Showing posts with label inbound marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inbound marketing. Show all posts

0 HubSpot Releases Social Inbox and Reveals So Much More

I spent yesterday afternoon at HubSpot’s “Open House” in Cambridge, MA, during which they briefed the community on their business progress, introduced their new Social Inbox, described their  approach to marketing and sales alignment, explained their “culture code”, and answered questions.

The most concrete news, Social Inbox, extends existing HubSpot features by more fully integrating social media monitoring and response with the HubSpot interface. The Social Inbox presents a list of Twiter posts by user-specified individuals or containing specified key words. Users can drill into each post to see a complete profile of the poster. The big deal in HubSpot’s eyes is the profiles include all information the HubSpot database about each person, and are even color-coded with the sales lead stage. The data includes Web and email behavior captured directly in HubSpot, data imported from Salesforce.com, and whatever else the system has available. Users can respond directly, forward a post to someone else, or add the poster to a HubSpot campaign. The system can automatically alert users to new Tweets as they happen or on a regular schedule.


HubSpot said they couldn’t find any other product that combines this type of social monitoring with access to such deep profiles. I can’t immediately think of one either, although it might exist. Either way, uniqueness is less important than the value provided, which is considerable.

What’s ultimately more interesting, however, is that Social Inbox is aimed at managing one-on-one interactions between users and individual contacts.  This sort of contact management is quite different from HubSpot’s traditional focus on attracting inbound traffic or even from conventional marketing automation.

The new features came up again later in the day, when the audience asked several pointed questions about whether HubSpot would eventually add a full CRM capability. This caused by far the most discomfort of any topic addressed by a management team which provides itself on transparency. Answers ranged from a coy “we think about a lot of things” to a fairly definitive stream of conscious listing of the arguments against adding CRM.  The currently dominant line of thought seems to be that HubSpot already provides adequate features for clients who want light contact management, while adding full CRM features would only lead to a losing battle with Salesforce.com. Unstated but hovering in the background was the fact that Salesforce.com is an investor in HubSpot and might some day consider buying them to expand its own marketing scope. CRM would make HubSpot less attractive to Salesforce, since it would create a set of redundant features that need to be supported or removed.

But the most fundamental reason that HubSpot management seems genuinely disinclined to add CRM is that they see HubSpot’s mission as transforming marketing. There’s a distinctly messianic gleam in CEO Brian Halligan’s eyes when he says this and the vision is no doubt shared widely across the company. In fact, it’s arguably more surprising that HubSpot has overcome its marketing focus to introduce the contact management features already in place. My take is that customer needs – another HubSpot mantra – have driven the system in this direction despite management reluctance. The system has a will of its own.

Admittedly, I’ve been arguing this for a long time: the need for integrated customer treatments will eventually lead marketing automation, CRM, and Web content management to become a single system, or at least to share a common customer database. HubSpot’s current vision of highly personalized data-driven marketing is consistent with this. The current vision is also quite different from the original HubSpot vision of attracting traffic through huge volumes of great (but not personalized) content. But the new vision is a logical extension of the original: once you’ve attracted people and start to learn their preferences, the more you’re able to make targeted content recommendations. And, the more content you have available, the more you need those recommendation to point people at the right materials.

This brings HubSpot right back to contact management, because the same data used to recommend marketing content can, and should, be used to recommend treatments during personal interactions. It’s possible to simply push recommendations to an external CRM platform, but setting a connection for each point of contact quickly becomes a lot of work. The temptation to eliminate that work by building an integrated CRM system is hard to resist.  As I say, the system has a will of its own.

Incidentally, there is another way to look at this. The traditional view sees marketing as making automated contacts, while sales and service use human agents, supported by CRM, for individual interactions. This is why CRM seems foreign to a marketing system. But the automated-vs-human division is no longer so clear cut. Social media marketing is mostly done by humans through one-on-one messages, while many sales and service interactions are automated. In this view, HubSpot needs contact management features even if it rigorously restricts itself to serving marketers alone.

The problem with this approach is that it denies sales and service the benefit of HubSpot’s data and customer understanding – a terrible waste of corporate resources. So this view also pushes HubSpot towards a unified marketing and CRM system, or at least a database and recommendation engine that’s accessible by both HubSpot and a separate CRM. I swear I didn’t mean to end up here, but this does lead to the Customer Data Platform I’ve been discussing over the past few weeks. I don’t think HubSpot management wants to move in that direction, or even that they necessarily should.  But these things have a will of their own.

