of between 8-10), with another 47% rating it “important” (indicated by a rating of between 5-7). These responses are not surprising as recognition of the contribution of data to the success of marketing efforts increases, and as sales and marketing executives acknowledge that lead leakage, wasted marketing spend, and poorly targeted campaigns are no longer acceptable.

Page 31: Data report2011

31 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 5: Nurturing

Page 32: Data report2011

32 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

2%

9%

24%

29%

30%

30%

33%

35%

41%

60%

Other

More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven process

Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads

More effective and relevant customer touch

More disciplined, science-driven lead management process

Reduction in lead leakage/lead loss

Warmer lead hand-off between Marketing and Sales

Accelerated sales cycle

More efficient use of Sales staff time

Better conversion rates

Based on 121 Respondents

5.1 What do you believe should be the highest priority outcomes of an effective lead nurturing program?

*Other includes: Maintain top-of-mind awareness.

In this section of the survey we asked respondents to reply to a series of questions related to lead nurturing, including what the researchers feel is an important overall question about the outcomes of lead nurturing – the question on this page. Almost two-thirds of the respondents feel that “Better pipeline conversion rates” are a primary desired outcome, followed (with a notable 19% delta) by a “More efficient use of Sales staff time.”

Page 33: Data report2011

33 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

2%

6%

25%

40%

50%

54%

63%

69%

83%

Other

Engaging the prospect via entertainment

Ongoing contact via direct mail

Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization

Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior

Ongoing human contact via phone calls

Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits

Ongoing contact via email

Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral

Based on 48 Respondents

5.2 What terms would you use to describe “lead nurturing”?

Respondents were asked to identify the terms they most often associated with lead nurturing. Most (83%) of the respondents agreed that “Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral” was synonymous with what they deemed lead nurturing to be, followed by “ongoing contact via email” (69%), events and visits (63%), and “ongoing human contact” (54%).

Page 34: Data report2011

34 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

2%

6%

13%

16%

21%

26%

52%

54%

62%

63%

Other

NA

Engaging the prospect via entertainment

Ongoing contact via direct mail

Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization

Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior

Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits

Ongoing human contact via phone calls

Ongoing contact via email

Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral

Based on 121 Respondents

2%

4%

6%

6%

8%

8%

26%

46%

50%

50%

52%

Other

Engaging the prospect via entertainment

NA

Ongoing contact via direct mail

Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization

Don’t know

Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior

Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits

Ongoing human contact via phone calls

Ongoing contact via email

Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral

Based on 122 Respondents

5.3 Which of the following methods do you currently use to nurture your prospects?

*Other Includes: Educational outreach 5.4 What are your most effective current nurturing methods?

*Other Includes: In-person contact.

The respondents who do currently nurture their prospects stated a variety of methods to do so, most often citing “Providing relevant information/content” (63%), “Email correspondence” (62%), “Ongoing human contact via telephone” (54%), and “Events and in-person visits” (52%). The other nurturing method response options offered fell far short of the other more frequently mentioned methods. In terms of their most effective nurturing methods, the respondent’s answers were almost identical to that of question 5.3.

Page 35: Data report2011

35 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

5.5 Do you make a clear distinction between how you nurture leads based on their stage of the buying cycle?

NA9%

No57%

Yes34%

Based on 100 Respondents

5.6 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what are the distinct stages?

NA24%

Marketing-specific

29%

Sales-specific

44%

*Other3%

Based on 57 Respondents

*Other includes: Opportunity created.

Earlier in the survey when we asked the questions about recognizing the need to segment (4.7) and actually segmenting data for various marketing objectives (4.8), many respondents indicated that they both do recognize the need and do actually segment the data. However, when asked here if they make nurturing approach distinctions based on sales cycle stages, 57% say they do not. This indicates that respondents are probably savvier about creating some types of marketing objective-focused campaigns than they are when it comes to nurturing campaigns specifically.

Page 36: Data report2011

36 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

5.7 Do you nurture recycled leads that have been rejected by Sales?

NA9%

No39%

Yes52%

Based on 102 Respondents

5.8 Do you nurture disengaged leads?

NA10%

No41%

Yes49%

Based on 100 Respondents

While an equal number of about half the respondents do not allow sales-rejected leads (52%) and disengaged leads (49%) to go un-nurtured, more than one-third do not nurture sales-rejected leads (39%) and do not nurture disengaged leads (41%), which is symptomatic of the responses to question 3.12 where lead leakage was recognized as a major challenge.

