Data report2011

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

© 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

2 © 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


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 info@televerde.com. To view updated editions of the research results as participation
increases, visit us at www.televerde.com/resources/research/.


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).


Section 1: General Background


1.1 Your Department: 1.2 Indicate your company’s public or private status:
Based on 180 Respondents Based on 166 Respondents

Other
11%

Sales Private
28% 47%
Marketing Public
61% 53%

*Other includes: General Management

1.3 If your company is in the high-tech 1.4 If your company is not in the high-tech
sector, indicate your core focus. sector, identify your sector?

We are
not in the Services 23%
High-tech
sector Manufacturing 20%
IT
Services 16% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 13%
25% Transport, Comm., Utilities 12%
Retail Trade 9%
IT
IT Hardware Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 8%
Software 20% Wholesale Trade 6%
39%
Construction 5%
Mining 4%
Public Administration 0%

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.


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


IT
ISV Consulting
16% 12%
Channel
Partner
43%
OEM
57%
VAR
72%

1.7 Indicate your annual revenue range: 1.8 Total number of Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) Staff

$100m-
$50m-
$250m
$100m Up to 10%
9% $10m 1-10 11-25
16% 10% 2%
$10m- More 26-50
$25m than 500 7%
12% 58%
51-100
$500m+ 7%
36% $250m-
$500m 101-250
$25m- 11% 9%
$50m 251-500
6% 7%

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.


Section 2: Sales & Marketing Background


2.1 Number of in-house marketing staff: 2.2 Number of inside sales reps:


None
6% None
13%
25+ 25+
25% 28%
15-24
4% 15-24
11-15 4%
1-5
9%
44% 11-15
6-10 6-10 1-5
7% 36%
12% 12%

2.3 Number of direct sales staff: 2.4 Number of channel partners:


51-100 More
1-10 11-25
7% than 100
32% 11%
29%
26-50 NA – my
26-50 5% company
14% is a
None None
11-25
5% 9% channel
100+ 17%
partner
28% 1-10
7%
26%
51-100
10%

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.


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

Based on 71 Respondents

Yes
79%

No
21%

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.


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?


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

5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 3% 2%
8% 6%
9% 12% 10%
15% 17% 7% 7% 9% 11%
9% 6%
14% 9% 2%
4% 5% 10%
13% 4%
15% 13% 13% 14%
6% 7% 20%
13% 17% 2% 12%
18% 16%
12%
19% 15%
19% 19%
% of Respondents

14%
25% 31%

50% 60%
47% 48%
43% 54% 47% 65%
43% 45%
46%
38% 33%

17% 15% 18% 17%
12% 13% 13% 11%
8% 10% 8% 10%
3%

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.


2.7 What CRM application are you currently 2.8 How would you describe your sales
using? process?

Proprietary
Other 5% Fairly
27% Custom simple &
multi-stage basic
Microsoft selling Multi-stage
20%
CRM model & &
14% extremely somewhat
complex complex
Salesforce Multi-stage 48%
11%
54% & very
complex
21%

*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?

1-3
months
$5k-$10k $10k- 16%
6% $25k 3-6
15% $25k- months
$50k 34%
Up to $5k 22% Within 1
9% month
$50k- 6%
$100k 6-12
More 21% Over 1 months
$100k- 39%
than $250k year
$250k 12% 5%
15%

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%).


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.)?


Don't
know
7% 1-5
31%
More
than 20
1%
16-20
3% 11-15 6-10
14% 44%

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


Cost and value of your products/services 25%

Your knowledge of their challenges/pains 22%

Your technical expertise 17%

Their relationship with you 12%

Your knowledge of their business 12%

Their TCO of your products/services 7%

Current customer references 4%

Other 1%

*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%).


Section 3: Leads


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

Yes
95%

No
5%

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

Email campaigns 87%
In-person marketing events 86%
Web sites and blogs 79%
Outbound calling campaigns 76%
Webinars 68%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 57%
Direct mail campaigns 54%
Search engine optimization (SEO) 53%
Print advertising 50%
Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising 40%
Podcasts 24%
Other 3%
NA 3%
*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.


