june 2013 lead generation methods executive summarystatic.insidesales.com/assets/pdf/lead...

JUNE 2013

LEAD GENERATION METHODS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INSIDESALES.COM RESEARCH DIVISION PERFORMED BY BEN WARNER

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om

Copyright © InsideSales.com 2013

2

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning,

or otherwise, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of InsideSales.com. Requests for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, InsideSales.com, 34 East 1700

South, Suite A200, Provo, Utah 84606.

© 2013 InsideSales.com

All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part or in any form.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om

LEAD GENERATION METHODS – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3


ABOUT THE RESEARCH TEAM

BEN WARNER – LEAD RESEARCHER

Ben Warner holds a master in public policy and a BS in mathematics from Brigham Young University. In his master’s program, Ben emphasized statistical and economic research methodology. His written works include consultation for the Utah Legislature on the topic of legal enforcement of immigration laws and published economic analysis with the Utah Foundation, a Utah-oriented public policy think tank. He has performed economic analysis as an actuarial assistant intern at Beneficial Financial, the largest insurance company in Utah.

At InsideSales.com, Ben was the lead researcher for the lead source close rate study which was received positively at LeadsCon 2013. In the past year at InsideSales.com he has been the primary researcher for four other studies with topics ranging from workplace personality performance outcomes to sales rep motivation.

DAVID ELKINGTON, EDITOR

David Elkington, who started InsideSales.com in 2004, has a rich background in technology, venture capital, and corporate development. As CEO and Chairman, he has delivered consecutive 50 to 100 percent annual growth rates since the company’s inception.

Before founding InsideSales.com, Dave co-founded Integr8ted Technology Solutions, LLC, a leading e-business consulting and application development firm. Prior to Intergr8ted, he co-founded and served as director of business development for Everfill, Inc., an e-Health distribution company. Prior to his technology company career, Dave was a financial analyst with Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, an investment bank based in Baltimore, Md. He also held positions with Merrill Lynch and MiraQuest Capital (a healthcare technology venture capital firm).

Dave was recognized among the Top 25 Most Influential Inside Sales Professionals in 2010 and 2012 by the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals (AA-ISP). He serves on the board for ProvoTechX, on the national advisory board of the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals (AA-ISP) and on the BYU CVLC advisory council. Dave has been active in the evolution and definition of the inside sales industry and speaks regularly. He co-authored the groundbreaking Lead Response Management industry study in 2007 and has co-authored Harvard Business Review, Kellogg School of Management and many

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


4


other academic and industry research articles. He is recognized both locally and nationally as a leader and entrepreneur in the cloud computing and remote selling market segments and has a background in computer science. Dave holds a BA degree in Philosophy from Brigham Young University with minors in Business, Japanese and Hebrew.

KEN KROGUE, EDITOR Kenneth Krogue co-founded InsideSales.com in November 2004, where he currently leads the marketing, business development, consulting, education, implementation, and support departments. In this role, he is responsible for working with the chairman and chief executive officer to set the vision and strategy for the company, as well as overseeing all day-to-day sales and marketing operations. Ken brings more than 24 years of experience in sales, development and marketing in both domestic and international markets.

Prior to joining InsideSales.com, Ken was one of the original founders of UCN, now inContact (NASDAQ:SAAS), where he held a number of positions including Chief Operating Officer. Prior to inContact, he built and directed the inside sales division at FranklinCovey (NYSE:FC), a leading provider of time and life management training systems. Ken has received many industry awards including being recognized among the Top 25 Most Influential Inside Sales Professionals in 2010 and 2012 by the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals (AA-ISP).

Ken is a weekly contributor to Forbes.com and an active thought leader in the inside sales industry. His personal blog is the top ranked blog in the world on the topic of inside sales. Ken speaks to audiences about twenty times a year around the country. He founded and served from 2010 to 2011 as the President of the Salt Lake City Chapter of AA-ISP. Ken attended the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., and earned a BS in Psychology from the University of Utah.

SUPPORTING ROLES

James W. Phillips, Supporting Author

Kyle Davis, Analytics Support

William Krohn, Business Intelligence Manager

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


5


RESEARCH PAPER

LEAD GENERATION METHODS

HIGHLIGHTS

Company websites, email, and tradeshows, are the most common marketing methods.

Executive events, inside sales, and telemarketing are the most effective methods for generating leads.

