Data report2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Data report2011

on

  • 667 views

Televerde Business-to-Business Marketing Research Report, 2011

Televerde Business-to-Business Marketing Research Report, 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
667
Views on SlideShare
667
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Data report2011 Data report2011 Document Transcript

    • Market Says… ™ Research and Analysis from Televerde TeleverdeBusiness-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 ContentsAbout the Research ............................................................................................................................... 4Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ 5Section 1: General Background ............................................................................................................ 61.1 Department ......................................................................................................................................... 71.2 Public or Private Status ...................................................................................................................... 71.3 Core Focus in High-Tech Sector ........................................................................................................ 71.4 Sector Identification if Not High-Tech ................................................................................................. 71.5 Company Type ................................................................................................................................... 81.6 Channel Partner Type......................................................................................................................... 81.7 Revenue Range .................................................................................................................................. 81.8 FTE Staff Size..................................................................................................................................... 8Section 2: Sales & Marketing Background ........................................................................................... 92.1 In-House Marketing Staff Size .......................................................................................................... 102.2 Inside Sales Rep Staff Size ............................................................................................................. 102.3 Direct Sales Staff Size ..................................................................................................................... 102.4 Channel Partners .............................................................................................................................. 102.5 Sales & Marketing Outsourcing ........................................................................................................ 112.6 Activities Outsourced ........................................................................................................................ 122.7 CRM Application ............................................................................................................................... 132.8 Sales Process Complexity ................................................................................................................ 132.9 Average Sales Deal Value ................................................................................................................ 132.10 Average Length of Sales Cycle ...................................................................................................... 132.11 Average Steps in Sales Process .................................................................................................... 142.12 Target Audience Factor Values ...................................................................................................... 14Section 3: Leads ................................................................................................................................... 153.1 Use of Demand Creation Activities ................................................................................................... 163.2 Demand Creation Activities .............................................................................................................. 163.3 Lead Source by Quantity & Quality................................................................................................... 173.4 Qualified Lead Criterion .................................................................................................................... 183.5 Most Commonly Used Lead Criterion ............................................................................................... 183.6 MQLs Distinguished from SQLs ...................................................................................................... 193.7 Lead Conversion Metrics Tracked .................................................................................................... 203.8 Lead Conversion Metrics Not Tracked ............................................................................................. 203.9 Average Conversion Metrics............................................................................................................. 213.10 Multiple/Single Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................... 223.11 Ability to Track Stakeholder Engagement ...................................................................................... 223.12 Lead Leakage Recognition ............................................................................................................ 233.13 Lead Leakage Lost Revenue Identification..................................................................................... 233.14 Sales Feedback Process ................................................................................................................ 24Section 4: Marketing Data .................................................................................................................... 254.1 Marketing Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 264.2 Data Providers .................................................................................................................................. 264.3 Marketing Databases ........................................................................................................................ 