whats working in lead generation

What’s Working In Professional Services Lead Generation

How To Spend Your Time, Energy, & Money For The Best ROI In B2B Professional Services

A RainToday.com Research Report by:

Mike Schultz, Publisher, RainToday.com

Andrea Meacham Rosal, Chief Content Officer, RainToday.com John Doerr, Principal, Wellesley Hills Group

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, faxing, emailing, posting online or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Publisher.

© 2007 RainToday.com

$395

What’s Working In Lead Generation

What’s Working In Lead Generation How To Spend Your Time, Energy, & Money For The Best ROI In B2B Professional Services

© 2007 by RainToday.com and Wellesley Hills Group, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, faxing, emailing, posting online or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Publisher. For information contact: RainToday.com Customer Service 600 Worcester Road Suite 301 Framingham, MA 01702 508-405-0438 [email protected]

© 2007 RainToday.com & Wellesley Hills Group, LLC 1

mailto:[email protected]



Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 4 How To Use This Report.................................................................................................... 5 Insight #1: Brand Matters................................................................................................... 6 Insight #2: Know Your Target Market............................................................................... 8 Insight #3: Cold Calling Works........................................................................................ 11 Insight #4: Integrate Your Tactics.................................................................................... 15 Insight #5: Nurture the Leads You Have.......................................................................... 19 Insight #6: Indicators of the Future Lead Generation....................................................... 21 A Few Key Terms Used In This Study ............................................................................ 22

THE LEAD GENERATION ENVIRONMENT IN TODAY’S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUSINESS .......................................................................................................... 23

Setting The Stage ................................................................................................................ 24 Professional Services’ Ability To Generate Leads........................................................... 24 Why Being “Well-Known” In Your Target Market Matters............................................ 26 Companies’ Current Approaches To Getting New Business ........................................... 28 Sales & Marketing Budgets In Professional Services ...................................................... 31 Growth in Annual Revenue Over Last Two Years........................................................... 36 Geographic Reach of Client Base..................................................................................... 39

How Companies Are Going About Lead Generation...................................................... 41 Who’s Expected To Generate Leads ................................................................................ 41 Typical Lead Quality........................................................................................................ 45 Knowledge Of Target Markets......................................................................................... 48 Lead Generation Challenges Faced By Professional Services ......................................... 50

BEST LEAD GENERATION TACTICS, STRATEGIES, & OFFERS........................... 53

Top Ways To Generate Quality Leads ............................................................................. 54 Top Strategies For Generating Quality Leads .................................................................. 54 Referral Building As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary............................................. 57 Cold Calling As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary .................................................... 59 Hosting, Attending, & Speaking At In-Person Events As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary ..................................................................................................................... 63 Online Marketing As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary ............................................ 69 Other Top Tactics: Selected Commentary ....................................................................... 70

Evaluating Tactics & Strategies ........................................................................................ 73 One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness Of Tactics & Strategies ..................................... 73 The “Don’t Know Effectiveness” Factor ......................................................................... 81

Evaluating Offers And Their Content .............................................................................. 84 Lead Generation Offers .................................................................................................... 84 Types Of Content For Lead Generation Offers ................................................................ 89

Continued on next page



Table of Contents, Continued

TOMORROW’S TRENDS IN LEAD GENERATION....................................................... 92

2-Year Prediction: Across The Board Increases In Lead Generation .......................... 93 Changes In Approach To Lead Generation ...................................................................... 93 Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts........................................ 96

Voting With Dollars: The $100,000 Question ................................................................ 104 Where To Invest In Marketing & Sales.......................................................................... 104 Selected Verbatim Comments About Use Of $100,000................................................. 107

Trends For Future Use Of Tactics, Strategies, Offers, & Their Content ................... 109 ANALYSIS SECTIONS BY FIRM DEMOGRAPHICS................................................... 120

Analysis By Industry ........................................................................................................ 121 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 121 Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping Services.......................................................... 127 Architecture, Engineering, Construction Services ......................................................... 133 Financial, Insurance, Real Estate Services ..................................................................... 139 Human Resources & Organizational Development Consulting ..................................... 146 Information Technology Consulting & Services............................................................ 153 Law Firms / Legal Services............................................................................................ 160 Management Consulting................................................................................................. 167 Marketing, Public Relations, & Advertising .................................................................. 174 Training, Executive Education, & Coaching Services ................................................... 181 Other Consulting / Professional Services ....................................................................... 187

Analysis By Firm Size....................................................................................................... 194 BACKGROUND & PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS................................................ 204

Background & Participant Demographics ..................................................................... 205 Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................... 205 About The Participant Firms .......................................................................................... 206 List Of Participating Companies .................................................................................... 210

ABOUT RAINTODAY.COM & THE REPORT AUTHORS .......................................... 217

About RainToday.com ................................................................................................... 218 About The RainToday Research Team .......................................................................... 219



INTRODUCTION



How To Use This Report

Lead generation is heating up

Across the board, professional services firms are looking to generate more leads in the next two years. According to BtoB’s “2007 Marketing Priorities and Plans” survey, acquiring new customers (i.e. lead generation) is the number one goal for 2007 cited by 62.3% of respondents1. In studying What’s Working In Lead Generation, we asked 731 professional services firms, “In the next two years, how do you expect your lead generation efforts to change?” An overwhelming 84% said that they were planning on significantly or moderately increasing their lead generation efforts. In other words, 84% of your competitors are going after your prospects and your clients with more lead generation energy, resources, and rigor. So, what lead generation strategies and tactics can you employ that will put you ahead of the curve? In What’s Working In Lead Generation, we set out to answer this question. Our goal is for you to use this report in discussion as you: • Benchmark yourself against “Excellent” lead generation companies in

terms of how much you are spending, what tactics you are using, what your offers are, what your marketing mix is, etc.

• Choose which tactics you should test – and which tactics may not be worth the work and investment.

• Defend your lead generation plans to your managers and gain buy-in with your lead generation team.

• Budget for upcoming years. In this report introduction, we have presented an overview of some of the most important lead generation insights gained from our analysis of the data and our everyday work with professional services firms.

1 BtoB Online, “2007 Marketing Priorities and Plans” survey, December 2006.



Insight #1: Brand Matters

Famous name or hidden gem?

We asked: Of the sentences below, which ONE better describes your company's reputation reach?

Sentence % Respondents

Our company is very well-known among the majority of companies in our target market.

30%

Our company is not very well-known among the majority of companies in our target market.

70%

Impact of reputation reach

Respondents who said their companies were “very well known” in their target market were also significantly more likely than the “not very well known” companies to say they were “Good” or “Excellent” at generating leads for their services.

Companies' Overall Ability To Generate Leads

- By Reputation Reach In Target Market -

5

30

1612

44

38

6

49

0

25

50

1(Poor)

2(Fair)

3(Good )

4(Excellent)

% R

espo

nden

ts

Very Well Known Companies (N = 221)Not Very Well Known Companies (N = 514)

Each measure in this chart represents a significant difference, at a 95% confidence level.




Insight #1: Brand Matters, Continued

Takeaway: A rising tide lifts all boats

One argument seems to never go away. On the one side you have people who say, “We need to increase our brand recognition in order to truly succeed with marketing.” The other side typically maintains, “Just get out there and sell. Name recognition doesn’t matter.” Recognition and reputation do matter when it comes to lead generation. 65% of well known companies report being good or excellent at lead generation whereas only 44% of the not well known companies report being good or excellent. If you are well known, whatever lead generation tactics you employ are likely to work better. In How Clients Buy: The Benchmark Report on Professional Services Marketing and Sales from the Client Perspective, we asked 200 buyers of professional services how they find and learn more about potential service providers. After referrals, “I already knew about the service provider” (a.k.a. reputation or brand reach) was the top approach cited along with, “learning about the service provider by hearing them speak.” In What’s Working In Lead Generation, only 30% of companies claimed the power of name-recognition in their market. That spells opportunity for the other 70% of firms. The more well known you are, the better your lead generation efforts will work. Of course, this begs the question, “which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” or in this case “the brand recognition or the lead generation success?”

Caveat: Don’t build brand for brand’s sake

While brand perception can have a tremendous impact on a buyer’s attitude toward a company, and disposition toward purchasing services, the traditional laws of branding do not apply to professional services firms. Of 33 lead generation outreach tactics, traditional advertising media scored very low in terms of effectiveness: • Advertising on TV: 33rd out of 33 • Advertising on the radio: 31st out of 33 • Advertising in print media: 29th out of 33 • Advertising in ad-supported websites & online publications: 28th out of 33 Build your service brand through your lead generation efforts. With value in marketing, sustained over a long period of time, you build awareness and esteem for your firm’s services while you generate leads.



Insight #2: Know Your Target Market

Knowing what you don’t know…

We asked: How well does your company know whom it should be targeting for its services, in terms of: • The general profile of your target market (best industry, geography, size,

other general characteristics) • The actual titles of decision makers within the target organizations • The actual names of the organizations you should target • The actual names of decision makers within the target organizations

Target market knowledge

Participants rated their knowledge to be: 5 = Extremely Strong, 4 = Somewhat Strong, 3 = Neither Strong Nor Weak, 2 = Somewhat Weak, 1 = Extremely Weak

% Rating Target Market Knowledge As "Extremely" or "Somewhat Strong"

100

77 75 58

5550

30 25

0 General Profile Titles Of Decision

MakersNames Of

OrganizationsNames Of De sionci

Makers Aspect Of Target Market Knowledge




Insight #2: Know Your Target Market, Continued

By ability to generate leads

While the chart above showing “total” responses is helpful to see the overall trend in professional services, looking at target market knowledge by the companies’ self-reported ability to generate leads takes us a step further in underscoring just how important it is to know your target market well. rget market well.

% Rating Target Market Knowledge As "Extremely" or "Somewhat Strong"- By Overall Ability To Generate Leads -

95

78

51

89

63 65

39

68

5444

21

55

3137

13

73

0

25

50

75

100

General Profile Titles OfDecisionMakers

Names OfOrganizations

Names OfDecisionMakers

% O

f Res

pond

ents

Excellent AtGeneratingLeads

Good AtGeneratingLeads

Fair AtGeneratingLeads

Poor AtGeneratingLeads

Continued on next page Continued on next page



Insight #2: Know Your Target Market, Continued

Takeaway: Know your target market

Targeting and segmentation are the first steps to any lead generation or marketing effort, and must be done with the utmost thought and rigor. It seems intuitive – to be successful in marketing and lead generation, you need to know who your best potential clients are. Yet, only 30% of respondents indicated that they have the actual names of the decision makers in the companies they are targeting. When we look through the lens of the respondents’ ability to generate leads, we see a marked difference in target market knowledge between “poor” or “fair” lead generators (13% - 21% know the names of the decision makers) and “Good” or “Excellent” lead generators (39% - 51% know the names of the decision makers). There’s a direct correlation – in our data and in our experience – between companies that know exactly whom they target and how well they can generate leads.

Caveat: Not all prospects are created equal

While the more knowledge you have of your target market heightens your ability to generate leads, it is important to remember that not all of your targets are equal in their profit potential. As such, not all of your targets should be treated equally in terms of your marketing efforts and budget. The first step in knowing where to spend your lead generation money is to know who you want to spend it on.



Insight #3: Cold Calling Works

What works the best (unaided)

We asked: Consider the past 2 years of lead generation for your company: all of the ways to contact prospects, ways to establish brand and thought leadership, ways to publicize and network, and lead-generating offers your company has used. Based on what you know about the source of your company’s leads in the past 2 years, what have been the top 3 ways that have generated quality leads for your company’s services? These may be a single strategy, tactic, or offer, or a particular combination that you’ve found to be the most reliable source of quality leads. Important note: These answers were unaided by the survey, meaning we received 1,428 volunteered responses from 591 participants, with no prompting from the survey as to the tactics they could choose from. We then analyzed and categorized each response individually.

The top ways to generate quality leads

When considering only the answers to what people consider their “#1 top way to generate leads,” these 5 strategies rise to the top of the list:

5 Most Common “#1 Top Ways” To Generate Quality Leads

% Respondents (N = 591)

Client / partner referrals 22

General referrals 16

Cold calling / telephone prospecting 13

Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events, conferences, tradeshows, seminars 11

Personal relationships / Direct, face to face contact 8

When considering all of the top 3 ways to generate quality leads, priorities change, but not substantially. Client and partner referrals, general referrals, cold calling / telephone prospecting, and interacting with prospects at events still reign.

The great debate: to call or not to call

Cold Calling is second only to referrals as the number one lead generation tactic respondents cited that has worked for them in the past. While there is much debate over the topic of cold calling – if it works, if it is worth it, how to do it “right” – the data here is clear: cold calling does work for a number of firms. The following verbatim comments from our survey respondents explain how it works, and how they know it works.




Insight #3: Cold Calling Works, Continued

Evidence that cold calling works

Comment From Even though calls are frustrating at times...when they work, they really work well. We can get 2 to 4 new clients each year this way, that usually turn to repeat work clients...that is good.

Chief Marketing Officer, AEC Services

Our biggest and most profitable customers have been acquired this way.

CEO / President, Health Care Services

75% of more than 250 meetings during the past 2 years have been generated this way.

VP / Director of Marketing, Management Consulting

30% response rate with a 10% first meeting rate. Acts like the newsletter, but gets to an audience blocked by spam filters.

Principal / Partner, Human Resources / OD Consulting

Roughly 25% of new business is brought in this way. Principal / Partner, Retained Executive Search Services

Cold calling is so rare in UK professional services that it's quite a pleasant surprise to many recipients. We often get the comment, “I'm glad you called. I / my colleague is dealing with just such a situation that you may be able to help with...”

Managing Director / Managing Partner, Marketing / PR / Advertising

70% of correspondents are interested in our services. Principal / Partner, Law Firms / Legal Services





Keys to success with cold calling

Comment From Be honest & to the point, don't waste their time, research them before calling, ask good questions, LISTEN to their answers, keep good notes, follow up, follow up, follow up.

Chief Marketing Officer, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

The more tailored the call based on pre-call research, the more effective it becomes.

Chief Sales Officer, IT Services & Consulting

It is how we have secured business year after year and we're over $400 million in sales and in business over 50 years.

Field Director, Human Resources / OD Consulting

Defining the target audience. Principal / Partner, Law Firms / Legal Services

The key is to make it a professional inquiry, not a sales message - I say that I've seen their work, tell them briefly what I do, and ask whether they'd be interested in seeing some additional information (white papers, cap statement, etc.).

CEO / President, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Our service is not something that a client thinks of getting and, often doesn't want to . . . they want the results, not the service. So, calling – proactively – has been hands down the most effective way to generate leads. But not for the faint-hearted!


The key is to ensure the call is always client business focused, and by a senior manager who can bring their industry experience to bear.

VP / Director of Marketing, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Needs a high quality individual who knows our business well, and is able to hold real conversations, not just follow a script.

Chief Marketing Officer, Training / Executive Education

The majority of sales come from reps who have taken the prospect from start to finish over a long period of time. Activity is the key to start.

Sales Training Manager, IT Services / Consulting





Takeaway: Cold calling works

Of all the possible tactics out there – speaking, publishing, seminars, direct mail, PR, internet marketing, the list goes on – cold calling rose to the top as the most effective to generate quality leads, after referrals. So why is there such a big debate around cold calling and whether or not it works for professional services? The short answer is because people are doing it the wrong way. The purpose of a cold call is to set a meeting to introduce yourself, and to learn about the prospect… not to go into a detailed sales pitch. All too often, business developers try to pitch their services over the phone, rather than approaching their targets with a value based offer for the meeting (research, industry insights, best practices, etc.). If you take the respondents’ advice above – “do your research” before the call, offer something of value, keep it conversational, listen, keep good notes, and follow up – then cold calling can and does work (and it may even become your #1 tactic).

Caveat: Have realistic expectations

While cold calling can and does work, you need to have realistic expectations. It is very unlikely that you are going to call someone right at their elusive time of need. Sales cycles for services take 3, 6, 9, 18 months or longer. The introductory meeting is the first step in a series of actions designed to build trust with your prospect over time through lead nurturing (see Insight #5).



Insight #4: Integrate Your Tactics

Evaluating 33 lead generation tactics and strategies

We looked at two basic measures of 33 tactics and strategies that professional services companies might use to generate leads for new business: • Have you used it? • If so, how effective has it proven in generating leads for your services? Companies rated effectiveness on a scale of 1 to 5: 5 = Extremely Effective, 4 = Very Effective, 3 = Somewhat Effective, 2 = Not Very Effective, 1 = Not At All Effective

The most effective tactics

The chart below illustrates the top 5 most effective tactics as rated by respondents as “extremely effective” and “very effective.”

11

17

13

13

7

41

31

32

25

26

0 25 50 75

Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) (N = 778)

Speaking at conferences / trade shows (N = 616)

Running our own in-person events (N = 496)

Becoming members of professional /industry organizations (N = 728)

Connecting with press contacts to gainPR about our company (N = 530)

% Of Respondents% "Extremely Effective" (5)

% "Very Effective" (4)

52%

Top2Box Mean

48%

3.57

3.59

38% 3.34

33% 3.27

45% 3.56




Insight #4: Integrate Your Tactics, Continued

Warming up the prospect

Both in aided and unaided responses, using the telephone to generate leads rises to the top as the most effective tactic (be it through “warm” or “cold” calling). Several of the respondents chimed in to share how they combine this strategy with other tactics to warm up their prospects before picking up the phone. Calling Combination Strategies – Selected Commentary

Comment From With Conference Sponsorship: Appointment-setting services: calling attendees of focused conferences for which we are a major sponsor, we speak, and we have clients speaking. We know it works because of the number of 'new logo' clients we have obtained through this process. Timeliness of the calling after the event is key.

VP / Director of Business Development, Marketing / PR / Advertising

With Direct Mail: Cold Calling via phone preceded by letter.

Principal / Partner, Procurement & Telecommunica-tions

With E-Mail: We call then send target-appropriate, industry-specific articles via email. We get emails back saying great articles etc.

CEO / President, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

With E-Mail: E-mail sent out followed by call. It brings in leads. Individual e-mails speaking to the target, not just the target group. Dovetailed communication.


With Direct Mail & Follow-Up Calls: Contacting potential clients via telephone and talking with them about our service. Then we send a targeted brochure, and then we call them to set up a meeting. This has been very successful in the markets we have tried it in. The key is follow up!

Principal / Partner, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services





Takeaway: Lead generation tactics work together

Getting through to high-level decision makers, getting your message of value seared into their heads, and getting them over the tipping point of becoming a serious lead for your services takes multiple touches, time, and marketing savvy. There is no silver bullet tactic. While we see that “using the telephone” to generate leads rises to the top of tactics, it is that much more effective when combined with other tactics. For example, assume you have been chosen to speak at an industry conference (the number two most effective tactic cited). You pour your time and effort into securing the speaking engagement, creating the PowerPoint deck, practicing your speech, preparing materials, etc. You show up, deliver, and pass out packets with a shiny new company brochure and your business card. You go back to your office and wait for the phone to ring. A certain number of the attendees will be so interested in your presentation that they will pick up the phone and proactively begin a discussion with you. But the majority will go back to their office and your nice brochure will get buried in a pile on their desk. Now, consider how much more effective your speaking could be if you were to touch the attendees both before and after the event. For example: • Tactic 1: Send a direct mail letter to conference attendees focused on the benefits

of your presentation. • Tactic 2: Call attendees offering to meet with them during the conference to

discuss how this new research affects their firm and their challenges. • Tactic 3: Speak at the conference, network, and position yourself as a resource. • Tactic 4: Add everyone you met to your Contact Management System (and your

touch plan – see Insight #5). • Tactic 5: Follow up with an email including the slides from your presentation. • Tactic 6: Follow up with a phone call to discuss how this data relates to your

prospects’ firms and to answer any lingering questions they may have. In this case, combining lead generation tactics generates a fair share of leads both before and after the speaking engagement.





Caveat: Don’t evaluate lead generation too quickly

Lead generation is a multi-step process. It takes ongoing touches to draw prospects into the “seduction of your services.” These touches need to be well planned, with a consistent message, at the right frequency, with the right mix of offers. This takes time. Many professional services firms plant seeds in hopes of growing a tree, and dig them up after two weeks to see if they're growing. That's not a good way to grow trees.



Insight #5: Nurture the Leads You Have Inspecting the pipeline

We asked participants to report what percentage of their leads typically arrive as “sales-ready”, “needs nurturing”, or “disqualified.”

Typical lead quality

This chart illustrates the general pattern of lead quality for the companies. N = 390 – 405

Typical Lead Quality, Among All Leads Generated By Respondent Companies

0%

0%

1-9%

1-9%

10-19%

10-19%

10-19%

20-29%

20-29%

20-29%

30-39%

30-39%

30-39%

40-49%

40-49%

50-59%

50-59%

50-59%

60-69%

60-69%

70-79%80% +

80% +

0%1-9%

40-49%

60-69%70-79%

70-79%

80% +

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% LeadsDisqualified

(N = 405)

% Leads RequiringFurther Nurturing

(N = 390)

% LeadsConsidered Sales-Ready

(N = 390)

% Respondents

Mean Average = 25% of leads

Mean Average =

50% of leads

Mean Average =

25% of leads




Insight #5: Nurture the Leads You Have, Continued

Takeaway: Nurture the leads you have

Many companies let the leads they work so hard to generate drop out of their pipeline.2 In our experience, service businesses are better at staying on sales-ready leads, and notoriously bad at staying on leads that need further nurturing. If your company is one of the many that are poor at staying on leads that are not sales-ready when they present themselves, you are likely missing out on 2/3 of your new business opportunities. This is less a question of lead generation, and more a question of the systems and processes you have in place for lead nurturing. Lead nurturing allows you to stay top of mind with prospects that will eventually look to solve their problems with someone’s help (e.g. your help, a competitor of yours, internal staff), and gets the issues you can help with to the tops of their to-do lists.

Caveat: Provide value in your marketing

Lead nurturing is not calling your targets every 2 weeks to ask them if they are ready to buy your services yet. Lead nurturing is your opportunity to demonstrate the value you can provide and position yourself as a resource. Send 1-to-1 communications using the phone, email, and mail that include a value based offer such as an article that addresses your prospect’s challenge, an invitation to a networking event, seminar, or webinar that might be of interest to them (even better if you are the one speaking at the event), a white paper, etc. Reference: See page 84 in the report to see the effectiveness of various offers as reported by our research respondents.

2 A BtoB Magazine article April 14, 2003 cited an estimate by the Yankee Group that between 40% and 80% of new business leads are lost, not followed up upon, or otherwise mishandled due to poor company processes.



Insight #6: Indicators of the Future of Lead Generation

The future of lead generation

The question remains, what trends in lead generation will take shape in the next several years. Here are 7 topics cited in the report that indicate just where lead generation is going:

Topic See Page Increasing Competition 93 Brand Matters 26 Top “Unaided” Tactics: • Overall • By Industry

54 & 24

Top “Aided” Tactics – Usage and Effectiveness 73 Top “Aided” Offers – Usage and Effectiveness 84 Non Users Seriously Considering Using: • Tactics • Offers

109 114

Answers to the $100k Question 104 For other important indicators of the Future of Lead Generation, see all of the verbatim comments from survey respondents regarding not only their top tactics, but the keys to the effectiveness for those tactics.



A Few Key Terms Used In This Study

Lead generation

Targeting prospects, reaching prospects, and developing relationships directly with prospects to find potential new business opportunities or “leads” for your services

Offers Informative, useful takeaways or experiences provided by your company to

prospects for your services

Professionals Consultants, accountants, engineers, technical professionals, etc. who are

also likely to do the work once it’s confirmed

Referrals Recommendations given by past and current clients and other contacts to

potential new prospects for your services



THE LEAD GENERATION ENVIRONMENT IN TODAY’S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUSINESS



Setting The Stage Professional Services’ Ability To Generate Leads

How good are you?

When you’re good at lead generation, you know it. Participants in this study were asked: Overall, how would you rate your company's ability to generate leads? (1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent)

Results Overall, participants rated themselves in a near-perfect bell curve.

50%

25%

0%

8%

41%42%

9%

Company's Overall Ability to Generate Leads - Self Rating -

1(Poor)

2(Fair)

3(Good)

4(Excellent)

R 2 = 0.9998 N = 897 Mean Rating = 2.48

The best are better at…

Throughout this report you’ll learn what the “Excellent” lead generation companies do similarly and differently than the rest of the pack. Here are a few highlights comparing the self-rated “Excellent” companies versus the rest:

Topic Excellent Good, Fair, and Poor

Growth of annual B2B revenue in past 2 years

• 49% grew by > 50% • 31% more than doubled

• 21-28% grew by > 50% • 10-16% more than doubled

Sales and marketing budget • 35% spend at least 10% of revenue

• Only 23% spend at least 10% of revenue (together)

Well known in the target market vs. not well known

• 53% well-known • 14-36% well-known




Professional Services’ Ability To Generate Leads, Continued

Topic Excellent Good, Fair, and Poor # Lead Generation issues rated at least “Somewhat Challenging” for companies

• 0 issues • 4 – 9 issues

Average lead quality (%) • 39% sales-ready • 20% disqualified • 41% needs nurturing

• 19 – 29% sales-ready • 23 – 30% disqualified • 48 – 54% needs nurturing

Knowledge of target market: % with “extremely strong” knowledge in terms of:

• General profile: 64% • Decision-maker titles: 41% • Organization names: 41% • Decision-maker names:

24%

• General profile: 21-32% • Decision-maker titles:

11-22% • Organization names:

11-20% • Decision-maker names:

1-6% Average number of tactics employed per respondent

• 21 tactics • 17-20 tactics

# Tactics rated at least “Somewhat Effective”

• 25 tactics • 5-17 tactics

Commentary: Becoming excellent

Businesses that become excellent at anything do so because of the beliefs and behaviors of the company leaders. The same is true of successful lead generation. Across all professional service industries, leaders are saying more and more that their companies need to be better at lead generation and marketing. Some are serious. Some are lip-service-payers (though they rarely admit it). Whatever the reason to try it, becoming “excellent” (or even just “better”) at lead generation is contingent on the dedication of firm leaders supporting the efforts to get there. Keep in mind: leadership support does not guarantee lead generation success. However, without leadership support, becoming “excellent” at lead generation will be an uphill battle. Takeaway: Leadership and lead generation go hand-in-hand.



Why Being “Well-Known” In Your Target Market Matters

Famous name or hidden gem?

We asked: Of the sentences below, which ONE better describes your company's reputation reach?

Sentence % Respondents

(N = 735)

Our company is very well-known among the majority of companies in our target market. 30%

Our company is not very well-known among the majority of companies in our target market. 70%


Respondents who said their companies were “very well known” in their target market were also significantly more likely than the “not very well known” companies to say they were “Good” or “Excellent” at generating leads for their services.

Companies' Overall Ability To Generate Leads

- By Reputation Reach In Target Market -

5

30

1612

44

38

6

49

0

25

50

1(Poor)

2(Fair)

3(Good )

4(Excellent)

% R

espo

nden

ts

Very Well Known Companies (N = 221)Not Very Well Known Companies (N = 514)

Each measure in this chart represents a significant difference, at a 95% confidence level.




Why Being “Well-Known” In Your Target Market Matters, Continued

Commentary: Impact of brand on lead generation

The “brand” argument never seems to go away. On one side, you have people who say, “We need to increase our brand recognition in order to truly succeed with marketing.” The other side typically maintains, “Just get out there and sell. Name recognition doesn’t matter.” Recognition and reputation do matter when it comes to lead generation. In fact, 65% of well known companies report being good or excellent at lead generation, whereas only 44% of the not well known companies report being good or excellent. If your target market knows your company and has a high opinion of you, whatever lead generation tactics you employ are likely to work better. In the RainToday report How Clients Buy: The Benchmark Report on Professional Services Marketing and Sales from the Client Perspective, we asked 200 buyers of professional services how likely they are to identify and learn about professional services providers from a variety of sources. After referrals, the respondents cited “I already knew about the service provider” (a.k.a. reputation or brand reach) as the top approach, along with learning about the service provider by hearing them speak. Only 30% of companies in What’s Working In Lead Generation claim the power of name-recognition in their market. That spells opportunity for the other 70% of firms. That’s an opportunity you’ll want to take. Chances are, the more well known you are, the better your lead generation efforts will work. Takeaway: The rising tide of brand lifts all boats.