Page 37: Data report2011

37 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

NA9%

Sales41%Marketing

63%

Based on 102 Respondents "1"5% "2"

7%"3"8%

"4"18%

"5"19%

"6"15%

"7"13%

"8"8%

"9"3%

"10"2%

N/A2%

Based on 119 Respondents

5.9 Who has primary responsibility for your lead nurturing process?

5.10 How would you rate your organization’s lead nurturing effectiveness overall with “10” being “highly effective”?

5.11 Do you believe you have the ability and skill sets within your organization to properly analyze the relevance and effectiveness of your lead nurturing process?

NA5%

No34%

Yes61%

Based on 100 Respondents

As expected, Marketing tends to hold primary responsibility (63% compared to Sales responsibility at 41%) for their

organization’s lead nurturing programs. A small percentage of the respondents (5%) gave themselves high marks (i.e., a score of 9 or 10) in terms of effectiveness of their lead nurturing efforts and only 8% gave themselves an 8 score, while a combined 38% rated their effectiveness as “low” (between 1-4). When asked if they felt they have the skills within their organizations to assess and analyze their nurturing process, most of the respondents (61%) believe they do while a little more than one-third indicate they do not. While there appears to be a bit of a disconnect between low effectiveness of nurturing programs and a higher estimation of analysis skill sets, we believe that many of the respondents feel that they are wise enough to know that their nurturing programs are not as effective as they would like them to be.

Page 38: Data report2011

38 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

3%

9%

11%

20%

21%

21%

31%

31%

33%

35%

44%

Other

NA

Reduce the amount of time sales reps are involved in the process

Better definition of a Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) or Sales Ready Lead

Better definition of a Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)

Identify the appropriate type, relevancy and frequency of human contact in the process

Better lead scoring methodology

More relevant informational collateral to address the marketing portion of the nurturing cycle

Deployment of a Marketing Automation Tool

More relevant information collateral to address the sales portion of the nurturing cycle

Identify the appropriate type, relevancy and frequency of touch points in the process

Based on 117Respondents

5.12 What are the most needed improvements to your lead nurturing program?

*Other includes: More staff.

Of those who admit to room for improvement in their lead nurturing programs, nearly half of the respondents state the most needed improvement is “Identifying the most appropriate type, relevancy and frequency of touch points in the process.” Other common responses include desiring improvements in terms of “Having more content available to address various stages of the nurturing cycle” and “Deploying a marketing automation tool.” Given the relatively early stage of marketing automation adoption, these basic implementation and content relevancy challenges are not surprising.

Page 39: Data report2011

39 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

0%

7%

28%

45%

51%

60%

61%

70%

72%

73%

Other

NA

Third-party information sources

Research reports

Customer references

Product/service fact sheets

E-newsletters

Case studies

Webinars and events

White papers

Based on 101 Respondents

2%

9%

10%

16%

27%

28%

32%

42%

46%

60%

Other

NA

Third-party information sources

Research reports

Product/service fact sheets

Customer references

E-newsletters

Case studies

White papers

Webinars and events

Based on 100 Respondents

5.13 What information or educational material do you use to nurture your prospects?

5.14 What are the most effective types of informational or educational material you use to nurture prospects currently?

*Other includes: Face-to-face contact at conferences/technical meetings.

As expected, the respondents use a variety of informational/educational material to nurture their prospects. Most indicate that white papers, webinars/events, case studies, e-newsletters, product/service fact sheets, and customer references are most commonly used. Among these materials and methods, most respondents state that the “most effective” are webinars/events (topping the list at 60%), followed by white papers (46%), case studies (42%), e-newsletters (32%), customer references (28%) and product/service fact sheets (27%).

Page 40: Data report2011

40 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

NA5%

Don’t know27%

No8%

Yes -somewhat

53%

Yes -significantly

7%

Based on 98 Respondents

NA5%

Do not know35%

Up to 518%

6-1024%

11-157%

16-204%

21-256%

More than 25

1%

Based on 99 Respondents

NA13%

No54%

Yes33%

Based on 98 Respondents

5.15 From initial contact to closed sale, on average how many nurturing touch points occur with your prospects?

5.16 Do you score leads within your nurturing program?

5.17 Do you believe that your prospects are benefitting from your nurturing efforts?

Almost half (42%) of the respondents report having up to 10 unique touch points as part of their nurturing process, with a combined 17% reporting between 11-25 touch points. Forty percent of the respondents are unable to quantify the number of touch points and over half do not score leads within their nurturing program, revealing critical missing elements in a nurturing strategy. When asked if they feel their nurturing efforts are beneficial to their prospects, about half of the respondents stated they are somewhat beneficial while a quarter of them do not know, and only 7% claim their efforts are significantly beneficial, revealing opportunities for improvement in terms of the relevancy and timeliness of the information being delivered within the respondents’ nurturing programs. .