264.4 Primary Marketing Database ............................................................................................................ 264.5 Quantity of Company Records.......................................................................................................... 27 2 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 4.6 Quantity of Contact Records............................................................................................................. 274.7 Recognition of Data Segmentation Need ........................................................................................ 284.8 Actual Data Segmentation ............................................................................................................... 284.9 Marketing Data Challenges .............................................................................................................. 284.10 Top Five Marketing Data Challenges ............................................................................................. 294.11 Importance of Data Strategy Improvements .................................................................................. 30Section 5: Nurturing ............................................................................................................................ 315.1 Nurture Program Outcome Priorities ............................................................................................... 325.2 Terms to Describe Lead Nurturing.................................................................................................... 335.3 Current Nurture Methods .................................................................................................................. 345.4 Most Effective Nurture Methods ....................................................................................................... 345.5 Leads Nurtured Based on Sales Cycle Stage .................................................................................. 355.6 Sales Cycle Stage Distinctions ......................................................................................................... 355.7 Nurture of Recycled Leads ............................................................................................................... 365.8 Nurture of Disengaged Leads ........................................................................................................... 365.9 Nurture Process Responsibility......................................................................................................... 375.10 Nurture Effectiveness Rating .......................................................................................................... 375.11 Organizational Ability to Effectively Manage Nurture ...................................................................... 375.12 Needed Improvements to Nurture Program.................................................................................... 385.13 Material Used to Nurture................................................................................................................. 395.14 Most Effective Types of Nurture Material ........................................................................................ 395.15 Quantity of Nurture Touch Points ................................................................................................... 405.16 Lead Scoring................................................................................................................................... 405.17 Prospects’ Benefits from Nurture .................................................................................................... 40Section 6: Marketing Automation ........................................................................................................ 416.1 Status of Marketing Automation........................................................................................................ 426.2 Marketing Automation Tools Evaluated ............................................................................................ 426.3 Duration of Marketing Automation Application .................................................................................. 426.4 Status of Marketing Automation Deployment ................................................................................... 426.5 Reasons for Purchase of Marketing Automation .............................................................................. 436.6 Benefits Derived from Marketing Automation Application................................................................. 436.7 List of Benefits of Marketing Automation Application........................................................................ 446.8 Conversion Rate Improvement Since Marketing Automation Deployment ....................................... 446.9 Conversion Metrics Since Deployment ............................................................................................. 456.10 Total Cost of Marketing Automation Tool Ownership ..................................................................... 466.11 FTE Staff Allocated to Marketing Automation ................................................................................. 466.12 Processes Changed as a Result of Marketing Automation ............................................................ 476.13 Challenges of Marketing Automation Deployment .......................................................................... 476.14 List of Challenges in Marketing Automation Deployment ............................................................... 486.15 System Integration Challenges Between Marketing Automation and CRM .................................... 486.16 Ranking of Marketing Automation Tool Success ............................................................................ 496.17 Marketing Automation Purchase Timeframe .................................................................................. 496.18 Reasons to Consider Marketing Automation .................................................................................. 506.19 Reasons for Not Purchasing Marketing Automation ....................................................................... 506.20 Purchase Driver of Marketing Automation Adoption ....................................................................... 51About Televerde.................................................................................................................................... 