Companies’ Current Approaches To Getting New Business

Ways to get new business

We asked: How does your company currently approach the goal of getting new business for its services? Respondents chose one of the following:

Choice Approach 1 We direct most of our efforts toward lead generation (targeting

new prospects) 2 We direct half our efforts toward lead generation and half our

efforts toward generating referrals among our current and past clients, and among our network.

3 We direct most of our efforts toward generating referrals among our current and past clients, and among our network.

Results The most popular answer for this question was “half referrals and half lead

generation” as a strategy for getting new business, but not by much. The following chart shows how respondents differ in their current approaches to business development:


Most toward generating referrals

32%

Half toward lead generation and half toward generating

referrals39%

Most toward lead generation

29%

N = 880



Companies’ Current Approaches To Getting New Business, Continued

Challenge of being referral-driven

Companies which currently rely mostly on referrals for business tend to be slightly better-known in their target market. However, they also place more responsibility upon firm leaders and professionals who lack time and lead generation skills (see below) to generate those referrals than in companies which emphasize a lead-generation approach. Here are a few of the areas where this dynamic plays out: Note: Rows will not necessarily add to 100% due to different question types, only selected measures being highlighted, and a small subset having indicated they “don’t know” their current approach to getting new business.

Current Approach To Getting New Business

Area Of Difference “Mostly Lead Generation”

“Half Lead Generation, Half

Referrals” “Mostly Referrals” Reputation among target market

• 24% very well known • 28% very well known • 37% very well known

Growth of annual B2B revenue in past 2 years

• 32% grew by >50% • 20% more than

doubled


doubled


doubled Who in company is expected to generate leads

• Leaders: 74% • Professionals: 39% • Professional

Marketing / Selling Staff: 37%

• VP-Level Marketing / Selling Staff: 17-20%


Marketing / Selling Staff: 36-38%

• VP-Level Marketing / Selling Staff: 19%


Marketing / Selling Staff: 23-27%

• VP-Level Marketing / Selling Staff: 11-13%

Challenge: “Having appropriate skills / knowledge among those charged with generating leads”

• 33% “Extremely / Very Challenging”



Challenge: “Implementing our plan, even when we agree upon it”




Challenge: “Having time to generate leads”







Companies’ Current Approaches To Getting New Business, Continued Tactical Effectiveness

Generating leads versus relying on referrals can influence how effective your business considers selected sales / marketing tactics to be. The following tactics are rated at significantly different levels of effectiveness in generating leads among “lead generation” companies versus those relying on referrals. Scale: 1 = “Not At All Effective”, 2 = “Not Very Effective”, 3 = “Somewhat Effective”, 4 = “Very Effective”, 5 = “Extremely Effective

Mean Effectiveness Of Tactics, By Current Approach To Getting New Business Current Approach To Getting New Business

Lead Generation Tactic Mostly Lead Generation

Half Lead Generation,

Half Referrals Mostly

Referrals Becoming members of professional organizations 3.09 3.40 3.46

Connecting with press contacts 3.08 3.24 3.44

Company-authored content in our own print publications 2.92 3.18 3.30

Running our own teleseminars 3.25 2.88 2.72 Search Engine Advertising 3.01 2.83 2.52

Numbers bolded and underlined indicate a significant difference, at the 95% confidence level.

Commentary: The right strategy

Historically, professional services firms grew their firms by and large based on referrals. While referrals are still a necessary part of most service firms’ growth, they are typically no longer sufficient to a) survive as a business, or b) grow the firm at a desirable rate. The shift from referrals towards proactive marketing and lead generation has to do with the competitive dynamics of professional service industries (they’re more competitive), how clients buy professional services (they don’t just ask for referrals anymore to find professional services providers), and the growth desires of the leadership of individual service businesses (whether they’re “happy” with the growth they get from service businesses). It’s important to note that there is no “right strategy” of focusing on referrals versus lead generation. If your business is growing (or merely profiting) at desired rates, and the competition for business has not heated up in your market, then adding anything over-and-above referrals to the lead generation mix may be neither necessary nor helpful. The takeaway here is the simple fact that the companies in our research that focus largely on lead generation versus those that focus largely on generating referrals: • Were generally less well known (perhaps more strongly precipitating the

need for lead generation); • Grew significantly more; and • Had significantly fewer challenges generating leads.



Sales & Marketing Budgets In Professional Services

What’s considered “in the budget”

“Sales and marketing budgets” in this study were considered to include: • Internal salaries for dedicated sales/marketing roles, as applicable. • Outsourcing budgets for externally filled sales and marketing functions, as

applicable. • All other marketing and sales spending.

Budget as percentage of annual revenue

The divisions are shown in the following chart.

Sales & Marketing Budget As A Percent Of Annual Revenue

5% to < 10% of revenue,

25%

20% or more,

15% to < 20% of reve e,

10% to < 15% of revenue,

11% nu

6% 7%

2.5% to < 5% of revenue,

25% 10% or more,

24%

< 2.5% of revenue,

26%0%

N = 1,039

What impact does your spending level have?

Independent and small firms tend to spend larger percentages of their annual revenue on sales and marketing: • 34% of independents and 26% of small firms spend 10% or more of

annual revenue on sales and marketing • 19% of medium firms and only 10% of large to very large firms spend

10% or more • Nearly 70% of the large to very large firms spend less than 5% of annual

revenue on sales and marketing.




Sales & Marketing Budgets In Professional Services, Continued What impact does your spending level have? (continued)

Meanwhile, spending 10% or more of annual revenue can go hand in hand with achieving higher levels of revenue growth. See the following charts for a look at the impact of sales and marketing spending. Independent = 1 professional only Small = 2 – 49 professionals Medium = 50 – 249 professionals Large / Very Large = 250+ professionals

Sales & Marketing Budget As % Of Annual Revenue- By Number Of Professionals In Firm -

28 22

30 36

18 24

26

33 20

28

26

21 13

9

4 6

6 13 7 4 5

14

1

7

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Independent(N = 147)

Small(N = 407)

Medium(N = 101)

Large / Very Large(N = 80)

% R

espo

nden

ts

To 2.5% To 2.5%

To 2.5%

To 5% To 5%

To 5%

To 10%

To 10%

To 10%To 15%

To 15%To 15%To 20%

To 20%To 20%

20% + 20% + 20% +




Sales & Marketing Budgets In Professional Services, Continued

Past 2-Years Growth Profile By Sales & Marketing Budget

21%

26% 25%

36%

40%

36%

17%

20%

10%

13%15%

17%

44%43%

17% 18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Budget < 2.5% Revenue(N = 189)

Budget = 2.5 to < 5% Revenue(N = 178)

Budget = 5 to < 10% Revenue(N = 187)

Budget = 10% or moreRevenue(N = 181)

% R

espo

nden

ts

Grew 50% + Grew 10-49% Grew <10% No Change / DecreasedNote: 36% of companies spending at least 10% of revenue on sales and marketing grew by 50% or more in the past 2 years, versus only 21-26% of those spending less.

Spending levels by industry

Several differences in spending levels for marketing and sales exist when comparing results by industry. For instance: • Spending less than 2.5% of annual revenue on marketing / sales: − 51% of Law Firms / Legal Services − 16-32% of all other industries.





Spending levels by industry (continued)

• Spending less than 5% of annual revenue on marketing / sales − 81% of Law Firms / Legal Services − 70% of Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping − 62% of Architecture / Engineering / Construction − 30-52% of other industries

• Spending at least 15% of annual revenue on marketing / sales − 29% of Training / Executive Education / Coaching firms − 3-22% of other industries

• Spending at least 20% of annual revenue on marketing / sales − 17% of Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting − 13% of Training / Executive Education / Coaching − 11% of Marketing / PR / Advertising firms − 1-10% of other industries

Spending levels and lead generation effectiveness

We found no consistent pattern of how marketing / sales spending levels as a percentage of annual revenue might impact the usage or effectiveness of the lead generation tactics, strategies, and offers evaluated in this study. That being said, ratings for the following methods did indicate certain trends, including: EFFECTIVENESS

Lead Generation Method Trend (Base = Have Used Method)

Sending individual emails directly to prospects

Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” • 33% of those spending 5% or more • 21% of those spending less than 5%

Sending mass emails directly to prospects

Rated “Not Very / Not At All Effective” • 65% of those spending less than 2.5% • 48% of those spending 2.5% or more

Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer

Rated “Not Very / Not At All Effective” • 41% of those spending less than 5% • 22% of those spending 5% or more

Making “warm” phone calls (to existing contacts)

Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” • 57% of those spending 5% or more • 45% of those spending less than 5%





Spending levels and lead generation effectiveness (continued)

Lead Generation Method Trend

(Base = Have Used Method)

Publishing company-authored content in our own online publications

“Don’t Know Effectiveness” • 39% of those spending less than 2.5% • 20% of those spending 2.5% or more

Search Engine Advertising Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” • 30% of those spending 15% or more • 13% of those spending less than 15%

Offer: Case study on issues in our clients’ fields

Rated “Extremely Effective” • 14% of those spending 5% or more • 3% of those spending less than 5%



Growth in Annual Revenue Over Last Two Years

Have you grown?

Growth is an important part of setting the stage to talk about lead generation. In fact, a few respondents succinctly characterized their current situation as “grow or die.” So… did they grow?

Growth of professional services firms

Roughly 84% of the professional services companies responding have grown their annual revenue over the past 2 years. N = 735

Growth and lead generation ability

Companies which grew 50% or more in the past 2 years were twice as likely as those with lower levels of growth to rate their lead generation ability as “Excellent” or “Good”, as illustrated in the following chart. For growth profile by industry, see the “Overview of the Analysis By Industry” section on page 120.


10 or more,

2%

less than 10,

4%No Change,

10%

less than 5, 6%

5-9, 10%

10-24,27%

25-49, 14%

50-99, 12%

100 or more,15%

“Decreased By” Percent (6% Total)

“Grew By” Percent (84% Total)



Growth in Annual Revenue Over Last Two Years, Continued

Ability To Generate Leads - By Revenue Growth In Past 2 Years -

8 813

32 35

48

56

43

48

34

29

179 5

15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grew 50% +(N = 199)

Grew 10-49%(N = 300)

Grew <10% (N = 119)

No Change /Decreased(N = 117)

% R

espo

nden

ts

Excellent (4)

Good (3)

Fair (2)

Poor (1)

Mean = 2.70 Mean = 2.58 Mean = 2.32 Mean = 2.15

Commentary: Are all things equal?

Consider two services firms offering similar services. Both have very good service delivery, both have similar levels of innovation in their offerings, both offer similar help to clients. One of the firms has “figured out” lead generation for their services and the other very similar firm hasn’t. It’s reasonable to postulate that the firm that has figured out lead generation will grow significantly more than the other. (And our field research bears out this analysis as well). However, consider the possibility that a service firm simply has not innovated, or is offering a service that is generally not (or no longer) attractive to the market at large. When, no matter what they do for lead generation they can’t get the phone to ring, they may rate themselves as “poor” at lead generation.




Growth in Annual Revenue Over Last Two Years, Continued

Commentary: Are all things equal? (continued)

On the other hand, consider the possibility that another service firm offers an extremely attractive or trendy service to purchase. No matter what this firm does for lead generation, it seems to work great. Thus they rate themselves as “excellent” at lead generation. All things being equal, figure out lead generation and you’ll likely be able to grow your services faster than those companies similar to you that haven’t. Takeaway: Don’t forget that the “hot service” or “not a hot service” factor might have a hand in your lead generation and growth success.

High growth in lesser-known companies

There’s a reason people like to cheer for the underdog: they have so much more to gain. In the past two years, lesser-known companies have seen the most dramatic growth rate category: 100% or more of annual revenue. Among the “very well known” companies, only 6% have seen growth of 100% or more in the past two years, while 19% of the “not very well known companies” have more than doubled their annual revenue. This is not entirely surprising as the better known you are, the bigger (in your space) you tend to be, and thus the more difficult it is to double your size in a year.



Geographic Reach of Client Base

Where are your clients?

The location of your clients may influence your company’s choices about lead generation tactics and strategies. Where do your communications have to reach to?

Client Base Defined As:

Local Primarily in-city and surrounding area

Regional Stretching across several states or comparable area

National Across one country

International Across multiple countries

Market reach of companies

Representing the rich variety of perspectives in this report, respondent companies reported market reach ranging from local to international, with nearly one-third whose clients are nationally defined. (N = 735)


Local23%

23%Regional

31%National

International 23%



Geographic Reach of Client Base, Continued

Current Approach To Getting New Business

- By Geography Of Client Base -

38%40%

35%38%

27%

22%

0%

25%

50%

Mostly Lead Generation Half Lead Generation /Half Referrals

Mostly Referrals

Local / Regional (N = 337) National / International (N = 386)

Circles indicate a significant difference, to the 95% confidence level.



How Companies Are Going About Lead Generation Who’s Expected To Generate Leads

Who’s on first? Most of us are practicing professionals, with billable work on our plate,

deals to close, people to manage, and limited time to commit to anything else. However, the buck doesn’t stop there. Here are the people charged with lead generation in the respondent professional services companies.

The lead-generators

People Expected To Generate Leads % Respondents (N = 897)

Leaders of the firm: CEO, Managing Director, President, Principal, etc.

79

Professionals: Consultants, accountants, engineers, technical professionals, or others who are also likely to do the work once it’s confirmed

53

Professional Marketing Staff: Dedicated to marketing

34

Professional Selling Staff: Dedicated to business development and selling

32

VP-level Selling Staff 16

VP-level Marketing Staff 16

Everyone in the company 2

Me / I am responsible 1

Other 2




Who’s Expected To Generate Leads, Continued


A greater percentage of the “very well known companies” involves professionals, VP-level and other marketing staff, and professional selling staff in lead generation for the company, compared with those “not very well known.”

Who In The Company Is Expected To Generate Leads- By Reputation Reach In Target Market -

75

65

39

83

26 27

1613

2019

4646

0

25

50

75

100

Leaders ofthe firm

Professionals ProfessionalMarketing

Staff

ProfessionalSelling Staff

VP-levelSelling Staff

VP-levelMarketing

Staff

% R

espo

nden

ts

Very Well Known Companies (N = 221)

Not Very Well Known Companies (N = 514)

▲ = A statistically significant difference, at a 95% confidence level

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

Commentary: Effect of culture on reputation reach

Service businesses with strong marketing cultures tend to expect involvement in lead generation by more people than those without strong marketing cultures. It’s reasonable to assume that getting more people involved in lead generation (and marketing in general, and selling) leads to more messages getting out to the marketplace. When more people are involved in getting the word out, companies become well known.





Commentary: Effect of culture on reputation reach (continued)

Other factors besides having a marketing culture such as marketing activities, industry buzz, and time a company has existed affect how well known a company is. But the energy expended in marketing and lead generation every day by the staff at lead-generation-focused companies is certainly one of them. Takeaway: Energy and enthusiasm go a long way.

Responsibility by sales / marketing budget

Not all jobs are created equal: the professionals in firms spending less on marketing and sales are more likely than those spending more to be held accountable for generating new leads for the business:

Marketing / Sales Spending Level % Expecting Firm Professionals To Generate New Leads

Less than 2.5% of revenue (N = 243) 51%

2.5 to < 5% of revenue (N = 217) 59%

5 to < 10% of revenue (N = 225) 58%

10% or more of revenue (N = 212) 42%

Bolded, underlined number indicates a significant difference, at the 95% confidence level.

Commentary: Time is but the stream I go a-fishin’ in…

One of the toughest challenges of generating leads is the feeling of not having enough time. This points to one of the fundamental scenarios of investment and payoff in lead generation: • Lead generation takes time, planning, and skills often present in a

marketing or sales professional. • Hiring marketing or sales professionals, consultants, or services firms

requires investment. • Without sufficient marketing and sales support, much of the lead

generation responsibility falls to professionals also responsible for delivering the work.

• Billable professionals charged with generating leads tend to feel squeezed between billing what they should, and filling their pipelines for new business down the road.





Commentary: Time is but the stream I go a-fishin’ in… (continued)

Hiring or contracting with people to help specifically with lead generation doesn’t mean your professionals should be off the hook… but it can help make your lead generation efforts more efficient. The success of a services firm relies on its talented professionals’ time being put to the best use for the sake of the company. Making the investment to either hire or outsource lead generation support is one way to get there. Takeaway: Time and resources are limited. But we find time and resources or make time and allocate resources for what’s important.



Typical Lead Quality

Inspecting the pipeline

We asked participants to report what percentage of their leads typically arrive as “sales ready”, “needs nurturing”, or “disqualified.”

Typical lead quality

This chart illustrates the general pattern of lead quality for the companies. N = 390 – 405

Typical Lead Quality, Among All Leads Generated By Respondent Companies

0%

0%

1-9%

1-9%

10-19%

10-19%

10-19%

20-29%

20-29%

20-29%

30-39%

30-39%

30-39%

40-49%

40-49%

50-59%

50-59%

50-59%

60-69%

60-69%

70-79%80% +

80% +

0%1-9%

40-49%

60-69%70-79%

70-79%

80% +

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% LeadsDisqualified

(N = 405)

% Leads RequiringFurther Nurturing

(N = 390)

% LeadsConsidered Sales-Ready

(N = 390)

% Respondents

Mean Average = 25% of leads

Mean Average =

50% of leads

Mean Average =

25% of leads




Typical Lead Quality, Continued

Being “Excellent” means higher-quality leads

On average, the “Excellent” lead generators report higher percentages of “sales-ready” leads, while others see higher percentages of leads being disqualified and requiring further nurturing.

Average % Leads Generated, Qualified As:

Status Excellent Good, Fair, and Poor Sales-Ready 38.7% 18.5 - 29.0% Requires Further Nurturing 41.4% 48.3 – 53.6% Disqualified 20.2% 27.0 – 29.5%

By industry On average, two thirds of all qualified leads need nurturing before they are

ready to buy. The picture changes slightly when seen by industry – particularly for Architecture, Engineering, Construction companies (higher proportions of “sales-ready” leads, on average) and IT Services and Consulting companies (lower proportions of “sales-ready” leads, on average).

By industry mean, what percentage typically:

Industry* …is sales-

ready?

…requires further

nurturing?

…is disqualified

from the sales

process?

Financial, Insurance, Real Estate 31.8% 44.2% 24.0%

Architecture, Engineering, Construction 30.5% 49.0% 20.5%

Law Firms / Legal Services 28.8% 52.0% 22.4%

Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping 27.6% 40.6% 31.8%

Marketing, PR, Advertising 24.6% 53.1% 22.2%

Human Resources and Organizational Development Consulting 23.0% 53.1% 23.9%

Management Consulting 21.0% 52.8% 26.2%

Training, Executive Education, Coaching 20.9% 58.4% 20.8%

IT Services and Consulting 16.8% 47.2% 36.0%

Bolded, underlined numbers indicate a significant difference versus other industries, at the 95% confidence level. * For this measure the industries of Marketing, PR, & Advertising, Architecture, Engineering, & Construction, Management Consulting, and IT Services & Consulting had statistically valid response bases > 30. All other industry results for this measure indicate trends only, with N = 10-26.




Typical Lead Quality, Continued

Commentary: Takeaway about average lead quality

Many companies let the leads they work so hard to generate drop out of their pipeline.3 In our experience, professional service businesses are better at staying on sales-ready leads, and notoriously bad at staying on leads that need further nurturing. If your company is one of the many that are poor at staying on leads that are not sales-ready when they present themselves, you are likely missing out on 2/3 of your new business opportunities. This is less a matter of lead generation, and more a matter of the systems and processes you have in place for lead nurturing: • Continuing to stay “top of mind” with prospects who will eventually buy

and who are hoping to solve their problems with someone’s help (e.g. your help, a competitor of yours, internal staff).

• Getting the issues you can help them with to the tops of their to-do lists. Takeaway: Nurture the leads you have.

3 A BtoB Magazine article April 14, 2003 cited an estimated by the Yankee Group that between 40% and 80% of new business leads are lost, not followed up upon, or otherwise mishandled due to poor company processes.



Knowledge Of Target Markets

Knowing what you don’t know…

We asked: How well does your company know whom it should be targeting for its services, in terms of: • The general profile of your target market (best industry, geography, size,

other general characteristics) • The actual titles of decision makers within the target organizations • The actual names of the organizations you should target • The actual names of decision makers within the target organizations


Participants rated their knowledge to be: 5 = Extremely Strong, 4 = Somewhat Strong, 3 = Neither Strong Nor Weak, 2 = Somewhat Weak, 1 = Extremely Weak

% Rating Target Market Knowledge As "Extremely" or "Somewhat Strong"

100

77 75 58

5550

30 25

0 General Profile Titles Of Decision

MakersNames Of

OrganizationsNames Of De sionci

Makers Aspect Of Target Market Knowledge




Knowledge Of Target Markets, Continued


While the chart above showing “total” responses is helpful to see the overall trend in professional services, looking at target market knowledge by the companies’ self-reported ability to generate leads takes us a step further in underscoring just how important it is to know your target market well.

% Rating Target Market Knowledge As "Extremely" or "Somewhat Strong"- By Overall Ability To Generate Leads -

95

78

51

89

63 65

39

68

5444

21

55

3137

13

73

0

25

50

75

100

General Profile Titles OfDecisionMakers

Names OfOrganizations

Names OfDecisionMakers

Aspect Of Target Market Knowledge

% O

f Res

pond

ents

Excellent AtGeneratingLeads

Good AtGeneratingLeads

Fair AtGeneratingLeads

Poor AtGeneratingLeads

Significant Differences Of Interest:

- Titles of decision makers - "Excellent" group knowledge is stronger than "Good" group - On every measure, the mean average level of knowledge was significantly stronger for the "Excellent" group than for the "Good" group

Commentary: The more you know…

There’s a direct correlation – in our data and in our experience – between companies that know exactly who they target and how well they can generate leads. Takeaway: Know your market.



Lead Generation Challenges Faced By Professional Services

Obstacles to generating leads

In order to improve your chances of lead generation success, you first have to know what challenges you’re up against. Consider the challenges your company faces in trying to generate leads for its services. For each factor, please indicate how challenging

the challenges your company faces in trying to generate leads for its services. For each factor, please indicate how challenging it is to your company’s lead generation efforts. 5 = Extremely Challenging, 4 = Very Challenging, 3 = Somewhat Challenging, 2 = Not Very Challenging, 1 = Not At All Challenging

Challenges Time, people-power, and finding “what works” top the list of challenges.

19

14

13

8

9

9

10

7

4

5

5

35

35

32

29

28

27

23

26

17

12

11

0 25 50 75

Having time to generate leads

Having enough people / the right people to generate leads

Finding a strategy, tactic, or offer that works well for us

Implementing our plan (even when we agree upon it)

Knowing how to measure our lead generation success

Having appropriate skills and knowledge among people charged with generating leads

Funding lead generation activities

Gaining participation from professionals / practitioners

Agreeing on which action to take

Gaining support from company leaders for lead generation activities

Coordinating efforts between marketing and selling groups

% Of Respondents% "Extremely Challenging" (5)

% "Very Challenging" (4)

54%

Top2Box Mean

49%

3.56

3.40

45% 3.33

37% 3.15

37% 3.04

36% 3.09

33% 2.99

33% 2.95

21% 2.72

17% 2.28

16% 2.40

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3




Lead Generation Challenges Faced By Professional Services, Continued


To see what might really separate the “Excellent” lead generating companies from the “Good”, “Fair”, and “Poor” lead generating companies, we looked at significant differences between these groups based on how they rated their overall ability to generate leads. The chart on the following page illustrates how, across the board, the “Good”, “Fair”, and “Poor” lead generators are challenged more by the issues discussed in this section than are the “Excellent” lead generators. In particular, note the largest difference between these groups’ mean challenge levels, even for “Excellent” versus “Good”: Finding a strategy, tactic, or offer that works for us.

Commentary: Takeaways from lead generation challenges

Lessons In The Challenges • Leadership support means more than a pat on the back. “Gaining

support from company leaders for lead generation activities” is one of the least problematic lead generation challenges. At the same time, the top two challenges are “Having enough time to generate leads,” and “Having enough people or the right people to generate leads.” In our experience, companies that don’t have either time or enough people to generate leads don’t really have the support of company leaders. Generating leads takes time, people, and money. At professional service businesses, leaders make this happen. If they don’t make it happen, they’re not really supporting the activity. (Or they’re just not effective leaders and managers.)

• Finding your tactic requires knowing your market. Note the stark difference between “finding a strategy / tactic / offer that works for us” in companies that are “Excellent” at generating leads versus those that are not. This is not surprising, given that the less-than-excellent companies at lead generation, by and large, do not have a good handle on whom they are targeting. Reference: See chart “Percent Rating Target Market Knowledge As Extremely Or Somewhat Strong, By Ability To Generate Leads” on page 49 for detail.

• Implementation requires leadership. One of the challenges often cited was “Implementing lead generation plans.” Why can’t service firms get done what they intend to do? Again, the answer is one of leadership.4

4 For insight into professional service firms’ inability to implement their own plans, read Git ‘R Done: Executing Your Lead Generation Plan at http://www.whillsgroup.com/gitrdone.cfm.


http://www.whillsgroup.com/gitrdone.cfm


Lead Generation Challenges Faced By Professional Services, Continued

Mea

n R

atin

gs O

f Cha

lleng

es T

o C

ompa

ny L

ead

Gen

erat

ion

- By

Ove

rall

Abili

ty T

o G

ener

ate

Lead

s, S

orte

d Ac

cord

ing

To "

Tota

l" R

esul

ts -

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Exce

llent

At G

ener

atin

g Le

ads

Goo

d At

Gen

erat

ing

Lead

sFa

ir At

Gen

erat

ing

Lead

sPo

or A

t Gen

erat

ing

Lead

s

Hav

ing

time

to

gene

rate

le

ads

Eno

ugh

peop

le /

right

pe

ople

to

gene

rate

le

ads

Find

ing

stra

tegy

/ ta

ctic

/ of

fer

that

wor

ks

for u

s

Impl

emen

ting

our p

lan

(eve

n w

hen

we

agre

e up

on it

)

Kno

win

g ho

w to

m

easu

re

our

succ

ess

Hav

ing

appr

opria

te

skill

s /

know

ledg

e

Fund

ing

lead

ge

nera

tion

activ

ities

Gai

ning

pa

rtici

patio

n fro

m

prof

essi

onal

s /

prac

titio

ners

Agr

eein

g on

whi

ch

actio

n to

ta

ke

Gai

ning

su

ppor

t fro

m

com

pany

le

ader

s fo

r le

ad g

en

activ

ities

Coo

rdin

atin

g ef

forts

be

twee

n m

arke

ting

and

selli

ng

grou

ps

Extr

emel

y C

halle

ngin

g

Very

Cha

lleng

ing

Som

ewha

t Cha

lleng

ing

Not

Ver

y C

halle

ngin

g

Not

At A

ll C

halle

ngin

g

With

the

exce

ptio

n of

Coo

rdin

atin

g ef

forts

bet

wee

n m

arke

ting

and

sellin

g gr

oups

, al

l the

issu

es s

how

n he

re a

re ra

ted

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

chal

leng

ing

for

resp

onde

nt c

ompa

nies

who

con

side

r the

mse

lves

"G

ood"

at l

ead

gene

ratio

n, v

ersu

s th

ose

who

say

they

ar

e "E

xcel

lent

".

LAR

GE

ST D

IFFE

REN

CE

: Fin

ding

a

stra

tegy

/ ta

ctic

/ of

fer t

hat w

orks

for u

s

- "P

oor"

mea

n ra

ting

= 4.

06

- "F

air"

mea

n ra

ting

= 3.

62

- "G

ood"

mea

n ra

ting

= 3.

11

- "E

xcel

lent

" mea

n ra

ting

= 2.

14



BEST LEAD GENERATION TACTICS, STRATEGIES, & OFFERS



Top Ways To Generate Quality Leads Top Strategies For Generating Quality Leads

Methodology Note:

“Unaided” Versus “Aided” Exploration Of Tactics We explored which tactics and strategies professional services companies use and value in two different ways:

1) Asking respondents to name the top ways to generate quality leads and see what they mention – without any prompting, or “unaided”. In this case, because they are volunteering what works for them, anything mentioned should be considered to be what’s top-of-mind above all others for the person answering.

2) Asking respondents to consider a list of predetermined tactics and

strategies, or “aided”, and indicate how effective each one has been in their company’s efforts. In this case, respondents rate effectiveness for a wide range of options, resulting in a side-by-side comparison from most effective to least effective lead generation methods.

