0 Salesforce + ExactTarget vs. SAP + hybris: Two Paths to Customer Management

Fresh on the heels of Tuesday's blockbuster ExactTarget / Salesforce.com deal, SAP Wednesday announced acquisition of e-commerce vendor hybris software.  Since Salesforce said that other companies also wanted to buy ExactTarget, it seemed possible that SAP had lost the deal and purchased hybris as a second choice. After listening to the analyst conference call (available at (303) 590-3030 passcode 4623918), I still can't say.

The SAP and hybris managers unfairly implied during their call that ExactTarget does nothing but email (without mentioning Salesforce.com or ExactTarget by name).  But as Salesforce.com made clear in its own call yesterday, they were most attracted by ExactTarget's multi-channel marketing capabilities.  It's possible SAP wanted ExactTarget for the same reasons and would have described it differently had they been the winning bidder.

In any case, SAP did tell a good story: real-time interactions seamlessly presenting customers with consistent information, dialogues, and purchases across all channels, with a central role for the Web.  This is certainly the long term goal for most marketers, although few are close to delivering it.  As SAP pointed out, it's a customer-centric view of the world, quite different from the operational focus of traditional CRM.  SAP does have some unique assets to support this vision, including back-office systems with sales, inventory, costs, and other data needed to fully inform customer treatments, and the in-memory HANA database to make this data immediately available for real-time interactions.  I haven't done enough research to judge whether SAP can effectively combine these pieces, but they're making the right promises.

I still wouldn't be as dismissive of the Salesforce / ExactTarget combination as the SAP managers.  People integrate CRM with back-office systems all the time.  You can also build great customer experiences with little or no back office integration.  ExactTarget does have some Web personalization features (from its iGoDigital acquisition), although I don't know how well they're integrated with the rest of the system.  Similarly, it has claimed to support real-time interactions in its Interactive Marketing Hub, but I don't know how well that works.  What I do know is that Salesforce and ExactTarget have a reasonable idea of what's needed and the resources to build it.  How well and how quickly they execute remains to be seen -- but you can say the same for SAP.

Incidentally, the common thread for these acquisitions is that both vendors are moving into direct B2C marketing.  It's a big new market for each of them, and makes both much more interesting competitors to IBM, Oracle and Adobe.  Perhaps that's the most important news here.

It would be misleading to give the impression that SAP and Salesforce are equivalent.  The two deals highlight some very fundamental differences:

- SAP is a full enterprise system; Salesforce is about CRM. The SAP managers made the point most clearly when they discussed that their appeal is targeted at the boardroom level: they are selling to companies who want to build their entire infrastructure on SAP's system.  Salesforce is now, finally, adding serious marketing to its CRM system (although there are still some gaps such as media buying), but even so its vision is still limited to customer management, and it is selling at the level of sales, service, and marketing departments -- rarely in the boardroom.  Note that the original concept of CRM already encompassed those departments, so this is less an expansion than a filling of gaps.

- SAP is a suite; Salesforce is a platform.  Indeed, SAP is the ultimate suite: every enterprise function running on a single, tightly integrated system.  I've long argued that the fundamental rule of software marketing is that "suites win", meaning most companies will choose an integrated suite over multiple best-of-breed point solutions.  SAP's success is Exhibit A in my evidence for this, but you could argue it's actually so large that companies might be just as happy with several smaller suites instead (e.g., one for CRM and one for back-office).   This would still let them avoid doing most of the integration work, while not forcing them to commit totally to one vendor's system. 

Salesforce is also an integrated suite, although limited to CRM.  But it has also embraced (and I think invented) the idea of an open platform: a foundation system that can be supplemented by attaching other vendors' products.  This provides easy integration without limiting users to capabilities provided by the suite vendor.  The model has been tremendously successful for Salesforce, particularly at letting it offer advanced functions to its clients without having to pay for developing those functions.  ExactTarget has embraced a similar model, incidentally.

- SAP is largely on-premise software; Salesforce is Software as a Service (SaaS).  It's true that SAP now offers SaaS options, but it was built as on-premise software and its large enterprise clients still mostly run it that way.  hybris also offers both options but runs mostly on-premise (typical for Web content management).  Salesforce of course is the granddaddy of all SaaS companies.

- hybris runs Web sites; ExactTarget is still primarily about email.  The obvious point of this is that Salesforce still needs serious Web site management to provide comprehensive customer treatments.

But the difference goes deeper.  Web sites are inherently real-time systems, while email is inherently batch processing.  This was the essence of SAP's comments today, and while they may understate ExactTarget's abilities, there is a kernel of truth.  Web systems are engineered from the start for high-speed processing, and the e-commerce features of hybris also mean it was engineered from the start to interact with individual customers, not just serve generic Web pages.  Email systems were originally engineered for batch processing, not individual interactions.  Mobile and social messages, which ExactTarget also supports, can also be handled quite well in batch.  I don't know to how far ExactTarget has evolved towards supporting real-time interactions, but its heritage lies elsewhere.

- hybris has 500 customers; ExactTarget has 6,000.  The revenue difference is much less: $100 million for hybris and nearly $400 million for ExactTarget.  What this reflects is that hybris' clients are mostly large enterprises, while ExactTarget has a broad mix of large and small companies.  Each each a good match for the core business of its new owner: SAP also focuses on large enterprises, while Salesforce sells to pretty much everyone. The broad reach of ExactTarget was certainly part of the reason that Salesforce wanted it, but Salesforce already has well over 100,000 clients, so the net increase isn't all that important.

What all this means, I think, is that SAP and Salesforce represent very different approaches to customer management: SAP proposes a single, tightly integrated, highly responsive real-time system where everything is connected and optimized.  Salesforce offers a looser set of connections with less control but more room for variety, change, and innovation.  SAP will sell more to the boardroom while Salesforce will sell to sales and marketing departments.  I frankly expect that both will succeed; it's a big market and each approach will appeal to different customers.  What I really hope is that both will show the market how to do integrated, cross-channel customer management: that way, everybody wins.

Circling back to the original question: I still don't know whether SAP tried to buy ExactTarget.  Based on the what I wrote above, hybris was a better fit.  But the SAP managers spent so much time disparaging email in their call that I thought I smelled sour grapes. Or was it just competitive vitriol?

0 LeadLife Bundles Services with Marketing Automation

LeadLife released a completely rebuild version of its marketing automation system last month.
The new system features a cleaner interface and revised capabilities that reflect what LeadLife has learned about the needs of small to mid-size companies since its original product launch in 2008. This involves a careful balance between complexity and power.

The best example of this balance, and the most notable change in the system, is campaign design.  LeadLife originally used a linear sequence of steps, while the new system uses a branching flow chart. This is a somewhat unusual choice for a small business-oriented system, whose clients tend to find flow charts difficult to work with. But LeadLife – like many other marketing automation vendors – found its clients tend to design campaigns as flow charts. It therefore chose to build the flow chart interface but to exclude the more confusion-inducing features, like the ability to send leads back to previous steps in the same flow or to start new flows in the middle.

On the other hand, the system does include some features not usually found in small business systems.  These include rule-driven, dynamic content blocks within emails, which LeadLife found many clients applied fairly easily. The system rule-builder also combines power with simplicity: for example, rules can reference specific links within an email (powerful) and the system automatically presents a list of links within the specified email (simple).

Probably more important, LeadLife has also bundled marketing services with its software. For example, vendor staff will design the campaign flows for the client, further reducing the risk that the flow chart will cause confusion.  Vendor staff will teach the client best practices such as building several small campaigns instead of a single complicated one.

Services are provided with every level of the product, including the lowest price of $750 per month. Specific options include marketing strategy, content creation, design, lead nurturing campaigns, lead process definition, and analytics. Most are performed by LeadLife’s internal staff although copywriting and design may be sent to subcontractors.

Bundled services are LeadLife’s solution to the skill gap that keeps so many companies from adopting marketing automation or using it fully. Other companies have taken a similar approach.  Still others have tried alternatives including keeping the system very simple, providing extensive training to use more complex systems, and using automation to handle complicated functions. Although most vendors apply them in combination, their emphases do vary.  It's not clear which choice will prove most effective -- but a lot of money is riding on the outcome.