0 Useful Tips from Inbound Marketing Summit and Hubspot User Group

I spent three days last week at the Inbound Marketing Summit and Hubspot User Group in Boston.  These featured a flock of first-rate speakers who presented more useful information than I can jam into a single blog post.  That said, here are highlights from my notes.

Youngme Moon, Harvard Business School

- when all competitors address the same customer problems, their products all seem the same
- to differentiate, embrace your negatives and make them into positives
- her examples:
  - the Mini Cooper highlighted that it was a small car, rather than trying to convince people it wasn’t really that small
  - IKEA reduces selection, service and sturdiness, and convinces people these are simplifying their choice, encouraging self-reliance, and making it easier to refresh your furnishings.  (Sorry Youngme, but I still detest IKEA.  Let's face it: the reason most people buy there is price.)

Web Content Management panel with leaders from Bridgeline, Sitecore, Percussion, and Ektron

- content management systems have evolved to deliver personalized customer experiences across all channles
- I only mention this because it supports my own view that Web content systems are candidates to encompass the marketing automation industry. 


Michael Damphousse, Green Leads

- 30% higher response rate to 3 sentence text email than HTML email
- 10x more likely to reach a lead by telephone if call within first hour of submission
- 15% higher chance of answering a call from a local phone number
- leave a voicemail that says you are sending an email and ask for a reply
- peak answering times are 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m.; these yield 20-40% more connections than calling at 10 a.m.
- people are most likely to answer their phone between 5 minutes before the hour and 10 minutes after the hour
- 23% of appointments are rescheduled; try to reschedule if someone asks to cancel

Guy Kawasaki, author, Enchantment

- keys to creating an “enchanting” product are likeability, trustworthiness, and quality
- a product must be complete, meaning it includes service and creates an entire ecosystem
- when launching something new, don’t try to convince people who reject you; instead, find people who agree with you

Dan Zarella, Hubspot

- ideas spread because they’re good at spreading, not because they’re good ideas
- social media success comes when people share your content, not when they engage with comments
- negative comments are shared less often than positive comments
- reaching influential individuals is less important than reaching large numbers of people
- people are more likely to read and share social media content on weekends
- Tweets that include “Please Retweet” are shared three times more often than those that don’t

David Skok, Matrix Partners

- viral marketing growth depends more on cycle time (how quickly people share with others) than the number of shares per person
- to attract influential followers, identify what they write about and write about it yourself
- offer rewards to both the person who shares your content and whomever they share it with, so it doesn’t seem like people are exploiting their friends

Rick Burnes, Hubspot

- be systematic about creating content that attracts the traffic you want
- check your blog analytics daily and use data to drive content decisions
- create blog posts in a mix of categories: how-to (most important, preferably daily); thought leadership, research projects, fun, controversial statements
- posts need to be useful; they don’t need to be great literature
- reuse old content
- have a big message


0 The Pond Just Got More Crowded: Google, Salesforce.com and Sequoia Invest in HubSpot

Summary: HubSpot announced a $32 million investment yesterday by Sequoia Partners, Google and Salesforce.com. This could be a real game-changer in the small business marketing automation landscape.

If you heard a loud thud late Tuesday afternoon, it was the sound of two shoes dropping. Salesforce.com and Google announced their long-anticipated entry into the marketing automation industry, in the baby-step form of investments in HubSpot. The $32 million fourth round of funding was led by Sequoia Capital, which apparently provided most of the money (numbers were not announced). It followed $33 million in earlier funding since the company was founded in 2006.

In many ways, this investment strikes me as more significant than last year’s acquisitions of Unica by IBM and of Aprimo by Teradata, which were widely touted as “validating” the concept marketing automation and involved vastly more money ($1 billion combined). Both Unica and Aprimo were long-established vendors with fundamentally stable products sold primarily to large enterprises: although their new owners may market them more broadly, they’ll be selling pretty much what IBM and Teradata always sold (big systems) to pretty much the same customers (big companies). Even the most ambitious vision articulated by the vendors – radically more integrated, analytically-driven marketing management – won’t really change their sector of the marketing automation industry.