Interestingly, the results from the “unaided” and “aided” methods do not always match up. Taken together, they paint a more complete picture of lead generation tactic usage and effectiveness than either one would, if considered alone. With this in mind, we first explore the “unaided” top ways to generate quality leads mentioned by respondents.

What works the best?

We asked: Consider the past 2 years of lead generation for your company: all of the ways to contact prospects, ways to establish brand and thought leadership, ways to publicize and network, and lead-generating offers your company has used. Based on what you know about the source of your company’s leads in the past 2 years, what have been the top three ways that have generated quality leads for your company’s services? These may be a single strategy, tactic, or offer, or a particular combination that you’ve found to be the most reliable source of quality leads. We received 1,428 volunteered responses from 591 participants, analyzing each response individually, and placing them into the appropriate categories below.




Top Strategies For Generating Quality Leads, Continued

The top ways to generate quality leads

When considering only the answers to what people consider their #1 top way to generate leads, these 5 strategies rise to the top of the list:

5 Most Common “#1 Top Ways” To Generate Quality Leads

% Respondents (N = 591)

Client / partner referrals 22

General referrals 16

Cold calling / telephone prospecting 13

Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events, conferences, tradeshows, seminars 11

Personal relationships / Direct, face to face contact 8

When considering all of the top 3 ways to generate quality leads together, priorities change, but not substantially. Client and partner referrals, general referrals, cold calling / telephone prospecting, and interacting with prospects at events still reign. The following table highlights the main categories for “Top Ways” respondents mentioned among their best three go-to strategies for generating new leads for their services.

N = 591

Respondents“Top Three Ways” To Generate Quality Leads

Referrals • Client / Partner referrals (only): 34% • Non-Client / Partner referrals: 21% • Both types mentioned: 5%

60%

Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events, conferences, tradeshows, seminars 32%

Cold Calling / telephone prospecting • Cold-Calling (only): 19% − By an outside provider: 2%

• Warm-Calling (only): 4% • Both: 1%

23%

Online marketing (Google Adwords, website traffic, webinars, SEO, website referrals) 19%

Networking 17%

Thought leadership (writing, speaking, research) 13%




Top Strategies For Generating Quality Leads, Continued

N = 591

Respondents “Top Three Ways” To Generate Quality Leads (Continued)

Personal relationships / direct, face-to-face contact 13%

Partnering / professional associations / organizations 11%

Email marketing • (e)newsletter: 5% • General email marketing: 6%

11%

Direct mail marketing 9%

Repeat business with existing clients 4%

Advertising (offline) 4%

Pro Bono / volunteer work / charity 2%

Public Relations / Press Releases & Relationships 2%

Respond to RFP's 2%

Trial offers / free offers 2%

Other 5%



Referral Building As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary

Referral building as a top tactic

Many citing “Referrals” as a top tactic for generating quality leads also mention that 90-100% of their referral-based prospects become clients. This referral base in turn generated anywhere from 3-100% of their business in the past 2 years. Many respondents know that these “warm” connections work have brought in business because their companies track leads carefully, and note when they have come from referrals. The basic theme in many of the referral-oriented comments is as you’d expect: do a good job with your current clients. Be honest, open, ethical, and good at what you do. And ask for the referral. When working with outside referral sources (other professional service providers, network contacts, etc.), several respondents warn that it takes consistency (monthly in-person communication) and time (a year or more) to develop the most effective referral relationships. Here are a few representative comments on the popular strategy of encouraging referrals to bring in new business:

Referrals – Selected Commentary

Having clients say great things about us to other potential clients is invaluable. But you have to follow-up on them or you lose credibility.

VP / Director of Marketing, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

According to our new clients obtained, they have come about via referrals from our current clients. In a recent survey 90% of our clients would give us referrals. To make this strategy work our teammates need to remember to ask for referrals.

Principal / Partner, Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping

Word of mouth, personal relationships, old boy network. We have not really tried any other method. We have no evidence and trust none. We just keep doing what has worked for the past 40 years (although we are now a company of 2,000 people, not 20!) Key to success: being able to perform locally 'everywhere'- have small offices in many places.

Planning Manager, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

Referrals have always been the 'top way.’ Our business rarely comes out of the blue. We are a non-traditional management consulting firm. Therefore, prospective clients must hear from a colleague that our methods do work. The key to success is to leave our clients very happy!

Principal / Partner, Management Consulting

We get fewer leads from referrals than from information products, but they have a much higher conversion rate. They have accounted for almost 80% of actual services sales. Obviously, the credibility gained from the reference is important, but I think the real key to the high success rate is that existing clients automatically filter prospects, referring only those who are most qualified for our services.





Referral Building As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary, Continued

Referrals – Selected Commentary (Continued)

With referral sources from partner companies, it’s easy to obtain consultative meetings, and easier to sign on as a client. Key to success: Must follow-up quarterly with referral source with a lunch, newsletter, article or other reminder of how you are helping your clients.

CEO / President, Consulting

Exploiting existing contacts within the firm - asking 'Does it make sense to market to this person?' Evidence it works: Business in the door. Key to success: Sharing contacts across practices and throughout the firm, to ensure that the best professional contacts the lead.

VP / Director of Marketing, Law Firms / Legal Services

Commentary: Looking deeper into referrals

No surprise, generating referrals is the most mentioned way professional service businesses generate leads. How does this play out in the comments?

Verbatim Comment Commentary

To make this strategy work our teammates need to remember to ask for referrals.

Suggests that all professionals are responsible for generating leads. If you are going to use referrals as a basis for growing your business, then you have to proactively ask for them. Waiting by the phone is not a strategy.

We just keep doing what has worked for the past 40 years (although we are now a company of 2,000 people, not 20!)

If you’re getting what you want from a referrals-only strategy (or any strategy) keep going.

I think the real key to the high success rate is that existing clients automatically filter prospects, referring only those who are most qualified for our services.

Referrals tend to generate more sales ready leads than other tactics, which is why firm leaders often have an inflated view of their ability to close new business when they begin to use other lead generation tactics.

Key to success: Must follow-up quarterly with referral source with a lunch, newsletter, article or other reminder of how you are helping your clients.

Referrals don’t happen out of thin air. To produce referrals, some companies use tactics typically thought of as direct lead generation techniques. Many companies neglect to treat their referrals sources as valuable lead generation partners.

Asking 'Does it make sense to market to this person?'

Targeting is important, even with referral generation.

Key to success: Sharing contacts across practices and throughout the firm, to ensure that the best professional contacts the lead.

Many individuals and groups at professional services firms are quite protective and parochial about their contacts. When this is the case, it limits the firm’s ability to generate more referrals, to convert referrals by introducing them to the most appropriate firm resources.



Cold Calling As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary

How firms know cold calling is effective

For companies in which “cold calling and other telephone prospecting” is a top tactic for generating quality leads, measures of its effectiveness range from general results to specific measures and tracking of success.

Evidence That Cold Calling Works – Selected Commentary

Even though calls are frustrating at times...when they work, they really work well. We can get 2 to 4 new clients each year this way, that usually turn to repeat work clients...that is good.

Chief Marketing Officer, AEC Services

70% of correspondents are interested in our services. Principal / Partner, Law Firms / Legal Services

Our biggest and most profitable customers have been acquired this way.

CEO / President, Health Care Services

75% of more than 250 meetings during the past 2 years have been generated this way.


30% response rate with a 10% first meeting rate. Acts like the newsletter, but gets to an audience blocked by spam filters.

Principal / Partner, Human Resources / OD Consulting

Roughly 25% of new business is brought in this way. Principal / Partner, Retained Executive Search Services

Cold calling is so rare in UK professional services that it's quite a pleasant surprise to many recipients. We often get the comment, “I'm glad you called. I / my colleague is dealing with just such a situation that you may be able to help with...”


It is how we have secured business year after year and we're over $400 million in sales and in business over 50 years.

Field Director, Human Resources / OD Consulting

Tips for success How do you make cold calling and other telephone prospecting one of your

firm’s top tactics for generating quality leads? The following advice comes straight from survey respondents who offered what works for them.

Keys To Success With Cold Calling – Selected Commentary

Be honest & to the point, don't waste their time, research them before calling, ask good questions, LISTEN to their answers, keep good notes, follow up, follow up, follow up.

Chief Marketing Officer, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

The more tailored the call based on pre-call research, the more effective it becomes.

Chief Sales Officer, IT Services & Consulting

Keep going, keep dialing, and don't stop until you have a certain number of appointments.

CEO/President, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate Services




Cold Calling As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary, Continued

Keys To Success With Cold Calling – Selected Commentary (Continued)

We attempt to find better data sources and help target our scripts to match the needs of the prospects. We attempt to match our message to the department and responsibility level of our prospects.

VP / Director of Sales, Management Consulting

The key to making this approach work for us is devoting two full-time staff members (one has an engineering degree, the other does not) to making calls and generating leads. [Targeting & Value Proposition]: We approach owners directly instead of going through an architect, which is very different than the typical approach of MEP (Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing) firms. Owners are often interested in how we can save them money as well as increased direct accountability for problems that often plague a building (HVAC issues).

Marketing Manager, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

Genuine interest in the customer / brand experience, being warm and courteous as opposed to cold and professional.


Defining the target audience. Principal / Partner, Law Firms / Legal Services

The key is to make it a professional inquiry, not a sales message - I say that I've seen their work, tell them briefly what I do, and ask whether they'd be interested in seeing some additional information (white papers, capabilities statement, etc.).


Our service is not something that a client thinks of getting and, often doesn't want to . . . they want the results, not the service. So, calling -- proactively -- has been hands down the most effective way to generate leads. But not for the faint-hearted!


Repetition and tailoring of the offer. CEO / President, Health Care Services

Experienced executive makes these calls. VP / Director of Marketing, Management Consulting

The majority of sales come from reps who have taken the prospect from start to finish over a long period of time. Activity is the key to start.

Sales Training Manager, IT Services / Consulting

The key is to ensure the call is always client business focused, and by a senior manager who can bring their industry experience to bear.

VP / Director of Marketing, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Making lots of calls, not giving up. Principal / Partner, Retained Executive Search Services

Needs a high quality individual who knows our business well, and is able to hold real conversations, not just follow a script.

Chief Marketing Officer, Training / Executive Education / Coaching Services





Hiring an outside provider for cold calling

Several respondents who outsource their telephone prospecting offered advice on how to work well with an outside provider.

Hiring An Outside Cold Calling Provider – Selected Commentary

Need to outsource to a reputable agency that you can trust VP / Director of Marketing, Marketing / PR / Advertising

We have an expert cold caller that we outsource to. She is amazing. The key is making it easy for her to do her job and filling the list pipeline.


Integration with other tactics

Here are selected strategies respondents use to combine cold calling with another type of communication to generate leads:

Cold Calling Combination Strategies – Selected Commentary

With Conference Sponsorship: Appointment-setting services calling attendees of focused conferences for which we are a major sponsor, we speak, and we have clients speaking. We know it works because of the number of 'new logo' clients we have obtained through this process. Timeliness of the calling after the event is key.


With Direct Mail: Cold Calling via phone preceded by letter.

Principal / Partner, Procurement & Telecommunications

With E-Mail: We call then send target-appropriate, industry-specific articles via email. We get emails back saying great articles etc.

CEO / President, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

With E-Mail: E-mail sent out followed by call. It brings in leads. Individual e-mails speaking to the target, not just the target group. Dovetailed communication.


With Direct Mail & Follow-Up Calls: Contacting potential clients via telephone and talking with them about our service. Then we send a targeted brochure, and then we call them to set up a meeting. This has been very successful in the markets we have tried it in. The key is follow up!

Principal / Partner, Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services

With eNewsletter: Regular e-newsletter, with targeted follow-ups to our hot-list of prospects that we see have opened the newsletter. That's our cold-call conversation opener.

Principal / Partner, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate Services





Commentary: Love it or hate it

Reaction versus reality. In our report, and in our field work, no other tactic generates more “love it” or “hate it” reactions than cold calling. Love: Typically few people love it because they enjoy doing it. They love it because it works predictably well. Hate: Many hate it because they hate doing it or they hate receiving cold calls. Thus they find ways to make it not work (so they won’t have to do it) or avoid the tactic because they haven’t been able to make it work. (Editor’s note: We were tempted to use the term “dislike” instead of “hate”, because the word hate seems so uncivilized. Uncivilized or not, that’s the term that all of the dislikers use, so we opted for more straightforward versus more pleasant.) People do hate it. Takeaway: There are many ways to be successful in business. In many cases you can you can be successful reaching your goals and still avoid doing things you don’t like. But if cold calling is one of those things you “don’t like,” don’t confuse that visceral response with “doesn’t work”.



Hosting, Attending, & Speaking At In-Person Events As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary

How firms know it’s effective

As one of the most frequently mentioned “#1 Top Way” to generate quality leads, interacting with prospective clients through an in-person event – whether you’re the host, a sponsor, an attendee, or a guest speaker – can be a rich source of new relationships that turn into clients, or at least loyal fans. Here are a select group of comments from respondents about why they know this lead generation strategy works, in its many forms.

Evidence That Speaking Works – Selected Commentary

Comment From

Number of direct leads/clients tracked by speech. CEO / President, Management Consulting

Almost all non-referred clients are gained via participation in events (seminars, conferences, tradeshows, etc.) as presenters, panel participants, featured speaker, or teacher.

CEO / President, Law Firms / Legal Services

#1 way is technical staff presenting at various conferences and for various other firms. In looking at the contacts made via these presentations we saw many of our new clients were among those contacted.

Marketing Manager, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

Visits to corporate website after a trade show, resulting in warm call to sell services.

Principal / Partner, IT Consulting & Services

Direct leads from audience members have turned into business, both short-term and long-term. Speakers are accorded guru-status.


Businesses purchase based on perceived need. They may not need us when they hear me speak, but when the need develops, they remember me.

President / CEO, Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

Evidence That Sponsoring / Attending Works – Selected Commentary

Comment From

Conference sponsorships and leveraging attendee list. It’s a defined period (easy to measure) and many of our highest revenue clients were found in this way.


80% of our business generated in this manner. Principal / Partner, IT Consulting & Services




Hosting, Attending, & Speaking At In-Person Events As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary, Continued

Evidence That Conducting Seminars Works – Selected Commentary

Comment From

These always produce leads, mailing lists and almost always new paying clients.


At least one client results from each seminar with key industry and CEO groups.


We hold a 90 minute “Executive Briefings” workshop each month on a topic related to the outcome we offer our clients. We typically get a high (50% or better) rate of conversion from these -- first, as a function of who says 'Yes' to a follow-up meeting and then as a function of those who do that who become a client.


Live seminar guests convert to clients about 30% of the time. VP / Director of Marketing, Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping

Tips for success How do you go about making this a successful strategy for your firm?

Respondents who mentioned in-person events as a top tactic provided their advice. Here are selected comments from this group.

Keys To Success With Speaking – Selected Commentary

Comment From

Agreeing to speak in front of the right audience. CEO / President, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Having a solid topic of relevance and delivering a killer speech. CEO / President, Management Consulting

Setting aside time to network or participate in formal and informal Q&A sessions at such events.

CEO / President, Law Firms / Legal Services

The key in making this successful was the initial dedication from the technical staff and financially. The billable hours did go down for those presenters but we see that long-term the financial investment will be made up.

Marketing Manager, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

Focus on delivering real useful information that attendees can immediately apply to their business

Founder / Owner, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Presenting new knowledge and useful information. Carefully targeting conferences where key clients and contacts will be in attendance.

Principal / Partner, Environmental AEC





Keys To Success With Speaking – Selected Commentary (Continued)

Comment From

When the presentation includes a case study that is relevant and the audience includes buyers who are at the conference looking for solutions, the sales cycle can be accelerated.


Speak at cutting-edge professional conferences which are very well managed and publicized internationally in English-speaking countries, because they result in a unique kind of credibility.

Principal / Partner, Training / Executive Education / Coaching in UK

We work very hard on creating the compelling and interesting messages with stories. The key is that you get in front of them, get credibility through your expertise, and ensure the issues you talk about are relevant and current so they associate you with fixing the problem. We measure client sales directly on the day and post event. Also the material is re-usable so good ROI unlike time put into sales calls.


Keep the topics timely, informative and entertaining. Even presentations as dry as statistical monitoring can be entertaining. Speak passionately and from the heart.

President / CEO, Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

Keys To Success When Sponsoring / Exhibiting / Attending – Selected Commentary

Comment From

Leaders of company are present and can walk the talk with visitors to the booth.


The key is active participation and familiarity with regular participants.

VP / Director of Business Development, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate Services

Following up on all leads immediately after the show ends (next day or early part of following week).

Account Manager, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

Display with a booth or attend and walk the floor meeting potential customers at their booths. Key to success is to establish relationships, build trust, and share our value proposition.

CEO / President, Recruiting & Business Brokerage

Need competent people at show and good sales follow up with a matter of days

VP / Director of Marketing, IT Consulting & Services





Keys To Success When Conducting Seminars – Selected Commentary

Comment From

The key to success is targeting audiences made up of decision-makers rather than well-meaning middle management folks; and following up until something happens or you are told that nothing will happen.


Holding live paid seminars for my prospects. I tried free seminars, but prospects don't value free. Use aggressive follow up system including phone calls and emails after event.

CEO / President, Management Consulting

Consistent quality and tailored programming using accelerated learning techniques that build new skills in a specific, observable and measurable manner.

CEO / President, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

Combining with other tactics & offers

Several respondents mentioned using a combination of tactics to generate leads from in-person events:

In-Person Event Combination Strategies – Selected Commentary

With Online Community-Building: Build an online community of prospects, then engage them monthly with information of value. Offer '1 to many' seminars/workshops that enable prospects to experience your service in an efficient (for you) and non-threatening (for them) environment. Take cards from attendees and follow-up. I've spent 20 years building consulting firms this way. Have sold 3 of them! The web has made the building of the community a lot less risky and costly but the rest is well-trodden ground Key to success: A 100% commitment to marketing-driven lead generation from the firm leaders - not very common today!


With Additional Offers & Referral Requests: Speaking for groups that contain our target audience combined with a specific offer for a follow-up free consultation and the feedback card asking for referrals for clients and speaking engagements, free consult, email newsletter signup, etc. We generate 3-10 solid leads per small event (25-40 attendees) and up to 50 for larger (200+ attendee) events.


With Multiple Tactics Before & Offer After In-person seminars, attendees invited by direct mail. We have experienced extremely good conversion to clients from the attendees. Key to success: Pre-conference phone call to registrants and follow-up complimentary 1/2 hour consultation.

CEO / President, Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping





In-Person Event Combination Strategies – Selected Commentary (Continued)

With Networking Focus: Sponsor monthly networking luncheon (President's Club). Key to success: Keep number of attendees in the 6-10 range and follow up within 2-3 days.


With Association Membership: Key to success: positioning ourselves, through associations, as an expert resource for the audience.

CMO, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate Services

With Association Membership / Administration & Multiple Tactics: Speaking at conferences where a sales rep is also a board member for this association, and articles are published in their newsletter. Evidence it works: % of revenue data. Key to success: Dedication of time by sales rep, and being able to hit prospects with multiple messages in different media (newsletter, conference, and other direct marketing efforts).

Principal / Partner, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

With eNewsletter: We sponsor professional organization events, and get business card info from a drawing, so we can add these individuals to our e-newsletter. People receive our newsletter, and it’s not spam and they appreciate our content. It is helpful since we can describe our approach on a monthly basis. The key to success: Providing excellent content.

Principal / Partner, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Commentary: Avoid a deadly event mistake

Marketing mix for generating event attendance. Events can be a powerful part of your lead generation engine. Make sure, however, that you avoid a common (and heartbreaking) event mistake: low event attendance. To minimize your chances of a failed event, you should understand and utilize what marketing tactics can generate event attendance. In RainToday.com’s How Clients Buy: The Benchmark Report on Marketing and Selling Professional Services from the Client Perspective benchmark report, we asked professional services clients who indicated they have found professional services providers by attending their events, “In what ways do you learn about the event?”





Commentary: Avoid a deadly event mistake (continued)

The top ways they told us they find out about in-person events were:

1. Invitation or brochure sent to you by mail (74%) 2. Referral by a colleague (61%) 3. Email sent by provider (57%) 4. Email sent by 3rd party (39%) 5. Invitation by telephone (33%)

Also mentioned: newspaper or magazine advertisement (29%), online advertisement (24%), and web search (17%). Even if you’re not running your own seminars, professional services firms who get the most out of speeches, event attendance, and event sponsorship run a series of marketing activities before, during, and after the events to get the most out of them. Takeaway: Events are not just an isolated part of the marketing mix… they require their own marketing mix to generate success.



Online Marketing As A Top Tactic: Selected Commentary

Online marketing

Online marketing is perhaps one of the foggier areas for professional services companies, even today as more and more companies go online as an extension of their marketplace. But some companies are making it work. The comments below should spark some ideas about both tracking and achieving success from online marketing tactics.

General Website Leads – Selected Commentary Helpful how-to content on our web site that established our credibility and transformed a cold lead into a warm lead. Evidence it works: Successful engagements with clients around the world who came to us through the Web. Key to success: Excellent content pitched at the right level of job responsibility and technical detail.


Keys to success: Continually sustain and refresh web visibility and website content.


With Automated & Individual Emails: We capture data on each individual who visits our website and fills out a profile. Then we have two courses of action. An automated follow up e-mail with a specific offer and call to action, (this hasn't worked well in the last year, but used to be extremely effective). Also, we send a personalized e-mail according to the activity they had with our web site. They often write back and then a phone dialog often begins.

Principal / Partner, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

Search Engine Optimization and Advertising – Selected Commentary

Evidence it works: Most customers claimed they found us through our website.


Keyword tactics on Google. Evidence it works: We generate significantly more leads using this method vs. any other by a long shot...we track pretty religiously.

CEO / President, IT Consulting & Services

Evidence it works: Other approaches haven't generated but a 1/5 of the leads we get from Google. Key to success: Constantly reviewing search words.

Chief Sales Officer, Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

Evidence it works: Sales results based on custom landing pages. Principal / Partner, Marketing / PR / Advertising

Optimizing web page to get people to request services from us. Evidence it works: we track how many we get each month, what the quality is and what the conversion ratios are. Key to success: focus on optimization and finding creative ways to get on the top of search lists, along with optimizing web page to ensure we lead people down the right path.

VP / Director of Sales, IT Consulting & Services

Keys to success: Good ads. CEO / President, Law Firms / Legal Services

The key is constantly working it...refining it every day. CEO / President, IT Consulting



Other Top Tactics: Selected Commentary

Other Top Tactics & Combination Strategies

From the long list of respondent tactics and advice, we’ve selected several more examples of top tactics, combinations of those tactics, evidence they work for firms, and the keys to success for making these tactics effective.

Networking – Selected Commentary

With Direct Mail: We send a quirky personalized postcard to people we meet at networking events who could be our target market or know others who are. It encourages them to ‘stay in touch’ by signing up for our tools and resources page, and stimulates recall. We have grown our database immensely through this channel and measure it by the way they sign in. The key to making it successful is to have the right conversation with them when you meet them – i.e. how can you help them find what they need – and then act upon it the following day – so many people don’t follow up after networking events.


85% business originated as a result of direct contacts or introduction through network contacts. Key to success: Getting out to new groups, not just going to the same events seeing the same faces; always carry biz cards everywhere, always follow up promptly afterward with email, invite for coffee, something to further engage.

Managing Director / Managing Partner, Management Consulting

Networking in the right circles. We had to learn how to have a beginning dialogue with an individual to understand if they could be a good prospect or not. Learning how to identify those who aren't prospects has saved us a huge amount of time and effort.


Networking with our Top 5 customers on regular basis. Personal relationships are key to selling in a market where 5 customers control 80% of our business. Key to success: Always seeking to be a trusted advisor to the client.

CEO / President, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

Thought Leadership Activities – Selected Commentary

Book authored by managing principal. Evidence it works: clients specifically citing principal as an expert and referring to the book in conversations with their team or peers. Key to success: marketing the book, not just writing it.


Publishing articles. Evidence: leads that come in door from people who've read my work. The key is persistence -- you gotta' crank 'em out.


One of our founders is an author of a book. We get many 'bluebird' calls and opportunities to present in high-profile forums as a result. Need to continue to publish to keep names out there and content fresh.





Other Top Tactics: Selected Commentary, Continued

Thought Leadership Activities – Selected Commentary (Continued)

Conducting Research: niche compensation and benefits surveys. Evidence it works: RFPs from participants. Key to success: Good data, high participation rates, co-sponsors with special expertise. Make sure the survey has great value - not a sham to get leads.

VP / Director of Business Development, Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping

Becoming the absolute best authority in a self-developed breakthrough point of view and producing the book, article and reputation that shows that we can drive home exceptional results using it for our clients.


#1 = viral marketing, by posting a slide show that combines opinion with how-to information (a manifesto of sorts). I developed it for a talk I gave early this year but it has taken on a life of its own as people forward the link to each other. I consider this the most successful because it has won top-paying clients who are the best fit for me. The manifesto is both an attention-getter and a filter--only the clients who like my approach will call, which saves everyone time. Apparently the key to making this work is to create something both entertaining and opinionated that people agree with and want to forward to colleagues.

CEO / President, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

eNewsletters – Selected Commentary

Newsletter - published articles - monthly email Generates 2 - 4 sales ready leads per month, with an average close rate of 70% of these prospects Creates conversation and awareness

Principal / Partner, Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

Monthly eNewsletter Good relevant rich content on best practice and tips and tricks Top lead generator over the last 2 years Follow up calls from inside sales from click throughs and downloads to arrange meetings and web demo's


Direct Mail Marketing – Selected Commentary

With Follow-Up Phone Call: Direct mail followed by phone call. This has been our main source of new leads but the follow up call has been crucial. Quality and variety of 'copy' has been important


Direct mail of fulfillment brochure. Mailed out 2,500 pieces to top decision makes which generated over $175,000 of direct new business and continues to provide inquiries on a monthly basis.

CEO / President, Marketing / Advertising / PR

Partnerships – Selected Commentary

75% of our work in the last two years came from joint venturing/partnering with other consulting firms. Key to success: Identifying/aligning with the 'right' firms.





Other Top Tactics: Selected Commentary, Continued

Repeat Business / Expanding Relationships – Selected Commentary

Developing/expanding relationships within large, anchor accounts. Evidence it works: Year on year, double-digit revenue growth. Keys to success: Proactive efforts to a.) Reach out and build a broad-based network (beyond original client contact) within the account; b.) Flexibility in service delivery approach/structure as agenda changes; c.) Intentional effort to establish clear alignment between client (value) needs and our consulting team objectives

Managing Director / Managing Partner, Management Consulting

Trials Offers / Free Services – Selected Commentary

#1 way is to create free samples sent individually to decision-makers after initial cold email, since translating my particular service (creation of audio as an online and e-newsletter marketing tool) is easier in 'WYSIWYG format' and makes a more immediate impact. Increases lead's curiosity when I say I've created a sample specifically from client's printed material. The key is convincing that the product is worth their $$ and will generate viral activity and thus more business or subscribers.




Evaluating Tactics & Strategies One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness Of Tactics & Strategies

Evaluating 33 lead generation tactics and strategies

The “top lead generation tactics” (in the previous section) came from a top-of-mind exploration of what works for professional services companies. This section provides a different, but equally important look at both usage and effectiveness of a long list of 33 lead generation strategies and tactics. We asked respondents to consider a list of predetermined or “aided” (versus “unaided”) tactics and strategies, and to indicate how effective each one has been in their company’s efforts. In this case, respondents rate effectiveness for a wide range of options, resulting in a side-by-side comparison from most effective to least effective lead generation methods. The questions for each method: • Have you used it? • If so… how effective has it proven in generating leads for your company’s

services? Companies rated effectiveness of the tactics they had used on a scale of 1-5: 5 = Extremely Effective, 4 = Very Effective, 3 = Somewhat Effective, 2 = Not Very Effective, 1 = Not At All Effective; or “Don’t Know” The tactics and strategies can be categorized into 5 groups based upon the type of outreach they represent. Each group was rated separately, with the number of respondents shown below for each group:

Category N =

Contacting Prospects ONLINE To Generate Leads 846

Contacting Prospects OFFLINE To Generate Leads 827

Establishing Brand & Thought Leadership ONLINE To Generate Leads 803

Establishing Brand & Thought Leadership OFFLINE To Generate Leads 790

General publicity and social networking to generate leads 785

A look at effectiveness

The following chart (in two parts) displays only the effectiveness ratings for each tactic participants had use. Tactics are sorted from high to low percent rated “Extremely / Very Effective”. Dotted lines separate the tactics for each additional 10% of respondents who gave the tactics these top ratings.




