Persuasive Marketing

A shocking 30 billion web videos being viewed in the US in November 2009, followed by 33 billion being viewed in December, suggest that the medium may only now be reaching its advent, if yet. It appears that all the hype about online video is appropriate, and has been all along. We don’t know exactly why, but statistics indicate that web video increases clicks and interaction time. The current metrics, analysis, and rhetoric of the Marketing/PR space are clear: leverage video now, or fall utterly behind.

That can be an unsettling proposition—and premature—considering that, quite like early television and advertising professionals, we still don’t know exactly where the medium is heading. On bolder days, I might even suggest that we’re hardly certain that video, especially when applied to a website, will remain a true medium. Perhaps soon, web video will come to be considered merely elemental to a greater picture, rather than self-contained.

More comparisons between web video and the early days of television are all too appropriate for this entry, but too numerous to list here. I may try to tackle that later.

Certainly, web video has distinguished itself some from traditional one-way motion picture like television, considering its inherent interactivity. Some even argue that as TV competes for viewership with online services like Hulu, it’s becoming more interactive, à la web video. Like early TV, online video technology is evolving quickly, indeed. What may seem like simple innovations by video platforms like Veeple—in this case, a second video layer that allows interactive, clickable tags—can change everything. This year’s CES saw booths everywhere beaming 3D web video from computer monitors. We should only expect more rapid changes with mobile video, as well.

That’s all well and good; but, regarding video in PR messaging and marketing, are we putting the proverbial carriage before the horse?

Throughout all these changes, no matter where the winds may carry online video, no matter what metrics may indicate, one principle will always remain constant: content is king. Not metrics. If your organization matches appropriate, engaging, rich messaging with suitable recipients, it will always be successful.

Sometimes, today’s rhetoric about web video misses the point, I think, and should be completely reframed. But I do understand that web video is such a nascent and thriving industry, our understanding and methods are likewise not yet fully formed. We’re in the “numbers phase,” I suppose, which understandably places great importance on metrics. For example, DoubleClick has been accurately measuring for years that ads that contain video garner much more click-throughs than ads that don’t.

Fair enough. But there is another tale metrics could never tell.

I’m a recovered film theory student. Having also migrated to web video/PR/marketing from the film and television industry like myself, many of my peers might similarly characterize themselves. Two popular film theorists named Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell advanced a catchy and nuanced method of criticism called “neo-formalism.” Very basically, neo-formalism suggests that a critic may approach a work of art (specifically, a motion picture) by determining the extent to which content is successfully conveyed by form. (In this sense, content is “that which something expresses, implies, or conveys.”) Ideally, a work’s form should be so transparent, that it’s virtually indistinguishable from content. So, a critic may address a work with such questions as, “Is this form appropriate for the content?” Or, maybe, “Does the form interfere with the content?”

Though I don’t necessarily wish to compare web video to cinema, this critical approach brings to mind some salient talking points:

• Metrics isolate web video content from its form—be it advertising, PR, marketing, or vlog.
• Metrics inherently disregard evaluation of content itself.
• Based on metrics, it’s all too tempting to make observations like, “consider video for a higher click-through rate.”
• Without content, there could be no metrics or form. That relationship is not reciprocal. Without words, there is no whitepaper; without images and sound, there is no video. So, despite what the metrics prove, it seems illogical to claim things like incorporating video increases click-throughs, because only content itself can do that.

What if your messaging—be it PR, marketing, advertisement, or other—isn’t suitable for video? For example, would it ever make sense to create a video version (form) of a whitepaper (content)? Probably not, since a video would be far too lengthy. PDF is more appropriate. Would you ever convert a table (content) to video form, only for the sake of adding video to your PR materials? Leveraging Flash may be appropriate, but graphical tables most likely transmit statistical information more efficiently than video. Is it prudent to integrate video in your organization’s next marketing blast if you have no initial concept of what that video may discuss, or what property or materials it may be leveraged with? No.

Does it make sense to create a PR video if you have nothing to say?

Rather than allowing results-based metrics to form your PR media, perhaps it’s wiser to begin with some more fundamental questions. What is the message, if indeed there is one? Who is the target audience? How can we best engage them with this particular message?

In other words, what form best fits this message to this target audience—video, text, graphic, image, or other? In this light, it may become clear that video isn’t the appropriate form at all.