But HubSpot plays in a different pond, where the frogs are more numerous and much livelier. It’s selling to small and mid-size companies and business-to-business marketers, who are just dipping their toes into marketing automation. It’s not yet clear which vendors will dominate the industry or what form the successful systems will take. And the current frogs are all small enough that a powerful newcomer could displace them, especially if it had a natural entry point such as, oh, Google AdWords or Salesforce.com’s CRM system.

During the analyst call that followed the announcement, HubSpot co-founders Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah made quite clear that they hoped to leverage the Google and Salesforece.com relationships in just this way. This will involve tighter technical integration with both Google and Saleforce.com, and apparently some marketing to the Salesforce.com customer base.

Of course, the entry of Salesforce.com as a direct competitor has long been the worst nightmare of B2B marketing automation vendors, who exist largely because Salesforce.com doesn’t give marketers what they need. A viable marketing solution within Salesforce.com would preempt many purchases of a separate marketing automation system in companies where Salesforce.com is already in place.

Yesterday’s announcement doesn’t mean the nightmare has come true – this is a small investment by Salesforce.com, not an acquisition, and it’s quite clear that HubSpot intends to go public on its own. But if Salesforce.com likes what it sees, who knows where that will lead? The same goes for Google, although Google Venture Partner Rich Miner went out of his way during the analyst call to say that the Google investment was financial (i.e., intended to make money on its own) rather than strategic (i.e., intended to extend Google’s own business).

All this is good and kudos to HubSpot for getting this far and landing such powerful partners. The company also deserves praise for articulating a sound vision of future growth through expanded product features. This is as close as you can reasonably expect them to come to acknowledging that the existing HubSpot is far from a complete marketing automation solution. (See my December 2009 post for a more detailed discussion of HubSpot's capabilities; basically, they are still pretty weak in outbound email, lead scoring, and nurturing, which are all core components of standard B2B marketing automation. They also lack integrated CRM features – a hallmark of small business marketing automation – although the Salesforce.com connection probably makes that moot.)

Yet something really bothered me about yesterday’s announcement. HubSpot has always been quite clear that it is focused on small-to-mid-size businesses and that it offers “inbound marketing” rather than traditional marketing automation. In fact, it has always been highly dismissive of traditional outbound marketing as essentially obsolete – a claim it repeated again yesterday.

Despite this background, yesterday’s announcement positioned the firm’s competitors as the mid-to-large company B2B marketing automation vendors, listing Eloqua, Marketo, Genius, Manticore Technology, and Neolane by name. This wasn’t a casual comment – the press release twice called the HubSpot a marketing industry “leader” and included a pie chart showing “over 50% Market Share”, a claim that is only true if you (a) count clients, not revenue (an absurd mixing of apples and oranges in this case) and (b) ignore HubSpot’s most direct competitors, the other small business marketing automation vendors including Infusionsoft (6,000+ customers vs. HubSpot’s 4,000+) and OfficeAutoPilot (2,000+ customers). [Note: comments from Infusionsoft and HubSpot, posted below, suggest those vendors may compete less than I thought when I wrote this. But I still think excluding them from the analysis is wrong.]







Here’s what I consider a more realistic view of the market:

- Based on revenue, HubSpot had less than 7% of the B2B marketing automation market in 2010 ($15 million HubSpot revenue vs. $225 million total) (see my post of January 11, 2011) and an even smaller fraction if you include B2C marketing automation.

- Based on client counts, adding Infusionsoft and OfficeAutoPilot reduces HubSpot’s share to about 25% (data from our B2B Marketing Automation Vendor Selection Tool).

- The small business vendors, including Infusionsoft, OfficeAutoPilot,It's those firms, and other small-business-focused competitors including Act-On Software, Net-Results, and Marketbright, who have the most to fear from HubSpot.

Now, I wasn’t born yesterday and am rarely upset to see a company spin the facts in its favor. In fact, as a marketer myself, I have a grudging admiration for people who do it deftly. But a distortion this large really bothers me. I could say that’s because it harms the market by confusing people, but I think the real reason is more visceral: it insults my own intelligence and that of everyone else who is apparently expected to believe it. What’s even sadder is these particular claims are totally unnecessary: HubSpot is a strong company with a solid product and excellent story. It doesn't need exaggeration.

