Illuminating the Future:

Why Unify B2B Marketing? Poe Knows

One interesting thing about marketing is its capacity for wide pendulum swings.

Sometimes, it's the right-brain creatives, those who help us re-imagine the world, who hold the power. Other times, it's the left-brain analytical types, those who claim they can measure everything they do, who rule the roost. In years past, there was a lot of interest in outbound marketing as companies exploited the possibilities of everything from outbound calling to direct mail to email. Now, there's a growing fascination with inbound marketing, which harnesses the possibilities of search engines, social networks and compelling content.

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to get swept up in the hype of the moment and end up fanatically applying marketing theories to your business that aren't all that appropriate.

I think that's particularly true right now. If you've tuned into all the marketing forums and Twitter-Talk, you might get the impression that buyers simply aren't that into you. They want to do things at their own pace. Make their own choices and decisions. They don't want to be bothered or interrupted. They can make up their own minds, thank you. And when they do, they will call you...maybe.

That's why there's so much attention being focused on inbound marketing. The theory is that you can win in the marketplace by creating truly rich and compelling content that draws prospects into your sphere of influence and opportunity.  If your content is good enough, you won't need to do much selling or educating at all. They will have educated themselves. After all, they're smart. They can think for themselves. They can make their own decisions. They can take you or leave you. Got it?

Let me offer another point of view. I think it matters -- a lot -- what the buyer is buying. I think it matters -- even more -- how much is at stake and how much the average deal size is.

Naked Emperors -- and their PR Firms

PR firms, too often, are letting their executive clients down. They are encouraging them to stroll out in the public square unclothed and unprepared. Result? Their clients are exposed as leaders without vision.

While that may sound harsh, one has to remember that today's marketplace has become a harsh realm.

Market influencers -- media, analysts, consultants -- seem to have decreasing tolerance for bland or boring companies. Nor are they are interested in a particular company's story or product capabilities.

Instead, they are interested in vision. They want to hear from thought leaders -- people like Cisco's John Chambers, IBM's Sam Palmisano, or SalesForce.com's Mark Benioff -- where the market is headed and what opportunities remain to be seized. The perspectives of such leaders are valued because they are provocative, surprising, credible, clear and relevant. They offer a new and engaging view of the future -- a lighted path that represents significant promise. 

But there is clearly room for lesser known leaders -- whose firms occupy a specific market segment -- to present their own powerful visions.

If their perspectives are compelling enough, they are likely to influence the influencers -- encouraging them to write, speak, tweet and all the rest to carry these viral perspectives forward. Market influencers are looking for an illuminating story that will inspire and guide their own audiences, constituents, subscribers, followers and clients. That's what a thought leader can provide.

It's the third party credibility of influencers that executive leaders should be seeking. That credibility enhances brand reputation, builds trust and strengthens confidence among prospects and customers.  

Just consider the example of Gartner. This billion-dollar analyst and research firm has enormous influence over the IT decision-making efforts of Fortune 1000 companies. These companies look to Gartner for guidance and recommendations that will help them invest wisely in technology.

But what does Gartner look for in the IT suppliers it recommends? Two things: Completeness of Vision and Ability to Execute.  These are the central criteria in Gartner's famed Magic Quadrant, a model designed to rank and rate IT vendors. It is designed to categorize them as leaders, challengers, visionaries or niche players.  

What every supplier wants, of course, is to be recognized as a leader. They want to move to the upper right hand corner of the quadrant where they are most likely to make short lists and close deals. But, as you will notice, one must be perceived as having a complete vision to get there. 

That's where my problem with today's PR firms comes in.

It seems to me that too few have the strengths, expertise and capabilities necessary to help their clients develop and articulate a powerful vision.  They are unable to create the thought leadership assets -- the presentations, articles, position papers, case studies, research studies, books -- that will engage influencers and, ultimately, buyers.

What PR firms do tend to be very good at is outreach and relationship building. They can reach out to the influencers -- the media, analysts, associations, consultants, academics and others who shape the climate of market opinion. They can set up a media tour and put their clients in front of influential people. In some cases, they can even launch social networking initiatives, capitalizing on their ability to  reach out and cultivate connections. 