For what it’s worth, as a PR/marketing video producer, I can’t recall one occasion where that last question presented itself before the obvious attendant answer. Once we honestly evaluate the content, or the message, creative strategies and forms tend to present themselves naturally and organically.

If we allow them, strong messages can literally form themselves. That is a power metrics, and even form, simply don’t possess.

Because, content is king, after all.

One of the most widely quoted statistics in the business world is the failure rate of new companies. While some quote statistics as high as 80 or 90 percent, others believe that 60 or 70 percent is more reasonable. But while it’s clear that nobody knows the exact figure, what’s more important is the reason why so many businesses fail. For the overwhelming majority of new businesses, it’s due to the decided lack of a cohesive marketing strategy.

Though all sectors suffer from this problem to some extent, it seems to be most prominent amongst high technology companies. Despite the efforts of brilliant engineers, who develop amazing technological innovations, most of these companies fail to make any sustainable impact, and fade into obscurity before they’re even known to have existed. That’s because no matter how phenomenal the technology, even the finest ideas don’t sell themselves. Success takes more than just a great idea and the technical wherewithal to build it – it requires a partnership between engineering and marketing.

Most engineering-driven companies develop their product, then look for a market in which to sell it – the diametric opposite of what should happen. Instead, the best chance for success comes from looking at the market first, then building the product that best serves those needs. This is what marketers refer to as being “customer-focused”. In fact, being truly customer-focused goes beyond merely developing a product that serves the customer’s needs. An entire marketing strategy must be developed, with the target customer at its core.

A comprehensive marketing strategy is comprised of four overarching components: product, price, promotion, and place. Each of these four components must be developed with the target customer in mind, and each must work together, to produce one cohesive strategy. Of course, just as with the engineering of the product, developing a winning marketing strategy is much easier said than done. That’s where a professional, experienced marketing team comes in. Just as code, boards, and chips should never be developed by marketers, marketing should never be conducted by engineers.

Despite the fact that marketing seems “easy” relative to engineering projects, it’s entirely too simple to burn through the budget with ineffective marketing campaigns that are unlikely to yield any tangible results. A winning marketing strategy requires a multi-dimensional view of the customer’s needs, wants, and buying behaviors, as well as the ability to translate that information into a sound strategy.

Though developing and implementing a marketing strategy may seem trivial, or a waste of time and money, it can make the difference between success and failure!

In 2009, we saw a lot of “innovative”, cost-cutting PR strategies — however, many companies may have cut corners to the point of potentially compromising the basics of a sound program. As stated by Naylor Gray, Frost and Sullivan Director of Global Marketing, in a recent Businessweek article, ”with recovery expected to take hold in 2010, marketing teams need to review their basic blocking and tackling to ensure that the fundamentals of their programs are on strong footing.”

Getting “back to the basics” of proven PR tactics can help provide a consistent stream of media coverage resulting in increased industry credibility and more interest from potential customers.

A real opportunity exists for companies that can consistently position their company in front of key issues and trends that truly concern the media. In doing so, companies become an invaluable resource to the media.

Here we’ll discuss two basic but proven PR tactics that can be utilized to help companies build credibility, trust and interest with key media and bloggers by fostering these relationships based on an industry-centric vs. product centric approach. Future-focused companies that provide meaningful insight and guidance to support buying decisions (vs. just marketing fluff) are often rewarded with more press coverage, better lead generation results, and a shortened sales cycle.

#1. Editorial Calendar Tracking

As much as social media can be a great avenue for starting and generating conversational trends, traditional main stream media (MSM) continues to have a huge influence on major topics of interest. Because MSM outlets operate on an advertising budget, they must secure ad sponsorship and leverage editorial calendars to attract potential advertisers. Most often, these editorial calendars are published a year in advance and can be a great way for your company to start the buzz about a topic.

TIP: Go get the editorial calendars from your top industry trade publications to find out what they are planning to publish in print. Then you can start blogging and writing articles for online syndication a month or two in advance of the print publication issue. This gives search engines the time to index your content providing high visibility for the topic once the publication hits the street.

#2. Rapid Response Program

“Rapid response” PR campaigns are a proactive strategy used to build relationships with media and bloggers by establishing a company’s spokespeople as industry experts and good news sources. It’s designed to keep your company on the cutting-edge of interesting news trends and is one of the ways to help elevate your company into a broader industry category with more press appeal.