52 3 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • About the B2B Marketing Research ReportResearch Objectives & Relevance The main objective of this research is to assess the challenges, successes andgeneral state of key practices in terms of demand creation, marketing data, marketing automation and lead nurturingwithin the B2B sector and namely within the high-tech segment. This report is beneficial to Marketing and Salesexecutives as it creates a better understanding of the issues and practices that they and their peers are experiencing. Itprovides 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 byTeleverde at the SiriusDecisions 2010 Summit as well as at various B2B sales and marketing conferences and eventsthroughout 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 wasfeatured in the survey used at some of the conferences and events. Due to both of these variables there are varyingnumbers of respondents associated with some of the questions. Respondents were given the option of respondinganonymously. A prize-drawing incentive was offered to those who did provide their contact information. Contactinformation provided by the respondents has not and will not be shared with other respondents or with third-partyorganizations.Composition of the Respondents The targeted markets for this research included a variety of key business sectorsand 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 thesurvey 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 toeach question will vary. Below is a summary of respondent demographics (more detailed information on respondentsdemographics can be found in Sections 1 and 2):Titles/Departments: 61% are Marketing executives, 28% are Sales executives, and 11% cited their position as “GeneralManagement.”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 IThardware 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 respondentsrepresent the Marketing area of their respective organizations, the responses throughout the survey have a tendency tolean more toward the Marketing view of issues, challenges and practices. Based on the fact that more than one-third ofthe respondents represent companies over $500m in annual revenue, larger organizations would tend to have moreadvanced 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 oferror cannot be calculated for the entire research study. Depending on the quantity of responses, the margin of errorthroughout this study ranges from 7.3% to 13.1%. The greater the quantity of responses to a particular question the lowerthe 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 participationincreases, visit us at www.televerde.com/resources/research/. 4 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Executive Summary of Key FindingsOutsourced Demand Generation: Most respondents are outsourcing up to 20% of the work in key demand creation andassociated categories, including Lead Generation, Lead Nurturing, Lead Qualification, Appointment-Setting, Market &Customer Satisfaction Research, Event Recruitment, Data Acquisition, Data Cleansing/Enrichment, and ContentDevelopment.What’s Important to Prospects: Most respondents feel that the cost and value of their products/services are the mostimportant decision-making consideration to their targeted customers and prospects, followed by technical expertise andtheir knowledge of challenges and pains.Common Demand Creation Activities: The most commonly used demand creation/lead generation activities includeemail, outbound calling, marketing events (face-to-face and webinars), web sites and blogs. Social media and onlineadvertising 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 ofquality and quantity of the leads they produce, followed closely by email campaigns. Websites and blogs along withoutbound calling campaigns take the third spot. The biggest disparity when comparing quantity to quality of leads withinthe same type of demand creation activity is email marketing where the quantity of leads they generate is notably greaterthan the quality of those same leads by a 22% margin. Podcasts and social media activities are generating minimal valueleads in terms of both quality and quantity.Most Important Qualified Lead Criteria: Authority of the contact to make or influence the purchasing decision and aclear need stated for the product/service are most often factored by respondents to define what they consider to be aqualified lead.Lead Conversion Metrics: Many organizations (one-third of the respondents) are not distinguishing the characteristicsthat constitute a Marketing Qualified Lead from a Sales Qualified Lead, which is symptomatic of continuing sales andmarketing gaps. The lead conversion metric respondents are not tracking today but would most like to if they could isInitial Contact to Close. Other than the Initial Contact to Close conversion rate, respondents are reporting percentagesbelow (and in some case far below) industry averages for other lead conversion points, revealing much room forimprovement 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 ofrespondents) is being managed within proprietary databases. However, the quality of this data is highly suspect as nearlyall of the respondents indicate they recognize marketing data challenges, namely incomplete contact information, invalidand insufficient email addresses, and generally uncleansed and unenriched records.Lead Nurturing Practices and Outcomes: Respondents report that their most effective lead nurturing practices includeproviding information, education and relevant content to their prospects as well as ongoing contact via email andtelephone-based dialogues/engagement. Two-thirds of the respondents feel that better pipeline conversion rates are aprimary desired outcome of an effective lead nurturing program, followed by more efficient use of sales staff time, anaccelerated 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 theynurture their leads based on their stage of the sales cycle. Most say they are nurturing sales-rejected and disengagedleads. More than half of the respondents gave themselves either low or moderate ratings in terms of their ability toeffectively nurture their leads.Most Needed Nurturing Improvements: Respondents most often mentioned identifying a better frequency andrelevancy 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 aMarketing Automation Tool. Amongst those respondents that have a MAT in place, one-third report high reliance on thetool’s features/functionality; however, only 17% report they are receiving many of the benefits they anticipated. Half of therespondents report the most common challenges in MAT adoption/use include finding the bandwidth needed for effectivedeployment/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 leadnurturing success (as demonstrated by “8” and “9” ratings out of a possible 10). 