0 Marketing Automation Beer Goggles: What I Think I Learned at Dreamforce

I’m writing this on my way home from Dreamforce, the Salesforce.com user conference that has become the primary industry gathering for marketing automation vendors. With a reported 90,000 attendees (I didn't count them personally), the show is fragmented into many different experiences. My own experience was mostly talking to marketing technology vendors in the exhibit hall, private meetings, and maybe a party or two. I did attend the main keynote and the “marketing cloud” announcement, but neither contained  major product news and the basic story – that social networks change everything – was true but far from novel.

So what did I learn? On reflection, there were two themes that hadn’t expected when I arrived.

The first was data. I generally think of marketing systems as relying primarily on data from the company’s own marketing, sales, and operational systems. But the exhibit hall was filled with vendors offering information – mostly from Web crawling or social media – to supplement the company’s internal resources. Of course, this isn’t new but it seems that external sources are becoming increasingly important. The main reason is so much valuable public information is now available. A lesser factor may be that there’s less internal information, at least for sales and marketing, because so many prospects engage indirectly and anonymously until deep in the buying process.

But there’s more to data than the data itself. The theme includes easier connectivity to external data, via standard connectors in general and the Salesforce.com AppExchange in particular. A closely related trend is real-time, on-demand access to the external data: say, when a salesperson views a lead record or a lead is first added to marketing automation. This requires immediate matching to find the right person in the supplier’s database, and, sure enough, matching was another popular technology on the show floor. I also saw broader use of Hadoop to handle all this new data: as you probably know, Hadoop effectively handles large volumes of unstructured and semi-structured data, so it’s a key enabling technology for data expansion. A final component is continued growth in the reporting, analytics, and predictive modeling systems that make productive use of the newly-available data.

Some products combine all these attributes, others offer a few, and some just one. Obviously a single integrated solution is easiest for the buyer, but as Scott Brinker recently pointed out in an insightful blog post, platforms like Salesforce.com may actually make it practical for marketers to mix and match individual products without the technical pain traditionally associated with integration. It therefore makes sense to view the data-related systems as a cluster of capabilities that will develop as parts of single ecosystem, collectively raising the utility and importance of external data to marketers.

The second theme, considerably less grand, was lead scoring. I suppose this is really just a subset of the analytics component of the data theme, but I saw enough new lead scoring features from enough different vendors to treat it separately. In particular, predictive modeling vendor KXEN announced a free, cloud-based service to automatically score a new Salesforce.com lead’s likelihood of converting into a contact. (If you’re not familiar with Salesforce.com terminology: contacts are linked to an account, while leads are not. The conversion usually indicates the salesperson has deemed the person a valid prospect and is thus a critical stage in most sales processes.)

The KXEN service requires absolutely no set-up; users just install it from the AppExchange. KXEN then reads the data, builds a predictive model based on past results, and returns the scores on current leads. From a technical standpoint, the modeling is nothing new, and indeed the people I met at the KXEN booth seemed to feel the product was barely worth discussing. But I’ve long felt that an automated, predictive-model-based scoring service was a major business opportunity because it would replace the time-consuming, complicated, and surely suboptimal lead scoring models that most companies now build by hand, usually with little basis in real data. Of course, there are plenty of other predictive modeling systems available for marketers, but I’m excited because I don’t think anyone else has made model-based lead scoring as simple as the KXEN offering. Maybe I need to get out more.

Speaking of which, I met SetLogik at a loud party after several glasses of wine, so I may have been wearing the marketing technology equivalent of beer goggles. But if I understood correctly, it tackles the really hard part of revenue attribution by using advanced matching technologies to connect the right leads and contacts to sales (reflected in closed opportunities in Salesforce.com). Once you’ve done that, determining which marketing touches influenced those people is relatively easy.  It’s a unique solution to a huge industry problem. Come to think of it, correct linkages are also critical for building effective lead scoring models, which it turns out that SetLogik also does. (I'll admit it: I Googled them the next day.) So they're part of that theme as well.

As I mentioned earlier, data and lead scoring were themes that emerged for me during the conference. I did have some other themes in mind when I started, which are also worth sharing. I’ll do that another day.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the conference itself was tremendously well run. It sometimes felt that one-third of those 90,000 people were Salesforce.com employees hired to stand around and answer questions. Where they found so many cheerful people outside of the Midwest I’ll never know. Congratulations and thanks to the Salesforce.com team that made it happen.