TIP: After selecting 4-5 hot topics your company can speak to, begin to monitor news feeds and blogs. Every time a story about one of the selected topics is written and does not mention your company, contact the editor or blogger with positive feedback on their story and a gracious introduction to your company with an offer to help with future articles. Over time, you’ll build great relationships with key influencers and can work your company into the pages of high profile stories on a consistent basis.

While implementing fundamental PR strategies may take more planning, resources and budget, ultimately this approach can yield better results. Going beyond a “knee jerk” or “cookie cutter” approach to PR can help transform your company from an upstart technology player to an industry leader.

Out with the old, in with the new? Not necessarily.

Let’s face it. A lot of business folks jumped on the social media bandwagon in 2009 with little or no results. While social media tactics will continue to be a vital part in a holistic PR program, most specifically around SEO and brand reputation monitoring, B2B companies can benefit immediately in 2010 from tried and true public relations tactics that have stood the test of time.

First of all, it’s important to remember that while print circulation last year plummeted, the number of unique visitors to newspaper websites grew by 15.8% to 65 million. Though the news media still struggles to figure out how to make $$$ from journalism, the audience is present and accounted for. As we reported in a past blog post “Traditional PR is Not Dead“, IT buyers from leading companies reported that trade publications are the #1 resource they utilize for identifying new products and services.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be sharing some of the top PR tactics that have yielded results for our clients without fail. Leveraging customer and partners in marketing/PR activities consistently tops the list. As one of our industry analyst friends stated in a client briefing, “the most believable and powerful message is always coming from the customer – if vendor companies want to be successful, they need to incorporate customer testimonials in every marketing campaign.”

Without doubt, customer testimonials can greatly enhance the credibility of a company and result in increased sales and media coverage. When customers talk favorably of your product or service, they send a free, believable and targeted marketing message. Customer endorsements can be used in a variety of marketing mediums: media/analyst outreach, collateral, thought leadership events, social media and/or inclusion on the website.

Many companies fail to engage their customers and partners because they lack a focused program to identify key customer spokespeople or they do not present a compelling value proposition to secure their participation. Self-centered requests for a product endorsement often fail. Successful programs are based on answering a potential spokesperson’s question of “What’s in it for me?” before you approach them. Many times, it takes some “thinking outside the box” to get customers on board. Smaller customers with a great story/interesting application and evangelistic spokesperson can be just as effective as a major customer.

Here are some tips for successful involvement of customers in your PR efforts:

• Develop a compelling “win-win” proposition and utilize innovative/focused programs to help secure customer/partner support
• Identify hot industry trends and potential customer evangelists who share thought leadership vision around this trend and may be looking to gain industry visibility
• Secure a solid list of reference accounts who are consistently supporting your PR activities at various levels
• Look beyond the obvious suspects (top customers) to see who might be leveraged in your campaigns (BOD members, technology partners, investors, etc.)
• Leverage customer testimonials in every PR activity so it becomes the customer that is telling your company’s value proposition
• Build a company “fan base” and increase potential of word-of-mouth marketing by leveraging fans and testimonials in social media channels

Bottom line, customer and partner participation is the key to highly effective public relations campaigns that produce greater brand awareness/credibility and ultimately enhanced sales results.

In my next post, we’ll take a look at the power of editorial tracking and rapid response tactics.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year!

Traditionally the media and industry analysts have been revered as major market influencers (the people your target audience – those you’re trying to sell to – listen to). A leader position in an analyst report or positive product review was the holy grail of PR efforts. While these influencers continue to wield power, the collective influence of consumers is widening.

An increasing number of people are participating in online conversations – sharing opinions and influencing purchasing decisions (explicitly or implicitly) – as part of their daily routine. At the same time trust in consumer opinions posted online is growing, as social networks become dynamic ecosystems that develop and nurture relationships between people and the content they share.

As social media adoption goes mainstream, we cannot ignore the growing influence consumers have on brand affinity and purchasing decisions.