One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness Of Tactics & Strategies, Continued

Effectiveness Of Lead Generation Methods Used By Participants (1) - By Percent Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” -


11

17

13

13

7

8

7

8

8

5

8

6

7

7

5

4

4

41

31

32

25

22

21

20

22

18

19

16

16

15

16

15

0 25 50 75

Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) (N = 778)

Speaking at conferences / trade shows (N = 616)

Running our own in-person events (N = 496)

Becoming members of industryorganizations (N = 728)

Connecting with press contacts to gainPR about our company (N = 530)

Search Engine Optimization (N = 501)

Publishing in OTHERS' PRINTpublications (N = 497)

Running OUR OWN live onlineseminars (N = 276)

Publishing in OUR OWN ONLINEpublications (N = 436)

Sending individual emails directly to prospects (N = 710)

Speaking in OTHERS' live online seminars (N = 352)

Sponsoring high-profile events /research (N = 417)

Publishing in OTHER ONLINEpublications (N = 420)

Publishing in OUR OWN PRINTpublications (N = 414)

Writing and distributing press releases (N = 578)

Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects (N = 655)

Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows (N = 549)

Of Respondents% "Extremely Effective" (5) %

26

22

% "Very Effective" (4)

52%

Top2Box Mean

48%

3.57

3.59

38% 3.34

33% 3.27

30% 3.22

30% 3.19

27% 3.28

27% 3.08

26% 3.28

45% 3.56

29% 3.42

26%

23%

3.23

3.19

20% 2.92

20% 2.87

19% 2.80

23% 3.16




Effectiveness Of Lead Generation Methods Used By Participants (2) - By Percent Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” -

9

6

4

4

5

3

3

3

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

9

10

12

12

11

12

8

8

9

7

5

6

5

5

4

2

0 25 50 75

Publishing a company-authored orcompany-affiliated blog (N = 266)

Running our own telephone-basedevents (N = 296)

Search Engine Advertising for our website (N = 363)

Sending professionally designed directmail packages to prospects (N = 514)

Emailing ONLINE company newsletter(s) (N = 486)

Joining online communities related to our field (N = 465)

Participating regularly in blog-relatedonline conversation (N = 333)

Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer (N = 422)

Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts) (N = 676)

Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s) (N = 428)

Advertising in ad-supported websitesand online publications (N = 368)

Advertising in print media (N = 503)

Sending mass emails directly to prospects (N = 530)

Advertising on the radio (N = 247)

Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects (N = 560)

Advertising on TV (N = 183)


% "Very Effective" (4) Top2Box Mean

18% 3.22

16% 2.80

16% 2.75

15% 2.83

16% 2.94

15%

11%

2.82

2.73

10% 2.50

9% 2.50

7% 2.44

7% 2.37

7% 2.07

6% 2.23

3% 1.68

11% 2.57

7% 2.27




One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness Of Tactics & Strategies , Continued

Popularity (% used) versus effectiveness

This next chart juxtaposes the tactics’ popularity among professional services (% who have used them) with their effectiveness in generating new leads for companies’ services (mean rating). Use the following table to understand where each tactic lands on the overview chart.

No. Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy % Have

Used Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

1 Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) 94 2 Becoming members of professional associations and industry organizations 93 3 Sending individual emails to prospects 84 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 78 5 Connecting with press contacts 68 6 Running our own in-person events (seminars, conferences, etc.) 63 7 Publishing company-authored content in others' print publications 63 8 Search Engine Optimization for our website 62 9 Publishing company-authored content in our own online publications 54

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 53 11 Publishing company-authored content in other online publications 52 12 Publishing company-authored content in our own print publications 52

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars (webcasts, webinars) 44 14 Running our own live online seminars (webcasts, webinars) 34 15 Publishing a company-authored or company-affiliated blog 33

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 16 Making ‘cold’ phone calls (to new contacts) 82 17 Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects 79 18 Writing and distributing press releases 74 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 69 20 Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects 68 21 Advertising in print media 64 22 Sending mass emails directly to prospects 63 23 Sending professionally designed direct mail packages to prospects 62 24 Joining online communities related to our field 59 25 Emailing online company newsletter(s) 57 26 Mailing printed company newsletter(s) 52 27 Sending emails via a 3rd party referrer 50

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 46 29 Search Engine Advertising for our website 45 30 Participating regularly in blog-related online conversation 42 31 Running our own telephone-based events (seminars, Q&A, etc.) 37 32 Advertising on the radio 31 33 Advertising on TV 23






Lead

Gen

erat

ion

Tact

ics

& S

trat

egie

s%

Cur

rent

Usa

ge o

f Tac

tic V

s. M

ean

Effe

ctiv

enes

s R

atin

gs

3

4

5

6 789

10 11 1213

14 15

16

1718

1923

2425

2627

282930

31

32

33

2021 22

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mean Effectiveness Ratings

1 2

1.0 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

ong

Part

icip

ants

Mor

e Po

pula

rLe

ss E

ffect

ive

Mor

e Po

pula

rM

ore

Effe

ctiv

eLe

ss P

opul

arM

ore

Effe

ctiv

e

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

eN

ot A

t All

Effe

ctiv

e Low

Usa

geH

igh

Usa

ge

Very

Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

(75%

)(2

5%)

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive



One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness Of Tactics & Strategies , Continued

“Excellent” lead generators vs. the rest

Where are the visible differences between the “Excellent” lead generating companies versus the “Good”, “Fair”, and “Poor”? The most noticeable differences in effectiveness occur in the following four tactics: Tactic 31: Running our own telephone-based events • Excellent = 42% have used, average rating 3.71 • Good = 40% have used, average rating 2.99 • Fair / Poor = 35% have used, average rating 2.69 Tactic 4: Speaking at conferences/trade shows • Excellent = 84% have used, average rating 4.28 • Good = 84% have used, average rating 3.70 • Fair / Poor = 73% have used, average rating 3.32 Tactic 25: Emailing online newsletter(s) • Excellent = 62% have used, average rating 3.57 • Good = 57% have used, average rating 2.89 • Fair / Poor = 57% have used, average rating 2.63 Tactic 27: Emails via a 3rd party referrer • Excellent = 54% have used, average rating 3.31 • Good = 51% have used, average rating 2.54 • Fair / Poor = 48% have used, average rating 2.44 See the following charts for a more detailed comparison, using the same number-tactic key as on previous pages.




One-By-One Usage And Effectiveness, Continued

"EXCELLENT" Lead-Generating Companies:% Current Usage of Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Vs. Mean Effectiveness Ratings

1

2

4

5

6

78

9

101113

14

1517 18

2021

22

2324

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

312

1619

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0% 50% 100%

% Current Usage Among Participants

Mea

n Ef

fect

iven

ess

Rat

ings

More PopularLess Effective

More PopularMore Effective

Less PopularMore Effective

Less PopularLess Effective

Extremely Effective

Somewhat Effective

Not Very Effective

Not At All Effective

Low Usage High Usage

(75%)(25%)

Very Effective

26 TACTICS Above 50% Usage25 TACTICS Above 3.0 Effectiveness

"GOOD" Lead-Generating Companies:% Current Usage of Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Vs. Mean Effectiveness Ratings

1

2

3

4

5

6

789101113

1718

2021

22

232425

262728

29

30

31

32

33

121415

16

19

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0% 50% 100%


Mea

n Ef

fect

iven

ess

Rat

ings





Extremely Effective

Somewhat Effective

Not Very Effective



(75%)(25%)

Very Effective





"FAIR OR POOR" Lead-Generating Companies:

% Current Usage of Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Vs. Mean Effectiveness Ratings

1

2

3

45

6

710

11

1718

2021 22

2324

2627

28

293031

32

33

891213

14

15

16

1925

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0% 50% 100%


Mea

n Ef

fect

iven

ess

Rat

ings





Extremely Effective

Somewhat Effective

Not Very Effective



(75%)(25%)

Very Effective


Commentary: Doing it right

Throughout this report we have noted differences between the companies that are excellent at lead generation versus those that are less than excellent. In our experience as industry practitioners, we see companies time-and-again choose the right tactics and implement them poorly. Among other things, the excellent companies are much better implementers than the rest. Takeaway: Tactic choice is not enough. You have to implement well if you want to make the tactics work for you.



The “Don’t Know Effectiveness” Factor

Uncertainty about tactics

Along with rating the mean effectiveness of tactics respondents had used, they had the option of saying “I don’t know the effectiveness of this tactic”. As it turns out, not knowing how effective a tactic is seems to go hand in hand with lower overall usage of the tactics. In other words: • More popular (high-usage) tactics also tend to be the ones for which users

can understand whether or not they’re working, well enough to give them a rating.

• Among the users of the less popular tactics, at least one-fifth don’t know how to evaluate their effectiveness (with only a few exceptions). That factor of uncertainty corresponds with fewer users overall.

Relationship Between Lower Usage Rates & Uncertainty About Rating Effectiveness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

% R

espo

nden

ts

% Of All Respondents Who Have Used The Tactic (N = 785-846)

% Of Users Who Don't Know How To Rate The Tactic's Effectiveness (N = 183-778)

High Usage /Low Uncertainty

Less Than 50% Usage / Uncertainty > 20%

50-62% Usage / Uncertainty > 20%

See Following Table For Key To Tactics 1-33 Listed Here




The “Don’t Know Effectiveness” Factor, Continued

Key Tactic

% Of All Respondents Who Have

Used The Tactic

(N = 785-846)

% Of Users Who Don't Know Effectiveness (N = 183-778)

High Usage, Low Uncertainty About Effectiveness 1 'Warm' phone calls 94 3 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 93 5 3 Individual emails to prospects 84 7 4 'Cold' phone calls 82 6 5 Individual letters or postcards 79 9 6 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 78 7 7 Writing and distributing press releases 74 11 8 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 69 9 9 Connecting with press contacts 68 15

10 Mass letters or postcards 68 12 11 Advertising in print media 64 17 12 Company-authored content in others' print publications 63 16 13 Running our own in-person events 63 12 14 Mass emails to prospects 63 12

50 - 62% Usage, Uncertainty Greater Than 20% 15 Search Engine Optimization 62 24

16 Professionally designed direct mail packages (Lower uncertainty for this group) 62 16

17 Joining online communities related to our field 59 33

18 Emailing online newsletter(s) (Lower uncertainty for this group) 57 14

19 Company-authored content in our own online publications 54 25

20 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 53 26

21 Company-authored content in other online publications 52 29 22 Company-authored content in our own print publications 52 25

23 Printed newsletter(s) (Lower uncertainty for this group) 52 19

24 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 50 32 Less Than 50% Usage, Uncertainty Greater Than 20%

25 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 46 33

26 Search Engine Advertising 45 32 27 Speaking in others' live online seminars 44 33 28 Participating in blog-related online conversation 42 54 29 Running our own telephone-based events 37 40 30 Running our own live online seminars 34 37 31 Company-authored or affiliated blog 33 51 32 Advertising on the radio 31 40 33 Advertising on TV 23 51




The “Don’t Know Effectiveness” Factor, Continued

Commentary: On measurement

The correlation between the measurability of a tactic and its usage is quite clear. Keep in mind, however, that just because you can’t easily measure the effectiveness of a tactic doesn’t mean that it isn’t working for you. David Ogilvy, a giant in the history of the world of advertising, once said, “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” Along with data, marketers and leaders of services organizations would do well to trust their judgment and the judgment of others in the industry when it comes to lead generation. If you believe a tactic will work well for you…it may very well. If you believe a tactic will not work for you…it likely won’t. Takeaway: Not everything that is measurable is important, and not everything that is important can be measured.



Evaluating Offers And Their Content Lead Generation Offers

Effectiveness of lead generation offers

What lead generation offers did participants rate most effective? The following chart (in two parts) displays only the effectiveness ratings for each lead generation offer participants had used. Offers are sorted from high to low percent rated “Extremely / Very Effective”. Dotted lines separate the offers for each additional 10% of respondents who gave the offers these top ratings.

Effectiveness Of Lead Generation Offers Used By Participants

- By Percent Rated “Extremely / Very Effective” -


14

11

8

10

8

10

6

5

4

5

4

4

4

1

32

29

31

27

23

19

22

14

13

13

12

9

9

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

In-Person seminar (N = 511)

Article authored byexpert/s in our company

(N = 556)Case study on issues in

our clients' fields (N = 493)

Introductory/Consultativesales call (N = 644)

Company-Conducted /Published research

(N = 398)Book (authored by

expert/s in our company)(N = 314)

White paper (N = 501)

Entry-Level service (N = 501)

Online seminar (N = 312)

Trial terms for ourservices (N = 369)

eBook (digital form only)(N = 267)

Telephone-basedseminar (N = 299)

On-Demand onlineseminar (N = 268)

Podcast (N = 230)


% "Very Effective" (4)Top2Box Mean

46%

40%

3.57

3.41

39% 3.45

37% 3.31

31% 3.37

30% 3.41

19% 3.03

18% 3.10

28% 3.20

18% 2.87

16% 3.09

12% 2.96

6% 2.82

14% 3.01



Lead Generation Offers, Continued

Value-Based

ffers As with the tactics and strategies, the chart in this section shows a combination of these two questions related to lead generation offers: • Have you used it? • If so… how effective has it proven in generating leads for your company’s

services? Companies rated effectiveness on a scale of 1 to 5: 5 = Extremely Effective, 4 = Very Effective, 3 = Somewhat Effective, 2 = Not Very Effective, 1 = Not At All Effective Use the following table to understand where each lead generation offer lands on the chart. (N = 782)

O

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

% Have Used No. Offer

1 Introductory/Consultative sales call 82 2 Article authored by expert/s in our company 71 3 In-Person seminar 65 4 White paper 64 5 Entry-Level service 64 6 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 63 7 Company-Conducted / Published research 51

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

No. Offer % Have

Used 8 Online seminar 40 9 Book (authored by expert/s in our company) 40

10 Telephone-based seminar 38 11 eBook (digital form only, authored by expert/s in our company) 34

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE % Have

Used No. Offer 12 Trial terms for our services (month free, sample software, etc.) 47 13 On-Demand online seminar (i.e. webcast, webinar) 34 14 Podcast 29





Best offers

ng c g

By ability to generate leads, “Excellent” lead generators tend to repo usage and better mean veness across the board, with few excep

nd ratings versus the “Goo.


amo“Ex ellent” The following table lists “Excellent” usage alead enerators “Fair”, and “Poor” lead generators

rt highertions. effecti

d”,

Lead Generation Offerssage Of Offer Vs. Mean Effectiveness Ratings % Current U

12679

3

4581011

13

2.5

3.0

5

5

10

% t Usage Among Participants

Effe

ctiv

enes

s R

atin

gs

1214

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.

4.0

4.

5.0

0% 25% 50% 75% 0%

Curren

Mea

n





Very Effective

Somewhat Effective


Not Very Effective


ExEffec

tremely tive




Best offers among “Excellent” lead generators (continued)

Numbers bolded and underlined indicate a significantly higher result for “Excellent” versus specifically the “Good” lead generators, at the 95% confidence level.

% USERS

Offer

Excellent Lead

Generators

Other Levels

Article authored by expert/s in our company 87 58 - 75 In-Person seminar 81 58 - 67 Introductory/Consultative sales call 81 75 - 84 White paper 74 56 - 67 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 65 60 - 65 Entry-Level service 62 52 - 68 Company-Conducted / Published research 58 38 - 53 Online seminar 54 37 - 40 Book (authored by expert/s in our company) 52 33 - 43 Telephone-based seminar 52 27 - 41 Trial terms for our services (month free, sample software, etc.) 48 44 - 48

eBook (digital form only, authored by expert/s in our company) 46 30 - 36

On-Demand online seminar 46 30 - 37 Podcast 38 27 - 31

MEAN EFFECTIVENESS

Offer

Excellent Lead

Generators

Other Levels

Book (authored by expert/s in our company) 4.14 3.17 – 3.37 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 4.00 3.14 – 3.46 In-Person seminar 3.98 3.03 – 3.66 Article authored by expert/s in our company 3.84 2.97 – 3.51 eBook (digital form only, authored by expert/s in our company) 3.79 2.73 – 3.17

Company-Conducted / Published research 3.74 2.86 – 3.42 Introductory/Consultative sales call 3.67 2.86 – 3.43 White paper 3.67 2.83 – 3.25 Telephone-based seminar 3.61 2.11 – 2.93 On-Demand online seminar 3.53 2.58 – 3.05 Online seminar 3.42 2.73 – 3.12 Podcast 3.36 2.43 – 2.65 Entry-Level service 3.26 2.52 – 3.19 Trial terms for our services (month free, sample software, etc.) 3.22 2.80 – 2.90





Offers and reputatireach

on sser-

veness ratings for 3 of the offers. The following tables include these particular differences:

The better-known companies reported higher usage rates than the leknown companies, for 8 of the offers evaluated, as well as higher mean effecti

% USERS

Very Well Known

Not Very Offer Well Kno nw

Article authored by expert/s in our company 82 66 In-Person seminar 76 60 White paper 73 60 Company-Conducted / Published research 60 47 Book authored by expert/s in our company 50 35 Live online seminar 47 36 Telephone-based seminar 45 35 On-Demand online seminar 43 30

MEAN EFFECTIVENESS

Offer

Very Well Known

N ot VeryWell Known

Case study on issues in our clients’ fields 3.63 3.40 White paper 3.32 3.13 Company-Conducted / Published research 3.52 3.30

Commentary: Across the board, “Excellent” at lead generation companies used more It’s good to be tactics and generated more effectiveness from tho tics. Ese tac ven where excellent there was not a statistically significant differen the “Excellent” ce between

a e “Ex t” compnd the less than “Excellent” companies, th cellen anies were on t ctivenes es. he higher end of both the usage and effe s rang M nt than corpora n arketing and lead generation is no differe any te function io palpable pr , with th ne respect: at some companies it is a iority e culture oft m top leadership down to each individual he firm focused on it froc -headed hild. ontributor. At other companies it’s a red step c Achieving excellence in (not just lead g ion) hasanything enerat to be a l e anything in busines adership eadership priority. And, lik s, if le makes it ap ecome quite good at iriority, the company can b t. Takeaway: If you want to get the most out of l neratio ad ead ge n, make legeneration excellence a priority.




Types Of Content For Lead Generation Offers

Effectivenesthe content used in

s of

lead generation offers

two parts) displays only the effectiveness ratings for each lead generation offer participants had used. Offers are sorted from high to low percent rated “Extremely / Very Effecti lines e offers for each additional 10% of respondents w the o r Effectiv = SomewhaEffective, 2 = Not Very Effective, 1 = Not At All Effective

Effecti ead Gen ion Offers e” -


What types of content did participants rate as the most effective basis for their lead generation offers to be built around? The following chart (in

ve”. Dottedho gave

separate thffers these top

atings. 5 = Extremely Effective, 4 = Very e, 3 t

veness Of Types Of Content Used In L erat- By Percent Rated “Extremely / Very Effectiv

22

12

43

39

27

0 25 50 75

Content 100% focused on individualprospect's sp tuation (i.e. in a

consultativ

Client areferrals (N = 682)

iesusid to

Best-Practicour company

How-To

Research data r

Emerging trend

ROI / F ancial Justification ofcontracting for services (N = 570)


22d Partner testimonials /

10

11

38

37

of how our prospects'nesses solve pressing our area of expertise (N= 576)

e methodology based on's area of expertise

10 34

(N = 641)

tips, tactics, and advice (N = 643)

7 35elevant to our prospects'

fields (N = 563)

8 34s in our prospects' fields(N = 607)

ecific sie sales call) (N = 665)

n

Case Studtypes of b

issues relate

in

% "Ver Top2

48% 3.58

3.52

42% 3.48

39% 3.45

60% 3.83

y Effective" (4)

65% 3.92

Box Mean

49% 3.60

44%

43% 3.50


Types Of Content For Lead Generation Offers, Continued

What makes an offer compelling?

Across the board, the majority of respondents have used the types of contementioned below, and they give a mean rating o

nt f at least “Somewhat

ffective” (3 or above) to all the types of content. The following chart plots

Use this table as th

Eeach type of content’s usage by respondents and mean effectiveness rating.

e key to the following chart. Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

No. ve Used Type Of Content For Offers % Ha1 Client and Part 89 ner testimonials / referrals

2 Content 100% cused on individual prospect's specific situation (i.e. in a consult 86 fo

ative sales call) 3 How-To tips, ta 84 ctics, and advice 4 Best-Practice m 83 ethodology based on our company's area of expertise 5 Emerging trends in our prospects' fields 79

6 Case Studies of how our prospects' types of businesses solve pressing issues related to our area of expertise 75

7 ROI / Financial Justification of contracting for services 74 8 Research data relevant to our prospects' fields 73


Types Of Content For Lead Generation Offers% Current Usage Vs. Mean Effectiveness Ratings

12

345678

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% Current Usage Among Participants


Very Effective

Somewhat Effective




Extremely Effective

Not Very Effective


Low High



Types Of Content For Lead Generation Offers, Continued

Excellent lead generatypes of conte

tors and nt

the

The following tables illustrate ratings by the Excellent group versus other olded and underlined, it indicates a significant

di ” group, specifical

“Excellent” lead generators report higher usage rates and higher mean effectiveness ratings than “Good” or other ability levels for several of types of content evaluated.

levels. Where numbers are bfference at the 95% confidence level versus the “Good

ly. % USERS

T e yp of Content ratorsExcellent Lead Gene Othe velsr Le

C nt referrals 99lie and partner testimonials / 78 1 – 9B t-P 99es ractice methodology 71 4 – 8H -Tow o tips, tactics, and advice 94 73 4 – 8E rg 91me ing trends in our prospects’ fields 63 1 – 8C tes ati 77 8 onitu

nt 100% focused on individual prospect’s specific on 91 - 8

R ea 84 56 6 es rch data relevant to our prospects’ fields – 7C e s 83 63 – 76 as tudies ROI / Financial justification of contracting for services 81 58 - 74 MEAN EFFECTIVENESS

Type of Content Excellent Lead Generators Other Levels

Content 100% focused on individual prospect’s specific tuation 4.17 3.69 – 3.99 si

Client and partner testimonials / referrals 4.16 3.49 – 3.90 Best-Practice methodology 4.05 3.15 – 3.71 Case studies 3.96 3.33 – 3.70 How-To tips, tactics, and advice 3.95 2.96 – 3.64 Emerging trends in our prospects’ fields 3.77 2.97 – 3.61 Research data relevant to our prospects’ fields 3.77 2.97 – 3.59 ROI / Financial justification of contracting for services 3.67 3.22 – 3.49

Commentary: Much discussion over the past few years has focused on the topic of thought Thoughts on leadership. thoughts

The difference between various types of content in terms of effectiveness in lead generation seems minimal. Across the board, all content types seem to be at least somewhat effective. Having something worthwhile to say, regardless of the specific focus, seems to be more important. In our experience, there is a paucity of well-crafted content across most industries. Excellent lead generators tend to do a better job of both crafting worthwhile content and disseminating it to target audiences. Takeaway: Build and disseminate good quality thought leadership.



S TRENDS IN LEAD GENERATION

TOMORROW’



2-Year Prediction: Across The Board Increases In Lead Generation

Changes In Approach To Lead Generation

The future of lead generation

orts in the

• 41% significant increase • 43% moderate increase The following chart shows future plans according to companies’ current approach to generating new business (“mostly lead generation”, “half lead generation and half referrals-based”, or “mostly referrals”).


No matter how companies are approaching lead generation for their services today, nearly everyone has plans to increase lead generation efforts over the next 2 years. Overall, 84% of professional services companies in the study are planning to either significantly or moderately increase their lead generation effnear future:

Changes To Lead Generation Efforts In Next 2 Years- By Current Approach -

50

44

30

36

42

51

10 11

15

42 3

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

Currently: Mostly LeadGeneration(N = 251)

Currently: Half & Half(N = 143)

Currently: MostlyGenerating Referrals

(N = 292)

% R

espo

nden

ts

Significant Increase Moderate Increase NO CHANGE

Moderate Decrease Significant Decrease

86% Will Increase

81% Will Increase

86% Will Increase



Changes In Approach To Lead Generation, Continued

Highlights by Several industries stand out from the rest in hindustry

ow much they’re planning to increase lead generation efforts in the next two years:

al / Insurance / Real Estate Services 47% Human Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

“We’ll significantly increase lead generation efforts” • 60% IT Consulting / Services • 48% Financi•• 31-42% remaining industries

Highlights by ability to generate leads

panies’ self-rated ability to generate leads, we led rear of the pack swinging into motion for the

• 34% “Good” lead generators • 46% “Fair” lead generators • 57% “Poor” lead generators

From the perspective of comcan begin to see the so-calnext two years: “We’ll significantly increase lead generation efforts” • 28% “Excellent” lead generators

Highlights by annual revenue

From a company-size viewpoint, those with smaller annual revenues plan a more significant increase in lead generation than the larger companies: “We’ll significantly increase lead generation efforts” • 43-48% Less than $1 million and $1 to 9.9 million annual revenue • 30-31% $10 to 99.9 million and $100 million or more annual revenue

Commentary: Lead Generation Is Heating Up – Don’t Get Burned Turning up the heat I've spoken with a particular partner of a successful professional services

firm at least once in each of the last three years about her frustrations with her partners: they won't get serious about marketing. The problem is, like many other firms, they do good work but the phone isn't ringing like it used to. Each year she tries to kick off some kind of marketing and lead generation initiative so her firm can stay competitive with the other firms that seem so much more aggressive.




Changes In Approach To Lead Generation, Continued

Commentary: Turning u

Lead Generation Is Heating Up – Don’t Get Burned (Continued) L

p the heat ast year she couldn't even get her partners to agree they should "send a

letter out" to introduce the firm to business in their area. A(continued) ll her partners seem to talk a good game of wanting to get the letter done. Then the letter dies a pocket-veto-like passive aggressive death as the partners never come back with a, "Yes...go ahead and get it done." And so it goes. One year turns into the next, Sisyphus keeps pushing that rock up the hill, and the phone rings less and less. Message to this partner, her partners, and the rest of the professional services world with their heads still in the sand: it's going to get worse. 84% of other professional services providers going after your prospects, your clients, and the market in general with more lead generation energy, resources, and rigor. How's that letter campaign coming?



Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts

Reasons for increase / decrease

to ad generation activities, plan to ramp up even more in the years to come?

by the following categories:

Why is it that some companies, already devoting energy and resourcesle For the minority who plans either to stay their current course or even decrease lead generation activities, what forces are at play? Respondents explained their plans for future lead generation (or plans to the ontrary), with comments mainly characterizedc

Reasons to increase lead generation efforts: • in a growth phase / need to grow • additional staff / budget / resources available • maintain / increase / replenish / diversify client base • more leads = more business • new services / offerings • targeting new market segments / industries • market shift / change in competitive environm• increase revenue / improve sales / g

ent et more business

easons to make no change R • comfortable with the status quo / have a good plan • lack of resources / time • new company / young company Reasons to decrease lead generation efforts • focus on generating referrals, not new leads • company in transition / someone retiring / moving on • lack of resources / time • new company / young company • comfortable with the status quo / have a good plan • recognize need to improve / old plan doesn't work, not sure what to do yet Everyone has their reasons for (mostly) increasing lead generation in the next couple years. Others face internal challenges or prefer to take the old tried and true route of referral-generation rather than reaching out directly for new prospects. The following selected commentary helps provide some idea of where companies are coming from as they plan.




Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts, Continued

From “leadgeneration

-”

companies ay of getting new business gave the following reasons for why they would

, or

Respondents from companies currently focusing on lead generation as a wincrease lead generation even more, keep the same emphasis as beforedecrease lead generation efforts in the next few years.

Reasons To Increase Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary We need to lay a better founposition to be more pbusiness develour overall str

CEO / President, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

dation in order to put ourselves in the roactive as a company. Our lead generation and

has hurt opment has been put on the back burner whichategy towards success.

Only way we’ll su Development nt, IT Consulting &

Services

rvive. BusinessConsulta

We're in growtprimary obgeneration efresulting inrevenue somewhat over the same time frame.