5 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 1: General Background 6 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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 Management1.3 If your company is in the high-tech 1.4 If your company is not in the high-techsector, indicate your core focus. sector, identify your sector? Based on 158 Respondents Based on 87 Respondents 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-quarterrepresent IT Services, 20% represent IT Hardware, and less than one-quarter are not affiliated with a companyin the IT sector. The majority of the respondents (61%) are on the marketing side of the house. 7 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 1.5 Indicate your company type: 1.6 If you answered “Channel Partner” to the previous question, indicate your Channel Partner type: Based on 56 Respondents Based on 25 Respondents 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 Based on 160 Respondents Based on 87 Respondents $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%), andamongst the Channel Partner respondents nearly three-quarters represent Value-Added Resellers (72%). A littlemore 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 indicatedthat their Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff size is 500 employees or larger. 8 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 2: Sales & Marketing Background 9 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 2.1 Number of in-house marketing staff: 2.2 Number of inside sales reps: Based on 138 Respondents Based on 138 Respondents 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: Based on 158 Respondents Based on 153 Respondents 51-100 More 1-10 11-25 7% than 100 32% 11% 29% 26-50 NA – my 26-50 5% company 14% is aNone 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. 10 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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 dataprovisioning to demand creation and customer satisfaction. The following graph (2.6) details the volume ofeach activity outsourced. 11 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 2.6 If yes, please Indicate which, if any, of the following sales and marketing activities yououtsource and the percentage of related work for each activity that is outsourced vs. retainedin-house? Based on 114 Respondents 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. 12 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 2.7 What CRM application are you currently 2.8 How would you describe your salesusing? process? Based on 150 Respondents Based on 71 Respondents Proprietary Other 5% Fairly 27% Custom simple & multi-stage basicMicrosoft 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? Based on 133 Respondents Based on 155 Respondents 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 dealsizes 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 reasonableassociation with an average 6-12 month sales cycle length stated by the greatest percentage of respondents (39%). 13 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 2.11 From initial contact with a prospect to the closed sale, on average how many discreet stepsare in your sales process (e.g., needs analysis, trial/demo, proposal, agreement, contract, etc.)? Based on 71 Respondents Dont 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? Based on 136 Respondents 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 clientsproblems.Almost half of respondents report that there are typically six to 10 steps of engagement in their sales cycle — frominitial contact with a prospect to the closed sale, while one-third state they typically have five or less steps to a closedsale. The most common response (25%) related to what respondents feel is most important to their target audiencesis, not surprisingly, the most fundamental – the cost and value of their products/services. Other common responsesinclude the respondent’s knowledge of their market’s challenges/pains (22%), their technical expertise (17%), and therelationship with their customers (12%). 14 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 3: Leads 15 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.1 Do you use demand creation activities to generate new prospects? Based on 61 Respondents Yes 95% No 5% 3.2 Which, if any, of the following activities do you use to create demand for your products and services? Based on 117 Respondents 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 VideoIn today’s increasingly blended marketing toolbox, the demand creation activities most commonly used are still themost fundamental, including outbound calling, websites, blogs, webinars and in-person marketing events, with emailcampaigns at the top of the list (87%). Podcasts and Pay Per Click advertising are trailing in popularity, while SocialMedia and SEO campaigns are rising in popularity since the last version of this report was published one in April2010. 16 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.3 Identify the top sources of your leads in terms of the quality and quantity they generate? Based on 137 Respondents 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/Dont Know 6% 8% Podcasts 1% 1%*Other includes: Referrals - Employees, Software Trials, References, Microsoft, Direct Sales efforts, Tradeshows, TraditionalBroadcast 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 question3.3 in terms of the most deployed demand creation activities. So, not surprisingly, marketing and sales execs arealigning 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 withinthe 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 whoreported experiencing marketing activities that were providing quality but not quantity. However, outbound callingcampaigns are equal in terms of both quality and quantity. 17 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.4 What criteria do you use to define a qualified lead in your organization? Based on 115 Respondents. 