Here are some interesting tidbits for you to consider as you create your 2010 marketing plan:

1. Social networks are gaining in popularity. Facebook has over 300 million active users and Twitter was declared the top word of 2009 by the Global Language Monitor. Need I say more?
2. Online consumer opinions are becoming more trusted. An April 2009 Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey found that people trust consumer opinions posted online as much as editorial content and more than traditional newspapers and magazines.
3. Social media content influences buying decisions. A study by SNCR Research concludes that traditional influence cycles are being disrupted by social media as decision makers utilize social networks to inform and validate decisions.
4. People find products through social network sites. According a study released by Performics on how consumers use social networks to discover products 30% of respondents admitted to learning about a product, service or brand on a social network site, 44% recommended a product on Twitter and 39% have discussed a product on Twitter. 48% of people who saw a brand’s name on Twitter went to a search engine to look for the product.
5. The volume of user generated content is growing. According to MarketingVox and Nielsen BuzzMetrics, “25% of search results for the world’s Top 20 brands link to user generated content.” If this trend holds, it is possible that user generated content will dominate search results as customers far outnumber the number of employees of even the largest brands.

As people embrace and exercise their ability to share their opinions through social networks, we as marketers must take note, listen to the conversations and evolve how we engage with our consumers.

As I reported back in August, “Traditional PR is Not Dead”, by any means, but the influence of bloggers is certainly gaining ground and should not be ignored as you develop your 2010 public relations strategy.

According to a blog post entitled, “Statistics Show Social Media is Bigger Than you Think” by Erik Qualman there are over 200,000,000 blogs and a reported 34% of bloggers post opinions about products and brands.

With over 1.5 million new blog posts every day and 77% of active Internet users reading blogs, coverage in the blogosphere can greatly increase your potential brand exposure and drive interest from target audiences.

Another upside is the fact that today’s journalists increasingly rely upon blogs and microblogs to find story ideas and conduct research. According to a new survey from Middleberg Communications and the Society for New Communications Research (SNCR), 66 percent of journalists use blogs and 48 percent use Twitter and other microblogging sites to assist them with reporting.

These findings shouldn’t surprise any of us considering the growing lists of journalists using Twitter and other social networks.

To engage this new audience of influencers, you will first need to find the bloggers that cover your space. Free tools like blog search engine Technorati or Google can help you build and research your list. As a starting point, I would recommend that you identify no more than 20 targets.

Next subscribe to the RSS feeds and get in the habit of reading the posts and comments daily. This will help you monitor target blogs for topics that merit commentary or present possible opportunities to engage — but don’t jump in just yet. Blogger relations require different tactics than traditional PR because most bloggers don’t get paid to cover a specific beat.

Technorati’s 2009 State for the Blogosphere report claims over 70% of bloggers are hobbyists and self-expression and sharing expertise are the primary motivations for these bloggers.

According to our social media maven, Susan Getgood, the success of your blogger relations program depends upon how well you translate PR and marketing messages into stories that will resonate with your target bloggers on some personal level. Unlike the news media, bloggers don’t necessarily require the story to be new. Relevant is often more important, although this space will have a tendency toward wanting the latest news.

First and foremost, make sure that you understand your target blogger’s motivation for blogging and personal interests before you attempt to post a comment or pitch a story. With all the noise in the blogosphere, you must provide real value in order to be worth a post or better yet a longer-term relationship.

Finally, make a commitment to be in this for the long haul because blogger relations are very personal and an ongoing program is more effective than a campaign approach.

Robert Mullins is a freelance technology writer in Silicon Valley. His writing can be found at his Robert Mullins blog.

As of this writing, the celebrity gossip scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods is still unfolding, but enough is known to serve as a teachable moment in PR crisis management both for individuals and businesses.

Woods has parceled out information about the circumstances of his car crash in morsels just small enough to create an appetite for more. He has tried to balance the need to answer the media’s questions — not to mention those of the police — with his desire to protect his privacy.

Businesses sometimes find themselves in a similar dilemma when news comes out that makes them look bad and they try to respond to it while at the same time protecting their privacy. The best plan is to get out as much information as one can as soon as possible in order to prevent speculation from taking the place of known facts in the story.

The bare-bones facts in the Woods case are these, according to news reports. Woods left his Florida home at 2:25 a.m. Nov. 27 in his 2009 Cadillac Escalade and promptly ran off the road, knocked over a fire hydrant and hit a tree. Woods’s wife, Elin Nordegren, appeared on the scene soon after and reportedly used a golf club to break the rear windows on the car to free him.

Woods was taken to the hospital, treated for facial cuts and bruises and released.

After holding off Florida Highway Patrol investigators’ requests to interview the couple for three days, Woods’s silence created a vacuum filled by media speculation and gossip, including mention of a previous report in the National Enquirer that Woods may have been involved with another woman. The snickerers online found an alternative reason why his wife was wailing on the Escalade with a golf club.