But there's no use in constantly trying to strike up a conversation when you have nothing of value to add to it. That's where I think PR firms are letting their clients down. They are not enabling them to become true thought leaders and trusted authorities.

Instead, PR representatives are merely repeating the same old tired lines and pitches -- sometimes, albeit, in new "social media" venues. And when they put their clients in front of influencers and audiences with nothing provocative to say, they are exposing them to the risk of reputational decline.  

It's time to do better. My simple equation is this: Reach x Relevance = Results. The problem with PR today is that there is far too much (out)reach and far too little relevance. Thought leaders are recognized as presenting relevant and compelling perspectives. They not only engage in conversations, they have something relevant to offer -- often sparking conversations without being in the room.

Quite simply, we don't need more naked emperors. We need more thought leaders.

***

What do you think? Have I gone too far this time? Or am I on the mark? Please feel free to jump into this (hopefully provocative) conversation.

Mastering the Customer Success Cycle

"The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model.”

-- Jay Wright Forrester

We are all enabled and constrained by our mental models. They shape our thinking and influence our actions. While these explanatory models generally give us greater clarity, sometimes they merely hold us back.

One such model, I would argue, is the conventional sales funnel. In the realm of B2B marketing and sales today, it is the defining model – the one that guides strategy, planning , organization, action and investment.  

Unfortunately, it seems to misdirect our energies and misallocate our resources. The sales  funnel, as I see it, also erects needless barriers in our organizations, contributing to excessive compartmentalization and value destroying silos. 

Strong charges I suppose. But hear me out.

B2B research from CSO Insights suggests that the sales-marketing alignment issue has not been addressed. The firm found in a recent study of 298 companies that four in five marketing groups see no problem with the quality of their leads. Seven in ten marketing organizations feel the same way about lead quantity. However, more than half (51%) of all sales executives disagree and argue that marketing must improve.

But what if the alignment problem didn’t end there? What if the larger problem is that marketing and sales are going to market with an incomplete offering – one that falls short of customer expectations and objectives? What if the alignment problem also encompasses the services organization?

Thomas Lah, author of the forthcoming book Bridging the Services Chasm, argues that “the traditional product sale is an artifact of the past. Enterprise customers want to consume business improvement—not product features.”

As he sees it, “the internal service organizations within the product company are the fundamental source for enabling product adoption that leads to business impact. Whether the service organization delivers a service directly or enables service partners, it must own the identification and development of offerings that unlock product potential.”  

With this in mind, it may make sense to begin thinking beyond the conventional sales funnel and sales cycle. Instead of concentrating on the sales cycle, we should now be focusing on what I’m calling the customer success cycle.

Our mental model, in other words, needs to shift so we see the full continuum of a customer’s experience and organize ourselves around the achievement of customer success. Not only will this ultimately drive more sales, it will enable us to more productively leverage our talent and resources.

Right now, we are extraordinarily focused on the transaction itself – where money changes hands. That’s where the conventional funnel ends. If I’m in sales or marketing and my mental model is the standard funnel, then it implies that’s where my responsibility ends. 

Some folks over the years have argued that we should think in terms of the “buying cycle” – aligning ourselves with the customer’s decision and purchasing process. They argue that we get too focused on our own needs and issues when we think sales cycle and they offer this as a more empathic alternative. But, again, the problem with this thinking is that our core organizational process seemingly ends when money changes hands.

We need to think more systematically and more expansively.

Confronting the Guidance Imperative

You remember the term "economic boom," don't you? Well, will the boom ever resume?

We experienced extraordinary demand for new products in the post-war period of the 1950s and 1960s. We bought new cars, televisions and household appliances. Our manufacturing economy  boomed.

But products weren't enough. We needed new services. We needed financial services to tend to our wealth and health care services to tend to our health. So our services economy boomed in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond.

The technology boom of the 1990s represented an impressive fusion of products and services in many cases. It was an era of solutions. Just think of IBM's striking turnaround under Lou Gerstner or GE's long boom under Jack Welch.

But we're not booming anymore. The solutions era -- just like the product and services eras that preceded it -- seems to have flat-lined. So what will drive the next stage of value creation and enable suppliers to generate new growth? 

