In the 20+ years I've been running marketing departments, the relationship we had with sales varied widely. Sometimes it was great (usually when everyone was busting revenue), other times, not so much. In talking to a number of my colleagues, my sense of it is that Sales’ opinion of marketing can often be summed up thus:
1. Marketing is easy.
2. I can do it better than you.
3. You suck.
It’s probably the single greatest hindrance to marketing performance, because no matter how effective the lead generation by marketing, or closing rate by sales, the distrust between the two creates an inefficiency that robs the company of revenue.
No kidding, right?
It’s like the old chestnut about two people alone in a lifeboat adrift at sea when one looks at the other and laughs. The second guy asks the first why he laughed, and the first guy grins and says “Your side of the boat is leaking!”
Yet despite the fact that this is a widely recognized problem, it persists in a surprising number of organizations. One could write a book on the topic; I’m sure many have. I’m equally sure some offer excellent advice about “team building”, and “synergy”, and “shared vision”, and all sorts of other wonderful management mojo that each of us should totally embrace and master on our journey to True Corporate Enlightenment.
However, while the healing begins, I’d like to suggest a purely operational change that can help bridge a goodly portion of the gap. It’s an approach that, rather than attempt to alter personal management styles (those who know me are probably laughing too hard to read any further), instead creates cooperation by shared incentive.
Here’s what I mean:
I’m suggesting that Marketing’s performance should not be measured by “leads”, ever. By all means track them, score them, prioritize them, but don’t think for a minute that it’s an effective final measure of Marketing’s contribution. I’m sure every one of you has spent countless fun hours playing against Sales in everyone’s favorite game show, “That’s a Lead!/No it isn’t!” The problem lies in that the definition of a lead is usually too loose and/or too far removed from the end stages of the selling process. Because of this, it’s extremely difficulty to accurately qualify them, hence the countless fun hours.
Instead of using “leads”, try basing your key performance on “opportunities” – that is, qualified contacts who have engaged with sales and expressed an interest in buying some form of related or similar solution. This should be a definition that sales already uses (hopefully) and they should readily agree to a strict definition.
I know that this metric is dependent upon the actions of sales, but it has three marvelous effects:
- It forces us in marketing to very carefully test, analyze, and optimize lead gen programs that produce engagements that are the most likely to turn into opportunities (that’s why it’s still important for marketing to internally measure leads). If you’re not measuring this now, how can you possibly know how the best way to help the company hit revenue targets?
- It lets sales know in the most direct way possible that you have a common goal, that your fates are tied. It’s hard to overstate the importance of shared struggle in organizational bonding.
- It also forces very close inspection of sales effectiveness, and separates it carefully from Marketing. If Marketing produces enough of the opportunities that sales themselves defined, then sales ability to convert them to deals (“win rate”) becomes a regular, and closely tracked key metric.
There are no blame games, no excuses for either team, just a clear, obvious, and well-defined process.
The first time I did this, it worried the hell out of me, but I quickly discovered that not only did it create closer cooperation and communication between sales and marketing, but it provided the CEO a much clearer window into the company’s trajectory. Anyone who’s had to present revenue plans and results in a board meeting can appreciate the value of predictability and control.
So in summary, here’s what we did:
- We took the company’s revenue plan.
- We analyzed the closing rate and selling cycle to know how many sales-defined opportunities we needed each week.
- We closely tracked and scored every contact engagement (lead) so we could tell what kinds led most often to opportunities and at what rate and cost.
- That allowed us to create tactical lead gen plans that we knew would hit the number
- We reported on all of it every week.
Those meetings became a pleasure. It gave us all a sense of both responsibility and recognition. Sadly, it took me about 8 years to get to this point, but once I did I never looked back.
Well, that’s it. That the “big” idea. It seems simple because it is. It can be a scary commitment, handing your fate to the actions of others, but that’s what being part of a team is really all about.
Knowing your all in the same boat surrounded by miles of open ocean has a funny way of forcing trust.
Comments