Sunday, Woods issued a statement that prompted more questions than it answered. It read, in part: “This situation is my fault. I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen again.” Those with cynical motives can take off and run with “I’m human and I’m not perfect,” in any number of directions, and they probably have.

In his statement, Woods asked the public to respect his own and his family’s privacy. While even as a celebrity he is entitled to a certain amount of that, playing the privacy card has its downside. Deliver a carefully worded statement but offer no opportunity for questions and you only invite more criticism.

Monday, Woods spurred the next news cycle by revealing he wouldn’t be playing at a charity golf tournament in California this week that is to benefit his Tiger Woods Foundation.

An Associated Press story, published Saturday, laid out the public relations crisis management dilemma he faces:

“Assuming Woods has crisis management advisers, he had better get them on the phone. Assuming they answer, he had better listen to their advice. Say something, and say it soon,” wrote the AP’s Tim Dahlberg. “’I was always a believer that you should come out and say what happened, apologize if need be and take it from there,’ said John Rowady, president of rEvolution, a Chicago-based sports marketing agency.”

Say something and say it soon could be good advice for a business faced with a crisis to manage, too, be it a lawsuit, a high level executive departure or a product recall. Public relations experts advise convening a crisis management team to draft a response plan and carry it out.

In the article, “A startup roadmap for crisis communications,” Wendy Lane, founder of the PR and marketing firm Lane PR, lays out a well thought out crisis response plan.

In brief, Lane advises a company set up a response team ahead of time that includes one or two top executives and representatives of the public relations department. Any public statement, or statement to employees, should be drafted by group consensus within the crisis team. While company officials should reach out to key constituencies affected by the news – such as board members, key clients or vendors – information should not be distributed piecemeal. If someone hears a tidbit of news from a colleague rather than a supervisor, that prompts rumors.

Communicating to those outside the company, including the news media, should also be similarly well-coordinated. In October, I covered a story in which T-Mobile, a wireless carrier, had to notify users of its Danger Sidekick smartphone that, due to a server failure, backup information on their phones, like contacts, calendar entries and e-mail addresses, had been erased.

T-Mobile and Sidekick (a company owned by Microsoft) quickly acknowledged the problem, apologized profusely, temporarily pulled the Sidekick off the market, disclosed as much as they knew and gave disgruntled customers gift cards as compensation for their loss. Within a few weeks, lost data had been restored for most subscribers. The company made the best of a bad situation with a coordinated plan.

It remains to be seen how the Tiger Woods situation will play out. While crisis management professionals advise a more proactive stance than Woods seems to have taken, he still retains strong “brand equity.” He’s a successful golfer, both on the course and at the bank and is a positive role model for all kinds of people. He may have some reputational capital in reserve to survive whatever additional bad publicity lies ahead.

Robert Mullins is a freelance technology writer in Silicon Valley. His writing can be found at his Robert Mullins blog.

To tweet or not to tweet? That is the business dilemma.

Some companies see value in embracing social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and the like as a new way to connect with their customers. Nothing says we care like a status update such as “Just keepin’ the customer satisfied!” But despite the push for businesses to exploit social media, some of them can screw it up if they don’t think it through.

Before I get to that, first off, there are those who are decidedly anti-social to social media. Some companies prohibit use of it by their employees because of security risks. Surveys asking “Which ‘Mad Men’ character are you?” could be a delivery device for maladies that could infect the computer network and steal valuable company information. For others, it’s just considered a time waster. When the boss reads your status update, “Gawd, will five o’clock EVER come?” she’ll give you more work to pass the time.

But even for those who embrace social media, including blogs, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it that has nothing to do with the risk of viruses on your network or dawdlers in your office. Social media experts speaking at a recent Inbound Marketing Summit in Boston detailed five ways to fail at social media. A catchphrase heard at the conference that sums social media up is clever: “It’s not rocket surgery.”

First, a company’s social media strategy should go beyond just pushing sales. An example that came up is from Citrix, a company that delivers virtualized software applications to desktop computers. Its blog discusses a broad array of issues related to telecommuting, so it’s not just an ad for Citrix virtualization. A health insurance company promoted a community bicycle sharing program to keep people healthy, not to convince people to buy a policy from them.

Another way social media strategies can go wrong is if there’s no there there. That is, if a company invites customers to comment and share their opinions on a particular subject and doesn’t respond to their suggestions, it’s an empty gesture. Southwest Airlines considered following other airlines in making assigned seating aboard its flights. By posting its proposal on its blog, Southwest heard from customers who liked the first-come-first-served approached and kept it, with some modifications, based on that feedback.