Back to LeadLife. The scope of the new product includes typical marketing automation functions: campaigns, email, landing pages and forms, lead scoring, behavior tracking, CRM integration, sales alerts, segmentation, and reporting. Reports and some other features are still a work in progress but the basics are in place. LeadLife is migrating its existing 70 customers to the new system over the next few months. The system is sold on a month-to-month basis (no long-term contract) and prices are based on email volume and services.  Clients at all levels get the full set of system features.

0 SDL Buys Marketing Automation Vendor Alterian for $107 Million

So, it turns out that while I’ve been obsessing over vendor selection workbooks, our friends at marketing automation vendor Alterian up and got bought last week by language technology vendor SDL for about $107 million. Why didn't somebody tell me?

I’m most familiar with SDL as a Web content management vendor, although their financial statements show that just over 75% of their revenue comes from manual and automated language translation. The company had more than $300 million revenue last year and is nicely profitable.

Alterian hasn’t been doing so well lately, with about $55 million revenue for the past year and cash-basis loss around $6 million. Management has also been in flux: CEO David Eldridge resigned in April, a new CEO Heath Davies was named in July, and president and co-founder Michael Talbot resigned in October. The company was nearing the end of a 100 day restructuring plan that dropped its headcount from 440 to 260.  It had also taken several red-flag accounting actions including restating revenue, changing its revenue recognition policy, and taking large asset write-downs.

You math whizzes out there will have already noted that the purchase price is just under 2x revenue, compared with the 5x-ish prices paid a year ago for Unica and Aprimo. Whether this puts a damper on the prospective valuations of other marketing automation vendors is hard to say: Alterian was obviously struggling, and its main business model was to license its software to marketing service providers rather than selling it directly or via Software as a Service. On the other hand, Alterian did have some SaaS components to its business, notably SM2 social media monitoring (formerly Techrigy).

Alterian also had a bold vision of extending beyond traditional campaign management and analytics to include marketing resource management and web content management as well as social media. I’d still argue the strategy was correct, but that Alterian didn’t have the financial resources or market clout to execute it. Certainly its costs got ahead of its revenue: at 440 employees on $55 million revenue, it had just $125,000 revenue per employee, compared with the $200,000 I consider standard (see my post from last January on revenue ratios -- even at that time, when Alterian had just 370 employees, it was already below par.)

SDL’s chairman is quoted as saying that “The marketing analytics, campaign management and social media were the big attractions” of Alterian, so presumably the company will keep those businesses. The content management piece, about 27% of Alterian sales, will presumably be merged with SDL’s much larger Web content management business.

The big question for the marketing services providers who are Alterian’s primary customer base is how SDL will treat them, since they are not SDL’s current core clients. That’s more than a little scary, especially given the dearth of alternative mid-priced marketing automation systems for consumer marketers. (See my list of B2C vendors from September and my discussion of the differences between B2B and B2C marketing automation from October.)

On the brighter side, I can argue that the Alterian acquisition supports my long-standing contention that marketing automation and Web content management will eventually coalesce into a single system. Any gloating is restrained by the fact that Alterian had already combined the two and didn’t succeed. But this probably just shows that deep pockets will be needed to pull off the combination in a world where the competitors are heavyweights like IBM, Oracle, Adobe, SAS and Teradata.

0 Teradata Buys Aprimo for $525 Million: More Marketing Automation Consolidation To Come

Summary: Teradata's acquisition of Aprimo takes the largest remaining independent marketing automation vendor off the market. The market will probably split between enterprise-wide suites and more limited marketing automation systems.

Teradata announced today that is acquiring marketing automation vendor Aprimo for a very hefty $525 million – even more than the $480 million that IBM paid for somewhat larger Unica in August.

Given the previous Unica deal. other recent marketing system acquisitions, and wide knowledge that Aprimo was eager to sell, no one is particularly surprised by this transaction. Teradata is a logical buyer, having a complementary campaign management system but lacking Aprimo’s marketing resource management, cloud-based technology and strong B2B client base (although Aprimo has stressed to me more than once that 60% of their revenue is from B2C clients).

This is obviously a huge decision for Teradata, a $1.7 billion company compared with IBM’s $100 billion in revenue. It stakes a claim to a piece of the emerging market for enterprise-wide marketing systems, the same turf targeted in recent deals by IBM, Oracle, Adobe and Infor (and SAS and SAP although they haven’t made major acquisitions).

This enterprise market is probably going to evolve into something distinct from traditional “marketing automation”. The difference: marketing automation is focused on batch and interactive campaign management but just touches slightly on advertising, marketing resource management and analytics. The enterprise market involves unified systems sold at the CEO, CFO, CIO and CMO levels, whereas marketing automation has been sold largely to email and Web marketers within marketing departments.

The existence of C-level buyers for marketing systems is not yet proven, and I remain a bit of a skeptic. But many smart people are betting a lot of money that it will appear, and will spend more money to make it happen. Aprimo is probably the vendor best positioned to benefit because its MRM systems inherently work across an entire marketing department (although I’m sure many Aprimo deployments are more limited). So, in that sense at least, Teradata has positioned itself particularly well to take advantage of the new trend. And if IBM and Oracle want to invest in developing that market so that Teradata can benefit, so much the better for Teradata.

That said, there's still some question whether Teradata can really benefit if this market takes off. Aprimo adds a great deal of capability, but the combined company still lacks the strong Web analytics and BI applications of its main competitors. A closer alliance with SAS might fill that gap nicely...and acquisition or merger between the two firms is perfectly conceivable, at least superficially. Lack of professional services is perhaps less an issue since it makes Teradata a more attractive partner to the large consulting firms (Accenture, CapGemini, etc.) who already use its tools and must be increasingly nervous about competition from IBM’s services group.

The other group closely watching these deals are the remaining marketing automation vendors themselves. Many would no doubt be delighted to sell at such prices. But, as Eloqua’s Joe Payne points out in his own comment on the Aprimo deal, the remaining vendors are all much smaller: while Unica and Aprimo each had around $100 million revenue, Eloqua and Alterian are around $50 million, Neolane and SmartFocus are $20-$30 million, and Marketo said recently it expects nearly $15 million in 2010. I doubt any of the others reach $10 million. (This excludes email companies like ExactTarget, Responsys and Silverpop [which does have a marketing automation component].) Moreoever, the existing firms skew heavily to B2B clients and smaller companies, which are not the primary clients targeted by big enterprise systems vendors.

That said, I do expect continued acquisitions within this space. I’d be surprised to see the 4-5x revenue price levels of the Unica and Aprimo deals, but even lower valuations would be attractive to owners and investors facing increasingly cut-throat competition. As I’ve written many times before, the long-term trend will be for larger CRM and Web marketing suites to incorporate marketing automation functions, making stand-alone marketing automation less competitive. Survivors will offer features for particular industries or specialized functions that justify purchase outside of the corporate standard. And the real money will be made by service vendors who can help marketers fully benefit from these systems.

0 More on Marketo Financials: Despite Past Losses, Prospects Are Bright

Summary: Public data gives some insights into Marketo's financial history and prospects. Despite past losses, the company is in a strong position to continue to compete aggressively. (Note: as Marketo has commented below, this article is based on my own analysis and was written without access to Marketo's actual financial information.)

Here’s a bit more on this week's $25 million investment in Marketo: a piece in VentureWire quotes revenue for Markteo as $4.5 million for 2009 and "triple that" ($13.5 million) for 2010. This is the first time I've seen published revenue figures for the company. They allow for some interesting analysis.

Data I've collected over the years shows that Marketo had about 120 clients at the start of 2009, 325 at the start of 2010, and should end 2010 with about 800. Doing a bit of math, this yields average counts of 222 for 2009 and 562 for 2010, which in turn shows average revenue per client of $20,000 per year or $1,700 per month in 2009 and $24,000 or $2,000 per month in 2010. The table below throws in a reasonable guess for 2008 as well.

Given that Marketo’s list prices start at $2,000 per month for the smallest implementation of its full-featured edition, this is pretty firm evidence that the company has indeed been aggressively discounting its system – as competitors have long stated.

(Some competitors have also said that Marketo's reported client counts are cumulative new clients, without reductions for attrition. If so, the revenue per active client would actually be a bit higher than I've calculated here. But Marketo itself says the reported figures are indeed active clients and I've no basis to doubt them. The following analysis wouldn't change much either way.)

