Thursday I attended an Online Marketing Summit. Some of the speakers focused on measurement, metrics, and demonstrating the results of marketing programs -- maybe they don't call it "evidence-based marketing," but that's what it is. They offered some insightful nuggets and practical advice.
Marketing-sales cooperation? Yes! Jeff Pedowitz of the Pedowitz Group gave an excellent talk about the increasing pressure on marketing organizations to demonstrate their contributions to a company's success. And you can't get good evidence by simply counting leads or e-mail open rates. Marketing needs to show that it generates demand, moves opportunities faster through the funnel, that type of thing. Pedowitz is running a B2B-focused survey (here) asking about things like "Does your company formally track the number of opportunities created by the marketing team?" "Do you measure revenue per marketing spend?" and "Do you track the amount of business that closes based on marketing leads?" They are explicitly collecting both qualitative evidence (what they call observations) and quantitative evidence (data). Pedowitz believes that if a C-level exec asked, the individual handling SEM should be able to say how they contribute to company revenue (I'm guessing few could do that today). He also talked about the importance of:
- Meaningful integration between systems such as marketing automation, CRM, SFA. (Otherwise, how can you follow leads through the funnel?)
- Shared quotas between marketing and sales teams (wow, I've never worked anywhere that was done). As Pedowitz said, changing compensation plans changes people's behavior.
- A shared definition of "lead." As long as marketing and sales define this important concept differently, it will be impossible to completely sync their achievements.
- Marketing people going on sales calls, to better understand the customer perspective.
Personas and web microsites. Olivier Chaine, head of Magnify360, provided hard evidence on the need for more than one-size-fits-nobody web sites. (It looks like he's on to something: TechCrunchIT just reported the firm is taking a round of VC funding.) Chaine observed that, although we now have sophisticated research tools for evaluating specific aspects of online activity, too often we use multivariate testing to assess things like the colors of web site buttons. A more meaningful use of evidence is to identify (and understand) different types of web site visitors: Return customers, sophisticated users, newbie small-business owners, etc. Then, based on the various personas, we can design adaptive web pages, producing microsites that address each one specifically.
How do you identify them? Chaine offered impressive success stories based on this approach: These include dramatically improving conversion rates by presenting different landing pages, information, etc. to different types of visitors. But how do you know which persona corresponds a particular site visitor?
- Obviously you can adapt web pages for return visitors based on information you collected before.
- If a first-time visitor comes to you in response to search results, the specific keywords they used can tell you something about them.
- Tracking online behavior can provide other clues -- for instance, by detecting which browser or mobile device they're using.
Here's how TechCrunchIT describes Magnify360's approach: "The product can best be described as a web-based behavioral targeting platform. As a visitor browses a company’s site, information like the time of day, browser being used, clicking locations, and other forms of behavioral data are gathered. The system processes this data based on a predictive model, develops a profile for the user, and determines where they are on the buying cycle. With this information page content is displayed in a way that has received positive responses from users of a similar profile. In the end, users are more effectively engaged, leading to higher conversion rates and sales."
Why do people abandon? There's also some interesting evidence showing why people leave web sites without making an inquiry or a purchase. Chaine referred to research showing that people abandon because of 1) an intent mismatch, 2) a personality mismatch, 3) poor design and ease-of-use, or 4) product/pricing perception. (For example, a mismatch occurs if a customer's intent is to buy right away, but a site leads them through too many clicks, descriptions of product features, etc.) Oops! He offered a fun industry anecdote about a low-cost leader in printer ink cartridges: They spent many thousands of dollars redesigning their site and making it beautiful -- and conversion rates plummeted. There was a mismatch between the low prices people expected, and the perception that the slick-looking site wouldn't offer bargain-basement pricing. They reverted back to an uglier site, and sales improved.
Comments