A social media strategy can also fail if the company doesn’t embrace what needs to be an adaptive technology. The company’s blog or Facebook page needs to be simple for anyone within the company to operate without having to submit a work order to IT.

That said, there needs to be some corporate discipline in how social media are used. Attendees at the conference warned of the “rogue employee [who] ‘goes off’ on Twitter” as something to watch out for. Social media conversations can be casual and free-wheeling, but message control is still important.

Lastly, a social media strategy can fail if the corporate culture doesn’t truly embrace it. The strategy needs to be customer-focused, which seems obvious, but in some cultures, process, policies and products can take precedence over using social media to serve the customer.

Oh, I guess this is the point where I should invite your comments, to which I’ll be eager to reply.

Most of us occasionally suffer from “following the herd” mentality, but effective positioning requires companies to deviate from the norm and establish their own unique position. When formulating a positioning statement, the statement should (1) clearly articulate the company’s understanding of market needs, and (2) present a defendable value proposition that is meaningful to target audiences. At Attain, we find that this second requirements is particularly challenging for young companies.

In a recent client engagement, we did a competitive positioning audit and found that 6 in 7 of the companies in the space claimed a market leading position — and yet our client was hesitant to drop “leader” from their positioning for fear that potential customers would not consider them as a viable market player.

This line of reasoning is prevalent in the technology industry. If ‘Company A’, the true market leader as defined by market share, claims it is the leading provider of widgets, the new market entrant ‘Company B’ claims it is the leading provider of next-generation widgets, and so on until you have the whole sector claiming they are “the leading provider of [insert adjective] widgets”.

How is it possible to create a defendable value proposition by following the herd? The answer is, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what a company believes or wishes to be true. Positioning is about how companies are perceived in the minds of their target audiences. And I have yet to meet a prospect who cares to split hairs over the semantics of a company’s messaging.

Dare to put the differentiation back into positioning by answering the prospective customer’s question, “Why do people choose your company?” (Hint: it isn’t because you are 1 of 6 “market leaders”) To find the real answer to this question, try talking to customers, prospective customers and competitor customers (if possible).

A defendable and meaningful positioning platform requires that you understand the factors that motivate the buying decision within your space. So ask customers what factors they considered when making their decision (i.e., quality of offering, breadth of offering, depth of offering, pricing, innovation, value, credibility, market expertise, etc.) and then divide those attributes into the following hierarchy:

• Compelling Attributes: What attributes actually compell them to buy from you instead of the competition?
• Differentiating Attributes: What attributes begin to differentiate your company from the competition? You may share these attributes with some, but not all of your competitors.
• Necessary Attributes: What attributes establish you as a viable vendor but do not, however, differentiate you from your competition.

When you understand the attributes that compel someone to buy your product/service instead of the competitions’, you can begin to define a position that is both differentiated and defendable.

One of the unfortunate realities of today’s market is that many marketing campaigns do not yield the results that were hoped for or promised. This usually leads to finger pointing between sales and marketing, and the battle is usually won by the finger with the greater amount of data, no matter how flimsy.

We asked Patrick Conte, whose career spans more than 25 years of leadership roles with high technology companies in both the private and public sectors, to give his insight on this phenomenon. Patrick is highly regarded for his ability to help high-growth companies successfully navigate market challenges, leverage opportunity and emerge as industry leaders.

Attain Marketing: In your many years in sales and as an executive, often overseeing large teams of sales and marketing professionals, you’ve probably witnessed some interesting dynamics between Sales and Marketing teams. How would you characterize the typical Sales/Marketing relationship and what factors influence the dynamics?

Conte: It is my experience that Sales and Marketing are frequently not on the same page and often the relationship ends up in some sort of conflict. But I believe this can always be traced back to the fact that the senior executives in all functional departments (marketing, sales, engineering, product development, finance) have not agreed upon a single set of shared objectives for the company.

Politics exist in both small and large companies, so unless senior management is united on common corporate goals which keep Sales and Marketing marching in the same direction, personal agendas tend to rear their ugly heads - which may end up affecting the relationship between Sales and Marketing. Since the two organizations are the most “out front” functions, it’s natural that there may be contention unless those organizations sit down and compare notes to make sure they are in synch about what the corporate objectives are and how each will help achieve them.