If you’ll accept a bit more speculation, we can even estimate the size of those discounts. That same VentureWire article quotes Marketo’s current headcount as 130 employees, compared with half that number at the start of the year. Assume there were 70 at the start of 2010 (which matches my own data) and will be 140 by year-end, for an average of 105. My records suggest that the headcount at the start of the 2009 was around 35, so the average headcount for that year was about 52.

Let’s assume a "normal" revenue of $200,000 per employee, which is about typical for software companies (and matches published figures for Marketo competitors Aprimo and Unica). That means Marketo revenues without discounting “should” have been about $10.4 million in 2009 and $21 million in 2010. Compared with actual revenues, this shows 2009 revenue was about 43% of the “normal” price ($4.5 million actual vs. $10.4 million expected) and 2010 revenue at about 64% ($13.5 million vs. $21 million).

So the good news for Marketo’s new investors is that Marketo has been discounting less (although there’s an alternative explanation that we’ll get to in a minute). The bad news is they have quite a way to go before they’re selling at full price.

We can use the same data to estimate Marketo’s burn rate. Costs are likely to be very close to the same $200,000 per employee (this includes everything, not just salary). My records suggest the company had about 25 average employees in 2008, for $5 million in expenses. Marketo was founded in late 2005, so let’s figure it averaged 10 employees during the previous two years, and that they cost only $150,000 because the early stage doesn’t involve marketing costs. This adds another $3 million. That gives a cumulative investment of $39.4 million.

We already know revenue for 2009 and 2010 will be about $18 million. The company started selling in late February 2008 and my records show it ended that year with 120 clients. Assume the equivalent of 50 annual clients at $15,000 and you get 2008 revenue of $750,000, for $18.75 million total. That leaves a gap of $20.65 million between life-to-date costs vs. revenues.
This nicely matches the “approximately $20 million” investment to date that Marketo CEO Phil Fernandez reportedin his own blog post on the new funding.

Now you can see why Marketo needed more money: its losses are actually growing despite having more customers and improved pricing. It lost nearly $16,000 for each new client last year ($7.5 million loss on 475 new clients). At that rate, even a modest increase in the number of new clients would have burned through nearly all of the company’s remaining $12 million within one year.

This isn’t just a matter of scale. It’s true that a start-up has to spread its fixed costs over a small number of clients, yielding a high cost per client during the early stages. Marketo shows this effect: the number of clients per employee has grown started at 3.4 at the end of 2008 and dropped to 5.7 at the end of 2010. This is the alternative to discounting as an explanation for those ratios of "normal" to actual revenue (remember: “normal” revenue based on number of employees).

But the client/employee ratio can’t improve indefinitely. Many costs are not fixed: staffing for customer support, marketing, sales and administrative functions will all increase as clients are added. To get some idea of Marketo's variable costs, compare the change in employees with the change in clients. This is improving more slowly:

And here’s the problem: at 1 new employee for every 6.8 clients, Marketo is adding $200,000 in cost for just $163,000 in revenue (=6.8 x $24,000 / client). It truly does lose money on each new customer. You can’t grow your way out of that.

So what happens now? Let’s assume Marketo gets a bit more efficient and the new clients to new employee ratio eventually tops out at a relatively optimistic 8. At a cost of $200,000 per employee, those clients have to generate $25,000 in revenue for Marketo just to cover the increased expense. This is just a bit higher than the current $24,000 per client, so it seems pretty doable. But it leaves the existing $7.5 million annual loss in place forever.

In other words, Marketo must substantially increase revenue per client to become profitable. (In theory, Marketo could also cut costs. But the main controllable cost is sales and marketing, and incremental cost per sale is likely to rise as the company enters new markets and faces stiffer competition while pushing for continued growth. So higher revenue is the only real option.)

Revenue per client can be increased through higher prices, new products, and/or bigger clients. Pricing will be constrained by competition, although Marketo could probably discount a bit less. This leaves new products and bigger clients. Those are exactly the areas that Marketo is now pursuing through add-ons such as Revenue Cycle Analytics and Sales Insight, and enhancements for large companies in its Enterprise Edition. So, in my humble opinion, they're doing exactly the right things.

Some back-of-envelope calculations confirm that revenue per client is by far the most important variable in Marketo’s financial future. The following tables use some reasonable assumptions about growth in clients and clients per employee; take my word for it that the results don’t change much if you modify these. But results change hugely depending on what happens to revenue per client: losses continue indefinitely if it remains at the current $24,000 per year; they continue for two years and total $10 million if it increases at 10% per year; and they end after one year and $4.4 million if it grows at 20% per year. Bear in mind that revenue per customer did grow 20% from 2009 to 2010 ($20,000 to $24,000). So I’d expect it to continue rising sharply as Marketo firms up its pricing and starts acquiring larger clients.


Indeed, these figures raise the unexpected (to me) question of whether $25 million in funding is more than Marketo will need. I’d guess the company’s management and current investors were careful not to dilute their equity any more than necessary, so I think they’re planning some heavy investments that are not factored into my assumptions. In fact, the company has said as much: the VentureWire piece quotes Fernandez as stating the new funds will be used for additional sales and marketing staff, to open offices abroad, to integrate with other vendors and launch vertical services in sectors like health care and financial services.

I also expect continued aggressive pricing (perhaps more selectively than in the past) and maybe some acquisitions. It's possible that Marketo will also expand its own professional services staff, since clients definitely need help with adoption. But that would conflict with its existing channel partners so it would need to move carefully.

What does it all mean? Here are my conclusions:

- Marketo's losses reflect a conscious strategy to grow quickly through aggressive pricing. There is no fundamental problem with its cost structure: company could be profitable fairly quickly if it decided to slow down and raise prices.

- Marketo's future lies in the middle and upper tiers of the market. Its pressing financial need is to raise revenue per client, which will lead it away from the low-cost, bitterly competitive market serving very small businesses.

- The new funding will support an expanded marketing and product push. Competing with Marketo in its target segments is going to be a challenge indeed.

0 Genius.com Offers Free Edition: How Much Does It Lower True Cost of Entry?

Summary: Genius.com has added a free version of its system. But I think its strategy of offering an intermediate product between email marketing and full marketing automation may actually be more useful in attracting new customers.

On Monday, Genius.com announced “the first free, instant-on demand generation solution”, a description carefully crafted to distinguish their offering from the free version announced by LoopFuse in June. The key term here is “instant-on”, which Genius defines to mean “instantly integrated website tracking, email marketing and social media campaign tracking” along with fully automated integration with Salesforce.com, including custom fields in standard objects. LoopFuse also provides automated Salesforce.com integration, but doesn’t have Genius’s Web tracking technology.

Since Genius has highlighted the issue, let's dive into its Web tracking. How it works it this: Genius creates URLs that send visitors to a proxy server, which in turn forwards their page calls to the client’s actual Web site. The proxy server continues as an intermediary through the entire visit, so it can track all pages the visitor sees. The same method is used in Web advertising, email links and linked embedded within social media messages. Because the tracking is done by the proxy server, there’s no need to make changes (i.e., add a tracking tag) to the Web site itself. This is what makes the tracking truly “instant”.

So far so good, but let’s be clear: the proxy server only captures visits that begin with a Genius-generated URL. So if I respond to a Genius-generated email, all the details of my initial visit are captured. But if I come back later by typing www.genius.com into my browser or searching for Genius on Google, the proxy server isn’t involved and Genius won’t know about me unless a traditional tag has been added to the Web pages. Genius does support such tags but now we’re beyond the realm of “instant on” and, indeed, of the free Genius system.

Genius' tracking technology is clever and unique enough that they’ve been able to patent it. But conventional marketing automation systems automatically track their own emails, landing pages and Web forms, also without touching the corporate Web site. This is not quite as powerful (or cool) as the Genius approach, but does reduce practical difference.

I wouldn’t have gotten into this had Genius not made “first free, instant-on” the focus of its announcement. What really matters is that they have a free offering, which implies two things about the system itself:

- they can provide fully automated, instant provisioning, which means their technology is sophisticated and their operating costs are low.

- the system is easy enough that new clients can use it with a minimum of support. Genius Marketing Vice President Scott Mersy told me yesterday that the company expects most users will learn what they need from a sequence of educational emails and online materials. He did add – and this and this is important – that limited phone support will be available to free users.