Social media methods are the least effective for generating leads

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VS THE FULL REPORT

The executive summary contains sections on the background and motivation, the most commonly used methods, and how effective they are at generating leads. The full report contains all the same information as the executive summary but also includes an analysis of the adoption rate versus effectiveness of different methods for driving brand awareness. It includes a comparison between the lead generation effectiveness of a method and its effectiveness at driving brand awareness. The full report also contains a summary of the top problems that respondents faced.

BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

In March of 2010, Forrester released its last in a series of studies on lead generation entitled Rethinking the B2B Tech Marketing Mix in the Digital Age (Ramos, 2010). The study included questions about how effectively various marketing tactics generated leads and improved brand awareness. We found the Forrester study to be a valuable resource; unfortunately, it was no longer being produced. Accordingly, we decided to produce a similar report for 2013.

This study includes 26 specific marketing methods. Unlike the Forrester study, we break social media into five specific methods: LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, and Pinterest. We present results around these methods both specificly and considered as a whole.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


6


METHODOLOGY

InsideSales.com sent out a survey from which we compiled a dataset of 423 responses. Respondents came primarily from sales and marketing positions.

Among these respondents, 31.5% classified themselves as decision makers in purchasing marketing-specific media, programs, services and technology, while 53.5% classified themselves as influencers in this area.

Among all companies, the most represented industry was business services, followed by manufacturing.

Respondent Role in Company

© InsideSales.com 2013

Figure 1—Respondent Role in Company

Marketing 45%

Other 12%

Sales 43%

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


7


An important consideration in this study is whether a company can afford to use a particular lead generation method. We asked respondents to indicate the size of their marketing budget. Results are given below.

Industry Representation


Figure 2—Industry Representation

Business Services 30%

Manufacturing 19%

Media, Entertainment,

Leisure, or Consumer-Oriented Services

12%

Other 11%

Software 8%

Finance & Insurance

7%

Public Sector

6%

Retail & Wholesale Distribution

4%

Utilities & Telecommunications

3%

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


8


Only 12% of respondents have marketing budgets adequately large to allow them to undertake large scale campaigns such as broad reach marketing. This is an important group factor to to consider as we examine methods that companies claim are effective but are not highly adopted.

Finally, we examine how aggressive companies consider themselves to be in adopting new technologies. By “very aggressive,” we mean companies that adopt new technologies, while “not at all aggressive” are those that only adopt tried and true technologies. Figure 4 has the results.

Marketing Budget


Figure 3—Marketing Budget

$5M or more 4%

$1M to $4.9M 8%

$500K to $999K 5%

$100K to $499K 22%

Less than $100K 35%

Don't Know/Prefer

Not to Say 26%

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


9


RESULTS

COMPANY WEBSITES MOST UNIVERSALLY ADOPTED

We asked survey takers to indicate their usage of 26 different lead generation methods. These methods can be fit into five major categories, as shown in the following table.

Aggressiveness in Adopting New Technologies


Figure 4— Aggressiveness in Adopting New Technologies

Very aggressive

12%

Somewhat aggressive

34% Not very

aggressive 37%

Not at all aggressive

17%

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


10


Some of these methods could fit into more than one category, but for the purposes of this study we will group methods as they are above. Figure 5 shows the percentage of companies using each method.

Marketing Method Categories

Traditional

TV Advertising

Radio

Direct Mail

Print Advertising

Public Relations

Outdoor Media

Events

Tradeshow, Conferences (in person, large scale)

Sponsorships and/or Associations

Executive Events: Breakfasts, Seminars, Hospitality Events (in person, small scale)

Virtual On-Demand Events

Webinars, Webcasts

Online

Company Website

Email or Electronic Marketing

Search Marketing

Blogs

Online Display Ads

Other Web 2.0 Tools: RSS Subscriptions, Mashups, Widgets, Wikis

Online Video

Rich Media: Podcasts, Flash Demos, Interactive PDFs

Social

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

Google+

Pinterest

Outbound Inside Sales

Telemarketing


Table 1—Marketing Method Categories

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


11


We see in Figure 5 that more than any other method, companies use websites, which is unsurprising. Email and tradeshows are also both very popular. More surprisingly, many flashy and interactive Web 2.0 tools were mostly ignored, including podcasts, virtual, on-demand events, and other Web 2.0 tools.