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 solutionthat will fit their needs?”), Desire Level, Risk vs. Reward3.5 If you use multiple criteria to define a qualified lead in your organization, what is the mostcommonly used? Based on 134 Respondents 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 decisionThe most commonly used criteria to qualify a lead include the “Authority of the person to make/influence thepurchasing decision” followed closely by a “Clearly stated need for the product/service.” Interestingly, “budget” is nota consideration as often as these other two qualification points. When respondents were asked “What is the mostcommonly used criteria if multiple are considered,” having a “Clearly stated need for the product/service” is by farused most often, implying that the organizational need for the solution is clearly more important in the initial leadqualification process than is identifying the decision-making/influencing individual. 18 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.6 Do you distinguish between a “Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL)” and a “Sales Qualified Lead(SQL)”? Based on 116 Respondents 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 equalamount (44%) do not and that 13% do not know if their organizations do or don’t make this distinction. Asknowledge is broadening of the importance for clearer lead definition distinctions and for cleaner hand-offsbetween marketing and sales, we would have expected far more responses in the “Yes” category and definitelysmaller numbers in the “No” and “Don’t know” category. In the absence of this, it is clear that some fundamentalsales and marketing gaps remain wide. 19 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.7 What lead conversion metrics do you currently track? Based on 135 Respondents 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? Based on 110 Respondents 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 toMQL are the most monitored, followed closely by MQL to SAL. The two metrics that a smaller number ofrespondents would most like to track if they could? Initial Contact to Close and MQL to SAL. 20 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.9 What are your average conversion metrics for the following? 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 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 RangesThis graph may be a bit challenging to follow so here’s how to read it: Using the first bar on the far left-hand sideof the graph, what this tells us is that 29% of the respondents are experiencing Initial Contact to MQL conversionrates 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 areexperiencing 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 raterange for “Initial Contact to MQL” (which is in-line with the 4% average practice company conversion metric citedby SiriusDecisions). Most of the respondents are either experiencing a 1%-10% or 11%-20% conversion metricfor “MQL to SAL” (far below SiriusDecisions’ 58% metric for even just average practice companies). Many of thecompanies are also seeing a 1%-10% conversion metric for “SAL to SQL” (also far below the SiriusDecisionsmetric of 49% for average practice companies). And for “SQL to Closed Business” most are seeing either an11%-20% or 21%-30% conversion rate (so either close to or within the range of the 23% conversion rate cited bySiriusDecisions for average practice companies). Clearly, there is room for improvement in conversion ratesbased on comparisons to industry metrics overall, which should be anticipated as the respondents adopt strongand best practices for demand creation and acceleration. Disappointingly, many of the respondents claimed tonot know their conversion metrics or said the metrics are “not applicable.” 21 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.10 Do you engage/sell to single or multiple stakeholders within a prospect’s organization? Based on 114 Respondents Multiple stakeholders It depends* 68% 13% Single stakeholder 19%*Depends on: Size of Company, Complexity, and Customer3.11 If you do engage/sell to multiple stakeholders within a prospect’s organization, are youable 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 slightlyless than one-quarter sell only to a single stakeholder. Of those engaging multiple stakeholders, most claim thatthey are able to track all these points of contact, while a combined 24% either don’t track them or have a difficulttime doing so due to systems issues and other challenges. 22 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.12 Do you recognize lead leakage/lead loss (i.e., leads that are not acted upon or followed upon) as a problem within your organization? Based on 107 Respondents No 39% Yes 61%3.13 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, can you identify the annual value of thelost revenue opportunities associated with this problem? Based on 92 Respondents $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. 23 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 3.14 Do you have an effective process in place that enables you to obtain useful feedback fromyour sales team on the quality or quantity of the leads they are receiving? Based on 111 Respondents 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. 24 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 4: Marketing Data 25 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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? Based on 133 Respondents Based on 83 Respondents Other 5% NA 15% Other Jigsaw Our own 19% 16% proprietaryThird-party database leased or 72% Harte Hooverspurchased Hanks 26% data 8% D&B 23% 16% *Other includes: DiscoverOrg, Guide Star, Callahans, *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? Based on 110 Respondents Based on 130 Respondents Dont 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. 26 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 4.5 Approximately how many total organizational/company records are currently in yourmarketing database? Based on 111 Respondents 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 theorganizational/company records are in your marketing database? Based on 109 Respondents 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 between10,000- 50,000 organizational records and over one-quarter are managing a database of 50,000 or morerecords, so the volume of data being self-managed is significant. The fact that 20% of the respondents don’tknow how many organizational records are in their database and another 21% don’t know how many individualcontacts are associated with these organizations could be due to the fact that this information is simply not withintheir area of knowledge or that their data information/volume is difficult to quantify. 