Principal / Partner, Management ting

h mode; growing presence & market share is our jective. So, we'll have to significantly increase lead

forts to achieve our goals. We hope, though, that Consul

creased revenues will allow us to drop our marketing as %

As revenues increase, nerate lead activity. I amy future goinstead of j cting live seminars with nt clients as well as pro ective clients, and perhaps advertising on the radio with selected st

Principal / Partner, Financial / ce / Real Estate ting

I want to use other venues to gem currently using direct mail and telemarketing. Some of

ales oriented InsuranConsulals include making my website more s

ust providing information, begin blogging, conduprospective clients, conducting webinars for curre

spations.

We have a tremplanning togeneration

CEO / President, Marketing / PR ng

endous opportunity to grow in our market. We are add a professional sales staff and corresponding lead

cessful. / Advertisi

activities to make those individuals sucTo grow our s. VP / Director of Business

pment, Accounting / Tax company according to shareholder expectation

Develo/ Payroll / Bookkeeping

The leadership ha di VP / Director of Marketing, n /

s ated a 40% growth rate in sales. ctTraining / Executive EducatioCoaching

We are in a growth pincreased lead gener

hase of our business, and sustainability requires ation.

Principal / Partner, Marketing /PR / Advertising

Before 2006, we had marketing; sales people were simply expected to do everything themselves. We finally have a real marketing budget and lead generation will receive about 5% in 2006 and 10-15% in 2007.

tor of Marketing, Marketing

no lead generation program driven by VP / Direc / PR / Advertising

Shifts in the economic outlook result in refocusing market segments every few years. I'm looking at about 2010 now.

VP / Director of Business Development, Architecture / Engineering / Consulting





From “Lead-

Generation” Companies (continued)

Reasons To Increase Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary (Continued) Use of RainToday sit

as changed focus. siness Development

Officer, Coding / Billing / ns

e material and several others over last 3 months Chief Buh

Collecting for PhysiciaWe are already quite successful in lead generation, yet hope to use new technology to be able to increase the amount of leads generated with the same amount of headcount.

Direct Marketing Manager, IT Consulting & Services

We have grown rapidly in the past two years and will most likely have support our stato step up sales efforts to ff numbers.

Marketing Manager, ng / Architecture / Engineeri

Construction We are proactively working to improve internal processes. However, velopment Manager, it is a slow change to avoid culture shock to tenured staff.

Business DeArchitecture / Engineering / Construction

There has not been enough of that done here- previously, most of our business came from referrals. We need new blood.

Manager of Business Development and Marketing, Architecture / Engineering / Construction

My personal hit rate on b-b telephone calls is one in four. A lot of people don't believe this is possible but it is. We need to up-grade in a technological sense and are just about to buy a CRM package which will enable my productivity to rise and also interaction with sales to be more streamlined. The quality needs to meet the quantity. At the moment, the maximum amount of leads I can produce is 5 per weekwith 3 being the average. The companies contacted range from 50,000,000 pounds to 1,000,000,000 turnover.

,

Marketing / PR / Advertising New Business Director,

Reasons Not To Change Efforts – Selected Commentary

Management (Owners/C-level) are not truly willing to fund nue growth

they are expecting from sales & marketing – it’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

, IT marketing/lead generation sufficiently to achieve the reve

VP / Director of MarketingConsulting & Services

CEO believes lead generation is not the problem with our sales, refuses to spend budget on lead generation.

Chief Strategy Officer, Training/ Executive Education / Coaching

As a newly formed firm we have targeted almost all our efforts olead generation. This attitude has proven to be effective. Thus, we expect it to remain on the same level, combined with the increase

n

of

/

referral generating work.

Principal / Partner, Law FirmsLegal Services




Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts, Continued From “Lead-Generation” Companies (continued)

Reasons To Decrease Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary

Have a lot of business in the pipeline. Principal / Partner, Management Consulting

We need to focus more on repeat business and client referrals. We / currently do not measure this and are working on a method to do so.

VP / Director of Business Development, ArchitectureEngineering / Construction

We expect to reach capacity limitations (people) gement CEO / President, ManaConsulting

We're a newer business - once we've established a base of clients, we'll focus more on renewal and maintenance, and use

PR

reputation/thought leadership to drive business development.

CEO / President, Marketing // Advertising

Change of focus in the marketing organization VP / Director of Marketing, IConsulting &

T Services

From “half & Respondents from companies currently focusing half on lead generation

and half on referrals new the following e the n

half” companies

as a way of gettingreasons for why they would increase lead gensame emphasis as before, or decrease lead geyears.

business gaveration even more, keep eration efforts in the next few

Reasons To Increase Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary

As we continue to grow the business, we will need to become moffective at lead generation.

re Marketing Manager, Management Consulting e

The reason for incre ordinator, Law ices

ased lead generation efforts is due to the change is

Marketing CoFirms / Legal Servof CEO. The new CEO has a strong focus on lead generation and

implementing strategies that will enable this to happen.

Competition is increasing and our services can be seen as a commodity even though we sell into a defined market.

nsulting / Services CEO / President, IT Co

We are at a point where we will need to generate enough new leadouble our gross receipts in order to continu

ds to e to be profitable. We

should charge a higher hourly rate, but our client base in unable or ing

unwilling to pay higher prices, so it is necessary to attract new clients.

CEO / President, Accounting / Payroll / Tax / Bookkeep

We want to replace clients we have lost for various reasons and to grow our revenue base.


We need to diversify our client base -- we have a single dominant client right now. We're working hard to develop others.

Principal /Resources / Organizational Development Consulting

Partner, Human




Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts, Continued From “Half & Half” Companies (continued)

Reaso ued) ns To Increase Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary (Contin

The market for our services is extremely cyclical. We expect the current market to drop off in the next 24 months. We are currently hitecture /

ramping up our lead efforts with existing clients and aggressively pursuing new client relationships.

Managing Director / Managing Partner, ArcEngineering / Construction

Because we have found that sitting by and waiting for the market to 't happen. It is our

y that sells insurance.

/ come to us because we are quote EXPERTs, doesn

business first and foremost to be a marketing compan

Owner / Manager, FinancialInsurance / Real Estate Services

Starting to work in new geographical areas where we are currentlnot known.

y tive Education /

Coaching

Chief Marketing Officer, Training / Execu

We feel there is a lot of untapped potential for new work and we are working to get smarter about identifying and pursuing strategic opportunities.

ion Principal / Partner, Architecture / Engineering / Construct

For the first time,have been develop

a sed

trategic plan and business development plan for implementation in 2007.


To increase the numbof our company is lesmethods that generat

er of qualified leads to work with. This division s than one year old and we're still testing e the best sales and relationships.


I'm a sole proprietor. I tend to win projects that last for months & have many However, in

CEO / President, Training / Coaching repeat clients, so lead generation hasn't been a big issue.

2007 I'll be adding information products to my services. Executive Education /

These will have a wider audience and require more active marketing.


What we do really works. Generating leads, even closing leads is not do

e doing

CEO / President, Management that difficult. Having the time to work is an issue. Our goal is tomore with less, more work with fewer clients. Thus far we arwell.

Consulting

Already do as much as is reasonably possible Managing Director / Managing Partner, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate

Our current marketing/lead-generation system provides us a

) sidering the time available to all and the

ve.

VP / Director of Marketing, reasonable balance between (a) technical staff who are in-tune/involved with the lead-generation and follow-up process and (bour marketing staff. Conpersonnel resources we have (not expected to change, especially inmarketing), we expect to continue with the 'tag-team' system we ha

Architecture / Engineering / Construction




Reasons For Increasing / Decreasing Lead Generation Efforts, Continued From “Half & Half” Companies (continued)

Reasons Not To Change Efforts – Selected Commentary (Continued)

We are being able to generate leads without having to focus too mtime on this activity. Most of our prospects are aware of our companyand do approach us for services.

uch

Senior Sales Executive, IT Consulting / Services

Follow-on work from existing clients is always our mainstay, but Principal / Partner, Management there always seems to be a 'flavor-of-the-month' in terms of a new service that new prospects find attractive. It's difficult to predict the mix or course of efforts in response.

Consulting

Shortage of back-end manpower to execute jobs, makes increasing Principal / Partner, Marketing / business useless. Better to concentrate on existing business PR / Advertising

Resistance. Also, each attorney is responsible for business development. They are not trained nor necessarily comfortable at

ole.

al Services lead generating. Some of course have a natural ability to build business. However, most do not. Nor do they feel comfortable inassuming this r

VP / Director of Marketing, Law Firms / Leg

Reasons To Decrease Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary

Significant effort spent writing commercially published books in the last 12 months is starting to pay off.

Principal / Partner, IT Consulting / Services

Our ability to recruit/retain staff is not as strong as our ability to develop new clients.

VP / Director of Business Development, Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping

Sales cannot cope with the great amount of leads generated by marketing.

Chief Marketing Officer, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate

Our current market t, Accounting / ing efforts are producing subscribers to our CEO / Presidennewsletter, not our service. Think we're using 'what we've done in the past' instead of 'what the market wants to buy now'.

Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping





From “referral-based” companies

Respondents from companies currently focusing on generating referrals y they as

th

as a way of getting new business gave the following reasons for whwould increase lead generation even more, keep the same emphasis before, or decrease lead generation efforts in

e next few years.

Reasons To Increase Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary

We are a firm of seller/doers and have relied on the luxury of clientcalling us based on our excellent reputation. In this challenging market, we now need to focus on Bus

s

iness Development.

f Business Development, Architecture, Engineering, Construction

VP / Director o

We have hit a wall in terms of generating organic leads/referrals, anin terms of up selling. Therefore in order to grow we must fo

d cus on dvertising

identifying net new prospect leads.

VP / Director of Marketing, Marketing / PR / A

A new strategic plan, new revenue goals, new forecasting process, and for the first time, new individual revenue goals for all partners.

ing, Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping

VP / Director of Market

There will be a transitional period when the long time partner retires. CEO / President, Architecture, Engineering, Construction

We have a , g

unique service that is not yet being used by our VP / Director of Marketingcompetition; we want to significantly increase our market share to insulate our profits from future competitive imitation.

Management Consultin

Having more than one strategy will significantly improve sales. Principal / Partner, AccounTax / Payroll / Bookkeeping

ting /

To hit 4 year growth targets, new sales will have to come from new

r lead

prospects. we have been able to grow organically through our current client base and have not invested in the infrastructure fogeneration

VP / Director of BusinessDevelopment, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate

Want to generate income from sources other than pure professioservices engagements (workshops, special reports, teleseminars, etc)

nal Principal / Partner, IT Consulting / Services

Due to pending changes in how and when audit firms are chosen and length of tenure, we feel the need to jump in with both feet and embrace lead generation techniques before they are necessary.

VP / Director of Marketing, Accounting / Tax / Payroll / Bookkeeping

Current practice is no longer working well solely on referrals, like it used to in boom times; but, this means a sea-change in how I do business, so I'm not sure how well it will go.

Principal / Partner, Japanese Business Development Services

We cannot continue to take passive leads. We will be aggressively switching to a business model where we target leads in specific market sectors. Just receiving leads from referrals is preventing us from getting good margins.





From “Referral-

Based” Companies (continued)

Reasons To In ) crease Lead Generation Efforts – Selected Commentary (Continued

1rea

. Through the use of a robust CRM software package that allows l-time re

training for

VP / Director of Business cture / tion

porting and strict accountability. 2. Incorporating skill the development of strong, loyal relationships with

Development, ArchiteEngineering / Construc

current clients.

We are in the process of going public and there will be increasedemphasis on good growth.

VP / Director of Business Development, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate

Until now all the leads that came to us where mostly personal or client referrals, and that has kept us busy for the last 2 years.

effort for lead generation from the new year.

g / Services

However, not making any efforts in generating leads is something that stops the growth of a professional company. After doing some research and reading on RainToday, I am now planning a committed

CEO / President, IT Consultin


Have 98% market share. Key is retention. VP / Director of Business Development, Financial / Insurance / Real Estate

My system is working, so unless a spectacular new business model crosses my path, there's no reason to change.


Culture resistant to change. Satisfaction with the status quo. Feathe unknown and fear of greater success. Lack of knowledge on how to improve s

r of

ystems and processes. / PR /

Advertising

VP / Director of Business Development, Marketing

We are a very focused company and operate in a very small number of markets (5 to 6) and have a very high level of repeat business and referrals.

Senior Vice President, Services, Architecture

Client /

Engineering / Construction

Reasons To Decrease Lead Generation Efforts – Sele ntary cted Comme

Because we are gradually winding down our consulting practice as I approach normal retirement age.


We are gaining market share in our large clients and that has resulin increased referrals among different offices within the same firms

ted CEO / President, Training / Executive Education / Coaching

We have enough current business and agreements to feel financially secure for the next two yearsnecessitate adding employees

. Adding more business would , which I do not want to do.




Voting With Dollars: The $100,000 Question Where To Invest In Marketing & Sales

From a The market seems to be changingparticipant:

faster than anyone can get a grip on it. As a small company with limited budgeting- where do you spend your money?

Ask this question to 10 people and you will get 10 different 'sure' answers.- COO, IT Consulting / Services

The $100,000 question

You’ve just learned your company has $100,000 of additional funding for its sales and marketing efforts this year. How will you use it?

derstand where marketing and sales inve the next two years, we asked participants to put th oney

arketincrease in .

To un stment will be leaning in

eir mouth where their mis… so to speak. Here are the areas of mprofessional services leaders would in (N = 958 uses mentioned)

g and sales for which vestment

Uses Of Extra $100,000 For Sales & Marketing % Mentions Build new / rebuild / upgrade website 11 Hire additional staff (see detail below) 10 Host / sponsor / attend trade shows / events 8 Direct mail campaign 6 Create new / upgrade marketing materials / resources 5 Contract with outside provider (see detail below) 4 Seminars 4 Sales training / coaching 4 TV / Radio / Print ads 4 Online marketing 4 Market research 3 Publish book / articles / research 3 PR 3 Webinars 3 General thought leadership 2 Travel to meet face to face with clients / prospects 2 Client / employee incentives / rewards 2 Expand current marketing effort 2 Blogs / podcasts 2 (e)newsletter 2 White papers / case studies 2 Search Engine Optimization / Search Engine Marketing 2 Purchase technology / software 1 Purchase / grow / improve lists 1 Speaking at events / seminars 1 Deploy integrated marketing campaign 1 Join association / organization 1 Develop new products / services 1




Where To Invest In Marketing & Sales, Continued

The $100,000

il on:

• Another 2/5 of this category regarded histaff, event planners, seminar specialists, or web and technology

ist with overall efforts.

to

pertained to seeking professional assistance to nd to increase

• hiring a company that specializes in

R d hiring a copywriter to draft whitepapers, articles, a ease the com any’s e

Further detaquestion(continued)

Hiring Additional Staff • Roughly 2/5 of this category included hiring business developers, sales

staff, cold callers, appointment setters and lead generation experts. ring marketing staff, advertising

development specialists. • Remaining uses pertained to hiring “extra staffing” in general to ass

Contract With Outside Provider • Roughly 2/5 of this category included hiring a marketing or PR firm

build brand image and create more brand awareness. • Nearly 1/5 of this category

enhance the company’s online and published media awebsite effectiveness.

its

Just over 1/5 of this category included lead generation services.

emaining uses regardend website content, and hiring a consultant to help incr pffectiveness as a whole.

Commentary: O anted to spend their $100k on a new websiur respondents most w te. “Website” top W cial triple whammy regarding their addition to d ebsites carry a spe leaanswer to the generation. $100k question

A) They generate leads in and of themselves through search engine placement. B on tactics. Regardless of ) They are the conduit for many other lead generatih ey almost always check out, and ow a prospect finds out about a firm, tho he website. ften make their inquiry through, t C) Because websites are always “on” and everyone can look at them eaders , la ly aware of how they look, what they y, and t service businesses are acute sa( eir websioften more importantly) what everyone else says about th te T at websites are getting, and wilakeaway: It’s not surprising th l c neration focus.

Continued o ext page

ontinue to get, serious lead ge

n n



Where To Invest In Marketing & Sales, Continued

Commentary: If everyone else was jumping off a bridge…

For the most part, advertising in TV /Radio / Print ads (see chart on page 75 for more information) was rated particularly low in effectiveness by most respondents. Still, 4% of respondents noted they would spend their $100k on TV / Radio / Print ads. Many professional service providers flock to “traditional” advertising and pine over having the budgets to do more. Their competition is doing it. And many say they want to, “get our name out there.” Takeaway: Before you advertise, know why you want to advertise. Many service firms report not getting the bang for their buck that they hoped to get.



Selected Verbatim Comments About Use Of $100,000

What the “Excellent” lead generatorwould buy

s lly

What’s behind the spending categories for the additional $100,000? Since the devil is often in the details, we’ve pulled together ideas given specificaby the “Excellent” lead generating companies. Here’s a peek at where they would put their money.

Staffing: • hire someone to hel• raises/bonuses for arketing and biz

development staff • research the best pr

recruits / fund proj increase recruiting results

• expand capabilities to deliver the work it would bring in hire an accountant and a sales assistant

• hire sales person • hire a full-time marketing person to oversee

and coordinate all marketing activities • hire someone to assist us in preparing articles

and presentations on our areas of expertise • train (indoctrinate) existing project managers

and consultants in marketing techniques, try to get them to understand the importance of marketing

General Marketing / PR:

p the m

actices for marketing to ects that

•

Speaking / Events: • join a national speakers association • fund additional travel to permit national

• approach more strategic partners and ask them to host teleseminars with us for their audience

• host more live events • sponsor additional conferences • educational seminars • plan, hold and promote seminars and fund the

appropriate post-event followup • develop several new topics and present

seminars to interested potential clients • seek to attend and speak at leading industry

shows and conferences • offer programs specifically dedicated to client

needs Online:

speaking engagements • execute 6 in person seminars

• invest in newsletter marketing and general

communications • create a ‘leave behind’ brochure • reinvest in the look and feel of materials and

conference tools • develop a case study email/direct mail

campaign • new software for graphics • implement a 'multi-mode' marketing approach,

custom target post cards- and e-mails • invest in cleaning-up our direct mail and email

house lists • expand direct mail marketing efforts • hire public relations firm to get article, news,

etc. placement in multiple media venues • optimize press releases

• develop podcasting and/or company radio • new website • build a bigger on-line community • productize more services to deliver over the

web • search optimize content on the site • online catalog • get more leads from online lead sources and

improve the follow-up sales materials • do more paid advertising online • online marketing • pay-per-click expansion • videos and audio on website • more web seminars




Selected Verbatim Comments About Use Of $100,000, Continued

Technology:

nolo

gy e.g. Content / Intellectual Capital:

• invest it in techimprove results

• IT technolo

gy to streamline and

software

evant ontent that can be used

roup in their direct one-

and

of the

• build more rel cby a teleprospecting gto-one nurturing activities

• proprietary research on key financial benchmarks in our key niches and sponsor seminars to get these results into the hands of clients/prospects

• publish authored materials in professionalbusiness editions

• create a series of our own books on one ice areas of our pract

• pay a ghost writer to write two major books that have our company name attached to themdevelop more articles •

Advertising (Offline): • advertise in local Business Journal and

increase frequency of Chamber ad • focused advertising in business journals a

local publicationd

ns es with teaser ads

• trial in target market magazin

(i.e. lots of adverts saying go to website forfree report)

Save / Invest • hold in an opportunity fund • put it in the bank until there is enough internal

stabilization to strategically place it at the moment of opportunity.

tionships:Selling / Client Rela

ities with

n a weekly

rojects ways

m

g relationships and keep us top of mind r good clients

• business development funds for cliententertainment/ relationship building activ

• more travel to prospective clients to meetthem

• entertainment and gifts • implement a client retention/management

system • business development coaching o

basis • travel budget to visit more of our clients • bring more clients to our office to show them

how we use technology to manage our pand streamline our services process; it alseems to be effective when we can bring theto our office to show them that we are interested in innovation

• put it towards anything that would enhance existinwith ou

Referrals: • business trip to all valid and dependable

regarding referral sources / clear preparation what the company wants from each referrer



Trends For Future Use Of Tactics, Strategies, Offers, & Their Content

Overview

Who’s on Participaboard the

nts who had not used

bandwagons?

particular lead generation tactics, strategies, nte t w re asked to indicate theioffers, or types of offer co n r planned usage in

th these options: ut we’re

ed it, a

lead generation by

e

ethe future, wi• We have not used it, b

2 years. seriously considering using it in the next

• We have not us The following chart dispthe percentage of respon

nd we won’t use it in the next 2 years.

lays the tactics and strategies for dents who would use them in the next two years.

Continued on next pag



Overview, Continued

Percent Of Non-Users “Seriously Considering Using”

Tactics / Strategies In Next Two Years


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

80

70

90

1

- Conneto gain write-ups abo

83% cting withinterviews

ut o

- Becomingprofessionindus- Speaking at con ences/trade shows- Making 'warm' pexisting contacts- Search Engine Optimization for our website

82%

s

- Emailing ONLINE company

press contacts , quotes, and ur company

- Writing and distributing press release79%

members of al associations and

try organizationsfer

hone calls (to )

l ( )78%

uthored content ublications

- Joining onlinour field- Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN PRINT publications

69%

- Running our own in-person events (seminars, conferences, etc.)

68%

- Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects

67%

- Speaking in OTHERS' live online seminars- Running OUR OWN live online seminars

65%

- Sending individual emails directly to prospects

76%

- Publishing company-ain OUR OWN ONLINE p

74%

- Publishing company-authored content in OTHER ONLINE publications

70%

e communities related to

- Sending professionally designed direct mail packages to prospects

58%

- Participating regularly in blog-related online conversation

57%

- Sponsoring high-profile events or research projects with well-known organizations in our field

55%

- Publishing company-authored content in OTHERS' PRINT publications

50%- Publishing a company-authored or company-affiliated blog

63%

- Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows

44%

- Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects- Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s)- Search Engine Advertising for our website

43%

- Running our own telephone-based events- Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts)- Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications

42%

- Sending mass emails directly to prospects- Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer

40%

- Advertising in print media36%

- Advertising on the radio14%

- Advertising on TV6%



Overview, Continued

Tying future usage back to current use

fically those who haTwo different groups of respondents rated effectiveness (speci

d used each tactic) and future use (specifically those who had not used each tactic). With that caveat in mind, it can be helpful to connect these two measures to get a fuller picture of where each tactic is currently and how it might be adopted (or not) in the next couple years. The following table organizes the “future use” measures above by the four quadrants into which each tactic was slotted according to overall usage versus effectiveness ratings from current users, found in the section titled “Evaluating Tactics And Strategies”.

% Non-Users

“Seriously Considering Using” In

No. Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Next 2 Years Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

Currently Used By Majority, Average Rating Among Users= At Least “Somewhat Effective” 1 'Warm' phone calls 82 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 82 3 Individual emails to prospects 76 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 82 5 Connecting with press contacts 83 6 Running our own in-person events 68 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 50 8 Search Engine Optimization 82 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications 74

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 55

11 Company-authored content in other online publications 70 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 69

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE Currently Used By Less Than 50%, Average Rating Among Users = At Least “Somewhat Effective” 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 65 14 Running our own live online seminars 65 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 63




Overview, Continued

Tying future usage back to current use (continued)

% Non-Users “Seriously

No. Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Considering Using” In

Next 2 Years Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE

Currently Used jority, Average Rating Among Users = Less Than “Somewhat Effective” By Ma16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 42 17 Individual letters or postcards 67 18 Writing and distributing press releases 79 19 Exhibiting 44 at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 43 21 Advertising in print media 36 22 Mass emails to prospects 40 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 58 24 Joining online communities related to our field 69 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 78 26 Printed newsletter(s) 43

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE C Users = Less Than “Somewha ective” urrently Used By Less Than 50%, Average Rating Among t Eff27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 40 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 42 29 Search Engine Advertising 43 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 57 31 Running our own telephone-based events 42 32 Advertising on the radio 14 33 Advertising on TV 6

C enomm tary: W e ther he wind

Takeaways From “Future Use” Trends

blows… So ters (quadrant by what’s it all say? Here are some common-sense poinquadrant) to guide you as you review this future-trend data: More Popular & More Effective: If you’re not already using the tactics that are currently widely-used and are also likely to be adopted at hig levels in her the near future, you may be the only one. Why? Although mom taught us never to jump off a bridge if everyone else is doing it…she probably never knew about bungee-jumping. There is a reason everyone is jumping to these ultra popular tactics in their mix: they work. If you aren’t planning on trying some of these tactics, you may want to revisit the possibility – just in case mom was wrong.




Overview, Continued Commentary: Less Popular & More Effective: These tactics are essentially the hidden Where the wind gems of lead generation. Not everyone’s using them, but those who are have blows… found them worth the time and money. And they won’t be hidden for much (continued) longer. Nearly two-thirds of the non-users plan to adopt these tactics in

the next two years: • Speaking in others’ live online seminars (65% “seriously considering”) • R rs (65% “seriously cunning our own live online semina onsidering”) • considering”) Company-authored or affiliated blog (63% “seriously Online events and blogs aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but you’ve been warned… more and more of your fellow professional services marketers and leaders will be reaching out to new prospects (and maybe your clients) in the near future via online seminars and blogs. More Popular & Less Effective: Most people use them, most people currently rate them less than “somewhat effective”… and yet, more than two-thirds of non-users plan to implement these tactics in the nex o years t tw(do I hear mom calling about that bridge jumping thing again?): • g and di Writin stributing press releases (79% “seriously considering”) • Emailing online newsletter(s) (78% “seriously considering”) • Joining online communities related to our field (69% “seriously

considering”) • Individual letters or postcards (67% “seriously considering”) Why join the crowd if, on average, users of these tactics rate them ss than le“somewhat effective”? Remember that tactics work together. Yo ight use u ma personalized postcard and online newsletter to publicize a live t you’re evenholding (a tactic in the “more popular, more effective” category), in gafeedback on event topics via the online communities you’ve joined, and distribute a press release highlighting how the event impacted a marquee attendee’s current strategy in your area of expertise. Be smart, do what works for your firm, and do it well – and don’t forget that you might achieve the best results by making tactics from multiple quadrants work well together. Less Popular & Less Effective: More than half the non-users of “Participating in blog-related conversation” indicate they’re seriously considering jumping on board in the next couple years. Are they crazy? Take a look at the rise of the company-sponsored or company-affiliated blog up in the “Less Popular & More Effective” category. They’re not so crazy anymore. If you’re skeptical, consider this: with the right setup, you can easily track what kinds of traffic, inquiries, and leads you’re receiving via comments you might make on someone’s blog online. Through due diligence in your website analytics and a smart lead-capturing setup on your website, you can monitor just how effective that half-hour a day of surfing the blogs has been.




Overview, Continued

Commentary: Where th

General Takeaway: Whether you’re considering a currently-popular target or one which is a prime target of opportunity for the future, think before youe wind

blows…

leap. And remember what mom said about bridges.