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


In-person marketing events 75%
70%
Email campaigns 75%
53%
Websites and blogs 51%
45%
Outbound calling campaigns 54%
54%
Webinars 53%
43%
Search engine optimization (SEO) 29%
18%
Direct mail campaigns 27%
21% Quantity

Other 16% Quality
14%
Print advertising 14%
11%
Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising 16%
14%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 6%
7%
NA/Don't Know 6%
8%
Podcasts 1%
1%

*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.


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

77% 81%

58%
54%

11%

Other Decision-making Budget amount Clear need stated Authority of the
timeframe for our individual to
product/service make or
significantly
influence the
purchasing
decision
*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?

56%

21%
13%
7%
4%

Decision-making Other Budget amount Authority of the Clear need
timeframe individual to stated for our
make or product/service
significantly
*Other includes: Available budget, and All BANT. influence the
purchasing
decision

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.


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

No
41%
Don’t
know
13%

Yes
46%

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.


3.7 What lead conversion metrics do you currently track?


SQL to Closed Business 50%

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) 44%

Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) 44%

MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL) 43%

Initial contact to close 37%

None 20%

Initial contact to forecast 16%

Other 5%

*'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?

None 45%

Initial contact to close 27%

MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL) 23%

SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) 22%

Initial contact to forecast 21%

Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) 21%

SQL to Closed Business 20%

Other 6%

*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.


3.9 What are your average conversion metrics for the following?


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
37%
We track conversions differently*
38%

5%
31%
% of Respondents

21% 27%

24%
20% 20%

10%
16% 19%
3%
17% 8%
15% 17%
17% 4%
7% 5%
17% 5% 7%
11% 3% 5% 18%
10% 12% 21%
10% 8%
29% 11%
15% 11% 8% 23%
8% 11% 17%
2% 5%
1-10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% Over 50% NA Don’t Know
Conversion Rate Ranges

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.”


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


Multiple
stakeholders
It depends*
68%
13%

Single
stakeholder
19%

*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?

Based on 109 Respondents Yes but it is
difficult due to
system
limitations and
challenges
17%

No because of
other reasons
Yes and our 1%
systems NA
accommodate 14%
this
62% No because
our systems
don’t
accommodate
this
6%

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.


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?

No
39%

Yes
61%

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?


$2.5m- $500k-$1m
$5m 3%
NA
1%
24% No – we
$1m- cannot or
$2.5m do not
1% calculate
More than this
$5m 61%
1%
Up to
$250k
9%

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.


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?

No
40%

Yes
60%

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.


Section 4: Marketing Data


4.1 What is the primary source of your 4.2 If you use third-party leased or
marketing data? purchased data, which provider do you use?


Other
5% NA
15%
Other Jigsaw
Our own 19% 16%
proprietary
Third-party database
leased or 72% Harte Hoovers
purchased Hanks 26%
data 8% D&B
23% 16%

*Other includes: DiscoverOrg, Guide Star, Callahan's,
*Other includes: Mixed - Own data and third-party, Televerde, One Source, Private Prospect Database,
Organic Search and Referrals, and Both. Mintel, Euromonitor, AC Neilson.

4.3 Does your marketing data reside in more 4.4 What system/application do you use as
than one database? your primary marketing database?


Don't
Other
know
18%
7% No
48%
CRM
Marketing 64%
Automation
Yes
Tool
45%
18%

*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.


4.5 Approximately how many total organizational/company records are currently in your
marketing database?
Up to 1,000
7%
Do not 1,001-
know 2,500
20% 6%

Over 2,501-
100,000 5,000
18% 10%

10,001-
50,000 5,001-
50,001- 10,000
19%
100,000 12%
8%

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


Up to 1,000
Do not 2%
know
21% 1,001-
Over 2,500
100,000 5%
28% 2,501-
5,000
10%
10,001-
50,000 5,001-
50,001-
21% 10,000
100,000
6%
7%

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.