I’ve also found HubSpot to be quite open and honest in the past, which makes this all the more puzzling. I hope it’s just an aberration.

One other point from today: in a related blog post, Brian Halligan gives some insight into HubSpot’s business strategy and the reasons for this round of funding. I’ve no complaints about any of it. But there’s an intriguing graphic that shows HubSpot’s lead sources – intended to illustrate how HubSpot “eats our own dog-food” through inbound marketing. Am I reading this wrong, or does it show that (bad, obsolete, interruptive) email is their largest source of business, while organic search and social media barely register? Now THAT's what I call openness.









0 HubSpot Expands Its Services But Stays Focused on Small Business

Summary: HubSpot has continued to grow its customer base and expand its product. It's looking more like a conventional small-business marketing automation system every day.

You have to admire a company that defines a clear strategy and methodically executes it. HubSpot has always aimed to provide small businesses with one easy-to-use system for all their marketing needs. The company began with search engine optimization to attract traffic, and added landing pages, blogging, Web hosting, lead scoring, and Salesforce.com integration. Since my July 2009 review, HubSpot has further extended the system to include social media monitoring and sharing, limited list segmentation and simple drip marketing campaigns. It is now working on more robust outbound email, support for mobile Web pages, and APIs for outside developers to create add-on applications.

The extension into email is a particularly significant step for HubSpot, placing it in more direct competition with other small business marketing systems like Infusionsoft, OfficeAutoPilot and Genoo. Of course, this competition was always implicit – few small businesses would have purchased HubSpot plus one of those products. But HubSpot’s “inbound marketing” message was different enough that most buyers would have decided based on their marketing priorities (Web site or email?). As both sets of systems expand their scope, their features will overlap more and marketers will compare them directly.

Choices will be based on individual features and supporting services. In terms of features, HubSpot still offers unmatched search engine optimization and only Genoo shares its ability to host a complete Web site (as opposed to just landing pages and microsites). On the other hand, HubSpot’s lead scoring, email and nurture campaigns are quite limited compared with its competitors. Web analytics, social media and CRM integration seem roughly equivalent.

One distinct disadvantage is that most small business marketing automation systems offer their own low-cost alternative to Salesforce.com, while HubSpot does not. HubSpot’s Kirsten Knipp told me the company has no plans to add this, relying instead on easy integration with systems like SugarCRM and Zoho. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed their minds.

In general, though, HubSpot’s growth strategy seems to rely more on expanding services than features. This makes sense: like everyone else, they've recognized that most small businesses (and many not-so-small businesses) don’t know how to make good use of a marketing automation program. This makes support essential for both selling and retaining them as customers.

One aspect of service is consulting support. HubSpot offers three pricing tiers that add service as well as features at the levels increase. The highest tier, still a relatively modest $18,000 per year, includes a weekly telephone consultation.

The company has also set up new programs to help recruit and train marketing experts who can resell the product and/or use it to support their own clients. These programs include sales training, product training, and certification. They should both expand HubSpot’s sales and provide experts to help buyers that HubSpot sells directly.

So far, HubSpot’s strategy has been working quite nicely. The company has been growing at a steady pace, reaching 3,500 customers in October with 98% monthly retention. A couple hundred of these are at the highest pricing tier, with the others split about evenly between the $3,000 and $9,000 levels. This is still fewer clients than Infusionsoft, which had more than 6,000 clients as of late September. But it's probably more than any other marketing automation vendor and impressive by any standard.

0 LoopFuse Captures More Web Traffic Data

Summary: LoopFuse has extended its system to capture more Web traffic data, which lays the foundation for future analytics.

LoopFuse recently released its latest enhancements, which it somewhat grandiosely labels as making it “the First and Only Marketing Automation Solution with Inbound Marketing”. In fact, as the subhead to their press release states, what they’ve really done is somewhat more modest: add “real-time Web traffic intelligence” by providing features to capture search terms, referring sites and page views, and link these to individual visitors.

The new release also adds real-time social media monitoring (directly for Twitter and Facebook, and through Collecta for blogs, YouTube and other sources).

These features are certainly useful. But my idea of "inbound marketing" is more along the lines of HubSpot, which provides search engine optimization, paid search campaign management, social media monitoring and posting, blogging, and Web content management. Although LoopFuse might eventually add those functions, it hasn't yet and isn’t necessarily moving in that direction.