(continued)

Who will increase efforts?

epending on the tactic, several interesting differences can be seen within the

LESSER-KNOW NOWN COMPANIES

Dour comparison groups regarding non-users seriously considering usingtactics in the near future:

N COMPANIES VS. VERY WELL K% Seriously

Considering Using

Lesser-Known

ell Very WKnownTactic / Strategy

Publishing company- 63 authored content in OUR OWN ONLINE publications 77 Publishing company-authored content in OTHER ONLINE publications 74 56 Joining online comm 60 unities related to our field 73 Running our own in- 53 person events 71 Speaking in OTHERS 53 ’ live online seminars 68 Publishing a compan 50 y-authored or affiliated blog 67 Participating regularl 42 y in blog-related online conversation 63 Sending emails to pro rdspects via a 3 party referrer 49 19 Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects 49 27 Search Engine Advertising 49 30 Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows 47 30 Running our own telephone-based events 47 30 OTHER GROUP

Tactic / StrS

ategy Groups Seriously Considering Using In Next 2 Years BY ABILITY TO GENERATE LEADS

Sending emails to proparty referrer

spects via a 3rd • 51% “Poor” lead generators, versus 27-42% others

Sending mass letters or prospects

ellent / postcards to • 54% “Fair / Poor” lead generators, versus 30% “ExcGood” lead generators

Making “cold” phonecontacts)

calls (to new • 55% “Fair / Poor” lead generators, versus 29% “Excellent / Good” lead generators

Exhibiting at confereshows

nces / trade • 51% “Fair / Poor” lead generators, versus 36% “Excellent / Good” lead generators




Overview, Continued

OTHER GROU

Tactic / StPS

r (Continued) ategy Groups Seriously Considering Using In Next 2 Years

BY GEOGRAPHY OF CLIENT BASE Mailing PRINTED company newsletters

• 43-51% companies with local, regional, or national client base, versus 27% companies with international client base

Publishing a company-authored or affiliated blog

• 67-69% companies with national or international client base, versus 55-57% companies with local or regional client base

Running OUseminars

R OWN live online • 72-73% companies with national or international client base, versus 52-59% companies with local or regional client base

Speaking ineminars

OTHER6-61% companies with local or regional client base

S’ live online • 71-73% companies with national or international client base, versus 5s

Search Engine Advertising • 56% companies with international client base, versus 38-43% companies with local, regional, or national client base

Pubc

lishing company-authored ontent in OUR OWN PRINT

• 60% companies with local client base, ver s with regional, national, or international c

publications

sus 45-52% companieent base li

Advertising on the radio • 17-20% companies with local or re11% companies with national or intern

giona se, ation lient base

l client ba versus 8-al c

Connecting with press contacts • 94% companies with international client ba nd 84% es with regional or national client , versus 7

panies with local client base

se acompani base 1% com

Participating regularly in blog- • 61-6related online conversation

4% coversus 47

mpanies with national or interna l client b -56% companies with local or reg client b

tiona ase,ional ase

BY COMPANY SIZE Publishing company-authored • 85% Indepcontent in OTHER ONLINE publications

endent practitioners, versus 66-7 larger co ies 9% mpan

Running our own telephone-based •events com

54% Independent practitioners, versus 32-4 of larger panies

• 52% companies with annual revenue < $1 million, versus 34-35% of those with at least $1 million in annual revenue

1%

Advertising on TV • 13% us Large / Very Large companies (250+ professionals) vers4-8% smaller companies

Future use of offers

What offers are on the verge of adoption by non-users? What’s the outloosts, ebooks, and other offers cu

k for podca rrently not widely used among

percentage of professional services companies? The following chart lists in order the

non-users who are “seriously considering using” the offers in


their lead generation efforts over the next two years.



Overview, Continued

xt page

Non-Users Seriously Considering Using Offers In Next 2 Years

54

38

27

46

0

Case studyu

On

Introductory / Consultat

Podca

eBook (N = 515)

in our co

Entry-Lev

Telephone-base

Trial erms for our services (N = 413)

77hored by expert/s (N = 226)

68

r clients' fields (N = 289)

s n se ar (N = 271)

62

o min

line seminar (N = 514)

61line seminar (N = 470)

58ive sales call (N = 138)

57pany-Conducted / ed research (N = 384)

44ored by expert/s mpany) (N = 468)

43el service (N = 281)

72 on issues in

72

pany

White paper (N = 281)

0 25 50 75 10

Article autin our com

o

In-Per

On-Demand on

ComPublish

st (N = 552)

Book (auth

d seminar (N = 483)

t

Continued on ne



Overview, Continued

Tying future usage back to current use

Two different groups of respondents rated effectiveness (specifically those who had used each offer) and future use (specifically those who had not used each offer). With that caveat in mind, it can be helpful to connect these two measures to get a fuller picture of where each offer is currently and how it might be adopted (or not) in the next couple years. The following table organizes the “future use” measures above by the four quadrants into which each offer was slotted according to overall usage versus effectiveness ratings from current users, found in the section titled “Evaluating Offers And Their Content”.

% Non-Users “Seriously

Considering Using” No. Lead Generation Offer In Next 2 Years

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE Currently Used By Majority, Average Rating Among Users= At Least “Somewhat Effective”

1 Introductory/Consultative sales call 58 2 Article authored by expert/s in our company 77 3 In-Person seminar 68 4 White paper 72 5 Entry-Level service 43 6 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 72 7 Company-Conducted / Published research 57

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE Currently Used By Less Than 50%, Average Rating Among Users = At Least “Somewhat Effective”

8 Live online seminar 61 9 Book (authored by expert/s in our company) 44

10 Telephone-based seminar 38 11 eBook (digital form only, authored by expert/s in our company) 46

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE Currently Used By Less Than 50%, Average Rating Among Users = Less Than “Somewhat Effective”

12 Trial terms for our services (month free, sample software, etc.) 27 13 On-Demand online seminar (i.e. webcast, webinar) 72 14 Podcast 54




Overview, Continued

Who will increase efforts?

Depending on the offer, several interesting differences can be seen within our comparison groups regarding non-users seriously considering using thoffers in the near f

e uture:

LESSER-KNOW

N COMPANIES VS. VERY WELL KNOWN COMPANIES % Seriously

Considering Using

Offer

Lesser-Known

Very Well Known

Article authored by e xpert(s) in our company 81 65Case study on issues in our clients’ fields 75 63 Podcast 57 47 On-Demand online seminar 67 50 In-Person seminar 73 47 Telephone-Based seminar 43 27 Live online seminar 67 46 eBook (digital form only, auth mpany) ored by expert/s in our co 50 38 Entry-Level service 49 28 In utrod ctory / Consultative sales call 68 41 “ al” 33 14 Tri terms for our services OTHER GROUPS

Groups Seriously Considering Using In Next ears Offer 2 YBY GEOGRAPHY OF CLIENT BASE

P as ompanies with national or international c base, gional cl base

odc t • 59-61% c lientientversus 48-50% companies with local or re

eBb versus 35-43% companies with local or regional cl base

ook (digital form only, authored xpe

• 50-57% companies with national or international client base, y e rt/s in our company) ient

O e panies with national or international c base, versus 53-56% companies with local or regional cl base

n-D mand online seminar • 68-73% com lientient

BY ABILITY TO GENERATE LEADS In-Person seminar 60% “Excellent / • 73% “Fair / Poor” lead generators, versus

Good” lead generators I du tors, versus 48% “Ex ent /

tors ntro ctory / Consultative sales call • 67% “Fair / Poor” lead genera cell

Good” lead genera“ l” our services • 33% “Fair / Poor” lead generators, versus 21% “Ex ent /

Good” lead generators Tria terms for cell

BY COMPANY SIZE Telephone-Based seminar • 45% companies with annual revenue less than $1 million, versus

32-34% companies with at least $1 million Book authored by expert/s in our company

• 56% Independent practitioners, versus 32-42% of the larger companies

• 54% companies with annual revenue less than $1 million, versus 35-37% companies with at least $1 million




Overview, Continued

Who will increas

Offer ups Seriously Considering Using In Next 2 Years

e efforts? (continued)

GroeBook (digital form only, authored • 56% Independent practitioners, versus 40-45% of the larger

rsus 39-43% companies with at least $1 million

by expert/s in our company) companies • 53% companies with annual revenue less than $1 million, ve

“Trial” terms for our services • 36% Independent practitioners, versus 1

companies 6-29% of the larger

Future use of The types of content below, all currently popular and considered “effective,”

peal to the non-users, with more than 2/3 of non-us seriouslyconsidering using these kinds of content for their lead generating offers in

ext two years.

types of content also ap ers

the nIn Next T s… wo Year

Types Of Content N =

% SeriouslConsiderin

Using

% WhoWon't

Use

y g

Client and Partner testimonials / referrals 88 92 8

How-To tips, tactics, and advice 127 80 20 Case Studies of how oof businesrelated to

ur prospects' types 78 22 ses solve pressing issues

our are194

a of expertise Best-Practice methodology based on our

e o expertise 129 74 26 company's ar a fEmerging trends in our prospects' fields 163 73 27 Content 0 % foc

ecific situation (i.e. in a call)

105 71 29 1 0 used on individual

prospect's spconsultative sales ROI / Fincontractin

ancial Justification of g for services 200 70 30

Research data relevant to our prospects' fields 207 68 32



ANALYSIS SECTIONS BY FIRM DEMOGRAPHICS



Analysis By Industry verview

O

Industry comparisons

Professional services industries often share commonalities in terms of their challenges, goals, company structures, services nature, and other key components. In fact, this commonality is the foundation of RainToday.com: we have much to learn from each other.

cial” in its historical outlook towards sales, marketing, and lead generation in general – as well as in its current approach and attitude toward the future. In this section, you’ll learn more of the nuances in difference between industries when it comes to professional services lead generation. This section includes:

1. An overview of where industry differences tend to emerge in the data

2. Industry-by-Industry highlights

However, our research bears out that each industry is a little bit “spe

Growth of annual revenue

The industries below stand out for higher growth rates than others in the past two years, among respondent companies: Percentage Who Grew Annual Revenue By 50%+ In Past Two Years • Marketing, PR, Advertising: 38.5% • IT Services and Consulting: 38.0% • Management Consulting: 32.4% • Financial / Insurance / Real Estate Services: 29.8% • Training / Executive Education: 24.1% Trends Indicating Similar Growth* • Human Resources / OD Consulting: 35.7% • Other Consulting / Professional Services: 31.0% Other industries’ growth occurred more in the 10-49% range than in the highest-growth range. The following chart illustrates how much growth respondents in each industry have seen in the past two years. * N = 724 total; 31-135 per industry with exception of “HR/OD Services” and “Other Consulting / Professional Services” (N = 28-29)




Overview, Continued


Gro

wth

Pro

file

By

Indu

stry

(Pas

t 2 Y

ears

)

70.0

%% Respondents

0.0%

10.0

%

20.0

%

30.0

%

40.0

%

50.0

%

60.0

%

Gre

w 5

0% +

Gre

w 1

0-49

%G

rew

<10

%N

o C

hang

e / D

ecre

ased

Gre

w38

.0%

35.7

%32

.4%

31.0

29.8

%1%

2% 5

0% +

38.5

%%

24.

10.3

%10

.9.

7%

Gre

w%

36.7

%46

.4%

33.8

%41

.442

.6%

6%0%

10-

4934

.8%

%29

.62

.1%

50.

45.2

%

Gre

w <

12.7

%7.

1%18

.6%

20.7

12.8

%8%

6%10

%14

.12

.1%

24.

22.6

%11

.9%

%

No

Ch

/ D

ecre

as12

.7%

10.7

%15

.2%

6.9%

14.9

%5%

3%

ices

/ C

onsu

lting

HR

OD

Mgm

tC

onsu

ltiO

thC

ons

FIR

Eni

ng /

Exec

Ed

AEC

31.

Trai

15.5

%15

.

A

cctg

, Tax

, Et

c.

22.6

%

La

wIT

Ser

v ng

er

ultin

g

ed14

.8%

Mkt

g, P

R,

Adv

ange



Overview, Continued

Ability to generate leads

These four industries appear most confident about their companies’ overall ability to generate leads, with more than half of respondents indicating they were “Excellent” or “Good” at generating leads: % “Excellent” or “Good” • Financial, Insurance, Real Estate: 63% • Architecture, Engineering, Construction: 59% • Marketing, PR, Advertising: 57% • Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping: 54% See all industries’ ratings and points of significant difference from each other (circled) in the following chart:


Overall Ability To Generate Leads- By Industry -

8

7

17

9

6

8

6

7

7

1

56

52

40

45

42

37

38

36

35

31

35

36

34

37

50

46

47

42

55

48

2

5

9

9

3

10

9

15

3

20

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Financial, Insurance,Real Estate (N = 52)

Architecture, Engineering,Construction (N = 147)

Marketing, PR,Advertising (N = 168)

Accounting, Tax, Payroll,Bookkeeping (N = 67)

Human Resources, ODConsulting (N = 36)

Management Consulting(N = 167)

Other Consulting andProfessional Services

(N = 34)

Training, ExecutiveEducation,

Coaching (N = 59)

Law Firms / LegalServices (N = 60)

IT Services andConsulting (N = 104)

4 (Excellent) 3 (Good) 2 (Fair) 1 (Poor)

Mean Rating

2.69

2.60

2.65

2.54

2.50

2.43

2.41

2.34

2.45

2.13

A circled number indicates a significant difference from other industries for that rating, at a 95% confidence level.


© 2007 RainToda


y.com & Wellesley Hills Group, LLC 124

Overview, Continued

Average quof incoming

ality

leads

verage.

rcentage typically:

sales-…requires

further nurturing?

…is disqualified

from the sales

Architecture, Engineering, & Construction companies see higher proportionsof “sales-ready” leads, on average, while IT Services / Consulting companiessee lower proportions of “sales-ready” leads, on a By industry mean, what pe

Industry* …is

ready?

process?

Financial, Insurance, Real Estate 31.8% 44.2% 24.0%

Architecture, Engineering, Construction 30.5% 49.0% 20.5%

Law Firms / Legal Services 28.8% 52.0% 22.4%

Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping 27.6% 40.6% 31.8%

Marketing, PR, Advertising 24.6% 53.1% 22.2%

Human Resources and Organizational Development Consulting 23.0% 53.1% 23.9%

Management Consulting 21.0% 52.8% 26.2%

Training, Executive Education, Coaching 20.9% 58.4% 20.8%

IT Services and Consulting 16.8% 47.2% 36.0%

Bolded, underlined numbers indicate a significant difference versus other industries, at the 95% confidence level. * For this measure the industries of Marketing, PR, & Advertising, Architecture, Engineering, & Construction, Management Consulting, and IT Services & Consulting had statistically valid response bases > 30. All other industry results for this measure indicate trends only, with N = 10-26.



Top Ways To Generate Quality Leads, Categories Mentioned UNAIDED By Respondents – Percentage Response By Industry

Marketing, PR,

Advertising (N = 111)

Architecture, Engineering, Construction

(N = 96)

Management Consulting (N = 119)

IT Services /

Consulting (N = 61)

Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping

(N = 47)

Training, Executive Education, Coaching (N = 50)

Financial, Insurance,

Real Estate

(N = 37)

Law Firms / Legal

Services (N = 23)

Human Resources

Other

and OD C ing / onsultProfessional

ServicC onsulting es (N = 2(N = 24) 1)

Referrals

51 59 65 54 62 56 59 83 71 57 • Client / partner

referrals 32 41 34 31 17 28 35 52 50 24

• General referrals 14 7 1 24 18 38 22 2 22 2 13 29• Both 6 2 3 6 5 6 6 9 8 5 Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events 28 7 2 41 31 26 44

24 2 33 6 29

Cold calling / telephone prospecting 30 6 321 23 25 23 26

29 4 33

Online marketing (adwords, website traffic, SEO)

23 9 15 30 13 28 11 1 29 3 25

14 19 25Networking 18 23

10 8 2 10 6 - Thought leadership (writing, speaking) 15 9 16 8 1 - 14 14 18 7 13

Personal relationships / direct contact 5 92

10 10 13 8 11 1 10 7 17

Partnering / professional organizations

11 02 1 8 1 10 6 3 9 8 7 -

Email marketing / (e)newsletters 16 1 8 13 9 12 22 10 9 29

Repeat business with existing clients 4 9 - 2 9 - 6 - 5 -

Direct mail marketing 14 7 4 8 19 - 14 2 8 13

Public Relations / press releases / relationships 3 - 2 2 8 4 - 1 3 -

Advertising (offline) 6 3 2 9 2 141 5 - - Trial / free offers 3 - - 4 - - 3 - - 4 Pro Bono / volunteer work / charity 3 3 2 - 5 3 - 4 - -

Respond to RFP's - - 2 4 2 3 - - 4 8



y.com & Wellesley Hills Group, LLC 126

Mean Rating Of Lead Generation Challenges – By Industry 5 = Extremely Challeng er g; 3 = Somewhat C engin er g t Ch Bolded, unde ed num t nt ve enc

Marketing, PR,

Advertising

chitecture, ngineering,

Construction anagement

Consulting

IT Services /

Consulting

counting, x, Payroll,

Bookkeeping

ningxecutive ducation,

Coaching

ncisurance, Real

Estate

awFirms / Legal ervices

manesources and OD

Consulting

her nsulting / ofessional ervices

ing; 4 = V y Challengin hall g; 2 = Not V y Challen ing; 1 = No At All allenging

rlin bers indica es a significa difference rsus several other industries, at the 95% confid e level.

ArE M

AcTa

Trai , FinaEE

al, LIn

Hu

S

OtR Co

PrS

Having time to generate leads 3.56 3.65 3.49 3.51 3.70 3.37 3.38 3.83 3.58 3.32

Having enough peopleright people to generat

/ the e leads 3.37 3.45 3.34 3.63 3.60 3.19 3.42 3.08 3.42 3.29

Finding a strategy, tactic,offer that works well for

or us 3.12 3.31 3.32 3.59 3.45 3.58 3.37 3.33 3.31 3.00

Implementing our when we agree upo

plan (even n it) 3.08 3.29 3.04 3.16 3.36 3.03 3.00 3.47 2.83 3.15

Having appropriate s s and p e

leads 2.90 3.13 2.89 3.33 3.18 3.20 3.53

killeopling

knowledge among charged with generat 3.08 3.00 3.18

Knowing how to measurlead generation success

e our 2.81 3.42 2.71 3.05 3.22 2.91 2.90 3.72 3.19 2.76

Funding leaactivities

d generation 3.05 2.84 2.91 3.32 2.73 3.24 2.81 2.88 3.36 2.82

Gaining participation from titioners 2.67 3.26professionals / prac 2.71 2.99 3.42 2.64 2.96 3.47 2.64 3.06

Agreeing on which action to 2.65 2.86 2.56 2.85 2.90 2.78 2.56 3.02take 2.64 2.29

Coordinating efforts between roups 2.32 2.61marketing and selling g 2.14 2.47 2.57 2.54 2.33 2.60 2.39 2.00

Gaining support from coleaders for lead generati

mpany on

2.17 2.52activities 2.09 2.46 2.24 2.12 2.25 2.72 1.86 2.29

© 2007 RainToda


Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping Services

Additiohighlighthis industry

nal ts of

ti nc es overv o l d y counting, Payroll, and Bookkeeping Service companies, including:

• How they differed significantly from other industries (at the 95% en lev . U ess oth wis o , significant differences versus in ri re ed by ld d de e umbers

ThisTax,

sec on i lud an iew f se ecte stud results from Ac

cooth

nfider

cedust

el)es a

nl not

er

e n an

ted unbo rlin d n .

• overview of their lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness ratings.

s llowing me e ee Ov iew of this Industry Analysis section:

Ability to generate leads e ti h nges

ge al f s p tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses nual revenue growth in past 2 years

ll o r ts gi on

An

For indu try comparisons of the fo asur s, s the erv

• • Le• Av• To

ad gera

nera qu

on city o

allelead

• An For a fu rep rt of esul ven ly by this u ’s tici ts, please

act RainToday.com at [email protected] ind stry par pan

cont or call 508-405-0438.

Salesmarkbudgannu

& etiet aal r

ns f e e

as includes full-time sala o u d s an arketing s.

ong this industry: llo te less than 2.5% of revenue to m / sales.

Thisactiv

meitie

ure

ries and utso rce sale d mg % ovenu Am

• 31•

% a%

ca arketing 40 allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to market / sales.

% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 5% allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sales.

allocate 20% or more of revenue to marketing / sales.

ing • 20

• 5%

Whoto geleads

’s ener

x ea

industry differs from others significantly regarding who’s expected to generate leads for the company’s services for:

d e rs This Industry’s Measure

pectte

d This

Lea Gen ratoProfessionals (those likely to do the work once it’s confirmed)

63% (significantly > 4 other industry groups)

d on next page Continue



Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping Services, Continued

Current approach to getting new business

ew

network

Among this industry: • 25% Most efforts directed toward lead generation (targeting n

prospects) • 33% Efforts directed half toward lead generation and half toward

generating referrals among current and past clients, and among• 42% Most efforts directed toward generating referrals among current

past clienand

ts, and among network


tly from other industries regarding target weak in the following ways:

ledge This Industry’s Measure

This industry differed significanmarket knowledge being strong or

Aspect of Market KnowNames of organizations we should target

15% “Extremely Weak” nificantly > 5 other industry groups) (sig

Titles of decision makers within the 16% “Extremely Weak” target organizations (significantly > 7 other industry groups)

Highlights of

ctics f all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to

stry*: 1. Referrals (62%)

nding / Speaking at events (26%)

OTop 3 Ta(Unaided)

generate quality leads, here were the 5 most commonly mentioned categories by this indu

2. Hosting / Atte3. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (23%) 4. Networking (23%) 5. Direct mail marketing (19%)

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top waparticular category. For a detailed industry comparison, see t

y” fell into that able “Top ways

generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section. to

Evaluation otactics

f /

strategies (Aided)

is industry currently uses arious le s and strategie

ed a

provided toviewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and above.


Tv

he following tables and charts indicate how thad generation tactic s.

Ast

s a reminder, respondents evaluatrategies in this section as

comprehensive list of tactics and them, or “aided” – a different

strategies mentioned




CURRENT USAGE USTRY OF TACTICS BY IND

Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping 54% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 63-66) 91 – 100% • Becoming members of professional organizations 81 – 90% • 'Warm' phone calls 71 – 80%

• Running our own in-person events (75% - HIGH)

• Individual letters or postcards • 'Cold' phone calls

Printed • newsletter(s) (73% - HIGH)

peaking at conferences/trade shows dvertising in print media (71% - HIGH)

• S• A

61 – 70% • Writing• Conn• Ma• Pro ally designed direct mail packages• Ex• C tent in our own pr

and distributing press releases ecting with press contacts

ss letters or postcards fession

hibiting at conferences/trade shows pany-authored conom int publications (63% - HIGH)

• Individual emails to prospects (62% - LOW) 51 – 60% • S oring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field

• E• C• S ization (52% - LOW)

ponsmailing online newsletter(s) ompany-authored content in others' print publications earch Engine Optim

% - LOW)• Mass emails to prospects (52 • Joining online communities related to our field

41 – 50% ther online publications (44% - LOW)

• Company-authored content in our own online publications • Company-authored content in o • Advertising on the radio (43% - HIGH)

h Engine Advertising • Searc31 – 40% • S

• Apeaking in others' live online seminars dvertising in ad-supported websites and online publications (37% - LOW) unning our own live online seminars

a a 3rd party referrer (33% - LOW)• R• Emails vi • Participating in blog-related online conversation • Running our own telephone-based events

21 – 30% • Company-authored or affiliated blog (27% - LOW) vertising on TV • Ad






Acco

uf L

ntin

g e 28

, T ne 13 29ax,

rati 11 32

P on Tay

roll

&ac

tic /

St

8 2224

Bo

ong

Pokke

e y

10 25

pin Vs

g Se

rvM

eic

an E

f 4 21es: fect

26

% C

urre

nt U

sage 15

oea

d G

14 7

rate

g

7

.

12 23

iv 6

enes

s R

atin

gs 1

2

33

3 19

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 0%

100%

% C

urre

nt U

sag

artic

ipan

ts


5

9 50%

e Am

16

1718 20

2 3031

1.0

Mor

e Po

pLe

ss E

ffectul

ar ive

Mo ore

Pop

ular

re E

ffect

ivM

eLe M

ss

oPo

re E

ffpul

ectar iv

e

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

iv

Usa

geH

igh

Usa

ge

e Low

(75%

)(2

5%)

Very

Ef

fect

ive

21 ATA C

TC

TIC

S AICS b A

bov

ove

5e

3.0

Eff0%

Us

ectiv

age

12 T

enes

s




No. Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 8 Search Engine Optimization

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

11 Company-authored content in other online publications 14 Running our own live online seminars

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 3 Individual emails to prospects

16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 26 Printed newsletter(s)

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV

Continued on next age p





You’ve just lea ng for its

tion offered a total of 958 responses in a mong this industry, the top categories of

se an additional $100,000 for sales and marketing

w / rebuild / upgrade website (11% of responses)

s / events (10% of responses)

nses)

F with outside e $100,000 Question” section in the main report.

rned your company has $100,000 of additional fundisales and marketing efforts this year. How will you use it? Participants who answered this ques

spending. Avariety of categories for uld uhow companies wo

were as follows:

1. Build ne2. Hire additional staff (11% of responses) 3. Host / sponsor / attend trade show4. Direct mail campaign (10% of responses) 5. TV / Radio / Print ads (7% of respo6. Seminars (7% of responses)

or more detail on “Hire additional staff” or “Contract

provider”, see “Th

F e uta s aoffers

usedutur se of Participants who had not ctic nd

particular lead generation tactics, strategies, ndicate their planned usage in the future, with

used it, but we’re seriously considering using it in the next

n’t use it in the next 2 years.

wing tactics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of

and offers were asked to ithese options: • ot We have n

2 years. • We have not used it, and we wo

e folloEach of that least three-quarters (75%) of the non-users amon

in the next two years: g this industry’s

tion Tactics & Strategies

respondents, regarding using them

Lead Genera

% Industry’s Non-Users “Seriously Considering”

(Per Tactic)

'Warm' phone calls 100 Becoming members of professional

ns 100 organizatioSearch Engine Optimization 80 Writing and distributing press releases 75 Running our own in-person events 75

Note: Of the lead generation offers evaluated by this industry, none passed the threshold of 75% of non-users “seriously considering using” them in the next two years.



Architecture, Engineering, Construction Services

Highlights of this industry luding:

How they differed significantly from other industries (at the 95%

This section includes an overview of selected study results from Architecture, Engineering, and Construction companies, inc•

confidence level). Unless otherwise noted, significant differences versus other industries are noted by bold and underlined numbers.

• An overview of their lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness ratings.

For industry comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of

, unaided responses

this Industry Analysis section: • Ability to generate leads • Lead generation challenges • Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads• Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only by this industry’s participants, please

[email protected] RainToday.com at or call 508-405-0438.

Sales & marketing budget as % of annual revenue

ing This measure includes full-time salaries and outsourced sales and marketactivities. Among this industry: • 28% allocate less than 2.5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 34% allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 33% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 2% allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sale 2% allocate from 15% to less than 20% of revenue to m

s. arketing / sales.

1% allocate 20% or more of revenue to market

•• ing / sales.