Page 41: Data report2011

41 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Section 6: Marketing Automation

Page 42: Data report2011

42 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Currently using a MAT

and not planning to

make a change

39%

Currently using a MAT but planning to make a

change to a new tool

12%

Do not currently

have a MAT but

considering purchase

27%

Not considering

purchase of a MAT22%

Based on 122 Respondents

Up to 3 months

23%

Up to 6 months

17%Up to 1

year9%

Up to 2 years15%

More than 2 years36%

Based on 47 Respondents

Don’t know8%

Use it occasionally

28%

Very reliant on it30%

Use it often34%

Based on 47 Respondents

6.1 What is the status of Marketing Automation within your company?

MAT: Marketing Automation Tool 6.3 How long have you had a Marketing Automation Tool in use?

6.2 If you already have a Marketing Automation Tool, are considering a change, or a purchase of a new tool, please identify which tool?

Marketo20%

Eloqua40%

Aprimo5%

Other 35%

Based on 20 Respondents

6.4 How would you rate the status of deployment of your organization’s Marketing Automation Tool?

More than three-quarters of the respondents (a combined 78%) are either already using a marketing automation tool or considering the purchase of one, indicating that adoption rates are continuing to climb. Interestingly, 12% of the respondents who already have a MAT are planning to transition to a new tool, indicating that even while marketing automation is still in the early adoption stage, some companies have already decided to re-think their commitment to one provider in favor of others. Of those who do have a MAT, two-thirds report that they significantly rely on the tool. However, slightly more than one-quarter of the respondents admitted to under-utilizing the features of their MAT. (See the main reasons for this in the responses to question 5.29.)

Page 43: Data report2011

43 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

6.5 What are the top reasons why you purchased a Marketing Automation Tool?

4%

8%

10%

11%

15%

16%

18%

23%

34%

37%

Other

Accelerated sales cycle

More closed leads

More efficient use of sales staff time

Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales

More effective customer touch

More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven

Improved conversion rates

Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads

More disciplined lead management process

Based on 73 Respondents

6.6 Are you deriving the benefits that you expected from your Marketing Automation Tool?

All2%

Many17%

None4%

Some47%

Too soon to tell30%

Based on 47 Respondents

Among the top reasons for purchasing a marketing automation tool, the respondents report the desire for a “More disciplined lead management process,” as well as “Gathering better business intelligence, metrics and reporting.” When asked if they are actually receiving the benefits they desired, a combined and fortunate 19% state they are realizing most or all of the intended benefits while 47% are enjoying some of the benefits and almost one-third say the jury is still out.

Page 44: Data report2011

44 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

9%

20%

24%

24%

29%

31%

33%

36%

49%

62%

Other

Accelerated sales cycle

More closed leads

More effective customer touch

More efficient use of sales staff time

Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales

More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven

Improved conversion rates

Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads

More disciplined lead management process

Based on 45 Respondents

6%

6%

25%

25%

25%

25%

38%

56%

Initial Contact to Forecast

We track conversions differently

None

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL)

SQL to Closed Business

Initial Contact to Closed Business

MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL)

Initial Contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)

Based on 16 Respondents

6.7 If you are deriving some, many or all the benefits that you expected, indicate the benefits.

*Other Includes: Marketing efficiency 6.8 Which, if any, conversion rates have improved since your deployment of Marketing Automation?

What benefits are the respondents seeing from their marketing automation tool? Almost two-thirds of them stated that they are enjoying a more disciplined lead management process, followed by half of respondents who are receiving the better intelligence they had hoped for when they purchased the tool. Amongst those that have deployed a MAT, more than half report that the most significant improvements to their conversion rates have been in “Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Leads.” Following that, by a delta of 18%, is MQL to Sales Accepted Lead conversion rates.