Attain Marketing: In your opinion, why does a disconnect - and at times animosity - develop between two departments that are supposed to be focused on the same goal of getting more revenue for their company?

Conte: A lot of the time, differences and disconnects in the trenches can be traced back to the fact that the VP of Sales and VP of Marketing, especially in young companies, may be atdifferent places in their career and may be focused on a personal agenda for success vs. the overall success of the company. Obviously it’s very difficult for companies to synchronize the selection of VPs that are in the same place in their careers when they hire them, so it becomes incumbent on these managers to sit down and sort out where their respective positions are so they can make sure they are in synch with overall corporate objectives.

Ultimately the overall goal for the company is to find customers it can help with a set of solutions. Its Marketing’s job to appeal to a broad group, and then its Sales job to find a way to deliver that technology to individual customers. If the Sales and Marketing teams can look at their mission and decide that they are part of a relay where one team will “hand off” to the other when it’s time, they can achieve success even if the VPs are at different points of their career.

Attain Marketing: Now we know everything is usually Sales’ fault (poke), but seriously, what are some of the common complaints you hear from Sales about Marketing? And how often does Marketing become Sales’ scapegoat when revenue numbers don’t match expectations?

Conte: “Your leads suck”, “you have not done the positioning so I don’t know how to talk about this stuff”, “the technology is complex so the messaging needs to be better”, “I am out here alone with no support” are some of the old excuses Sales may fall back on when revenue numbers fall short.”

Ultimately if the revenue numbers are not being met, each organization will come up with a set of reasons why that’s happening. When you believe you are doing a good job and yet expectations are not being met, then its human nature to point a finger at the guy closest to you. If it’s not Marketing’s fault, then let’s blame Engineering for developing a product that does not work, or Finance for being too tight with contracts or compensation packages.

This is something that organizations need to try to avoid, and part of that has to do with how well they hire. Do you hire people that have a level of maturity, not just talent, and who can be introspective about their own jobs and won’t take it personally when you point it out where things can be done better or differently?

Attain Marketing: What tips can you provide Marketing to be more successful engaging and working collaboratively with Sales? And how can Marketing better demonstrate their value to both Sales and the executive team?

Conte: I touched on this previously but the most important point is that senior management from all functional departments need to agree from the beginning “what” is the most important set of corporate objectives and most importantly “why” they are so important. The “why” may be the hardest to agree upon, but it needs to be addressed before the “what” can be successfully delivered.

The main tip is that a common set of objectives must be met. For example, we need to touch ‘x’ number of customers or deliver ‘x’ revenue, or we need to have ‘x’ many impressions in market places, or we need to be included in ‘x’ many analyst reports. Then, based on these objectives, Sales can say “ok Marketing, this is what I need.”

In my opinion, these items - in order- usually are:

• Strategic positioning – this is where we fit in the marketplace, how we project our vision, where our products fit in the competitive environment, and how do the analysts and press view us.
• Sales tools and collateral – these are the tools that allow internal folks, sales force, partners and others to readily understand what the company does and product benefits without the need to talk to someone directly. You want people to know about what you do before they talk to someone in Sales – this shortens the sales cycle.
• Support for the channel or partners – this is a different way of conditioning the sales tools so they are consumable by your unpaid/commission-only salesforce. Or it’s a strategy to reach partners and get them on board with marketing activities.
• Warm leads - these are different from raw leads in that warm leads are ones in which a prospect has responded to a campaign or set of messages delivered by the company.

I believe that if Marketing can deliver these items, then its Sales job to take the “hand off” from there, which really makes the two organizations partners in what they do. Now, if Marketing successfully delivers all the above and revenue numbers are not met, then Sales has some “splaining” to do (as Ricky would say to Lucy).

Attain Marketing: Any last thoughts, Pat?

Conte: Sales can easily be measured in metrics and numbers to quantify their results, so it’s very easy to blame Sales if revenue numbers are not met. And ultimately it is Sales that is accountable for closing customer deals and delivering revenue results for the company. But it’s fair to get Marketing to agree to metric-based goals - such as how many articles will the company be included in, how many analysts will they talk to, where you want to end up in their reports, how many sales tools will be delivered both internally and to partners, and ultimately, how many warm leads will be developed. This makes it a fair “fight” ;-). In other words, if Sales is going to be measured on numbers – and they should be – then Marketing can be as well.