27 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 4.7 Do you recognize the need to segment 4.8 Do you actually segment data for variousdata for various marketing objectives? marketing objectives? Based on 110 Respondents Based on 112 Respondents No 6% No 23% Yes 94% Yes 77%4.9 Do you recognize any marketing data challenges in your organization today? Based on 107 Respondents No 18% Yes 89%Nearly all of the respondents (94%) indicate they are aware of the need to segment data for their marketingprograms, and many of them actually do (although fewer – a delta of 17%). A large percentage of therespondents (89%) admit they have marketing data challenges. This is not surprising given that nearly half of therespondents told us in question 4.3 that their marketing data reside in multiple databases (which presentsinherent challenges) and for question 3.12 nearly two-thirds of the respondents said that lead leakage is aproblem within their organization (which is in part attributable to a marketing data challenge). 28 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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, ofthose that admit to having challenges among the most common are incomplete contact information, lack of good datahygiene/enrichment, good/bad data segmentation, and invalid/insufficient email addresses – all of which are essential toeffective marketing and therefore creating critical challenges for these organizations. 29 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 4.11 How important would you rate the need to have a marketing data strategy that is better thanthe strategy you have today with “10” being “very important”? Based on 128 Respondents "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 needis “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 ofdata to the success of marketing efforts increases, and as sales and marketing executives acknowledge that leadleakage, wasted marketing spend, and poorly targeted campaigns are no longer acceptable. 30 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 5: Nurturing 31 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.1 What do you believe should be the highest priority outcomes of an effective lead nurturingprogram? Based on 121 Respondents 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 – thequestion on this page. Almost two-thirds of the respondents feel that “Better pipeline conversion rates” are aprimary desired outcome, followed (with a notable 19% delta) by a “More efficient use of Sales staff time.” 32 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.2 What terms would you use to describe “lead nurturing”? Based on 48 Respondents 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%). 33 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.3 Which of the following methods do you currently use to nurture your prospects? Based on 121 Respondents Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral 63% Ongoing contact via email 62% Ongoing human contact via phone calls 54% Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits 52% Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior 26% Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization 21% Ongoing contact via direct mail 16% Engaging the prospect via entertainment 13% NA 6% Other 2% *Other Includes: Educational outreach 5.4 What are your most effective current nurturing methods? Based on 122 Respondents Providing a prospect with information, education and relevant collateral 52% Ongoing contact via email 50% Ongoing human contact via phone calls 50% Engaging the prospect in a series of events and visits 46% Managing and responding to a prospect’s digital behavior 26% Don’t know 8%Acquiring cross-functional support from within the prospect’s organization 8% Ongoing contact via direct mail 6% NA 6% Engaging the prospect via entertainment 4% 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. 34 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.5 Do you make a clear distinction between how you nurture leads based on their stage of thebuying cycle? Based on 100 Respondents NA 9% Yes 34% No 57%5.6 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what are the distinct stages? Based on 57 Respondents *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 actuallysegmenting data for various marketing objectives (4.8), many respondents indicated that they both do recognize theneed and do actually segment the data. However, when asked here if they make nurturing approach distinctionsbased on sales cycle stages, 57% say they do not. This indicates that respondents are probably savvier aboutcreating some types of marketing objective-focused campaigns than they are when it comes to nurturing campaignsspecifically. 35 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.7 Do you nurture recycled leads that have been rejected by Sales? Based on 102 Respondents Yes 52% NA 9% No 39%5.8 Do you nurture disengaged leads? Based on 100 Respondents Yes 49% NA 10% No 41%While an equal number of about half the respondents do not allow sales-rejected leads (52%) and disengagedleads (49%) to go un-nurtured, more than one-third do not nurture sales-rejected leads (39%) and do not nurturedisengaged leads (41%), which is symptomatic of the responses to question 3.12 where lead leakage wasrecognized as a major challenge. 36 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.9 Who has primary responsibility for your 5.10 How would you rate your organization’slead nurturing process? lead nurturing effectiveness overall with “10” being “highly effective”? Based on 119 Respondents 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 properlyanalyze the relevance and effectiveness of your lead nurturing process? Based on 100 Respondents NA 5% No 34% Yes 61%As expected, Marketing tends to hold primary responsibility (63% compared to Sales responsibility at 41%) for theirorganization’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 8score, while a combined 38% rated their effectiveness as “low” (between 1-4). When asked if they felt they have theskills 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 adisconnect between low effectiveness of nurturing programs and a higher estimation of analysis skill sets, webelieve that many of the respondents feel that they are wise enough to know that their nurturing programs are notas effective as they would like them to be. 37 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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. 