SOCIAL MEDIA INEFFECTIVE AT GENERATING LEADS

We asked survey respondents to indicate their perception of the effectiveness of each lead generating method. The graph below shows

Methods Used


Figure 5—Method Adoption Rates

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Company Web site

Email or electronic newsletters

Tradeshows, conferences

Inside Sales

LinkedInFacebook

Direct mail

Print advertising

Sponsorships and/or associations

Twitter

Search marketing

Webinars, webcasts

Public relations

Blogs

Online videoOnline display ads

Telemarketing

Executive Events

Google+

Rich Media

Radio

TV advertisingPinterest

Outdoor mediaOther Web 2.0 tools

Virtual, on-demand events

Traditional Events Online Social Outbound

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


12


the percentile rank of effectiveness plotted against the percentage of those who adopted the method.1

One of the most interesting results we found was that social media tools were not considered effective for generating leads. LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, and Pinterest were all rated near or below the bottom quartile for effectively generating leads. Few marketers are using Pinterest or Google+ anyway, but LinkedIn and Facebook have more than 50% adoption, and are therefore being overused.

1 An effectiveness index was calculated which was 2 * (% that ranked it highly effective)

+ (% that ranked it somewhat effective) – (% that ranked it not very effective) – (2 * % that ranked it ineffective). Results were then ranked according to this metric. The y-axis shows the percentile between 0 and 1 of that rank. Adoption rate (the x-axis) simply shows the percentage of respondents who said they use that tactic.

Effectiveness at Generating Leads vs. Adoption Rate


Figure 6—Generating Leads vs. Adoption Rate

Company Website

Email or Electronic Newletters

Tradeshows, Conferences

Inside Sales

LinkedIn

Facebook

Direct Mail

Print Advertising

Sponsorships / Associations

Search Marketing

Webinars

Twitter

Blogs

Public Relations

Telemarketing

Online Display Ads

Online Video

Executive Events

Google+

Rich Media

Radio

TV Advertising

Outdoor Media

Pinterest

Other Web 2.0 Tools

Virtual, On-Demand Events

0.0

0.5

1.0

0% 50% 100%

Effe

ctiv

en

ess

Adoption

Underused Established Value

Being Abandoned

Overused

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


13


Other lead generation methods were rated as having above average effectiveness, yet were not being used by the majority of companies, including executive events, telemarketing, virtual on-demand events, and TV advertising. Executive events and telemarketing were rated the second and third most effective methods, yet only one-third of companies are using them. These methods should be considered. These data can help marketing managers take advantage of others’ successful experiences in generating leads.

OUTBOUND MARKETING RATED THE MOST EFFECTIVE

For each of the lead generating methods, we asked survey respondents to indicate if it was highly effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or ineffective. To avoid cluttered graphs, we report these results using the larger method groupings as defined previously. Figure 7 shows the percentages of methods that were marked highly effective.

We see in Figure 7 that events and outbound methods are best for generating leads, while social media and traditional methods are least effective.

How Many Considered the Method Highly Effective for Lead Generation


Figure 7— How Many Considered the Method Highly Effective for Lead Generation

17%

27%

39%

5%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Online Events Outbound Social Media Traditional

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


14


CONCLUSION

We have seen that executive events, telemarketing, webinars, and search marketing are effective yet underutilized methods for generating leads. Companies should more frequently use these methods. One the other hand, social media showed very poor lead generating effectiveness. Even though LinkedIn was rated the most effective social media tool in the survey, it barely reached above the bottom quartile in marketing method effectiveness. LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter are all overutilized considering their poor effectiveness.

Tradeshows, email or electronic newsletters, and company websites are recognized as highly effective at generating leads and are used broadly. Inside sales, however, was the highest rated method for generating leads. Companies should use the data in this report to better focus their marketing resources into those channels which are most effective.

Works Cited Ramos, L. (2010). Rethinking the B2B Tech Marketing Mix in the Digital Age.

Cambridge: Forrester.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Bu

ildin

g A

Pro

vo

UT

84

606

| 8

08

.96

5.4

316

| w

ww

.in

sid

esa

les.c

om


15


ABOUT INSIDESALES.COM

The InsideSales.com platform accelerates efficient lead response management and qualification. Key features include: PowerDialer, integrated with the InsideSales.com Lead Response Platform or the Salesforce® CRM; ResponsePop, the ability to respond to web leads in under 10 seconds; automation of standard sales functions, such as the ability to leave a voice message or email with the click of a mouse or through one or more pre-defined trigger events, otherwise known as sales workflow automation; extensive sales analytics that enable visibility down to the sales rep level. A brief list of our enterprise clients includes: Groupon, Dell, Eloqua, and Marketo. To learn more, visit www.InsideSales.com.

http://www.insidesales.com/

june 2013 lead generation methods executive summarystatic.insidesales.com/assets/pdf/lead...

Documents