I believe the answer lies in one simple word: guidance.

You are starting to see intimations of the future all around. Our cars are increasingly loaded with navigational guidance capabilities known as GPS systems. Polar, a fast-growing maker of heart rate monitors for athletes and exercisers, promises "graphic guidance" in its products. Yesterday, I heard a commercial on the radio from Wells Fargo. "The economy has thrown you a few curveballs and you need guidance," it stated in its outreach to small businesses.

How Cisco, SKF and RightNow Technologies have Confronted the Guidance Imperative

Indeed, the promise of reliable guidance is particularly resonant in a business to business context.

Cisco Systems, the $40 billion maker of networking systems and solutions, represents a great example of this point. The company managed to eclipse competitors by thinking of itself not just as a technology company but a “leadership consultancy.” John Chambers, the firm’s CEO, contends that the insights Cisco has gained by networking its own business can now be shared with its clients to help them drive growth. “We’re really talking about business process change,” he says. “And since we have done it for ourselves, we can show others how.”

Thought Leadership w/o Thought Leaders?

How can we have thought leadership without thought leaders? That's the question embedded in recent research published by BlissPR that looks at thought leadership trends in the professional services industry. It seems to me they have uncovered some challenging dilemmas for this industry -- and all other industries engaged in a high stakes sale -- to consider and address.

Having studied 46 management consulting firms, the researchers found that nearly all have "content rich" Web sites. That wasn't a surprise. Consultants, as they note, are "intuitively skilled at developing and articulating trends and insights to their clients."

The surprise was that nearly 30% of the companies failed to clearly identify any thought leaders -- the individuals who articulate those trends and insights. It's as if they are hidden behind a veil.

Of those firms that cited their thought leaders, little effort was made to promote these individuals as authorities in their field. Typically, their biographies were the only added information provided. Only 19% provided links to the thought leader's body of work such as bylined articles or conference presentations. One notable exception: CRA International.

So why would this be?

To some extent, it's just a matter of recognizing best practice in the field. This study, I imagine, helps rectify the problem it identifies by shining a light on it.

But I wonder whether this reveals a tension that exists in all businesses. It's the conflict between stars and systems.

When companies actively promote individuals and turn them into stars, they become somewhat vulnerable. What if that individual leaves? What if that individual must be let go? Hewlett Packard had to deal with this issue when it ousted Carly Fiorina. She had become the IT industry equivalent of Martha Stewart. So who's the present CEO of HP? I'll bet you can't name him -- and that's my point.

In most industries, smart companies recognize they can't become overly tied to stars. They must build brands -- and systems -- that scale.

Creating the Content Factory

We've reached a consensus in many spheres of the B2B marketing world that relevant and compelling content is critical to success. But where's the execution? Few firms are actually pulling it off at this point.

One reason firms are struggling is that they don't have a rigorous and efficient process for producing decision-driving content. Content projects -- even white papers -- can put everyone out of sorts. Many issues -- Who owns the budget? Who should participate? When will the edits be completed? How will the creative design be produced? How will we promote the content? -- can delay a project or even run it into the ground.

The big question is: What must happen to turn this flawed and fledgling operation into a high performance content factory? Paul Dunay, a well recognized social media marketer and now global managing director of services marketing at Avaya, believes the vision of a content factory is now within our grasp.

In a recent Leading Lights interview, he provided some insight into his own efforts toward this objective. "At the front end, it looks like a template," he explained. "So don’t hand me just the white paper. Hand me the white paper, hand me the landing page, hand me the blog content, hand me the key words, hand me the email post and then I can get that to the interactive team. The interactive team can formulate it and distribute it in places it needs to be distributed."

In Dunay's description, you begin to get a sense of some of the key factors that must be tackled in this effort. For instance, there must be a division of labor -- specialists that take on special roles as part of united and methodical process. The three key stages of that process, as I see it, are:

• Content Development (Production). In this stage, the actual content is created. The content team conducts the interviews, runs the surveys and tracks down the facts. They operate as reporters, researchers and analysts -- all focused on the key issues of concern to your customers and prospects. They produce the content -- reports, white papers, case studies, interviews, audio recordings, video recordings, email copy, blog copy, articles, speeches, keywords -- and hand it off to the interactive/media team for the next stage.