38 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.13 What information or educational material do you use to nurture your prospects? Based on 101 Respondents 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 tonurture prospects currently? Based on 100 Respondents 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. Mostindicate that white papers, webinars/events, case studies, e-newsletters, product/service fact sheets, and customerreferences are most commonly used. Among these materials and methods, most respondents state that the “mosteffective” 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%). 39 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 5.15 From initial contact to closed sale, on 5.16 Do you score leads within your average how many nurturing touch points nurturing program? occur with your prospects? Based on 98 Respondents Based on 99 Respondents 11-15 6-10 7% 24% Yes 16-20 Up to 5 33% 4% No 18% 54% 21-25 6% Do not NA More 13% know than 25 35% NA 1% 5% 5.17 Do you believe that your prospects are benefitting from your nurturing efforts? Based on 98 Respondents NA 5% Yes - significantly Don’t know 7% 27% No 8% Yes - somewhat 53%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 toquantify the number of touch points and over half do not score leads within their nurturing program, revealingcritical missing elements in a nurturing strategy. When asked if they feel their nurturing efforts are beneficial to theirprospects, 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 therelevancy and timeliness of the information being delivered within the respondents’ nurturing programs.. 40 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • Section 6: Marketing Automation 41 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.1 What is the status of Marketing 6.2 If you already have a Marketing Automation within your company? Automation Tool, are considering a change, or a purchase of a new tool, please identify Based on 122 Respondents which tool? Currently using a MAT Do not Based on 20 Respondents but planning currently to make a have a MAT change to a but new tool considering 12% purchase 27% Other 35% Marketo 20% Aprimo 5% Currently Not Eloquausing a MAT considering 40% and not purchase of a planning to MAT make a 22% change 39% MAT: Marketing Automation Tool 6.4 How would you rate the status of 6.3 How long have you had a Marketing deployment of your organization’s Automation Tool in use? Marketing Automation Tool? Based on 47 Respondents Based on 47 Respondents Up to 6 months Up to 1 Up to 3 17% year Very reliant months 9% on it Use it often 23% 30% 34% Up to 2 More years than 2 15% years Use it 36% occasionally 28% Don’t know 8% 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.) 42 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.5 What are the top reasons why you purchased a Marketing Automation Tool? Based on 73 Respondents More disciplined lead management process 37% Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads 34% Improved conversion rates 23% More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven 18% More effective customer touch 16% Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales 15% More efficient use of sales staff time 11% More closed leads 10% Accelerated sales cycle 8% Other 4%6.6 Are you deriving the benefits that you expected from your Marketing Automation Tool? Based on 47 Respondents All 2% Too soon to tell 30% Many 17% Some None 47% 4%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 andreporting.” 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 andalmost one-third say the jury is still out. 43 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.7 If you are deriving some, many or all the benefits that you expected, indicate the benefits. Based on 45 Respondents More disciplined lead management process 62% Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads 49% Improved conversion rates 36% More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven 33% Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales 31% More efficient use of sales staff time 29% More effective customer touch 24% More closed leads 24% Accelerated sales cycle 20% Other 9% *Other Includes: Marketing efficiency 6.8 Which, if any, conversion rates have improved since your deployment of Marketing Automation? Based on 16 Respondents Initial Contact to Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) 56% MQL to Sales Accepted Lead (SAL) 38% Initial Contact to Closed Business 25% SQL to Closed Business 25% SAL to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) 25% None 25% We track conversions differently 6% Initial Contact to Forecast 6%What benefits are the respondents seeing from their marketing automation tool? Almost two-thirds of them stated thatthey are enjoying a more disciplined lead management process, followed by half of respondents who are receiving thebetter 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 theirconversion rates have been in “Initial contact to Marketing Qualified Leads.” Following that, by a delta of 18%, is MQLto Sales Accepted Lead conversion rates. 44 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.9 Since deploying your Marketing Automation Tool, what are your average conversion metricsfor the following? Based on 45 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* 63% 45% 53% 41% 30% 17% 6% 13% 6% 27% 11% 6% 6% 12% 10% 10% 10% 22% 6% 10% 13% 11% 11% 5% 11% 11% 25% 10% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 1-10% 6%-10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% More than Don’t NA 50% KnowThis 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 ofthe graph, what this tells us is that 10% of the respondents are experiencing Initial Contact to MQL conversion ratesof between 1%-10%, 13% are experiencing MQL to SAL conversion rates of between 1%-10%, and 12% areexperiencing SAL to SQL conversion rates of 1%-10%. The next bar tells us how many of the respondents areexperiencing 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 rangefor “Initial Contact to MQL,” “MQL to SAL” and “SAL to SQL.” And for “SQL to Closed Business” almost one-quarterare seeing a 21%-30% conversion rate. Many of the respondents claimed to not know their conversion metrics orsaid the metrics are “not applicable.” 