4.7 Do you recognize the need to segment 4.8 Do you actually segment data for various
data for various marketing objectives? marketing objectives?


No
6% No
23%
Yes
94%

Yes
77%

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


No
18%

Yes
89%

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).


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

Based on 115Respondents

64%
62%

43%
37%
33%
30%
25% 27%
23% 24%

5%
1%

Other NA Data No data Data not Not enough Data cannot No Invalid or Difficult to Data not Incomplete
resides in relationship stored, bandwidth be extracted indication of insufficient segment the cleansed, contact
disparate between structured to deploy or quickly or recent email good data updated or information
databases multiple or manage a easily from marketing or addresses from the enriched
contacts segmented data refresh the sales bad data
within the in a way process system(s) activity with
same that allows the prospect
organization for relevant
marketing

*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.


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" "4"
"10" 2% 3%
20%
"9"
11%
"5"
12%
"8"
13% "6"
12%
"7"
23%

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.


Section 5: Nurturing


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

Better conversion rates 60%

More efficient use of Sales staff time 41%

Accelerated sales cycle 35%

Warmer lead hand-off between Marketing and Sales 33%

Reduction in lead leakage/lead loss 30%

More disciplined, science-driven lead management process 30%

More effective and relevant customer touch 29%

Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads 24%

More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven process 9%

Other 2%

*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.”


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

Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral 83%

Ongoing contact via email 69%

Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits 63%

Ongoing human contact via phone calls 54%

Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior 50%

Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization 40%

Ongoing contact via direct mail 25%

Engaging the prospect via entertainment 6%

Other 2%

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%).


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









NA 6%

Other 2%
*Other Includes: Educational outreach

5.4 What are your most effective current nurturing methods?







Don’t know 8%



NA 6%


Other 2%

*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.


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

NA
9%
Yes
34%

No
57%

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

*Other
Sales- 3%
specific
44%

NA
24%
Marketing-
specific
29%

*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.


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

Yes
52%
NA
9%

No
39%

5.8 Do you nurture disengaged leads?


Yes
49%

NA
10%

No
41%

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.


5.9 Who has primary responsibility for your 5.10 How would you rate your organization’s
lead nurturing process? lead nurturing effectiveness overall with
“10” being “highly effective”?

Based on 102 Respondents "10" N/A
"1"
"9" 2% 2% 5% "2"
3%
7%
NA
9% "3"
"8" 8%
8%
"7"
Sales 13%
Marketing 41% "4"
63% 18%
"6"
15%
"5"
19%

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?


NA
5%

No
34%

Yes
61%

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.


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

Based on 117Respondents

Identify the appropriate type, relevancy and frequency of touch points in the process 44%

More relevant information collateral to address the sales portion of the nurturing cycle 35%

Deployment of a Marketing Automation Tool 33%

More relevant informational collateral to address the marketing portion of the nurturing cycle 31%

Better lead scoring methodology 31%

Identify the appropriate type, relevancy and frequency of human contact in the process 21%

Better definition of a Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) 21%

Better definition of a Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) or Sales Ready Lead 20%

Reduce the amount of time sales reps are involved in the process 11%

NA 9%

Other 3%
*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.


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

White papers 73%

Webinars and events 72%

Case studies 70%

E-newsletters 61%

Product/service fact sheets 60%

Customer references 51%

Research reports 45%

Third-party information sources 28%

NA 7%

Other 0%

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

Webinars and events 60%

White papers 46%

Case studies 42%

E-newsletters 32%

Customer references 28%

Product/service fact sheets 27%

Research reports 16%

Third-party information sources 10%

NA 9%

Other 2%

*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%).


Data report2011

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie Data report2011

Ähnlich wie Data report2011 (20)

Mehr von nich_marketing

Mehr von nich_marketing (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Data report2011