• Media Development (Packaging). In this stage, the media team takes the content and packages it for easy consumption. Reports and white papers are laid out in an appropriate design format (easy to read online). Images and graphics are added. Audio and video are edited and produced for xCasts. Content is dropped into established templates for distribution. Much care must be given to ensuring the format is appropriately matched to the medium and the audience.

• Audience Development (Presentation). In this stage, content is actively leveraged across channels and media. SEO experts work Google and other search engines, purchasing keywords if appropriate. Social media and public relations specialists take the message to Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn and other forums where particular ideas will be valued. Analyst relations professionals rework their presentation decks for meetings with Gartner and Forrester. Marketers plan direct campaigns. And sales professionals rework their presentation decks and web conferencing interactions.

As you see, the key is ensuring that content assets are rigorously produced and packaged and then actively leveraged. Make it once, present it many times in many formats. This is a crucial point. It helps to justify the case for investing in truly compelling "source content" such as a survey-based executive study. Once you've done the initial research, you can keep repackaging the content for different uses and audiences and media vehicles. The value multiplies.  White papers, eBooks and case studies can be reworked and repackaged as authoritative articles or executive presentations. Blog posts can be repackaged as newsletters.

Obviously, the factory proposed here demands an array of skills and talents. As Dunay suggests, one critical role in the whole process is that of "editorial director." This is the individual responsible for developing the editorial plan and ensuring its executed. While I would look to senior executives and influential advisors to contribute heavily to the thought leadership agenda and determine what issues should be explored, it's the editorial director -- much like the editor in chief at a traditional publication -- who ultimately must ensure the content is produced in a high quality fashion.

Whether we call it a "content factory," a "converged newsroom" or a "thought leadership team" is less consequential than the fact that we move in this direction. We now have an enormous number of ways we can engage and interact with prospects, customers and other stakeholders, but we need to have something relevant and meaningful to contribute to the conversation. By strengthening and streamlining our content operations, we position ourselves as trusted authorities, insightful researchers and providers of reliable guidance. 

Leading Lights: Donovan Neale-May, Founder of the CMO Council

Donovan Neale-May is leading the charge for something he calls “authority leadership.” He is the president and managing partner of GlobalFluency, Inc., a global organization of independent marketing and communication firms with 70 offices in over 40 countries. But he is perhaps best recognized as founder and executive director of the Chief Marketing Officer Council, a global affinity network made up of more than 3,000 marketers. He has further driven the concept of “affinity networks” by launching such groups as the BPM Forum and the Coalition to Leverage and Optimize Sales Effectiveness (CLOSE). Neale-May defines peer-based affinity networks as “highly respected membership groups and communities that serve as critical global channels of insight, access and influence.” He argues that such networks represent a powerful way to “enable companies to initiate strategic conversations and knowledge exchange with key stakeholders and purchase influencers.” His work on authority leadership is the means by which he helps clients strengthen their market positioning by staking out a compelling point of view. Britton Manasco interviewed  Neale-May recently for his take on key trends in the B2B marketing arena:

Let me just start by getting your perspective on what you called “authority leadership.” What is it and why is it important?

What we’re doing is, in effect, making an argument for why the solutions and services companies are offering something relevant and valuable – something that addresses pain, vulnerabilities and risks. So the whole point of authority leadership is to have an advocacy position, a point of view. It’s about being able to speak to what is contextually relevant to the customer, not just about your products. For years and years companies focused on their products, functions, features, speeds and feeds.  But nobody has been painting the mural. Nobody has been addressing the key issues, challenges, problems, needs, requirements that truly concern customers. Companies need to directly focus on these issues.
The problem with too many marketers today is they don’t look at the marketplace strategically.  They don’t build platforms that establish credibility. They don’t take the steps necessary to establish authority in the marketplace.

So they aren’t producing relevant and valuable content? They aren’t staking out a compelling point of view?

Exactly. They’re not equipping their executives.  They’re not equipping their sales organization or their channel with meaningful, relevant content.  And it is about content.  It’s about intellectual capital. But most companies today are pretty poor at producing it.