45 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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? Based on 21 Respondents Up to $50,000 9% $50,001- $100,000 14% Dont know 67% Over $250,000 10% 6.11 How many FTE staff are allocated to the deployment and management of your Marketing Automation Program? Based on 21 Respondents More Dont than 2 know 14% Less than FTEs 1 FTE 19% 10% 2 FTE 1 FTE 38% 19%Two-thirds of the respondents who employ a MAT are unaware of the total cost of ownership of their MarketingAutomation program and more than half of these same respondents report that they have allocated two or moreFTE staff to the deployment and management of the tool. 46 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.12 What sales and marketing processes in your organization have changed as a result of your use of Marketing Automation? Based on 21 Respondents The data we collect and store about prospects 48% When and how often human touches occur in the nurturing process 48% How we report out on lead status 43% Dont know 38% How we defina a Marketing Qualified Lead 33% How we score and prioritize leads 29%The type of informational/educational collateral we provide to prospects 24% How we define a Sales Qualified or Sales Ready Lead 24% Other 0% 6.13 Did you experience or are you experiencing challenges in the deployment and management of your Marketing Automation Tool? Based on 21 Respondents Yes 33% No 67% 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). 47 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 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? Based on 42 Respondents Amount of bandwidth needed to effectively deploy and manage the tool 50% Identifying the appropriate lead scoring methodology 33% Lack of relevant nurturing collateral 29%Skill gaps among those tasked with deployment and management of application 26% We arent optimizing all of the tool’s features and functionalities 24% Integration with CRM and/or our other marketing data systems 24% Identifying the appropriate data segmentation for various groups of prospects 21% Identifying the appropriate lead workflows 17% Other 12% NA 10% 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). 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? Based on 10 Respondents Not all data All of the can be MAT features mapped from are not the MAT to enabled with our CRM or the CRM or other data other data system system 55% 45% 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. 48 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.16 How would you rank the contributions of your Marketing Automation Tool to the success ofyour overall demand creation and lead nurturing process since you began using it, with “10”representing “significant contributions?” Based on 18 Respondents Dont know "3" 28% 11% "9" "4" 6% 5% "5" 11% "8" 22% "6" "7" 11% 6%6.17 What is your purchasing timeframe? Based on 23 Respondents 1-3 months 13% 4-6 months 22% 7-9 More months than 1 4% year 52% 9-12 months 9% 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. 49 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.18 What are the reasons why you are considering the purchase of a Marketing Automation Tool? Based on 21 Respondents More disciplined lead management process 48% Improved conversion rates 43% Better business intelligence, metrics and reporting about leads 33% Other 29% Accelerated sales cycle 29% More efficient use of sales staff time 24% More closed leads 19% More effective customer touch 10% More marketing-driven/controlled process than sales-driven 5% Warmer hand-off between marketing and sales 5% 6.19 If you are not planning to purchase and deploy a Marketing Automation Tool, what is the most important reason why not? Based on 31 Respondents Do not have the budget to invest in a tool and the related costs at this time 48% Other 45% Do not feel that our organization has the skill sets to deploy and manage the tool 26% Do not feel that we have sufficient content assets to support a nurturing initiative 16% Do not have enough documented information about how MAT improves results 16% Not familiar with the various vendors of these tools 13%Do not feel that we have a marketing database large enough to warrant having a tool 6% 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. 50 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    • 6.20 What is the most significant reason that would influence your decision to purchase a Marketing Automation Tool in the future? Based on 32 Respondents Have a sufficient budget to invest in a tool and the related costs 41% More familiarity with the vendors of these tools 38% Sufficient content assets available to support a nurturing initiatiave 34%Proven success on the effectiveness of a MAT to improve demand conversion results 34% Other 31% Confidence that our organization has the skill sets to deploy and manage the tool 31%Better understanding that the size of our marketing database warrants the investment 25% 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. 51 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.
    •  Creating, Converting and Accelerating Sales DemandTeleverde is a B2B outsourced demand creation agency that helps high-tech companies to identify newcustomers, accelerate sales opportunities, and discover fresh, actionable market insight.We deploy an integrated set of powerful dialogue-based and digital marketing services, insightful market researchand demand creation consulting. All of our solutions are designed around best practices, unparalleled marketexpertise, and the industry’s most enriched database.We provide robust, tier-one reporting, advanced technology, and the most knowledgeable and sophisticated teamof market specialists and calling agents in the industry whose business acumen is unrivaled. Our unique customeracquisition 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 yearrevenue and profit growth. We are also a socially responsible company driven by a desire to restructure humanlives. 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 employwomen who have a genuine desire to change the course of their lives for the better.Contact Us:Televerde Directions to Televerde4636 E. University Dr.Phoenix, AZ USA 85034Sales Inquiries: +1 888-787-2829 or +1 480-517-6157General Inquiries: +1 888-925-7526 or +1 480-736-8137info@televerde.comteleverde.comFollow Televerde: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedInStay informed. Frame your thinking. Subscribe to our “Create and Accelerate” blog. 52 © 2011 Televerde All rights reserved.