0 Survey of Surveys: Budgets and Process are Main Barriers to Marketing Technology Success

I recently gave a Web presentation comprised almost entirely of slides from different surveys. This was a bit of an experiment and, sad to say, it didn’t seem terribly successful. I did weave the slides into a nice little story line – marketers know they need better technology, poor data is the root of their problem, and we know how to solve this – but even that wasn’t enough. Pity.

Still, preparing the slides gave me a chance to scan the surveys in my archives, which was entertaining in its own little way. Many surveys ask similar questions, which gave me some choices during my preparation. But I didn’t look carefully at how they compare.

Today I’ll do that. I’ve chosen one of the most popular questions: what are the barriers to marketing technology adoption? I have versions of this from seven different surveys within the past year.

Of course, each survey uses different terms. To make the comparison, I collapsed the various answers into a few reasonably-distinct categories, committing a certain amount of shoe-horning along the way. I then recorded where each answer ranked in each survey, compiled the results, and did a crude ranking with a combination of mathematical wizardly and body english.  (Multiple answers for the same survey indicate I placed several questions into the same category.)

Results are below.  I've shaded the first ranked answers in orange and the second and third ranked answers in yellow.

My first observation was the sheer inconsistency of the answers. Budget issues emerged as a clear number one, but they reached that rank on just four of the seven surveys and ranked quite low on the other two that included them. The second-ranked item (marketing process) was never listed first; it ended where it did because it had the most twos and threes. No other item was ranked first more than once or in the top three more than twice.

Things made a bit more sense when I looked at the survey audiences. Winterberry and Forrester were specifically about online marketing, Gleanster and Marketing Sherpa were B2B surveys, and IBM and the two CMO Council studies were of general marketers. Since most B2B marketing is also online, it makes sense to look at the first four as one group and the other three as another.

Now we see some interesting consistencies:

• Budget isn’t much of an issue for the online and B2B marketers, but dominant for the mixed marketers.

• Marketing process and marketing staff skills are major concerns for online and B2B but rarely mentioned by the mixed marketers.

• Senior management support, and to a lesser extent IT support and technology capabilities, are significant barriers for mixed marketers but don’t slow down the online and B2B groups.

• Metrics, organizational silos, and the economy are cited occasionally by both groups but don’t seem to be major issues for either.

So there’s a fairly coherent picture after all.

• Online and B2B marketers are struggling to keep up with a rapidly changing marketplace, meaning their biggest problems are people and process. The importance of their work is obvious enough that budgets and senior management support are generally available. They have the technical savvy and independence to avoid issues with IT support and organizational silos.

• Mixed marketers, working in traditional channels, still struggle with budgets, metrics, and senior management. They have mature marketing organizations, so process and skills are in place, at least for traditional programs. They do struggle more with IT, technology, and organizational silos, because they lack their own technical skills and have limited clout in the organization.

• Everybody says they care about metrics but it's rarely a top priority.


Or at least that’s my take. I’ve displayed the actual surveys below – if you reach other conclusions or spot any other patterns, let me know.

0 Clarifying the Differences Between Database and Digital Marketing

Summary: Database and digital marketing are both data-driven. But they differ in plenty of other ways that make it hard for specialists in one to adapt smoothly to the other. Here's a detailed look at the differences.

Yesterday’s long (or merely long-winded?) post described the different mindsets of database and digital marketers but it was pretty short on differences between the two marketing methods themselves. Today I’ll try to be more concrete.

DB or Not DB

Database marketing is built around a marketing database that contains addressable, identifiable individuals. By “addressable”, I mean there is information such as a mailing address or phone number that lets the marketer contact the individual. By “identifiable”, I mean information is available to link data about the same individual from multiple sources. Addresses are the most common identifiable information, although there are also non-address identifiers such as Social Security Number. Addresses and identifiers are both required: a database without addresses couldn’t be used for most marketing, and a set of records that can’t be linked to other sources is just a list.

The consolidated database is the heart of the database marketing concept. Data from multiple sources lets database marketers make more effective predictions about the best treatments for each individual, and treatments across multiple channels are more effective when they are coordinated centrally. The marketing database contains attributes (age, income, location, etc.) and behaviors (promotion responses, purchases, customer service interactions, etc.). It can certainly include digital activities such as Web page views and social media comments, so long as these can be linked back to a known individual.