What does the free offering mean from an industry standpoint? I discussed this at some length in my June post on the Loopfuse’s free product. Bottom line: a free version will gain vendors some customers they wouldn’t get otherwise, but probably not create a huge difference in their market share or growth of the market itself. A marketing automation system is a highly considered purchase. Buyers recognize they will make a substantial investment in time and materials, so an extended free trial (which is what most free versions boil down to) is just one of many factors they weigh in selecting a starter system. Free systems may also attract companies so small that the free system is all they need. But those companies will never be a source of much revenue, even if the vendors manage to sell them some additional services.

In other words, the true purpose of a free system is to lower buyers' full cost of entry enough to attract a large number of new customers. This cost includes not just the software, but also the time spent to learn and operate the system, to develop new campaigns, and to design new business processes. This is why automated provisioning and self-service support really matter: they imply time savings for the users as well as the vendor.

In terms of entry costs, it's significant that Genius’ free version is based on their “Demand Generation” system, which occupies a middle ground between their “Email Marketing” and “Marketing Automation” products. The company provides a handy comparison table which shows that Demand Generation includes social media and Web tracking, triggered actions, Web forms and progressive profiling, but not drip campaigns, automated lead nurturing, lead scoring and landing pages. That is, it captures and tracks leads but doesn’t do sophisticated lead nurturing. This greatly lowers entry costs by asking users to start with a smaller, simpler set of tasks.

Although competitors will no doubt cite the limits of Genius Demand Generation as a weakness of Genius’ free offering, Mersy said the company will actually make the full Marketing Automation version available to free users who want it. He said they chose to start free users on the simpler system only to simplify their initial deployment.

That’s probably a very clever move – as is offering the Demand Generation version. Many marketing automation vendors have a “lite” system that is similar to the Genius Email Marketing, which includes Web behavior tracking and Salesforce.com integration as well as outbound email. But the next leap is typically to full marketing automation. An intermediate product provides a smoother growth path for marketers who want to start small and slowly expand their marketing automation efforts. This addresses two key obstacles to first-time purchase:

- it lets Genius offer a substantially lower entry price than competitors, without dropping the price of its full system. Starting price of Demand Generation is around $800 per month, slightly higher than the $600 per month of Email Marketing but significantly below $1,100 per month for Marketing Automation.

- it lets marketers grow into the complete system at their own pace, rather than purchasing something that requires extensive campaign development and process redesign to use fully. Of course, marketers could also just not deploy these features in another system, but the psychology of that is quite negative.

It remains to be seen whether having an intermediate Demand Generation product really gives Genius a substantial competitive advantage. If it does, it won't last long because the approach could be easily copied. Still, Demand Generation represents a creative approach to a fundamental challenge in the market. For that reason alone, it’s worth watching.

0 Manticore Technology Sees Expertise as Key to Success as a Demand Generation Vendor

Summary: Manticore Technology released some modest enhancements to its demand generation platform today. The company takes a conservative approach to marketing automation, stressing the importance of process over flashy software. I’m not sure this will be enough to thrive as the market develops, but customers will benefit regardless.

Manticore Technology today released the latest version of its marketing automation system. Changes include a drag-and-drop design tool (similar to Microsoft Powerpoint); integration of opportunities and custom objects from Salesforce.com; better reporting on Web site visitors; and, real time sales alerts on Web activity.

Each of these makes Manticore a bit more useful but none breaks new ground for the industry. So rather than review them in depth (you can read Manticore’s press release for details), I’ll look at Manticore’s broader business approach as outlined by Marketing Vice President Christopher Doran.

First some background. Manticore launched its B2B marketing automation system in 2003, making it one of the older vendors in the industry. With a $2,000 per month starting price and a solid mix of features, it sits squarely in the middle of the market. The firm has grown steadily but slowly, reaching just under 125 active clients. These include a few very large firms but mostly mid-size businesses and divisions of larger companies. Unlike faster-growing competitors, Manticore has been largely self-funded.

In a stable industry, this would be a comfortably conservative position. But the marketing automation space is changing rapidly. A mid-tier company which is neither growing quickly nor dominating a particular niche could easily be left behind. At least, that's my opinion.

Manticore doesn’t see it this way. According to Doran, the company has found that the real key to success is guiding clients through successful execution of demand generation programs. Manticore wants clients to understand that demand generation is a business process. It positions itself as a "trusted advisor" that sells based on its expertise, not on technology.

Part of this approach is to give clients a methodology. Manticore offers a straightforward one: define the stages in your marketing funnel; benchmark performance at each stage and identify bottlenecks; create transitional content to move prospects into new stages; define nurture programs to reduce bottlenecks; execute the programs; measure the results and compare them with your goals. The product supports this methodology but does not insist on it.

Doran sees Manticore's customer support group as playing a key role in delivering its expertise. Support staff are trained to help clients address their business issues. This fills a key gap between buying the software and hiring an actual marketing consultant. Manticore relies on business partners for such consulting services.

Of course, Manticore recognizes that it cannot succeed unless the product itself remains competitive. As the latest round of enhancements illustrates, Manticore remains focused on the core demand generation features of email, landing pages, lead nurturing and sales integration. The company is avoiding extensive investments in “inbound marketing” technologies such as search engine optimization and paid search advertising. Nor will it expand into marketing resource management features for planning and budgeting. Doran did say he expected to add some social media features and deeper reporting. And the company will continue to stress its traditional message of ease of use – although at this point, most other demand generation vendors make a similar claim.

I remain skeptical about Manticore's approach. It's true that process is more important than technology and that services to new users were the key to success in earlier marketing automation generations. But today there are plenty of consultants and agencies to provide that support, so it's probably not necessary for vendors to do it themselves. As a practical matter, I think most buyers will prefer systems with a broader scope, flashier presentation and more aggressive marketing. But so long as Manticore and similar firms remain financially sound, they can sell to the minority of buyers who understand the value of expert service. Perhaps that's all Manticore really needs.

0 Marketing Automation Vendor Consolidation: Lessons from History

Summary: consolidation isn't new among marketing software vendors. When campaign management systems consolidated in the late 1990's and early 2000's, most were bought by enterprise software companies. The pattern will likely repeat itself.

As I wrote in my June 30 post on consolidation among marketing automation vendors, I expect the number of competitors to shrink fairly quickly as new buyers concentrate their purchases among a handful of leading vendors. This is a natural result of a maturing market, as technology-oriented pioneers are replaced by buyers less likely to research their options in depth.

But what, exactly, will the consolidation look like? Will weaker marketing automation vendors merge with each other to establish a larger market presence? Will they merge with complementary firms to offer a broader range of capabilities? Will they specialize in particular industries to establish a small but profitable niche? Or will they simply be crushed as giants from related industries introduce their own products?

Let’s look at a similar consolidation about ten years ago, among the original marketing automation vendors.* These were campaign management systems including Exchange Applications, Recognition Systems/Protagona, Prime Response, Intrinsic, Unica, Aprimo, Decision Software TopDog/MarketWide, Alterian and SmartFocus.

The pattern is quite clear. A handful of vendors managed to survive as independent firms. The big winner has been Unica, which competes successfully among high-end buyers. Decision Software has remained a small company while Aprimo is most successful in B2B marketing resource management. Alterian and SmartFocus are also still independent, but are sold largely via marketing service agencies.

The rest of the competitors, including the original market leaders, were nearly all purchased as line extensions by much larger firms. Exchange Applications went to Amdocs, Prime Response went to Chordiant (itself recently purchased by Pegasystems), Protagona was purchased by DoubleClick (now part of Google), Ceres ended up with Teradata, Intrinsic was bought by SAS, Epiphany became part of Infor, Paragren was bought by Siebel (now Oracle). Other, less successful vendors simply vanished. There were no mergers of equals and no one thrived as a specialist in a particular industry. Although Unica, Alterian and SmartFocus have purchased complementary products, these were extensions around the campaign management core.

Although the world has certainly changed since the late 1990’s, I see no reason to expect a different pattern among demand generation vendors. A few might survive as independents serving the most sophisticated clients. Eloqua and Silverpop are the obvious candidates. Of the remainder, the stronger firms will probably be purchased by companies seeking enter the demand generation space, and the weaker firms will quietly go out of business or be purchased for their client lists.