Page 45: Data report2011

45 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

6.9 Since deploying your Marketing Automation Tool, what are your average conversion metrics for the following?

10% 10% 10% 10% 5%25%

10%11% 11%

5%5% 11%

27%

11%10% 10%

10%

10%

30%

10%22% 6%

41%

11%

13%

53%

13%

12%6% 6% 6%

45%

6%

63%

17%

1-10% 6%-10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% More than 50%

Don’t Know

NA

Based on 45 Respondents

Initial contact to Marketing Qualif ied Lead (MQL) MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL)

SAL to Sales Qualif ied Lead (SQL) SQL to Closed Business

Initial contact to forecast Initial contact to close

We track conversions differently*

This graph may be a bit challenging to follow so here’s how to read it: Using the first bar on the far left-hand side of the graph, what this tells us is that 10% of the respondents are experiencing Initial Contact to MQL conversion rates of between 1%-10%, 13% are experiencing MQL to SAL conversion rates of between 1%-10%, and 12% are experiencing SAL to SQL conversion rates of 1%-10%. The next bar tells us how many of the respondents are experiencing 11%-20% conversion rates for each of the color-coded conversion points. Of those respondents who are tracking their conversion metrics, most are seeing a 1%-20% conversion rate range for “Initial Contact to MQL,” “MQL to SAL” and “SAL to SQL.” And for “SQL to Closed Business” almost one-quarter are seeing a 21%-30% conversion rate. Many of the respondents claimed to not know their conversion metrics or said the metrics are “not applicable.”

Page 46: Data report2011

46 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

Don't know67%

Up to $50,000

9%

$50,001-$100,000

14%

Over $250,000

10%

Based on 21 Respondents

6.10 On an annual basis, what do you estimate is your total cost of ownership to deploy and manage your Marketing Automation program, including licensing fees, staff compensation, content development and other related costs?

6.11 How many FTE staff are allocated to the deployment and management of your Marketing Automation Program?

Don't know 14% Less than

1 FTE10%

1 FTE19%

2 FTE38%

More than 2 FTEs19%

Based on 21 Respondents

Two-thirds of the respondents who employ a MAT are unaware of the total cost of ownership of their Marketing Automation program and more than half of these same respondents report that they have allocated two or more FTE staff to the deployment and management of the tool.

Page 47: Data report2011

47 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

0%

24%

24%

29%

33%

38%

43%

48%

48%

Other

How we define a Sales Qualified or Sales Ready Lead

The type of informational/educational collateral we provide to prospects

How we score and prioritize leads

How we defina a Marketing Qualified Lead

Don't know

How we report out on lead status

When and how often human touches occur in the nurturing process

The data we collect and store about prospects

Based on 21 Respondents

6.12 What sales and marketing processes in your organization have changed as a result of your use of Marketing Automation?

6.13 Did you experience or are you experiencing challenges in the deployment and management of your Marketing Automation Tool?

Yes33%

No67%

Based on 21 Respondents

The most significant changes to respondents’ sales and marketing processes are in the areas of prospect data collection and storage, the frequency of human touches in the nurture process, and the way in which lead status is reported. As it relates to respondents’ experiences with deployment and management of their MAT, one-third agree that they are having challenges (as detailed on the next page, question 6.14).

Page 48: Data report2011

48 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

10%

12%

17%

21%

24%

24%

26%

29%

33%

50%

NA

Other

Identifying the appropriate lead workflows

Identifying the appropriate data segmentation for various groups of prospects

Integration with CRM and/or our other marketing data systems

We aren't optimizing all of the tool’s features and functionalities

Skill gaps among those tasked with deployment and management of application

Lack of relevant nurturing collateral

Identifying the appropriate lead scoring methodology

Amount of bandwidth needed to effectively deploy and manage the tool

Based on 42 Respondents

Not all data can be

mapped from the MAT to our CRM or other data system

55%

All of the MAT features

are not enabled with the CRM or other data system

45%

Based on 10 Respondents

6.14 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what are the three most significant challenges you are experiencing in the deployment and management?

6.15 If you did experience or are experiencing system integration challenges between your Marketing Automation Tool and your CRM or other data systems, what are the challenges?

What are the respondents’ most significant challenges of their MAT? Half of the respondents report their greatest challenges are the amount of bandwidth needed to effectively deploy and manage the tool. This corresponds with respondents’ under-utilization of the tool (as reported previously in question 5.20).

Respondents who shared their current system integration challenges are almost evenly split between an inability to map data from the MAT to the CRM and experiencing MAT features that are not enabled with their CRM or other data systems.

Page 49: Data report2011

49 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

6.16 How would you rank the contributions of your Marketing Automation Tool to the success of your overall demand creation and lead nurturing process since you began using it, with “10” representing “significant contributions?”