Digital marketing does not use a database of addressable, identifiable individuals. It may gather information from one source and even track it over time for the same entity. (Example: Web site behavior tied to a browser cookie.) But unless the entity can be linked to other sources through an identifier, the digital marketer can only make treatment decisions based on information captured in the source channel itself. This is far from useless – behavioral and contextual targeting can be quite powerful. But from a database marketing perspective, the data is frustratingly incomplete.

Addressable Media

Database marketing only works in addressable media: that is, where a message can sent to a specific individual. Addressable media include direct mail, email, outbound telemarketing, and customer service interactions. They can also include digital channels such as Web pages, mobile messages, kiosks and ATM machines, but ONLY where the recipient is known before a message is sent. Thus, a Web page that has identified me because I’ve registered and logged in (manually or via a cookie) is addressable; a Web page that I visit anonymously, even if it recognizes me as a previous visitor from a cookie, is not addressable.

Digital marketing includes many non-addressable media, including paid and organic search, Web banner advertising, social media, and anonymous forms of Web sites, kiosks, mobile (e.g., location-based messages), and the rest. These generate plenty of useful data, such as click through rates, search rankings, sentiment analysis, and page views. But this data and related analysis are quite different from what database marketers are used to.

Prediction vs Reaction

Database marketers have the rich information needed to accurately predict which offers are most appropriate for each customer. Combined with their access to customer addresses, this allows them to initiate effective outbound marketing campaigns and to define static rules for interactive dialogs. Note that in most addressable media (mail, email, outbound telemarketing), the offer must be selected before the customer is actually contacted, and making multiple offers often reduces response. So database marketers have strong reasons to work on making highly accurate predictions.

By definition, digital marketers cannot target outbound campaigns at individuals. They do have opportunities to manage interactions, but often know only what has happened during the current interaction itself. This greatly reduces their ability to make predictions. Instead, they present multiple options and react as people respond. Happily, most digital media are inherently interactive, so this is a practical approach. Since rule-based decision flows are less viable as the number of options increases, digital marketers lean more heavily on self-adjusting automated decision engines.

Message Control

Database marketers directly control the messages they send to each customer. This is yet another factor that helps to justify the costs of building a comprehensive database, running sophisticated predictive models and precisely customizing each message.

Digital marketers have vastly less control over who sees what. Much of their messaging is blind to the audience who will see it, or can only be targeted on limited information about behavior or context. Indeed, some of the most effective and intriguing digital marketing techniques, such as viral campaigns and shareable widgets, rely on distribution that's totally beyond the marketer's control. Social media provide even less control, since the messages themselves are composed outside the company. The net result of all this is to reduce the degree of individual targeting that digital marketers can execute.

Response Measurement

Database marketers can typically capture response to a promotion directly, with a coupon, telephone call or Web click. Even when they can’t, their database still ultimately tells them who bought what, so they can correlate the promotions they’ve addressed to an individual with that individual’s subsequent behavior. The ability to do precise response measurement is yet another factor that lets database marketers fine-tune their programs.

Digital marketers can also measure who clicks on a Web ad, and sometimes can track that person further into the buying cycle. But they don’t know what other promotions or social media that person saw, what else they purchased, who else saw the same promotion but didn’t respond, or who responded through some other channel. All these uncertainties leave digital marketers reliant on indirect measures, such as consumer panels and surveys, which are more typical of conventional mass media. These are approaches that most database marketers would find almost laughably imprecise.

What’s It All Mean?

Database marketers and digital marketers both have plenty of data and the good ones are highly analytical. Both can apply advanced statistical techniques and rigorous testing methods. Both can work to integrate their data and their customer strategies across channels. To some extent, they even work with the same media: in particular, a Web site can support both digital (anonymous) and database-driven (addressable) marketing programs.

Yet despite these similarities and interactions, the two groups work in largely different media, use different techniques and have different priorities. Database marketing is inherently more controlled and precise; digital marketing is more fluid. Good marketers will learn to apply both. But individuals who have specialized in any one area will find it hard to adjust to the other. At a minimum, they’ll need to be conscious that the old rules don’t apply.

Adjustment is even harder for organizations, who will have invested in specialized systems, processes and people to support one technique or the other. This, in my opinion, is why the leading database marketing vendors have not been the leading digital marketing vendors. Which, if you’ll recall, was where I started this discussion.

One final point: there's no reason the same organization or individual can't master both database and digital marketing. That is, although there are major differences between the two, there is no fundamental conflict. My point in these articles is simply that it will take conscious effort to address the differences and fill the gaps that they imply.