The more interesting question is who will be the buyers. The obvious candidates are CRM vendors. Of course, Oracle has already made its move by purchasing Market2Lead's intellectual assets. Salesforce.com is the big question and no one would be surprised to see them make an acquisition. Enterprise software vendors like SAP and Infor are also likely buyers. Microsoft is another possibility, although its Dynamics CRM is sold mostly to smaller businesses than the typical marketing automation system. Speaking of small business suppliers, Google and Intuit are long-shot contenders.

Email marketing is another obvious adjacent space. Again, there was already one transaction: Silverpop/Vtrenz in 2007. The potential margins from marketing automation probably look relatively attractive to email vendors. The problem here may be that the independent email service providers (ExactTarget, Responsys, Vertical Response) are relatively small companies themselves, so it might be hard for them to make a substantial investment. On the other hand, as the consolidation proceeds, small marketing automation companies may get pretty cheap.

Finally, we come to Web marketing companies. These include content management systems (Autonomy Interwoven, EMC Documentum, OpenText, etc.) and Web analytics (Adobe Omniture, IBM Coremetrics, WebTrends). Note that many of these are already part of larger suites whose owners could easily afford a marketing automation acquisition. A couple of smaller Web content management firms (Marqui, SiteCore) have already moved towards marketing automation. One challenge faced by the smaller Web marketing companies is that their customers (Web site managers and analysts) are generally not the buyers for marketing automation. Even “inbound marketing” (search engine optimization, keyword advertising, Web display ads) is often done by someone other than the marketing automation user. This is less of an issue for larger firms, who have relationships throughout their clients’ organizations.

Incidentally, not everyone agrees that smaller marketing automation vendors must vanish. I had a conversation today with one vendor who argued that success still depends mostly on helping new users get value from their systems. In this view, small vendors can succeed by providing excellent service and support, as well as by linking with marketing agencies and consultancies. This could certainly be a niche – remember that Alterian and SmartFocus survived by working through service providers. Still, I ultimately expect that most mid- and large-size firms will purchase marketing automation as part of a larger software suite, and thus that independent marketing automation vendors will find it increasingly tough to survive.

_______________________________________________________________
*Actually, there was a previous class of “database marketing” systems including Customer Insight Company, OKRA Marketing, Harte-Hanks P/CIS, Max$ell and RTMS. These used proprietary, non-SQL database engines. Most were purchased by larger companies and then discarded when adequate systems using standard SQL databases became available. Alterian and SmartFocus, both descended from Brann Viper, still survive.

0 ClickSquared System Combines Marketing Database, Campaign Management and Multi-Channel Message Delivery

Summary: ClickSquared is marketing services agency that, unlike most of its peers, has built its own marketing automation system. The main advantage is tight integration of database build, campaign management and message delivery. The vendor has just officially launched its system, which should meet the needs of most mid-tier consumer marketers.

In a post last week, I casually described ClickSquared as a vendor delivering multi-channel messages for external campaign management systems. This was not wholly accurate. Although integrated multi-channel delivery is indeed a key differentiator for ClickSquared, the firm also offers its own campaign management system, called “Click 3G”. In fact, Click 3G was officially launched last week, although the company has been migrating clients to the platform since Fall 2008.

The more important clarification is that ClickSquared is a marketing services agency, offering database management, campaign development, creative, execution and analysis. The company got its start in 1999 as a direct mail house specializing in overnight execution of trigger marketing programs. Since then it has added email and other services through acquisitions and internal expansion. It now offers a relationships relationships ranging from full-service to self-service, with a particular focus on full-service solutions for mid-tier businesses and on special programs for very large enterprises. It sends emails for about 85% of its 150 clients and maintains marketing databases for about half of them.

In other words, ClickSquared competes with firms like Epsilon, Merkle and Acxiom for enterprise clients, and with a host of smaller firms for mid-tier clients. It also competes to some degree with email providers like Responsys, ExactTarget and InfoGroup YesMail, which are themselves expanding into other channels. (Apologies to all for over-simplification. Properly identifying the overlapping spheres of industry competitors would take a post of its own.)

One feature that stands out about ClickSquared is its choice to build its own campaign management system. This contrasts with the vast majority of marketing services agencies, which rely on industry-standard products such as Unica and Alterian. The fundamental argument for using industry-standard software is that continuously updating a home-grown system costs too much for most marketing services vendors, who can’t spread the expense across as many clients as a dedicated software company. Nor is software development a core competency of many marketing services agencies. Ultimately, this line of reasoning concludes, marketing services agencies compete on database management, analytics, marketing strategy and client service, so software is a poor investment for their necessarily limited resources.

To put matters in historical perspective, most big marketing services agencies did create their own campaign management systems when the category first developed in the 1990’s. But once satisfactory third-party products became widely available, the big firms largely dropped their in-house products. So it’s intriguing that ClickSquared (and a few other firms including Entiera , which I reviewed last July) have again chosen to build their own.

It’s much too soon to consider this a trend, but perhaps the cost/value relationship has shifted back in favor of in-house systems. The logic would be something like this: the prices of commercial systems haven't change, while the cost of building in-house systems has fallen because the requirements are well understood and developers can take advantage of third-party components and agile development methods. Thus, in-house development is relatively more attractive.

But in talking with ClickSquared (and Entiera, for that matter), I hear slightly a different story. It’s true that they avoid hefty license fees by using their own software. But main savings seems to come from integrating several capabilities, including customer data integration, message delivery and reporting, in addition to campaign management itself. This reduces both the total software cost and the labor needed to combine the separate systems. For example, ClickSquared says it can deliver a new marketing database in one to three months, compared with six months or more using third party systems.

Of course, an in-house system must still meet business needs for the savings to be worthwhile. Part of the reason that ClickSquared targets Click 3G at mid-tier companies is that their needs are somewhat less complex than enterprise marketers. That said, the system offers a respectable set of capabilities.

- Customer data can be loaded via API posts or self-service file uploads. The system provides automated data cleansing and customer matching capabilities. It can also gather data with an advanced email survey tool that supports for dynamic questions (i.e., questions change based on previous responses) and complex question types such as rankings and allocations. Marketing content can be uploaded and edited within the system and then shared across campaigns.

- Analytics are largely handled outside the system. These is no built-in predictive modeling, although scores can be imported and used as variables into segment definitions and business rules. The system does provide its own Web analytics module, or it can import data from Omniture or Coremetrics. ClickSquared captures online response using standard link tracking and can generate heat map reports showing how often different links were clicked within an email or Web form. Users can execute custom attribution rules during their database build.

- Campaigns are based on business rules. These can be executed in batch or triggered by events posted to the system API in real time. The rules can consider file segmentation, offer selection, channel preferences and limits on contact frequency when selecting messages. Click 3G also supports “distributed marketing” campaigns that allow users such as branch offices to execute predefined programs by setting a limited number of parameters. Campaign outputs can include dynamically-customized content for direct mail, email, and mobile (SMS) messages, as well as messages sent to CRM systems via an API.

- Message delivery for email is handled directly by ClickSquared, which helps to manage ISP relationships, ensures compliance with anti-spam regulations, and can spread large blasts over time. The system provides similar services for wireless (SMS) messages, although (like most marketing service vendors) it works with a third party to integrate with carriers. For direct mail, ClickSquared can handle preprocessing such as NCOA and then deliver a file of printer-ready personalized PDFs. Although campaign manager-to-email integration is more common today than when ClickSquared began, its multi-channel integration is still an advantage.

- The system also provides several “Web 2.0” options. Most notable is “clickShare”, which lets users register and then upload, share and comment on materials in an online forum. Other applications support referrals, mapping mash-ups and product ratings. Activities in these applications are fed into the marketing database, where they can be used for segmentation and triggers.

Click 3G lacks some refinements of the main commercial campaign management products, such as embedded predictive modeling and detailed project management. The vendor argues that its mid-tier clients don’t necessarily need such features, or at least need them less than tightly integrated database building and message delivery. Click 3G’s largest installations are currently in 15 to 20 million customer range, firmly within mid-tier territory.