Accepting their labels for the moment, let’s look at what LoopFuse has added:

- “content marketing” is a set of reports that tracks Web traffic related to different assets. Users get a list of the assets ranked by number of page views. They can then drill into each item to see a graph of traffic over time and to see details such as the number of visitors, views per visitor, and referring domains and pages. Because the views are tied to individual visitors, users can also click on the referring domain to see what other pages people from that domain visited. This is essentially the same information as provided by...

- “inbound marketing”, which shows visitor sources by category (direct links, paid search ads, organic search) and details within each category (specific messages, ads or keywords). As just noted, users can drill down to see which Web pages were viewed by visitors from each source.

- “social monitoring” provides real-time monitoring of user-selected terms on the various social Web sites. Unlike the other Web traffic data, this information isn’t stored within the LoopFuse database and isn't tied to specific individuals. LoopFuse plans to provide some trending reports in the future. Of course, the real trick would be linking social media comments to lead profiles.

All of these are valuable reports. Having them within a single system is particularly helpful for the small businesses targeted by LoopFuse, where all channels are likely to be handled by a small department and possibly the same individual. Otherwise, the users would need switch among several systems to do their job. In larger firms, where different people would be responsible for different channels, each channel can be managed by a separate system without requiring anyone to use multiple products.

Saving effort is nice, but the real value of a unified marketing database is being able to coordinate marketing messages and relate all marketing contacts to sales results. LoopFuse hasn’t publicly revealed its approach to marketing performance measurement but definitely has something in the works. I’m particularly hoping they'll use the detailed behavior information to relate outcomes to specific marketing messages, rather than just looking at movement through purchase stages. Although stage data by itself can project future revenues, it must be tied to specific marketing programs to measure those programs’ value.

In case you’re wondering, LoopFuse is storing the new Web traffic data in denormalized tables that are separate from the operational marketing database. This enables much quicker response to ad hoc queries and, should eventually support the time-based views needed for trends and stage analytics.

For those of you keeping score at home, LoopFuse’s Roy Russo also told me that the company stores each client’s data in a separate database instance. Russo said this has proven more scalable and cheaper than the textbook Software-as-a-Service approach of commingling several clients’ data in a single instance. So far as I know, most (but not all) marketing automation vendors use same approach as LoopFuse.

Russo also said that all data in the system is accessible via standard API calls, something that’s also not always possible with competitive products. In fact, Russo said LoopFuse’s entire interface is built on using the published API, which means that technically competent clients could build alternative interfaces to embed LoopFuse data and functions within other systems. If nothing else, this gets them Geek Style Points.

Of course, no discussion of LoopFuse is complete without mentioning its freemium offer, launched last June amid considerable controversy. The company says that nearly 1,000 accounts have now signed up for this, which is impressive by any standard. No news yet on how many have converted to paid.

One side effect that I hadn't anticipated – although LoopFuse apparently did – is that agencies and consultants use the freemium to service new clients, who convert to paid when their volumes grow. This gives LoopFuse an edge in the competition for channel partners. The value of that edge is a bit uncertain, though, since an increasing number of service firms – including Pedowitz Group, Annuitas and LeftBrain Marketing – are now working with multiple marketing automation vendors.

0 Aprimo Marketing Studio Expands the Scope of Marketing Automation

Summary: Aprimo Marketing Studio includes traffic generation features missing from nearly all existing marketing automation products. This broader scope should become standard as marketers try to truly integrate their programs.

Aprimo is in the early stages of launching Aprimo Marketing Studio, a new Software-as-a-Service marketing automation suite that is separate from the existing Aprimo product.* The new offering is designed to support all stages of interactive marketing, starting with traffic generation from paid search, Web banner ads and blogging, and continuing with visitor behavior tracking, landing pages and forms, interactive dialogs, multi-step email campaigns, lead scoring and CRM integration. These are supported with Web analytics and extensive marketing operations features including workflow, digital asset management and financial analysis.

If you read that list quickly, it sounds pretty much like every other marketing automation vendor. But in fact it’s a substantially broader scope than I’ve seen in other products.

- Consumer-oriented systems generally limit themselves to outbound email and multi-step campaigns, and sometimes provide real-time recommendations to call centers and Web sites.