Who’s expected to generate leads

T rom others significantly regarding wh pected to g ces for:

This Industry’s Measure

his industry differs f o’s exenerate leads for the company’s servi

Lead Generators Leaders of the firm 90%

ignificantly > 6 other stry groups) (s induProfessionals (those likely to do the work once it’s confirmed)


Professional marketing staff 52% (significantly > 7 other industry groups)

VP-Level marketing staff 24% (significantly > 4 other industry groups)




Architecture, Engineering, Construction Services, Continued


network

Among this industry: • 16% Most efforts directed toward lead generation (targeting new



past clienand

ts, and among network 2% don’t know •

Target markknowledge

icantly from other industries regarding target or weak in the following ways:

’s Measure

et This industry differed signifmarket knowledge being strong

Aspect of Market Knowledge This IndustryNames of organizations we should target

“Extremely / Somewhat Strong”64% (significantly > 4 other industry groups)

Titles of decision makers within the target organizations

32% “Neither Strong Nor Weak” (significantly > 4 other industry groups)

HighlighTop 3 Tacti(Unaided)

ts of cs ality leads, here were the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

y this industry*: , with 41%

Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to generate qub

1. Referrals (59% specified as “client / partner referrals”) 2. Personal relationships / direct contact (29%) 3. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (27%) 4. Partnering / professional organizations (20%) 5. Networking (19%)

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top waparticular category. For a detailed industry comparison, see t

y” fell into that able “Top ways

generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section. to

Evaluation otactics

f /

strategies (Aided)

is industry currently uses arious le s and strategie rms

o leads. A ed astrategies in this section as provided tov ” or voluntabove.

e

Tv

he following tables and charts indicate how thad generation tactic

veness in generatings, and how it rates them in te

f effecti

s a reminder, respondents evaluat comprehensive list of tactics and them, or “aided” – a different eered tactics and strategies mentioned iewpoint than the “unaided

Continued on next pag




CURRENT

USAGE USTRY OF TACTICS BY IND

Architecture, Engineering, Construction 59% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 131-135) 91 – 100% • 'Warm' phone calls (99% - HIGH)

• Becoming members of professional organizations • 'Co ' phone calls (95% - HIGH) ld

81 – 90% stcards (88% - HIGH)• Individual letters or po • Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows (82% - HIGH)

71 – 80% • Individual emails to prospects (79% - LOW) Ad• vertising in print media (79% - HIGH)

eaking at conferences/trade shows • Sp• Writing and distributing press releases • Mass l• Con

etters or postcards necting with press contacts

61 – 70% • Prof ly designed direct mail packageessional s (70% - HIGH) • Com t publipany-authored content in others' prin cations

51 – 60% • Sp vents/research with • Running our own in-person events (56% - LOW)

onsoring high-profile e well-known organizations in our field

• Search Engine Optimization (55% - LOW) Co Joi Pri

•••

mpany-authored content in our own print publications ning online communities related to our field nted newsletter(s)

41 – 50% • Mass emails to prospects (47% - LOW) • Emails via a 3rd party referrer

31 – 40% - LOW)• Company-authored content in other online publications (39% (36% - LOW)• Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications

• Emailing online newsletter(s) – 35% (LOW) • Com ur own online publications (35% - LOW)pany-authored content in o • Participating in blog-related online conversation

21 – 30% • Search Engine Advertising (27% - LOW) eaking in others' live online seminars (27% - LOW)• Sp vertising on the radio (24% - LOW)• Ad

• Running our own live online seminars (23% - LOW) Ru ning our own telephone-based events (21% - LOW)n•

11 – 20% • Company-authored or affiliated blog (17% - LOW) vertising on TV (14% - LOW)• Ad






Arch

it L

ead

Gen

erec

ture

, Eng

ine

uctio

n:%

ent U

sage

atio

n Ta

ct V

s. M

ean

Ef R

atin

gs

1 2

1.0

1.5

2.0 0%

5010

0%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

artic

ipan

ts


eri

ic /

ng &

Con

str

Stra

tegy

Cur

r o

ffe

ctiv

enes

s

45

67

8

9

1011

12 4 % ong

P

13 29

14

15

16

1718

20213

22

2 2627

2825

30

31

32

33

1923

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mor

e Po

puLe

ss E

fla

fect

ivr e

Mor

eor

e Pop

ular

Effe

ctiv

eM

Less

Pre

op E

ful

arfe

ctiv

Mo

e

Less

P Less

op

ula

fect

ivr

Efe

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive

w U

sage

Hig

h U

sage

(75%

)(

Very

Ef

fect

ive

25%

)

19 T AC

TACTI

CIC

S AS

Ab

bov

ove

50%

Usa

giv

ee ne

ss14

Te

3.0

Effe

ct

Lo





Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 3 Individual emails to prospects 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 8 Search Engine Optimization

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 11 Company-authored content in other online publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 26 Printed newsletter(s)

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

14 Running our own live online seminars 22 Mass emails to prospects 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV

Continued on ext page n








bsite (13% of responses) onsor / attend trade shows / events (10% of responses)

of )

aff (9% of responses) es)

responses)

additional staff” or “Contract with outside p main report.


ies for spending. Avariety of categorhow companies would uwere as follows:

1. Build new / rebuild / upgrade we2. Host / sp3. Create new / upgrade marketing materials / resources (10%

responses4. Hire additional st5. Contract with outside provider (8% of respons6. Sales training / coaching (8% of

For more detail on “Hire

rovider”, see “The $100,000 Question” section in the

F e uta s aoffers

usedutur se of Participants who ctic nd

had not particular lead generation tactics, strategies, re asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, with

e seriously considering using it in the next

2 years.

ed the “serious consideration” of 75%) of the non-users

and offers wethese options: • We have not used it, but we’r

2 years. • We have not used it, and we won’t use it in the next

Each of the following tactics and offers earnat least three-quarters ( among this industry’s

regarding using them in the next two years:

on Tactics & Strategies

respondents,

Lead Generati


(Per Tactic)

'Warm' phone calls 100 Becoming members of professional organizations 100 Individual emails to prospects 86 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 86 Connecting with press contacts 84 Individual letters or postcards 81 Writing and distributing press releases 79




Financial, Insurance, Real Estate Services

Highlights of this industry s, including:


This section includes an overview of selected study results from Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Services & Consulting companie•



For industry comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of this Industry Analysis section: • Ability to generate leads • generation c Lead hallenges • Average quality of leads • n Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided respo Annual revenue growth in past 2 years

ses • For a full report of results given only by this industry’s participantscontact RainToday.com at

, please [email protected] or call 508-405-0438.

Sales & marketbudget as % of

ing

annual revenue

ing

19% allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to marketing / sales.

This measure includes full-time salaries and outsourced sales and marketactivities. Among this industry: • 24% allocate less than 2.5% of revenue to marketing / sales. •• 25% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 19% allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sa• 3% allocate from 15% to less than 20% of revenue to m

les. arketing / sales.

10%• allocate 20% or more of revenue to marketing / sales.


A•

mong this industry 42%

: Most efforts directed toward lead gener

prospects) ation (targeti w

• ward lead generation and half rd t and past clients, and am network

• ward generating referrals among current and ork


ng ne

33% Efforts directed half to towagenerating referrals among curren ong

25% Most efforts directed topast clients, and among netw



Financial, Insurance, Real Estate Services, Continued

Target markeknowledge

t This industry differed significantly from other industries regarding target market knowledge being strong or weak in the following ways:

Aspect of Market Knowledge This Industry’s Measure General profile of our target market 87% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong”

ps) (significantly > 4 other industry grou

Highlights of Top Tactics (Unaided)

egies to generate quality leads, the categories s in other industries included:

ory % Of Industry Participants Who The Tactic

When respondents in this industry volunteered what they felt were the top lead generation tactics and stratthat stood out from response

“Top Tactic” CategMentioned Volunteered

Advertising (offline) 14% gnificantly > 3 other industry groups) (si

For a detailed industry comparison, see table “Top ways to generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

Highlights oTop 3 Tactics (Unaided)

f uality leads, here were the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to enerate qg

by this industry*: 1. Referrals (59%) 2. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (32%) 3. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (24%) 4. Email marketing / eNewsletters (22%) 5. Advertising (offline) (14%)

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top way” fell into that

egory. For a detailed industry comparison, see table “Top ways generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

particular catto

Evaluation otactics /

f

strategies (Aided)

n terms

ed a comprehensive list of tactics and strategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different viewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and above.


The following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them iof effectiveness in generating leads. As a reminder, respondents evaluat

strategies mentioned




CURRENT USAG

E OF TACTICS BY INDUSTRY

Financial, Insurance, Real Estate 63% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 48 -51) 91 – 100% • 'W

• Becoming members of professional organizatiarm' phone calls

ons 81 – 90% • Ind dual emails to prospects

Ind Sp• Wr• 'Co• Mass letters or postcards (82% - HIGH)

iviivi•

•dual letters or postcards

eaking at conferences/trade shows iting and distributing press releases ld' phone calls

71 – 80% • Connectin

• Mass emails to p - HIGH)g with press contacts

rospects (76% • Sear on (73% - HIGH)ch Engine Optimizati • Emailing online newsletter(s)

61 – 70% • Professionally designed direct mail packages (70% - HIGH) • Co• Ex• Running our own in-person events • Co pany-authored content in our own online publications Ad Co

mpany-authored content in others' print publications hibiting at conferences/trade shows

m••

vertising in print media mpany-authored content in our own print publications (67% - HIGH) arch Engine Adverti• Se sing (65% - HIGH)

• Printed newsletter(s) 51 – 60% anizations in our field

7% - HIGH)

• Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known org• Company-authored content in other online publications

lications (5• Advertising in ad-supported websites and online pub H)• Running our own telephone-based events (56% - HIG

• Spea• Em• Joi

king in others' live online seminars ails via a 3rd party referrer ning online communities related to our field

41 – 50% • Company-authored or affiliated blog (47% - HIGH) rticipating in blog-related online conversation • Pa

• Running our own live online seminars 31 – 40% • Advertising on the radio (40% - HIGH)

vertising on TV (38% - HIGH)• Ad






Fina

ncia

l, In

sura

nce

& R

eal E

st/ S

ta

ices

:s

1

16

17

2022

28

32

3

2325

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 0%

50%

100%

% C

uren

t Usa

ge A

mon

g Pa

rtic

ipan

ts


te S

erv

Vs.

Me

% C

urre

nt U

sage

of L

ead

Gen 33 r

erat

ion

T 15 30

actic

24

rate

31

gy 1011

an E

ffec 8

tiv

5enes

s R

atin

g

2

46

79 12 21

19

13

27

14

1826

293.

0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mor

e Po

pLe

ss E

fiv

eu

fect

lar

Mor

e Po

pula

rre

Effe

ctiv

Mo

eLe

ss P

re

op Effe

ular

cti

Mo

ve

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive Lo

w U

sage

Hig

h U

sage

(75%

)5%

)

Very

Ef

fect

ive

(2

28

TATA C

TIC

T CS IC

S A

Abb

oveov 3

.e 50

%0

E U

sage

tiv17

ffe

cen

ess





Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 3 Individual emails to prospects 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 8 Search Engine Optimization 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 11 Company-authored content in other online publications 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 24 Joining online communities related to our field 31 Running our own telephone-based events

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 26 Printed newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV









ponses) t with outside provider (10% of responses)

te (8% of responses)

ponses)

ditional staff” or “Contract with outside estion” section in the main report.



1. Hire additional staff (12% of res2. Contrac3. Build new / rebuild / upgrade websi4. Webinars (8% of responses) 5. TV / Radio / Print ads (8% of res

For more detail on “Hire adprovider”, see “The $100,000 Qu

F e uta s aoffers

usedutur se of Participants who ctic nd

had not particular lead generation tactics, strategies, with

we’re seriously considering using it in the next

d we won’t use it in the next 2 years.

lowing tactics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of of the non-users

and offers were asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, hese options: t• We have not used it, but

2 years. • We have not used it, an Each of the fol

-quarters (75%)at least three among this industry’s em in the next two years: respondents, regarding using th

Lead Generation Tactics & Strategies


(Per Tactic)

'Warm' phone calls 100 Individual emails to prospects 100 Search Engine Optimization 100 Connecting with press contacts 82 Becoming members of professional organizations 75 Writing and distributing press releases 75 Running our own live online seminars 75





Future use of tactics and offers (continued)

Lead Generation Offers

y’s Non-Users % Industr“Seriously Considering”

(Per Offer)

Article authored by expert/s in our company 91 Introductory/Consultative sales call 83 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 79 In-Person seminar 77



Human Resources & Organizational Development Consulting

Highlights of this industry

his section includes an overview of selected study results from Human Resources & Organizational Development Cons : • How they differed significantly from other ind

otherwise noted, significan ersus nd underlined numbers

Tulting companies, includingustries (at the 95%

confidence level). Unless t differences vother industries are noted by bold a .

• ew of their lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness

easures, see the Overview of

Ability to generate leads Lead generation challenges • Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only

An overviratings.

Fth

or industry compariis Industry Analysis section:

sons of the following m

••

by this industry’s participants, please contact RainToday.com at [email protected] or call 508-405-0438.


This measure includes full-time salaries and outsourced sales and marketing activities. Among this industry: • 17% allocate less than 2.5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 26% allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 26% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 7% allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 7% allocate from 15% to less than 20% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 17% allocate 20% or more of revenue to marketing / sales.




generating referrals among current and past clients, and among network • 28% Most efforts directed toward generating referrals among current and

past clients, and among network




Human Resources & Organizational Development Consulting, Continued

Highlights of Top 3 Tactics (Unaided)

tegories

ld calling / telephone prospecting (33%) 3. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (29%)

ords, website traffic, SEO) (25%)

try, for this question. Because N < 30, results nt but can indicate general trends.

” fell into that parison, see table “Top ways

Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to generate quality leads, here were the 5 most commonly mentioned caby this industry*:

1. Referrals (71%) 2. Co

4. Email marketing / eNewsletters (29%) 5. Online marketing (AdW

Note: N = 24 among this indusare not statistically significa * Percentages indicate portion of responde

articular category. For a detailed industry comnts whose “top way

pto generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

Evaluation of he following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses

ents evaluated a comprehensive list of tactics and erent

d

age

Ttactics / strategies (Aided)

various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in terms of effectiveness in generating leads. As a reminder, respondstrategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a diffviewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and strategies mentioneabove.

Continued on next p



Human Resources & Organizational Development Consulting, Continued CURRENT USAGE ACTICS BY INDUSTRY OF T

Human Resources and OD Consulting 47% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 31-35) 91 – 100% • Becom onal organizations ing members of professi

• 'Warm' phone calls 81 – 90% • Individual emails to prospects

• 'Cold' phone calls 71 – 80%

• Spea• Co

• Individual letters or postcards • Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows

king at conferences/trade shows mpany-authored content in others' print publications

61 – 70% • Wr• Professionally designed direct mail packages • Ma• Em

iting and distributing press releases

ss emails to prospects ails via a 3rd party referrer (63% - HIGH)

nnecting with press contacts • Co• Search Engine Optimization

51 – 60% • Em iling online newsletter(s) Co• Joi• Ma

a• mpany-authored content in our own online publications

ning online communities related to our field ss letters or postcards (56% - LOW)

newsletter(s) • Pri• Ru

ntednning our own in-person events (55% - LOW) mpany-authored content in other online publications mpany-authored content in our own print publications vertising in print media

• Co• Co• Ad

41 – 50% • Ad in ad-supported websites and online publications • Search Engine Advertising

vertising

31 – 40% • Speaking in others' live online seminars • Company-authored or affiliated blog • Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field • Running our own live online seminars • Participating in blog-related online conversation

21 – 30% • Running our own telephone-based events 11 – 20% • Advertising on the radio

• Advertising on TV (13% - LOW)






Hum

anag

e R

esou

rces

& O

rgan

ion

al D

evel

opm

ent C

onsu

lting

1

1617

2021

2631

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 0%

50%

100%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

ong

Part

icip

ants


zati

ctic

/ :

enes

s %

Cur

r 32ent U

s o

f Le 14 30

ad 10

Ge 13 15ne

ratio

n T

29

a

St

6 112

rate

gy

59 24

25

Vs

8

. 1822 27

23Mea

n Ef

fec 4 7tiv

19

Ra

itngs

21

28

33

3

Mor

e Po

pLe

ss E

ffect

ivul

are

M Mor

e Po

pula

rfe

ctiv

eor

e Ef

Less

Pop

ular iv

eM

ore

Effe

ct

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive Lo

w U

sage

Hig

h U

sage

(75%

)(2

5%)

Very

Ef

fect

ive

23 T

TA

AC

TIC

T CSIC

S A

Ab

bove

0 E 50% ffe

U ctivsa

ge en14

ove

3.es

s





Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 8 Search Engine Optimization 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

11 Company-authored content in other online publications 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 33 Advertising on TV

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 3 Individual emails to prospects 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications

16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 26 Printed newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio









ses) bsite (13% of responses)

onses)

ses)

additional staff” or “Contract with outside 0,000 Question” section in the main report.


spending. Avariety of categories for uld uhow companies wo

were as follows:

1. Hire additional staff (16% of respon2. Build new / rebuild / upgrade we3. Direct mail campaign (11% of resp4. PR (8% of responses) 5. Host / sponsor / attend trade shows / events (8% of respon

For more detail on “Hire provider”, see “The $10

Fu re uta s aoffers

ot usedtu se of Participants who ctic nd

had n particular lead generation tactics, strategies, anned usage in the future, with

t we’re seriously considering using it in the next


llowing tactics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of non-users

and offers were asked to indicate their plthese options: • We have not used it, bu

2 years. ot used it, an• We have n

Each of the foat least three-quarters (75%) of the among this industry’s

in the next two years: respondents, regarding using them



(Per Tactic)

Connecting with press contacts 100 Becoming members of professional organizations 100 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 88 Emailing online newsletter(s) 86 Company-authored content in our own online publications 86 Search Engine Optimization 85 Writing and distributing press releases 82 Company-authored content in others' print publications 75 Speaking in others' live online seminars 75





Future use of tactics and offers (continued)


y’s Non-Users % Industr“Seriously Considering”

(Per Offer)

Article authored by expert/s in our company 88 In-Person seminar 77



Information Technology Consulting & Services

Highlights of his section includes an overview of selected study results from Information

echnology Consulting & Services companies, including: • How they differed significantly from other ind

confidence level). Unless otherwise noted, signby bold and underlined nu

Tthis industry T

ustries (at the 95% ificant differences versus

other industries are noted mbers. • usage and effectiveness

or industry comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of is Industry Analysis section:

• Ability to generate leads • Lead generation challenges • Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only

An overview of their lead generation tacticalratings.

Fth





This industry differs from others significantly regarding who’s expected to generate leads for the company’s services for:

Lead Generators This Industry’s Measure Professional marketing staff 48%

(significantly > 6 other industry groups) Professional selling staff 57%

(significantly > 8 other industry groups) VP-Level selling staff 31%

(significantly > 6 other industry groups) VP-Level marketing staff 24%

(significantly > 4 other industry groups)




Information Technology Consulting & Services, Continued



network nd

ts, and among network 4% don’t know


generating referrals among current and past clients, and among• 24% Most efforts directed toward generating referrals among current a

past clien•


ts volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to re the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

2. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (31%)

Of all categories respondengenerate quality leads, here weby this industry*:

1. Referrals (54%)

3. Online marketing (AdWords, website traffic, SEO) (30%) 4. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (25%) 5. Networking (18%)

ategory. For a detailed industry comparison, see table “Top ways generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top way” fell into that particular cto

Evaluation otactics / strategies (Aided)

s

iewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and strategies mentioned

page

f The following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in termof effectiveness in generating leads. As a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list ostrategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different

f tactics and

vabove.

Continued on next




CURRENT

USAGE USTRY OF TACTICS BY IND

IT Services / Consulting 32% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 82-99) 91 – 100% • 'Warm' phone calls

• Individual emails to prospects (92% - HIGH) 81 – 90% izations • B c ming members of professional organ e o71 – 80% rade shows (79% - HIGH)• Exhibiting at conferences/t

• Writing and distributing press releases • 'Co phone calls Co Sp• Se zation (71% - HIGH)

ld'••

nnecting with press contacts eaking at conferences/trade shows arch Engine Optimi

61 – 70% • Mass emails to prospects • Advertising in print media • Joining online communities related to our field • Individual letters or postcards (61% - LOW) • Running our own in-person events (61% - LOW)

51 – 60% • Ad ertising in ad-supported websites and online publications (59% - HIGH)• Emailing online newsletter(s)

v • Co• Ma

mpany-authored content in other online publications ss letters or postcards (57% - LOW)

mpany-authored content in others' print publications • Co• Emails via a 3rd party referrer • Sp oring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field Co Sp• Ru

ons••

mpany-authored content in our own online publications eaking in others' live online seminars nning our own live online seminars (53% - HIGH)

essionally designed direct mail packa• Pr ges (52% - LOW)of • Search Engine Advertising

41 – 50% • Pa• Ru

rticipating in blog-related online conversation nning our own telephone-based events

31 – 40% • Co• Co thored or affiliated blog • Printed newsletter(s) (38% - LOW)

mpany-authored content in our own print publications mpany-au

• Advertising on the radio

21 – 30% • Advertising on TV






IT S

ervi

ces

&ct

i C

onsu

ltis 2

4

17

22

24

28

33

25

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5 0%

50%

100%

urre

nt U

mon

g Pa

rtic

ipan

ts


ng:

y Vs

. M%

Cur

rent

Uasge

of L

a

% C

ed

Gen 26 32

erat

ion

T 31

sage

Aac

/

29

3023

St

91013 14

rate 711 2027

gea

n Ef 8fe

ctiv

5

1618enes

s R

atin

g

1 3

6

1215

21

19

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mor

e Po

pla

rLe

ss E

fiv

eu

fect

Mor

e Po

pula

rre

Effe

ctiv

Mo

eLe

ss

re Po

pEf

ful

aec

tir ve

Mo

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

e Low

Usa

geH

igh

Usa

ge

fect

iv(7

5%)

(25%

)

Very

Ef

fect

ive

26 ATA C

TC

TIC

IC S AbS

Ab ovov

e 50

% U

sage en

ess

15 T

e 3.

0 Ef

fect

iv




No. Lead Generation Tactic / Strategy Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 3 Individual emails to prospects 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 8 Search Engine Optimization 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 11 Company-authored content in other online publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 14 Running our own live online seminars 29 Search Engine Advertising

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 26 Printed newsletter(s) 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV

Continued on ext page n





You’ve just learned your company has $100,000 of additional funding for its sales and marketing efforts this year. How will you use it?

of 958 responses in a mong this industry, the top categories of

onal $100,000 for sales and marketing

l staff (14% of responses) ses)

ws / events (7% of responses)

e main report.

Participants who answered this question offered a totalvariety of categories for spending. A

ould use an additihow companies wwere as follows:

1. Hire additiona2. Online marketing (10% of respon

onsor / attend trade sho3. Host / sp For more detail on “Hire additional staff” or “Contract with outsidprovider”, see “The $100,000 Question” section in the

F e utactics and offers

o had not usedutur se of Participants wh particular lead generation tactics, strategies, a n the future, with

• g using it in the next rs.


tics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of of the non-users

nd offers were asked to indicate their planned usage ithese options: We have not used it, but we’re seriously considerin2 yea

• We have not used it, an Each of the following tacat least three-quarters (75%) among this industry’s

garding using them in the next two years:

Tactics & Strategies

respondents, re

L ad Generatione


(Per Tactic)

'Warm' phone calls 100 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 95 Joining online communities related to our field 94 Becoming members of professional organizations 90 Emailing online newsletter(s) 90 Writing and distributing press releases 89 Individual emails to prospects 88 Connecting with press contacts 86 Search Engine Optimization 83 Individual letters or postcards 80 Company-authored content in our own online publications 79 Company-authored or affiliated blog 75





Future use of tactics an

% Industry’s Non-Users “Seriously Considering”d

offers (continued)


(Per Offer)

Case study on issues in our clients' fields 96 Article authored by expert/s in our company 92 White paper 90 Introductory/Consultative sales call 87 On-Demand online seminar (i.e. webcast, webinar) 86 Online seminar 79



Law Firms / Legal Services


This section includes an overview of selected studLegal Services companies, including: • ficantly from other industries (

oted, significant differences versus nderlined numbe

y results from Law Firms /

How they differed signi at the 95% confidence level). Unless otherwise nother industries are noted by bold and u rs.

• of their lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness

For industry easures, see the Overview of

alysis section:

Lead generation challenges Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only

An overviewratings.

comparisons of the following mth•

is Industry An Ability to generate leads ••






Lead Generators This Industry’s Measure Professionals (those likely to do the work once it’s confirmed)





Law Firms / Legal Services, Continued


d generation (targeting new

network

Among this industry: • 10% Most efforts directed toward lea



past clienand


Target markknowledge

icantly from other industries regarding target or weak in the following ways:

’s Measure

et This industry differed signifmarket knowledge being strong

Aspect of Market Knowledge This IndustryGeneral profile of target market 17% “Extremely Strong”

(significantly < 3 other industry groups) Names of organizations we should target

5% “Extremely Strong” (significantly < 7 other industry groups)

Titles of decision makers within the target organizations

10% “Extremely Strong” (significantly < 5 other industry groups)


Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to here were the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

7%) 6. Partnering / professional organizations (17%)

general trends.

* Percent of responden that p ndustry comparison able “Top ways

in the Overv

generate quality leads,by this industry*:

1. Referrals (83%, with 52% specified as “client/partner referrals”) 2. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (26%) 3. Networking (26%) 4. Thought leadership (writing / speaking) (17%) 5. Personal relationships / direct face-to-face contact (1

Note: N = 23 among this industry, for this question. Because N < 30, resultsare not statistically significant but can indicate

ages indicate portion ts whose “top way” fell intoarticular category. For a detailed i generate quality leads”

, see tto iew of this Industry Analysis section.





Evaluatiotactics / strategies (Aided)

n of nd charts indicate how this industry currently uses

ss in generating leads.

lunteered tactics and strategies mentioned

CURRENT USAGE ACTICS BY INDUSTRY

The following tables avarious lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in terms of effectivene As a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list of tactics and strategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different viewpoint than the “unaided” or voabove.

OF T

Law Firms / Legal Services 42% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 49-52) 91 – 100% • Becoming members of professional organizations 81 – 90% • Speak % - HIGing at conferences/trade shows (90 H)

• 'War• Company-authored content in others' print

m' phone calls publications (86% - HIGH)

• Con• Running our own in-person events (84% - H

necting with press contacts IGH)

• Writ• Com ent in our own pri

ing and distributing press releases pany-authored cont nt publications (82% - HIGH)

• Individual emails to prospects • Ind dual letters or postcards ivi

71 – 80% • Advertising in print media (73% - HIGH) 61 – 70% • Ma

• Ex s/trade shows • Sp oring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field

ther online publications (64% - HIGH)

ss letters or postcards hibiting at conferenceons

• Search Engine Optimization • Company-authored content in our own online publications • Company-authored content in o

51 – 60% • 'Cold' phone calls (60% - LOW) • Emailing online newsletter(s) • Professionally designed direct mail packages • Speaking in others' live online seminars (60% - HIGH) • Joi• Ma• Pri

ning online communities related to our field ss emails to prospects

newsletter(s) nted41 – 50% • Pa

• Se• Ad• Em• Company-authored or affiliated blog • Running our own telephone-based events

rticipating in blog-related online conversation arch Engine Advertising vertising in ad-supported websites and online publications ails via a 3rd party referrer

31 – 40% • Running our own live online seminars • Advertising on the radio







Hig

h U

sage

Law

Firm

s &

Leg

al S

erv

%t U

sage

of L

erat

ion

Tact

ic /

Stra

teg

ean

Efen

ess

Rat

ings

10

24

2728

19

1.0

1.5 0%

50%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

onrt

icip

ants

M

14

56

7

12 17183

2

100%

ices

:y

Cur

ren

ead

Gen

Vs.

Mfe

ctiv

89

11

13 162325

14

15

20

21

2226

g Pa

2930

31

32

33

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0.545.0

ean Effectiveness RatingsM

ola

rM

ore

Effe

ctiv

re P

opu

e

Mor

e Po

pLe

ss E

ful

arfe

ctiv

e

Less

o

Pore

Efpu fe

ctlar ive

M Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Not

Eff

Not

AEf

fect

ive Lo

w U

sage

Extr

Eff

Som

Effem ec

tiv ew ectivel

y e h e

Ver

y ec

tive

t All at

Very

ectiv

eEf

f

24 T

AC

TC

TIC

S AICS

Ab

bov

ov 3e

50%

Eff

U ectivsa

ge14

TA

e.0

en

ess

(75%

)(2

5%)





Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 3 Individual emails to prospects 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 31 Running our own telephone-based events

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 8 Search Engine Optimization

11 Company-authored content in other online publications 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 26 Printed newsletter(s)

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV









f responses) te (16% of responses)

6% of responses)

F with outside ,000 Question” section in the main report.



1. Sales training / coaching (29% o2. Build new / rebuild / upgrade websi3. TV / radio / print ads (10% of responses) 4. Publish book / articles / research (

or more detail on “Hire additional staff” or “Contract

provider”, see “The $100

Future use ota s aoffers

f nd

Pctic

articipants who had not used particular lead generation tactics, strategies, asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, with



lowing tactics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of of the non-users

and offers were these options: • We h ave not used it, but

2 years. • We have not used it, an Each of the fol

-quarters (75%)at least three among this industry’s em in the next two years: respondents, regarding using th



(Per Tactic)

Becoming members of professional organizations 100 Running our own in-person events 88 Running our own live online seminars 87 Company-authored content in our own online

82 publicationsEmailing online newsletter(s) 81 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 80 Writing and distributing press releases 78 Search Engine Optimization 76 Connecting with press contacts 75







offers (continued)


(Per Offer)

Online seminar 79 On-Demand online seminar (i.e. webcast, webinar) 76



Management Consulting


This section includes an overview of selected studManagement Consulting companies, including: • ficantly from other industries (

el). Unless otherwise noted, significant differences versus underlined numbers

y results from

How they differed signi at the 95% confidence levother industries are noted by bold and .

iew of their lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness ratings.

For industry comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of this Industry Analysis section: • Ability to generate leads • Lead generation challenges • Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only

• An overv






Lead Generators This Industry’s Measure Leaders of the firm (CEO, Managing Director, Principal, etc.)





Management Consulting, Continued


ion (targeting new

network

Among this industry: • 22% Most efforts directed toward lead generat



past clienand



ts volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to re the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

Of all categories respondengenerate quality leads, here weby this industry*:

1. Referrals (65%, with 34% specified as “client/partner referrals”) 2. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (41%) 3. Networking (25%) 4. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (23%) 5. Thought leadership (writing / speaking) (18%)

ategory. For a detailed industry comparison, see table “Top ways generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top way” fell into that particular cto


s

iewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and strategies mentioned


f The following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in termof effectiveness in generating leads. As a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list ostrategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different

f tactics and

vabove.