Pricing for ClickSquared is based on the combination of professional and technical services used by each client. For Click 3G, factors include database size, channels used, message volume and system modules. A self-service client with 50,000 customers and 100,000 emails per month would pay $1,500 per month for the system. A client with two million customers and a proportionate mix of email, direct mail, text messages, surveys and social content would pay $15,000 per month. Clients commit to a contract of one year or longer.

0 Eloqua Adds Free Implementation Offering

On Monday, Eloqua announced a new free deployment service for its clients. This is part of a larger industry trend to offer free deployment. It follows last month’s free deployment offer from Eloqua reseller Pedowitz Group, which generated quite a bit of comment on this blog. The new service, called QuickStart, will also be delivered by Eloqua partners, giving them an opportunity to start a relationship that could lead to future paid business. Crafty.

Eloqua Senior Vice President Paul Teshima, who is in charge of post-sales support, said the new program includes system configuration, CRM data integration, setting up an email template, landing page, three-touch lead nurturing program and a lead scoring discussion. It is delivered remotely and can be completed in two days to two weeks, depending on how much time the client has available. Advance preparation involves filling out a survey and receiving (if not reading) simple documentation. Clients fill out a workbook during the sessions and are the consultant leaves behind a 90 day plan for future action.

Teshima said the new program was developed in response to customer requests for a fast way to get some immediate use from their systems. It is a subset of the company’s year-old SmartStart program, which take five days or longer but includes more extensive email set-up; data posting from an external Web form; deeper CRM integration including lead flow, activity-triggered sales alerts, lead assignment, and email opt-outs; creation of either a lead scoring or lead nurturing program; and several types of marketing assessments and planning. SmartStart involves on-site consulting and costs $3,000 to $8,000.

The difference in scope between QuickStart and SmartStart provides a useful reminder of the importance of digging into the details of vendor claims about deployment. The question isn’t whether it’s free or can be done in one day, but what’s included and how much your company must do in advance.

The reality is that a complete demand generation program is something you develop and expand over time. A good start is important but it’s only a start.

Another reality is that most companies need help with improving their programs. Teshima pointed to Eloqua's customer success managers, who meet with each client quarterly to review system usage and develop a plan for improvements. They are compensated solely on retention rates, so their focus is on making better use of existing components rather than selling new licenses.

Eloqua also has its professional services group and consulting partners to provide more hands-on assistance. Other vendors also provide such services, either with their own own staff or through partners.

My point is to recognize that you’ll very likely want to purchase such services to get the most value from your demand generation investment. If that sounds like bad news, I guess you don’t absolutely need to. And while you’re saving money on that, you can also change your car’s oil and cut your own hair to save money on mechanics and stylists.

Sarcasm aside, a few companies already have skills to deploy a demand generation system effectively, but most do not. The reason you pay money for these systems is because they’ll help you do a better job. Not investing in the training and consulting means you’ll get less value than you should. Of course, you still need to invest wisely, in the sense of getting the right training and consulting. And, yes, you can probably get some value even without outside help.

Training and consulting are ultimately business decisions about where you can spend money to get the greatest return on your investment. A small investment in using your system effectively is likely to be a wise choice.

0 LeadLife Mixes Advanced and Simple Features

I have my little checklist of features to define whether a demand generation system is suited for simple or complex marketing programs. (You'll find most of the list in our report on Vendor Usability Scores on the Raab Guide site.) Sadly, some vendors didn't get the memo and have built products that straddle my categories.

Consider LeadLife. It offers many features that appeal to large marketing departments: fine-grained user rights management, rule-based content selection, multiple scores per lead, central processes to score leads and transfer them to sales, APIs to integrate with external Web forms, campaign cost tracking, detailed ROI reporting, and project management with tasks. But it lacks other features that are equally advanced: approval workflows, templates linked to deployed content, split tests, campaign actions to update data values, support for channels beyond email, and, most important, any way to direct leads from one campaign to another.

One way to explain this particular mix of features is to note that LeadLife’s founders previously sold sales automation software. Many of LeadLife's strengths and weaknesses are typical for sales automation systems.

Of course, Joe the Marketer won't care about my classification scheme. LeadLife president Lisa Cramer says the system is targeted at mid-size firms (which she defines as 25 or more employees), not large enterprises, and she should know. Still, it’s probably significant that “flexibility,” not simplicity, was the first term she used to describe the system. Her second term was “intuitive”, so she wasn’t saying the system is designed only for expert users. To me, those terms reflect an ambition to support more than just the simplest marketing programs.

I did in fact find the user interface in LeadLife to be particularly well designed. It follows some principles I first heard many years ago, the gist of which was to divide the screen into fixed regions that always display the same type of information (e.g., navigation folders on the left, detail data in the center) and avoid windows that pop up and disappear in random locations. Today that looks a bit old-fashioned, but it really does make things easier because users always know what to expect. On the other hand, LeadLife has inexplicably chosen a green-based color scheme that can only be described as institutional.

I’ll forgive them the color scheme because LeadLife had the good sense to agree with me on the much more important issue of flow-chart vs. step-based campaign design. LeadLife campaigns are defined strictly as a list of steps, without any branching at all – not even the if/then/else logic that some vendors embed within a single step. In fact, Cramer told me that LeadLife originally tried a flow chart approach, but discarded it because clients got lost. My point exactly.

Notwithstanding the austere simplicity of its campaign flows, LeadLife is a very powerful system. Emails, landing pages and Web surveys all support rule-driven content selection, which lets the system send different messages in different situations even without conventional branching. Rules can dynamically select survey questions, so a single survey page can ask the same visitor different questions over time. Users build emails and Web pages by positioning objects (text, data entry fields, images, etc.) in layers. This allows more flexibility than conventional methods, although it also opens new opportunities for errors. The system incorporates SpamAssassin spam scoring and is exploring how to add preview rendering for different ISPs. Marketing materials, including downloadable documents as well as emails and Web pages, can be shared across several campaigns.

The campaigns themselves can contain multiple events such as trade shows, Webinars, newsletters and surveys. Leads can be assigned to an event with a list or posted to the event from a Web form. The system keeps track of all events each lead is linked to and uses events as its primary vehicle for marketing performance measurement.

Leads can also be added to a campaign through queries against the system database. Queries can reference pretty much any data in the system, including survey responses and activity details. The query builder is quite sophisticated, allowing queries to incorporate multiple data elements and to scan for multiple values and substrings. Advanced users can view and modify the underlying SQL if they wish. The same interface is used to set up selections, campaign conditions, and lead scoring.

Once a query is created, the user can export the selected records, send them an email, or update data on their records. Queries execute continuously as data changes. This lets a campaign attached to a query react immediately as new members become qualified.

Users can combine a sequence of steps into a single campaign. Each step is either a query condition, which must be met for the lead to continue through the sequence, or an action. Conditions can also define waiting periods in multi-step campaigns. The only available actions are different types of emails. Cramer said that LeadLife originally allowed other actions, but removed these for simplicity. The company is considering adding some new actions, including one to direct leads from one campaign to another.

The system already provides an unusually rich set of administration functions. Campaign events can be assigned expenses, goals, budgets and activities such as notes, appointments, and tasks. Task attributes can include due dates, responsible individuals, billable time, and status. Access to system functions is managed by user groups, and at last count could be tailored to control 656 specific capabilities.

Lead scoring is also quite sophisticated. Users set up lead scoring rules, which run outside of campaigns but can be limited to members of a particular campaign or event. Each rule contains a query condition and number of points earned for meeting that condition. Users can also define several scores per lead and specify which score a given rule will update. The system can be set to score a rule just once, thereby capping the number of points derived from a particular type of event. Users can also define “decay” rules that reduce a lead’s total score after a specified period without activity. The system updates scores for each lead every few minutes.

Users also define one or more scoring processes, which can assign lead status (new, open, contacted, qualified, etc.) and execute actions when leads meet status and score thresholds. Actions can send the lead to the CRM system, assign the lead to an owner, and send the owner an email. LeadLife has existing integration Salesforce.com and could connect with other CRM systems via the system API. Users can define up to sixteen user-assigned fields on the lead record, plus an unlimited number of survey responses.