- Business-oriented (demand generation) vendors add some Web support through visitor tracking, landing pages and forms, but even they rarely do much with other “inbound marketing” channels including paid search, banner ads, search engine optimization and blogging.

- Both sets of vendors generally do a decent job with asset management, Web analytics and other reporting, although only the consumer-oriented systems tend to offer serious support for planning, workflow and detailed financial analysis.

- Neither group provides tools to build and manage a major corporate Web site (generally called "Web content management", although I've labeled it "Web site management" in the following table). The landing pages, forms and related content management that these systems do provide are only designed to let marketers supplement an existing site. I'm increasingly convinced that effective interactive marketing will eventually require the marketing system to run the Web site.

- Neither group has meaningfully integrated social media monitoring and interactions beyond making it easy to share posts to Twitter and Facebook, although Alterian’s Techrigy acquisition (see my related blog post) and Pedowitz Group’s Sweet Suite (see yesterday's post) are steps in that direction.

I've summarized this in the following table. Of course, I’m generalizing about sets of vendors so there will be individual exceptions.

functionality provided:

consumer marketing automation

business marketing automation (demand generation)

traffic generation:



- paid search management



- banner ad management



- search engine optimization



- blogging



- outbound email

x

x

- social media monitoring, intervention and analysis






relationship management



- Web landing pages and forms


x

- multi-step campaign flows (including trigger, event-driven)

x

x

- real time recommendations to external systems

x


- lead scoring


x

- sales automation integration


x




analytics



- Web visitor tracking (individuals)


x

- Web analytics (aggregate behaviors)

x

x

- general campaign reporting

x

x

- predictive modeling and advanced statistics

x





operations



- marketing planning

x


- content and digital asset management

x

x

- Web site management



- workflow

x


- detailed cost analysis

x



In short: both groups are quite weak when it comes to inbound marketing and social media, and the consumer marketers fall glaringly short when it comes to integrating with Web sites.

The business marketing systems have their own weaknesses, particularly in operational support. But given the obvious and growing need to integrate Web marketing with everything else, the consumer systems’ gap strikes me as more important.

I’m even more concerned because there has been relatively little innovation among the consumer marketing automation vendors in recent years. They have competed mostly by extending and refining existing features than by moving into major new areas. The demand generation vendors have been much more dynamic.

There are good business reasons, or at least explanations, for the consumer marketing vendors' strategy. Number one is probably that their clients haven’t been pushing them to do more. But these gaps in their capabilities ultimately make them vulnerable to new, more comprehensive competitors.

This brings us back to Aprimo Marketing Studio. The new Aprimo product would fill every box on my table except social media, predictive modeling and Web site management. This scope makes it truly different.

Now, promising these features and implementing them effectively are very different things. I can't judge the new Aprimo system because I haven't had a detailed demonstration and the system won't start serving live customer until next month. (The official launch will be in November at the Salesforce.com Dreamforce conference.) But what matters for now is the vision. Even if Aprimo doesn’t execute it immediately, someone else eventually will.

I already mentioned that Marketing Studio is designed as a true Software-as-a-Service system. As discussed in an earlier post, this is unusual for a consumer marketing system – Entiera and Neolane are the only other pure SaaS products I can think of – although it’s standard for demand generation products. Aprimo already serves both types of marketers, so it's a logical candidate to bring SaaS to consumer marketing systems. But other consumer-oriented vendors are also moving in this direction. When you're evaluating those products, the question to ask is whether the vendor has truly reengineered the system to take advantage of SaaS economies, or is simply running its existing software in a hosted mode and sending a monthly bill.

Aprimo Marketing Studio is aimed at mid-size and larger companies. Pricing begins at $4,000 per month for the base version with up to 10 users and 250,000 emails. The marketing operations module adds another $2,500 per month and other modules are priced at $1,500 each. There will also be fees as clients add users and email volume. At the end of the day, Aprimo is expecting the average client to pay $50,000 to $75,000 per year. This is pretty standard territory for consumer marketing systems, but well above the median for demand generation vendors.

_______________________________________________________
* The new product has its own Web site, which you can reach here. The site offers a free copy of an excellent Forrester Research report on interactive marketing, which is well worth the inevitable Aprimo sales call that will follow.