Your content has to be well-packaged.  It has to be shipped and distributed effectively.  Sometimes it’s sliced and diced and presented in different formats so it can be consumed quickly and efficiently.  It may have a very limited shelf life.

Content generation is really what is important today in the marketplace when it comes to complex B2B. That’s because today’s decisions are based on business value propositions, performance requirements and process improvement mandates. They’re not necessarily made from a technical standpoint.  So you’ve got to have an argument for why your solution is going to help increase the efficiency, the effectiveness, the competitiveness or the differentiation of a company.

What then is the payoff for the B2B service or solution provider that embraces this perspective?

Secrets of the Guidance Economy

We are clearly going through a wrenching economic transition. But what comes next? The next economy, as I see it, should be thought of as the guidance economy. 

What do I mean by this?

Our economy has evolved from commodities to products to services over the years. It then split off into different directions. Some spoke of the knowledge economy. Some focused on the experience economy. The rise of new technologies and extraordinary corporate valuations put the focus on a new economy of ill-defined substance for a fleeting period at the turn of the millennium.

The thing that defines an economy, however, is the offering that represents distinction. When the offering is commoditized, companies must rise to the next level of economic sophistication to remain profitable and competitive. 

What seems to be happening right now is that there is a divergence between the considered purchase and the impulse purchase. While there are exceptions, most business-to-business transactions are complex and considered. Most business-to-consumer transactions involve less consideration and shorter decision cycles -- though a consumer's financial, health and real estate decisions, for instance, can be very complex and demanding.

When the decision is complex and demanding, there is a great deal of exploration, learning, comprehension, comparison, analysis and due diligence that must be undertaken before an investment can be confidently made. While little is at stake when you purchase an iPod or a new brand of shampoo, there's much at stake when a family considers its investment in a college education or a company assesses what enterprise software solutions are most appropriate.

Which gets us to the divergence. While it may indeed be the "experience" that represents economic differentiation in the arena of impulse purchases (mostly B2C), something else seems to be happening in the arena of complex, considered, high stakes decisions (mostly B2B).

In this arena, buyers have much at stake. Too often, however, they lack the knowledge, evidence, experience, trust and confidence necessary to invest and commit. More than anything, they are seeking reliable guidance that will give them the confidence to move forward successfully.
No one likes change, of course. But no one likes standing still -- and being left behind -- either.

It is with this in mind that an opportunity emerges for today's sellers, suppliers and solution providers. They can differentiate themselves and drive growth by making consultative guidance a core element of their overall economic offerings.

This is what buyers want most. In decades past, companies were far more insulated from competition by geography, regulation and other barriers to market entry. No more. Global trade, outsourcing and Internet commerce have reconfigured markets -- forcing most enterprises to operate in a far more lean fashion. They no longer have the technical resources to fully assess new opportunities, conduct necessary due diligence or smartly manage the implementation of complex solutions on their own. Nor can they afford to pay top dollar to have independent consultants manage all these tasks either.

And yet, these tasks all must be undertaken if buyers are to invest in high stakes solutions. This is where sellers must get much smarter.

The Case for Compelling Perspectives

To set yourself apart in today's guidance economy, it's increasingly critical to demonstrate  you have a clear and engaging point of view on issues that matter to your prospects and customers.

I call this a compelling perspective.

By presenting a vivid perspective, you give your audience a better understanding of key trends and market dynamics. This helps them see that change is happening around them and shouldn't be ignored.

You diagnose and clarify the costly challenges that they may be facing. This helps them see the consequences they face if they choose to ignore the changes and challenges now closing in on them.

And then you illuminate the range of possible solutions your audience members might embrace to address these challenges. This helps them see there are sensible ways to address their existing concerns and problems -- and that these solutions have proven payoffs.

This perspective or point of view may take many forms. You might deliver it in a speech or an online presentation. You might present it as a white paper, an executive report or an authoritative article. It may be the foundation for a lively exchange in an online forum. You might draw on it to clarify your position in a sales conversation.

The point of developing a compelling perspective is to act as a true thought leader and put your stake in the ground. It's about clarifying your position on a key issue -- giving your audience members something to consider, evaluate, contest, refine, embrace. The more compelling your perspective, the more it draws people in and provokes them to offer their own views. That's what you want. That's when they are engaged.