LeadLife provides full Web analytics, fueled by tracking codes on vendor-created and external Web pages. Campaign reports show activity counts (emails sent, opens, links clicked, etc.) and let users drill into the reports to see the individuals, and then drill further to see all activities for a selected individual. Other reports can list individuals by status, by products purchased, by contact recency, and other attributes. The system calculates ROI for each event within a campaign, drawing on the cost figures entered by the user and on revenues imported from CRM opportunity records. Revenue is attached to the earliest event associated with a lead linked to the opportunity.

Pricing is based on primarily on email volume. It starts at $500 per month for 1,500 emails and reached $1,395 for a more practical 25,000 emails. Each price includes all system features, unlimited Web volume, and five users. Additional users cost $10 to $30 per month depending on the user type. There are no additional fees for set-up, implementation or training. A quick implementation program aims at executing the client’s first campaign in three days. The company requires a one year contract but clients can leave within the first 90 days without further payment.

LeadLife was established in 2006 and released its first version in September 2008. The company now has about 20 clients.

0 Salespeople: One Question Matters Most

Back in December, the Sales Lead Management Association and LEADTRACK published a survey on lead management practices that I haven’t previously had time to write about. (The survey is still available on the SLMA Web site.) It contained 10 questions, which is about as many as I can easily grasp.

The two clearest answers came from questions about the information salespeople want and why they don’t follow up on inquiries. By far the most desired piece of information about a lead was purchasing time frame: this was cited by 41% of respondents, compared with budget (17%), application (15%), lead score (15%) and authority (12%). I guess it’s a safe bet that salespeople jump quickly on leads who are about to purchase and pretty much ignore the others, so this finding strongly reinforces the need for nurturing campaigns that allow marketers to keep in contact with leads who are not yet ready to buy.

Note that none of listed categories included behavioral information such as email clickthroughs or Web page visits, which demand generation vendors make so much of. I doubt they would have ranked highly had they been included. Although behavioral data provides some insights into a lead’s state of mind, it's useful to be reminded that wholly pragmatic facts about time frame are a salesperson's paramount concern.

The other clear message from the survey was that the main reason leads are not followed up is “not enough info”. This was cited by 55% of respondents, compared with 14% for “inquired before, never bought”, 12% for “no system to organize leads”, 10% for “no phone number”, 7% for "geo undesirable" and 2% because of "no quota on product". This is an unsurprising result, since (a) good information is often missing and (b) salespeople don’t like to waste time on unqualified leads. Based on the previous question, we can probably assume that the critical piece of necessary information is time frame. So this answer reinforces the importance of gathering that information and passing it on.

One set of answers that surprised me a bit were that 77% or 80% of salespeople were working with an automated lead management system, either “CRM/lead management” or “Software as a Service”. I’ve given two figures because the question was purposely asked two different ways to check for consistency. The categories don’t make much sense to me because they overlap: products like Salesforce.com are both CRM systems and SaaS. Still, this doesn't affect the main finding that nearly everyone has some type of automated system to “update lead status” and “manage your inquires” (the two different questions that were asked). This is higher market penetration than I expected, although I do recognize that those questions deal more with lead management (a traditional sales automation function) than lead generation (the province of demand generation systems). Still, to the extent that CRM systems can offer demand generation functions, there may be a more limited market for demand generation than the vendors expect.

One final interesting set of figures had to do with marketing measurement. The survey found that 23% of companies measure ROI for all lead generation tactics, 30% measure it for some tactics, and 47% don’t measure it at all. The authors of the survey report seem to find these numbers distressingly low, particularly in comparison with the 80% of companies that have a system in place and, at least in theory, are capturing the data needed for measurement. I suppose I come at this from a different perspective, having seen so many surveys over the years showing that most companies don’t do much measurement. To me, 23% measuring everything seems unbelievably high. (For example, Jim Lenskold's 2008 Marketing ROI and Measurements Study found 26% of respondents measured ROI on some or all campaigns; the combination of "some" and "all" in the SLMA study is 53%.) Either way, of course, there is plenty of room for improvement, and that's what really counts.

0 Pardot Offers Refined Demand Generation at a Small Business Price

My little tour of demand generation vendors landed at Pardot just before Thanksgiving. As you’ll recall from my post on Web activity statistics, Pardot is one of the higher-ranked vendors not already in the Raab Guide to Demand Generation Systems. So I was quite curious to see what they had to offer.

What I found was intriguing. While last week’s post found that Marketbright aims at more sophisticated clients, Pardot explicitly targets small and midsize businesses (or SMBs as we fondly acronymize them [yes, that’s a word, at least according to http://www.urbandictionary.com/]). Actually I don’t know why I find the contrast between Pardot and Marketbright intriguing, except for the implication that marketers can be divided into two simple categories, SMB and Enterprise, and no further distinctions are necessary. The analyst in me rejects this as an obvious and appalling over-simplification, but there’s a sneaky, almost guilty pleasure in contemplating whether it might be correct.

What’s odd about the SMB vs. Enterprise dichotomy is that both sets of systems are quite similar. Pardot and other SMB systems don’t just offer a few simple features. In fact, Pardot in particular provides advanced capabilities including progressive profiling (automatically changing the questions on forms as customer answer them) and dynamic content (rule-driven selection of content blocks within emails and Web pages). The only common feature that’s missing in Pardot is rule-based branching within multi-step programs. Even this is far from a fatal flaw, since (a) users can simulate it with rules that move customers from one program to another and (b) intra-program branching will be added by the end of this month.

What really distinguishes the Enterprise vendors is the ability to limit different users to different tasks. This involves rights management and content management features that seem arcane but are nevertheless critical when marketing responsibilities are divided by function, channel, region and product organizations. Although enterprise marketing programs are more complex than SMB programs, most SMB systems can actually handle complex programs quite well. Conversely, although SMB vendors stress their products’ ease of use, simple things are not necessarily harder to do in the Enterprise products. I’m still trying to work out a systematic approach to measuring usability, but my current feeling is that there are large variations among products with both the SMB and Enterprise groups.

Back to Pardot. It certainly considers ease of use to be one of its advantages, and I saw nothing to contradict this. Functionally, it has all the capabilities you’d expect of a demand generation product: users create personalized emails and Web pages with a drag-and-drop interface; track responders with cookies; look up visitors' companies based on their IP address; run multi-step drip marketing campaigns; score leads based on activities and attributes; and integrate tightly with Salesforce.com and other CRM systems. These are nicely implemented with refinements including:

- integrated site search, including the ability to use visitor queries as part of their behavior profiles (something I haven’t seen in other demand generation products)

- different scoring rules for customers in different segments (other systems could achieve this but not so directly)

- auto-response messages tied to completion of an email form (again, this often requires more work in other systems)

- ability to post data from externally-hosted forms via API calls (not just batch file imports) and to forward posted data to external systems

- email address validation that goes beyond the format checking available in most products to include rejecting addresses from free domains such as gmail or yahoo, and validating that the address is active on the specified host

- ability to capture campaign costs by importing data from Google AdWords and other sources

- plug-ins that let the system track emails sent by Outlook, Thunderbird and Apple email clients

This is an impressive list that suggests a thoughtfully designed system. But I didn’t check Pardot against my full list of possible features, so don’t get the impression that it does everything. For example, its approach to revenue reporting is no better than average: the system imports revenue from the sales automation opportunity records, and then assigns it to the first campaign of the associated lead. This is a common approach, but quite simplistic. More sophisticated methods give more control over which campaigns are credited and can divide revenue among multiple campaigns. Nor does Pardot have the refined user rights management and content management features associated with enterprise systems. It also limits database customization to adding user-defined fields to the prospect table. (This is another area where Enterprise vendors tend to be more flexible than SMB systems, albeit with considerable variation within each group.)

The point here is that Pardot, like all systems, has its own strengths and weaknesses. This is why the simple SMB vs. Enterprise dichotomy isn’t enough. People who need specific features won’t necessarily find them in all products of one group or the other. You really do have to look closely at the individual products before making a choice. QED.

One other factor clearly distinguishes SMB from Enterprise systems, and that’s pricing. Pardot’s lowest-price system, $500 per month, may be too constrained for most companies (no CRM integration, maximum of five landing pages, etc.),. But its $750 per month offering should be practical for many SMBs and a $1,250 per month option allows still higher volumes. (Pricing details are published on their Web site – which is itself typical of SMB products.) This pricing is low even among SMB demand generation systems. By comparison, limited versions cost $1,500 per month for Marketo and $1,000 for Manticore Technology, and both charge $2,400 per month for their cheapest complete offering. (Note: other SMB-oriented vendors including ActiveConversion and OfficeAutoPilot also have entry pricing in the $500 per month range, although neither publishes the details.)