"3"11%

"4"5%

"5"11%

"6"11%"7"

6%

"8"22%

"9"6%

Don't know28%

Based on 18 Respondents

6.17 What is your purchasing timeframe?

1-3 months

13% 4-6 months

22%

7-9 months

4%

9-12 months

9%

More than 1 year52%

Based on 23 Respondents

Amongst those respondents who already use a MAT, more than one-quarter report that their tool has made fairly significant contributions to their demand creation and lead nurturing success (as demonstrated by “8” and “9” ratings). Another 28% of respondents are enjoying moderate successes (ratings of “5”, “6” or “7”). Half of the respondents who have not purchased a MAT but are planning on evaluating a tool expect to make a purchase decision in a year or more while a combined one-third plan on making a purchase within six months.

Page 50: Data report2011

50 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

5%

5%

10%

19%

24%

29%

29%

33%

43%

48%

Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales

More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven

More effective customer touch

More closed leads

More efficient use of sales staff time

Accelerated sales cycle

Other

Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads

Improved conversion rates

More disciplined lead management process

Based on 21 Respondents

6%

13%

16%

16%

26%

45%

48%

Do not feel that we have a marketing database large enough to warrant having a tool

Not familiar with the various vendors of these tools

Do not have enough documented information about how MAT improves results

Do not feel that we have sufficient content assets to support a nurturing initiative

Do not feel that our organization has the skill sets to deploy and manage the tool

Other

Do not have the budget to invest in a tool and the related costs at this time

Based on 31 Respondents

6.18 What are the reasons why you are considering the purchase of a Marketing Automation Tool?

6.19 If you are not planning to purchase and deploy a Marketing Automation Tool, what is the most important reason why not?

The top adoption drivers of a MAT are increased lead management disciplines, improved conversion rates and better lead intelligence. Understandably, the most common reason respondents report they have not adopted marketing automation is decreased budget with which to invest in a tool and related costs.

Page 51: Data report2011

51 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

25%

31%

31%

34%

34%

38%

41%

Better understanding that the size of our marketing database warrants the investment

Confidence that our organization has the skill sets to deploy and manage the tool

Other

Proven success on the effectiveness of a MAT to improve demand conversion results

Sufficient content assets available to support a nurturing initiatiave

More familiarity with the vendors of these tools

Have a sufficient budget to invest in a tool and the related costs

Based on 32 Respondents

6.20 What is the most significant reason that would influence your decision to purchase a Marketing Automation Tool in the future?

Similar to the responses to question 6.19, the most influencing factor for over one-third of the respondents to purchase a MAT tool is sufficient budget to invest in a tool and all costs associated with marketing automation adoption. Interestingly, more than one-third of the respondents also agree that more familiarity with MAT vendors is a driving factor, indicating that when the purse strings loosen the MAT vendor with the most visibility and credibility has the potential to gain significant footing in this market.

Page 52: Data report2011

52 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.

 

Creating, Converting and Accelerating Sales Demand Televerde is a B2B outsourced demand creation agency that helps high-tech companies to identify new customers, accelerate sales opportunities, and discover fresh, actionable market insight. We deploy an integrated set of powerful dialogue-based and digital marketing services, insightful market research and demand creation consulting. All of our solutions are designed around best practices, unparalleled market expertise, and the industry’s most enriched database. We provide robust, tier-one reporting, advanced technology, and the most knowledgeable and sophisticated team of market specialists and calling agents in the industry whose business acumen is unrivaled. Our unique customer acquisition methodology ensures that no sales opportunity is left behind. We support both the direct and channel business, and our clients include companies in the Fortune 50 and high-growth start-ups. Televerde is actually two businesses in one. We are a highly regarded company that enjoys strong year over year revenue and profit growth. We are also a socially responsible company driven by a desire to restructure human lives. We believe that skills and education are the great equalizers and that no matter where a person started, with a thirst for knowledge and higher education they can climb higher. To that end, we train, educate and employ women who have a genuine desire to change the course of their lives for the better. Contact Us: Televerde Directions to Televerde 4636 E. University Dr. Phoenix, AZ USA 85034 Sales Inquiries: +1 888-787-2829 or +1 480-517-6157 General Inquiries: +1 888-925-7526 or +1 480-736-8137 [email protected] televerde.com Follow Televerde: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn Stay informed. Frame your thinking. Subscribe to our “Create and Accelerate” blog.