But it can't be about you. It's about them. Your perspective must be presented in a way that lays out the findings of your research or investigation. You are building a case. You are, in many ways, like a trial attorney laying out the evidence for the consideration of the jury. This trial, however, does not revolve around guilt or innocence. This trial is about change. It's an argument for upsetting the apple cart and challenging the status quo. And it better be compelling. Who, after all, wants to change? Change is hard. Change requires commitment and investment. 

In the absence of compelling perspectives, one is forced to compete on products and services alone. The prospective buyer, who is desperately seeking reliable  guidance, is left to contemplate a dizzying array of features and functions, pitches and promises. This is how markets get commoditized and buyers are taught to put price first. 

Compelling perspectives, however, enable companies to distinguish themselves as trusted authorities, lead change and defend their value premiums. By building a powerful case and closing the guidance gap, they earn the trust and confidence of prospective buyers -- and that's what it takes to win in a hyper-competitive guidance economy.

Who Gets the Irving Thalberg Award?

The Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award is presented periodically at the Academy Awards ceremonies to "creative producers, whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production."

The award is named for the legendary head of the Production Division of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, who developed the company's reputation for sophisticated and successful films. Past recipients have included Clint Eastwood, Steven Spielberg, Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock and Walt Disney.

What intrigues me about Thalberg was his gift for transformative action. Indeed, he took extraordinary steps at MGM to turn what was then a craft business ruled by idiosyncratic, tyrannical and  self-absorbed directors into a powerful and profitable industry that would dazzle us all and forever change the way we see the world. I think something similar may now be happening in the world of marketing.

Thalberg, an ambitious young man who rose to head of production for Universal City by the age of 21, examined the way Hollywood was run in the early 1920s and decided he could do better. After he left Universal for Louis B. Mayer Productions (which would soon thereafter link up with Metro Pictures to form MGM), Thalberg launched a series of innovative moves that would transform the Hollywood studio system. Among them:

• Bringing Order to Creative Chaos. Where once directors such as Erich Von Stroheim and Cecile B. DeMille set the terms under which films would be made and produced, Thalberg wrested control over new productions, diminishing the relative power of directors and actors over the final product. In the process, he made it possible to produce films that were far more successful and profitable at the box office.
• Success through Specialization. An admirer of Henry Ford's principles, Thalberg organized the studio much like an industrial enterprise. Directors, actors and film production experts could shift easily between movie projects on the studio lot. With increasing specialization, they could work on far more films within a given period of time than previously possible. 
• Leveraging Your Assets. Not only was Thalberg more productively employing his human assets, he made the most of physical assets such as his studio sets and film equipment. Instead of making several films a year, MGM was at one point producing 50 films annually -- meeting the box office's ravenous appetite for more content. By 1930, the percentage of Americans attending a weekly movie was 70%. 
• Measuring and Refining for Maximum Results. Thalberg was the first to rigorously deploy the technique of screening films to select audiences before releasing them to the public. Through this approach, he learned how to refine films for maximum effect. No doubt, he saved the studio enormous sums by turning flat endings into triumphant finales. 
• Turning on the Publicity Machine. Thalberg also is recognized for developing a system for elevating his studio's stars and raising their visibility. His PR team would produce glamorous publicity stills, conduct press tours and actively promote films throughout America.

Thalberg had created an industrial powerhouse to eclipse what had previously been a vulnerable craft. He turned an art form prone to booms and busts, extraordinary budget overruns and box office flops into a science of sorts. He had created a high performance content factory, capable of generating a high volume of quality product to meet the desires of theatergoers nationwide.

Memorialized in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon, Thalberg died young at the age of just 37. But his enormous contributions to the film industry continue to be remembered and recognized.

As I see it, Thalberg should be a great inspiration for today's thought leadership marketers. Challenged to create content factories of their own and produce measurable results, they can look to his example for ways of turning a dark art into a powerful discipline. Like Thalberg, today's marketers must challenge the status quo and take on the vested interests who represent it. But I'm certain those who do will one day have a chance to claim their own magnificent rewards.