The Pardot product began as an internal project for the marketing group at Hannon Hill, a content management system developer. Pardot was spun off about two years ago and launched its product at the end of 2007. It recently signed its 100th client.

0 Marketbright Targets Sophisticated Demand Generation Users

I had a preliminary conversation last week with Mike Pilcher of Marketbright, one of the vendors I’ll probably end up adding to the Raab Guide to Demand Generation Systems. We didn’t look at the software itself, so I can’t comment on it in any detail. The slides did list a few unusual features, including “prospect portals” that help buyers and sellers to share information related to a project; a sales proposal builder; and features to work with sales partners. These seem pretty minor, although they do insert Marketbright more deeply into the sales process than most demand generation products. This is something of a theme for the company, although all demand generation vendors integrate closely with sales systems.

Marketbright sees its most important differentiator as a sophisticated architecture designed to coordinate marketing activities throughout a large organization. This doesn't strike me as a very effective selling point: buying a product because of its architecture is the software equivalent of reading Playboy for the articles. (Do I get credit for resisting the temptation to link to Playboy.com?) What really matters are the features facilitated by this architecture. According to the company Web site, these include “full document repository and asset management, multi-currency budget planning and management and a range of integrated collaboration features”. Now that's something to get excited about. Hubba hubba, eh?

At least this clarifies which end of the demand generation market will find Marketbright most attractive. Indeed, Pilcher told me that product sells best to people who have worked in large organizations and seen first-hand what it takes to support collaboration within marketing. These people may currently be working in small firms, so Marketbright has ended up with customers of all sizes. Pricing ranges from $20,000 to $200,000 per year based on the modules and number of users, so the system is financially competitive facross the spectrum.

Not having seen the product, I don’t know whether its sophisticated management features come at the price of end-user complexity. This is a common trade-off. One hint of Marketbright’s approach may be that Pilcher recommends his clients build separate campaigns for different customer segments, rather than “boiling the ocean” by creating a single campaign with branches to handle all contingencies. This suggests that Marketbright has at least tried to keep things as simple.

Pilcher and I had a lengthy subsequent email discussion about usability, “violently agreeing” that it’s an important though elusive measure. My final conclusion was similar to the positions I’ve taken before: usability has to be measured separately for different functions, levels of campaign sophistication, and user skill sets. Where I may have changed my mind is a grudging agreement that it’s legitimate to summarize the details into simple measures that could be plotted in a graph. The obvious ones are usability and functionality scores. I still fear this could mislead by obscuring important information: for example, deep functionality in a few areas could generate the same score as limited functionality across many areas. (Pilcher proposed the number of channels as a separate dimension, but then a system with weak functionality in many channels scores better than a system that is strong in just a few. I consider that equally misleading.) But if a two-dimensional summary offers an attractive entry point which in turn leads to deeper exploration, it’s better than scaring people away by showing them the details at the start.

0 Ranking the Demand Generation Vendors by Popularity (Yes, Life Really Is Just Like High School)

As you might imagine, I’ve been trying to decide how to expand the set of products covered in the Raab Guide to Demand Generation Systems. My original plan had been to add several marketing automation vendors with significant presence in this market. The tentative list is Unica, Aprimo, Alterian, and Neolane.

But I’ve also been approached by some of the other demand generation specialists. My original set of products was based on a general knowledge of which companies are most established, plus some consultation with vendors to learn who they felt were their main competitors. So far the original list of Eloqua, Vtrenz, Marketo, Manticore Technology and Market2Lead has proven a good set of choices. Yet there are so many more vendors I could add. How to choose?

The general rule is pretty obvious: pick the vendors that people are most interested in. We do, after all, want people to buy this thing. Of course, you want some wiggle room to add intriguing new products that they may not know about. Still, you mostly want to the report to include the vendors they are already asking about.

But although the general rule is obvious, which vendors are most popular is not. Fortunately, we have the Internet to help. It offers quite a few ways to measure interest in a vendor: Web searches, blog mentions, Google hits, and site traffic among them. All are publicly available with almost no effort. After a close analysis of the alternatives, I have decided the Alexa.com traffic statistics are the best indicator of vendor market presence. (You can read about the analysis in fascinating detail on my marketing measurement blog, MPM Toolkit.)

The table below shows the Alexa rankings and share statistics for the current Guide entries, the four marketing automation vendors already mentioned, and a dozen or so contenders.

	Alexa	Alexa
	rank	share
Already in Guide:
Eloqua	20,234	0.007070
Silverpop	29,080	0.003050
Marketo	68,088	0.001700
Manticore Technology	213,546	0.000610
Market2Lead	235,244	0.000480
Vtrenz	295,636	0.000360
Marketing Automation:
Unica / Affinium*	126,215	0.000850
Alterian	345,543	0.000250
Aprimo	416,446	0.000220
Neolane	566,977	0.000169
Other Demand Generation:
Marketbright	167,306	0.000540
Pardot	211,309	0.000360
Marqui Software	211,767	0.000440
ActiveConversion	257,058	0.000340
Bulldog Solutions	338,337	0.000320
OfficeAutoPilot	509,868	0.000200
Lead Genesys	557,199	0.000145
LoopFuse	734,098	0.000109
eTrigue	1,510,207	0.000043
PredictiveResponse	2,313,880	0.000033
FirstWave Technologies	2,872,765	0.000017
NurtureMyLeads	4,157,304	0.000014
Customer Portfolios	5,097,525	0.000009
Conversen*	6,062,462	0.000007
FirstReef	11,688,817	0.000001

The figures themselves need a little explaining. The Alexa rank is a “combined measure of page views and number of users”, with the most popular site ranked number 1, next-most-popular ranked number 2, etc. (In case you're wondering, the top three are Yahoo!, Google and YouTube.) Alexa share represents “percent of global Internet users who visit this site”. The rank and share figures correlate closely, but share is probably for comparing sites, since the ratio directly reflects relative traffic. That is, a share figure twice as large as another share figure indicates twice as many visitors, while a rank that is one half as large as another rank doesn’t necessarily mean twice as much traffic.

The figures for the existing vendors, in the first block of the table, give pretty much the ranking you’d expect. One wrinkle is that Vtrenz is owned by Silverpop, so Silverpop.com presumably siphons off a great deal of traffic from Vtrenz.com. On the other hand, Silverpop is a major email service provider in its own right, so a large share of the Silverpop.com traffic probably has nothing to do with Vtrenz. In any event, I’ve listed both sites in the table. Vtrenz is clearly a major vendor, so nothing is at stake here except bragging rights.

What’s more interesting is the figures for the Marketing Automation group. Unica is quite popular, while the other vendors are much less visited. This doesn’t particularly surprise me, although seeing Alterian, Aprimo and Neolane rank well below Manticore Technology and Market2Lead is odd. Perhaps these vendors are more obscure than I had realized. Still, they are much larger firms and do much more marketing than Manticore or Market2Lead. Interestingly, the other measure I found somewhat credible, IceRocket’s count of blog mentions, ranks Alterian, Aprimo and Neolane considerably higher than Manticore and Market2Lead. (See the MPM Toolkit post for details.) So the marketing automation vendors are probably a little more important to potential Guide buyers than the Alexa numbers suggest.

But my real concern was the Other Demand Generation group. Here, the Alexa figures do provide some very helpful insights. Basically they suggest that Marketbright, Pardot, Marqui and ActiveConversion, are all pretty much comparable in market presence to Manticore and Market2Lead. I spoke with Marketbright and Pardot this week and connected with ActiveConversion some time ago. Based on those conversations, this seems about right. (Marqui is a special case because they fell on financial hard times and the assets were recently purchased.) Rankings fall off sharply for the other vendors on the list, providing a reasonable cut-off point for the next round of Guide entries.

Of course, nothing is set in stone. Perhaps one of the smaller vendors can convince me that they have something special enough to justify including them. Plus there is still the question of whether I should invest the effort to expand the Guide at all, and what sequence I do the additions. But, whatever the final result, it’s nice to have an objective way to measure vendor market presence.