CURRENT USAGE USTRY OF TACTICS BY IND

Management Consulting 44% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 150-158) 91 – 100% • 'Warm' phone calls (97% - HIGH)

• Becoming members of professional organizations 81 – 90%

shows

• Individual emails to prospects • 'Cold' phone calls • Speaking at conferences/trade

71 – 80% • Individual letters or postcards • Writing and distributing press releases

61 – 70% •• Ma Ru

ss emails to prospects nning our own in-person events (68% - HIGH) ss letters or postcard• Ma s

• Co ecting with press contacts

ws

- HIGH)

nn• Joining online communities related to our field • Emailing online newsletter(s) • Exhibiting at conferences/trade sho• Company-authored content in others' print publications • Company-authored content in other online publications (61%

51 – 60% • Professionally designed direct mail packages • Co• Ad• Se

mpany-authored content in our own online publications vertising in print media arch Engine Optimization (55% - LOW)

• Emails via a 3rd party referrer • Pri newsletter(s) Co Sp

nted••

mpany-authored content in our own print publications onsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field

41 – 50% • Sp• Se• Pa• Ad• Ru

eaking in others' live online seminars ch Engine Advertising ar

rticipating in blog-related online conversation vertising in ad-supported websites and online publications nning our own telephone-based events

31 – 40% • Ru• Ad on the radio • Company-authored or affiliated blog

nning our own live online seminars vertising






Continued on next pa


Man

atio

ge n T

28

293031

men

t C ic /

10 %

on Str 8

12 2627

sul

atetin

ggy

:%

Cur

rent

Usa

ge o

f Lea 14

15

d G

ener

aac

t 13

Vs.

711

24 1925 Me

5

an

6

Eff

18

22

ectiv

enes

s R

4

atin

gs

12

9

16

17

20

21

3233

23

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

%50

100%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

ong

Part

icip

ants


3

1.0 0

Mor

e Po

pula

rLe

ss E

ffect

ive

Mo

More

Pre

Eop

ulffe

car tiv

eLe

ss ore P E

fopul

fect

ar ive

M Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive Lo

Usa

geH

igh

Usa

ge

(75%

)(2

5%

Very

Ef

fect

ive

)

25 T A

AC

TC

TIIC

S ACS

Ab

bov

ov e 3.

0 Ef

e 50

% U

fect

sa ivge en

13 T

ess

w






10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 14 Running our own live online seminars

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 11 Company-authored content in other online publications 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining onl communities related to our field ine 25 Emailing o e newsletter(s) nlin26 Printed newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 15 Company-a red or affiliated blog utho28 Advertising n ad-supported websites and online publications i29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising n TV o









bsite (14% of responses) onsor / attend trade shows / events (8% of responses)

ditional staff” or “Contract with outside p main report.

rned your company has $100,000 of additional fundisales and marketing efforts this year. How will you use it? Participants who answered this quesvariety of categories for spending. Ahow companies would uwere as follows:

1. Build new / rebuild / upgrade we2. Host / sp3. Seminars (8% of responses) 4. Hire additional staff (7% of responses)

For more detail on “Hire ad

rovider”, see “The $100,000 Question” section in the

F e uta s aoffers

utur se of Participants who had not used particular lead generation tactics, strategies, rs were asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, with


used it, and we won’t use it in the next 2 years.

d offers earned the “serious consideration” of the non-users

ctic nd and offethese options: • We have not used it, bu

2 years. • We have not Each of the following tactics anat least three-quarters (75%) of among this industry’s

in the next two years: respondents, regarding using them



(Per Tactic)

'Warm' phone calls 100 Connecting with press contacts 92 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 86 Company-authored content in our own online

84 publicationsWriting and distributing press releases 84 Search Engine Optimization 84 Emailing online newsletter(s) 81 Running our own live online seminars 78 Speaking in others' live online seminars 78 Company-authored content in other online publications 78 Running our own in-person events 77







offers (continued)


(Per Offer)

Article authored by expert/s in our company 100 White paper 89 Case study on issues in our clients' fields 85 On-Demand online seminar (i.e. webcast, webinar) 75



Marketing, Public Relations, & Advertising


This section includes an overview of selected stud , PR, and Advertising companies, including: • ficantly from other industries (

d, significant differences versus ries are noted by bold and underlined numbe

y results from Marketing

How they differed signi at the 95% confidence level). Unless otherwise noteother indust rs.

• actical usage and effectiveness

comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of is Industry Analysis section:

• Ability to generate leads • Lead generation challenges • Average quality of leads • Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given only

An overview of their lead generation tratings.

For industryth








past clients, and among network • 1% don’t know




Marketing, Public Relations, & Advertising, Continued

Target markeknowledge

t he following ways:

This industry differed significantly from other industries regarding target market knowledge being strong or weak in t

Aspect of Market Knowledge This Industry’s Measure General profile of target market 87% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong”

ps) (significantly > 4 other industry grouTitles of dtarget organi

ecision makers within the zations

68% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong” (significantly > 4 other industry groups)

Names of organizations we should target

60% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong” ) (significantly > 3 other industry groups


olunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to ntioned categories

Of all categories respondents vgenerate quality leads, here were the 5 most commonly meby this industry*:

1. Referrals (51%, with 32% specified as “client/partner referrals”) 2. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (30%) 3. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (28%) 4. Online marketing (AdWords, website traffic, SEO) (23%) 5. Email marketing / (e)newsletters (16%)

* Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top way” fell into that

detailed industry comparison, see table “Top ways sis section.

particular category. For a to generate quality leads” in the Overview of this Industry Analy


As a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list of tactics and rategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different

aided” or volunteered tactics and strategies mentioned

next page

f The following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in termsof effectiveness in generating leads.

stviewpoint than the “unabove.

Continued on




CURRENT USAGE OF TACTICS BY INDUSTRY

Marketing, PR, Advertising 57% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 143-159) 91 – 100% • ‘Warm' phone calls 81 – 90% • Becom rganizat

• Indi• 'Col

ing members of professional o ions vidual emails to prospects d' phone calls

71 – 80% • Indi• Spea conferences/trade shows • Mass letters or postcards • Writing and distributing press releases

vidual letters or postcards king at

61 – 70% • Search Engine Optimization (67% - HIGH) ss emails to prospects ning online communities related to our field

essionally designed

•• Ma Joi• Pro direct mail packages • Ex

fhibiting at conferences/trade shows

• Emailing online newsletter(s) 51 – 60%

Ad

• Connecting with press contacts • Company-authored content in others' print publications

s • Company-authored content in our own online publication• vertising in print media (55% - LOW) • Em• Co• Se• Pa• Printed newsletter(s)

ails via a 3rd party referrer mpany-authored content in other online publications arch Engine Advertising rticipating in blog-related online conversation

41 – 50% • Running our own in-person events (50% - LOW) Sp• Ad• Co publications • Speaking in others' live online seminars

• onsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field vertising in ad-supported websites and online publications mpany-authored content in our own print

31 – 40% • Co• Ru• Ru• Ad on the radio

mpany-authored or affiliated blog nning our own telephone-based events nning our own live online seminars vertising







Mar

ketin

g, A

dver

tisin

gct

ic &

Pub

lic R

elat

s: C

urre

nt U

sage

of L

ead

Gen

erat

ion

Ta/ S

trat

egy

Vs E

ffect

ess

1

2

1626

2719

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 0%

50%

100%

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

ong

Part

icip

ants


ion

. Mea

n%

iven

Rat

ings

4

58

9 710

116 291213

1415

1718 20

2122243

28

31

3233

3

225

30

Mor

e Po

Less

Eff

epu

lar

ectiv

Mor

Mor

e Po

pula

e Ef

fect

ir veLe

sM

ors P e Eop ffe

cula tir ve

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive

w U

sage

Hig

h U

sage

(75%

))

Very

Ef

fect

ive

(25%

24

TA

TA CT

CT

ICSIC A

bS A ov

bove

50%

ffe

Us

ctivag en

ees

22e

3.0

Es

Lo






11 Company-authored content in other online publications 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 31 Running our own telephone-based events

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 24 Joining online communities related to our field 26 Printed newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV









bsite (12% of responses) itional staff (11% of responses)

/ events (8% of responses) ponses)

w / upgrade marketing materials / resources (6% of

n “Hire additional staff” or “Contract with outside The $100,000 Question” section in the main report.



1. Build new / rebuild / upgrade we2. Hire add3. Host / sponsor / attend trade shows 4. Direct mail campaign (7% of res5. Create ne

responses) For more detail oprovider”, see “

F e uta s aoffers

utur se of Participants who had not usedctic nd

particular lead generation tactics, strategies, ned usage in the future, with


2 years.

tics and offers earned the “serious consideration” of of the non-users

and offers were asked to indicate their planthese options: • u We have not used it, b

2 years. • We have not used it, and we won’t use it in the next Each of the following tac

-quarters (75%)at least three among this industry’s garding using them in the next two years: respondents, re






offers (continued)


(Per Tactic)

Connecting with press contacts 84 Search Engine Optimization 84 'Warm' phone calls 83 Individual emails to prospects 83 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 81 Emailing online newsletter(s) 81 Company-authored content in other online

76 publications Becoming members of professional organizations 76 Individual letters or postcards 76 Company-authored content in our own online publications 75 Company-authored or affiliated blog 75



(Per Offer)

Case study on issues in our clients' fields 83 Article authored by expert/s in our company 81 White paper 76



Training, Executive Education, & Coaching Services


This section includes an overview of selected studExecutive Education, & Coaching Services compa• other industries

erwise noted, significant differences versus by bold and underlined numbe

y results from Training, nies, including:

How they differed significantly from (at the 95% confidence level). Unless othother industries are noted rs.

• eir lead generation tactical usage and effectiveness

F owing measures, see the Overview of t•••• ed responses •

ly

An overview of thratings.

or industry comparisons of the follhis Industry Analysis section: Ability to generate leads Lead generation challenges Average quality of leads Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaid Annual revenue growth in past 2 years

For a full report of results given on by this industry’s participants, please ontact RainToday.com at [email protected] or call 508-405-0438.


T and outsourced sales and marketing a

y: • 16% allocate less than 2.5% of revenue to marketing / sales. 18% allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 18% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 18%

his measure includes full-time salariesctivities.

Among this industr

•

allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 16% allocate from 15% to less than 20% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 13% allocate 20% or more of revenue to marketing / sales.





past clients, and among network • 2% don’t know




Training, Executive Education, & Coaching Services, Continued


categories Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to generate quality leads, here were the 5 most commonly mentioned by this industry*:

1. Referrals (56%) 2. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (44%) 3. Online marketing (AdWords, website traffic, SEO) (28%) 4. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (26%)

on of respondents whose “top way” fell into that led industry comparison, see table “Top ways e Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

5. Thought leadership (writing / speaking) (16%) * Percentages indicate portiparticular category. For a detai

thto generate quality leads” in

Evaluation of tactics / strategies (Aided)

s a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list of tactics and

E

The following tables and charts indicate how this industry currently uses various lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in terms of effectiveness in generating leads. Astrategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different viewpoint than the “unaided” or volunteered tactics and strategies mentioned bove. a

CURRENT USAG OF TACTICS BY INDUSTRY

Training, Executive Education, Coaching 42% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 56-57) 91 – 100% • Individual emails to prospects (93% - HIGH)

• Becoming members of professional organizations 81 – 90%

• Ind dual letters or postcards

• 'Warm' phone calls • Speaking at conferences/trade shows

ivi71 – 80% • Ru n events (79% - HIGH)nning our own in-perso

• 'Cold' phone calls • Writing and distributing press releases • Ma emails to p ss rospects (72% - HIGH) • Connecting with press contacts

61 – 70%

publications es/trade shows

• Emailing online newsletter(s) • Joining online communities related to our field • Company-authored content in our own online publications

• Ma letters or postcards ss• Search Engine Optimization • Company-authored content in others' print • Exhibiting at conferenc





CURRENT USAGE OF TACTICS BY INDUSTRY (Continued)

Training, Executive Education, Coaching 42% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation

(N = 56-57) 51 – 60% t mail packages (52% - LOW)• Professionally designed direc

• Emails via a 3rd party referrer 41 – 50% • Advertising in print media (49% - LOW)

• Company-authored content in other online publications • Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications

pany-authored content in our own print publications • Co• Se• Co

march Engine Advertising mpany-authored or affiliated blog (46% - HIGH) onsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field rticipating in blog-related online conversation

• Sp• Pa• Speaking in others' live online seminars

31 – 40% Printed • newsletter(s) (38% - LOW) nning our own telephone-based events • Ru

21 – 30% • Ru• Ad• Ad rtising on TV

nning our own live online seminars vertising on the radio ve






Trai

ning

& E

xecu

tive

Educ

Stra

tegy

atio

n: V

s

% C

urre

nt U

sage

of L

ead

Gen

erat

ion

Tact

10

11

1213

14

15

21

26

2728

2930

31

32

33

23

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 0%

50%

%

% C

urre

nt U

sam

ong

Part

icip

ants

Mean Effectiveness Ratingsic

/ .M 19 4

ean

78Ef 5

20

22fect 1618iv

enes 6

s R

atin

gs 1

2

4

17

9

3

225

100

ge A

Mor

e P

rLe

ss E

fe

opul

afe

ctiv

Mor

e Po

pula

rct

ive

Mor

e Ef

feLe

ss P

opul

arM

ore

Effe

ctiv

e

Less

Pop

ular

Less

Effe

ctiv

e

Extr

emel

y Ef

fect

ive

Som

ewha

t Ef

fect

ive

Not

Ver

y Ef

fect

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive Lo

w U

sage

Hig

h U

sage

(75%

)(2

5%)

Very

Ef

fect

ive

19 T

ACTI

CS

Ab17

TAC

TIC

S Ab

ovov e

3.e 5 0 Ef0%

Us tiv

age

fec

enes

s






18 Writing and distributing press releases Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

11 Company-authored content in other online publications 12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows 20 Mass letters or postcards 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 21 Advertising in print media 26 Printed newsletter(s) 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV









s / events (14% of responses) w / rebuild / upgrade website (10% of responses)

ses) icles / research (8% of responses)

r “Contract with outside 00 Question” section in the main report.



1. Host / sponsor / attend trade show2. Build ne3. Hire additional staff (10% of respon4. Publish book / art5. TV / Radio / Print ads (6% of responses)

For more detail on “Hire additional staff” oprovider”, see “The $100,0

F e uta s aoffers

utur se of Participants who ctic nd

had not used particular lead generation tactics, strategies, with



d offers earned the “serious consideration” of the non-users

and offers were asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, hese options: t• We have not used it, but

2 years. ot used it, an• We have n

Each of the following tactics anat least three-quarters (75%) of among this industry’s

in the next two years:

tion Tactics & Strategies

respondents, regarding using them

Lead Genera

dustry’s Non-Users % In“Seriously Considering”

(Per Tactic)

Speaking at conferences/trade shows 90 Search Engine Optimization 88 Becoming members of professional

ns 80 organizatioCompany-authored content in our own online publications 77 Company-authored content in other online publications 76 Individual emails to prospects 75




Other Consulting / Professional Services



This section includes an overview of selected study results from Other Consulting & Professional Services companies, including: •



For industry comparisons of the following measures, see the Overview of

only

this Industry Analysis section: • Ability to generate leads • Lead generation challenges •• Average quality of leads Top tactics to generate quality leads, unaided responses • Annual revenue growth in past 2 years For a full report of results given by this industry’s participants, please contact RainToday.com at [email protected] or call 508-405-0438.


s.

This measure includes full-time salaries and outsourced sales and marketing activities. Among this industry: • 32% allocate less than 2.5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 16% allocate from 2.5% to less than 5% of revenue to marketing / sales. • 14% allocate from 5% to less than 10% of revenue to marketing / sale • 16% allocate from 10% to less than 15% of revenue to marketing / sales. 11% allocate from 15% to less than 20% of rev• 11% allocate 20% or more of revenue to marke

• enue to marketing / sales. ting / sales.


T icantly regarding who pected to g ces for:

This Industry’s Measure

his industry differs from others signif ’s exenerate leads for the company’s servi

Lead Generators Professional selling staff 53%

ficantly > 6 other stry groups) (signi induVP-Level selling staff 32%

(significantly > 5 other stry groups) indu




Other Consulting / Professional Services, Continued


ng new

network nd

ts, and among network

Among this industry: • 35% Most efforts directed toward lead generation (targeti


generating referrals among current and past clients, and among• 29% Most efforts directed toward generating referrals among current a

past clien


tly from other industries regarding target weak in the following ways:

ledge This Industry’s Measure

This industry differed significanmarket knowledge being strong or

Aspect of Market KnowTitles of decision makers within the target organizations

68% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong” nificantly > 4 other industry groups) (sig

Names of organizations we should 68% “Extremely / Somewhat Strong” (significantly > 3 other industry groups)

32% “Extremely Strong”

target

(significantly > 5 other industry groups)


Of all categories respondents volunteered to be their “top 3 ways” to here were the 5 most commonly mentioned categories

ote: N = 21 among this industry, for this question. Because N < 30, results

Percentages indicate portion of respondents whose “top way” fell into that particular iled industry c ays t in the Overview of this Industry Analysis section.

tinued on next page

generate quality leads,by this industry*:

1. Referrals (57%) 2. Hosting / Attending / Speaking at events (33%) 3. Cold calling / telephone prospecting (29%) 4. Online marketing (AdWords, website traffic, SEO) (29%) 5. Direct mail marketing (14%)

Nare not statistically significant but can indicate general trends. *

category. For a deta omparison, see table “Top wo generate quality leads”

Con




Evaluatiotactics / strategies (Aided)

n of nd charts indicate how this industry currently uses

ss in generating leads.

lunteered tactics and strategies mentioned above.

E

The following tables avarious lead generation tactics and strategies, and how it rates them in terms of effectivene As a reminder, respondents evaluated a comprehensive list of tactics and strategies in this section as provided to them, or “aided” – a different viewpoint than the “unaided” or vo

CURRENT USAG OF TACTICS BY INDUSTRY Other Consulting / Professional Services

44% “Excellent / Good” at Lead Generation (N = 30 -31)

91 – 100% • Becom zations ing members of professional organi81 – 90% • 'War

• 'Col• Indi

m' phone calls d' phone calls vidual letters or postcards

71 – 80% • Indi emails to prospects (77% - LOWvidual ) • Speaking at conferences/trade shows

61 – 70% • Ex biting at conferences/trade shows • Search Engine Optimization • Ad rtising in print media • Mass letters or

hi

vepostcards

51 – 60% •• Wr Pro• Joi to our field • Mass em

iting and distributing press releases fessionally designed direct mail packages ning online communities related

ails to prospects • Emailing online newsletter(s)

41 – 50% • Company-authored content in our own online publications • Company-authored content in others' print publications • Running our own in-person events (47% - LOW) • Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications • Search Engine Advertising • Em• Co

ails via a 3rd party referrer nnecting with press contacts

31 – 40% • Pri newsletter(s) • Co

ntedmpany-authored content in other online publications (40% - LOW) mpany-authored content in our own print publications onsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field

• Co• Sp• Speaking in others' live online seminars • Running our own telephone-based events

21 – 30% • Participating in blog-related online conversation • Running our own live online seminars

11 – 20% • Company-authored or affiliated blog (17% - LOW) • Advertising on the radio (17% - LOW)






Oth

ead

G

31

r Con

sne

raul

titi

ng

on T

a 6

& cticPr

ofe

/ ss

iona

ateg

yl VSe s. rv

ic Meaes

: n E

% C

urr

15 32

ent U

s

14

age

of L

e 13

e 1210

Str 25

ffect

ive

Rat

ings

2

7

18

2021

22

2627

28

519

29

3033

%50

%10

0

% C

urre

nt U

sage

Am

ong

Part

icip

ants

ness

1

16 17

4 3

11

24 23

89

1.0

1.5

2.0.50505.0

0

23.3.4.4.5

%


M Lesor

e Po

pula

rs

Effe

ctiv

e

Mor

e Po

pula

rM

ore

Effe

ctiv

eLe

ss ore

age

Po

Epu ffe

lar

ctiv

eM

Ext

Effe

So E

rem ct

i

me

ffe Not ffe

ct

ely

ve wha

ctiv

e t

Ver

y E

ive

Not

At A

ll Ef

fect

ive Lo

sgh

Us

w U

Hi

age

Ve ffecry

tiv

eE

16 T A

AC

TIC

T CSIC

S A

Abo

vb eove

5 3

.0

0 E

% U

sffe

age

ctiv

e11

Tne

ss

Less op

ulLe

ssEf

fec

(75%

)(2

5%)

ar tive

P





Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE 1 'Warm' phone calls 2 Becoming members of professional organizations 4 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 8 Search Engine Optimization 9 Company-authored content in our own online publications

19 Exhibiting at conferences/trade shows Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & MORE EFFECTIVE

5 Connecting with press contacts 6 Running our own in-person events

10 Sponsoring high-profile events/research with well-known organizations in our field 11 Company-authored content in other online publications 13 Speaking in others’ live online seminars

Quadrant: MORE POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 3 Individual emails to prospects

16 ‘Cold’ phone calls 17 Individual letters or postcards 18 Writing and distributing press releases 20 Mass letters or postcards 21 Advertising in print media 22 Mass emails to prospects 23 Professionally designed direct mail packages 24 Joining online communities related to our field 25 Emailing online newsletter(s)

Quadrant: LESS POPULAR & LESS EFFECTIVE 7 Company-authored content in others' print publications

12 Company-authored content in our own print publications 14 Running our own live online seminars 15 Company-authored or affiliated blog 26 Printed newsletter(s) 27 Emails via a 3rd party referrer 28 Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications 29 Search Engine Advertising 30 Participating in blog-related online conversation 31 Running our own telephone-based events 32 Advertising on the radio 33 Advertising on TV









onal staff (17% of responses) outside provider (9% of responses)

bsite (6% of responses) 6% of responses)

“Hire additional staff” or “Contract with outside

r”, see “The $100,000 Question” section in the main report.


spending. Avariety of categories for would uhow companies

were as follows:

1. Direct mail campaign (17% of responses) 2. Hire additi3. Contract with4. TV / Radio / Print ads (9% of responses) 5. Build new / rebuild / upgrade we6. Online marketing (

For more detail onprovide

F e uta s aoffers

ho had not usedutur se of Participants wctic nd

particular lead generation tactics, strategies, asked to indicate their planned usage in the future, with

seriously considering using it in the next

t 2 years.

rned the “serious consideration” of

and offers werethese options: • We have not used it, but we’re

2 years. • We have not used it, and we won’t use it in the nex Each of the following tactics and offers ea

75%) of the non-usersat least three-quarters ( among this industry’s ing them in the next two years:


respondents, regarding us






offers (continued)


(Per Tactic)

Search Engine Optimization 100 Becoming members of professional organizations 100 Emailing online newsletter(s) 93 Speaking at conferences/trade shows 86 Individual emails to prospects 86 Joining online communities related to our field 85 Company-authored content in other online publications 83 Writing and distributing press releases 83 Connecting with press contacts 82 Speaking in others' live online seminars 80 Company-authored content in others' print publications 75 Individual letters or postcards 75 'Cold' phone calls 75

Note: Of the lead generation offers evaluated by this industry, none passethe threshold o

d f 75% of non-users “seriously considering using” them in the

next two years.



Analysis By Firm Size Overview

Introduction W company (possib 1

million in revenue) and a firm with 250+ practitioners (likely upwards of $ might say, “Not much.” Y es between the little guys and the larger, g s and how they go aboug e some things in common. In this section, we’ll e asures through ens of firm s

ployed by the company

hat do an independent practitioner’s ly not even $

100 million in revenue) have in common? You

es, there are some differenclobally known and established firm t lead eneration. But they also sharxplore the differences in lead generation me the lize, as determined by:

1) Numbers of professionals em a. Independent = 1 professional (20% of partic ts)

sionals (55% of partic ts) fessionals (14% of participants)

of participants)

ost recent fiscal year

ipanb. Small = 2 to 49 profes ipanc. Medium = 50 to 249 prod. Large / Very Large = 250+ (11%

2) Annual revenue in m ss than $1 million (43% of participants) a. Le

b. $1-9.9 million (34% of participants) c. $10-99.9 million (16% of participants) d. $100 million or more (7% of participants)

Ability to generate leads

irst of all, who’s good at lead generation? The following chart appears also in the main report, showing that self-reported “ability to generate leads” skews slightly toward companies with more professionals: Percentage rating their companies “Excellent” or “Good”: • 37% Independent • 52% Small • 65% Medium Interestingly, 49% of the Large / Very Large group rates themselves as “Excellent” or “Good”. The ability curve for this group more closely resembles the perfect bell of total respondents overall. The following chart illustrates the groups’ ratings in details.


F



Overview, Continued

Company's Overall Ability To Generate Leads- By Number Of Professionals In Company -

14

50

32

0

25

50

75

(N = 147)arge / Very Large

)

% R

espo

nden

ts

10

358

37

44

31

42

53

44

11 12

5

Independent Small Medium L(N = 407) (N = 101) (N = 80

Poor Fair Good Excellent

▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

= A statistically significant difference, at a 95% confidence level

Challengeslead generation

to

experience hallenges at a higher rate

When you’re in a larger firm, you might have opportunities and resources far beyond what an independent has available to him or her. However, that privilege also brings complexity. Larger companies tend to c than independents / smaller companies, with few

ndents / small a strategy / tactic that works for us.”

art shows how the mean rate of challenge for all issues irm size.

page

exceptions. The only rated issue more challenging to indepecompanies is to “find The following ch

ted varies by fra

Continued on next



Overview, Continued

Mea

n R

atin

gs O

f Com

pany

Lea

d G

ener

atio

n C

halle

nge

Leve

l- B

y N

umbe

r Of P

rofe

ssio

nals

, Sor

ted

Acco

rdin

g To

"To

tal"

Res

ults

-

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1.0

Inde

pend

ent

Smal

lM

ediu

mLa

rge

/ Ver

y La

rge

Hav

ing

time

to

gene

rate

le

ads

Eno

ugh

peop

le /

right

pe

ople

to

gene

rate

le

ads

Find

ing

stra

tegy

/ ta

ctic

/ of

fer

that

wor

ks

for u

s

Impl

emen

ting

our p

lan

(eve

n w

hen

we

agre

e up

on it

)

Kno

win

g ho

w to

m

easu

re

our

succ

ess

Hav

ing

appr

opria

te

skill

s /

know

ledg

e

Fund

ing

lead

ge

nera

tion

activ

ities

Gai

ning

pa

rtici

patio

n fro

m

prof

essi

onal

s /

prac

titio

ners

Agr

eein

g on

whi

ch

actio

n to

ta

ke

Gai

ning

su

ppor

t fro

m

com

pany

le

ader

s fo

r le

ad g

en

activ

ities

Coo

rdin

atin

g ef

forts

bet

wee

n m

arke

ting

and

selli

ng g

roup

s

Extr

emel

y C

halle

ngin

g

Very

Cha

lleng

ing

Som

ewha

t Cha

lleng

ing

Not

Ver

y C

halle

ngin

g

Not

At A

ll C

halle

ngin

g

Sign

ifica

nt D

iffer

ence

s O

f Int

eres

t (S

ee n

umbe

rs

1 - M

ore

chal

leng

ing

for I

ndep

ende

nt P

ract

ition

ers

than

f2

to 8

- Th

e bi

gger

the

orga

niza

tion,

the

stro

nger

the

c

All D

iffer

ence

s Al

so T

rue

For A

nnua

l Rev

enue

Gro

("Le

ss th

an $

1M" t

o "$

100M

+")

belo

w) or o

ther

gro

ups

halle

nge

ups

12

34

56

87



Overview , Continued


r ral aspects:

market

Independents and firms with less than $1 million in revenue indicate weakenowledge of their target market than larger groups for sevek

Knowledge Rated “Extremely / Somewhat Strong”: • General profile of target − 66% Independents versus 75-90% larger groups − 72% <$1 million versus 81-85% larger groups

• Names of organizations to target − 34% of Independents versus 56-70% larger groups − 42% <$1 million versus 62-83% larger groups

• Names of decision makers − 23% of Independents versus 30-41% larger groups − 25% <$1 million versus 32-44% larger groups

Usage of lead generation tactics

Across the board, Independents and Small firms tend to have used fewer lead generation tactics and strategies than have the Medium and Large / Very Large firms. (Trends by annual revenue size also reflect this difference.) # Tactics Used By Majority Of Group (over 50%) • 12 by Independents • 19 by Small firms • 24 by Medium firms • 29 by Large / Very Large firms The following tables illustrate which tactics and strategies have been more or less frequently used by each group, and how those levels compare with each other by firm size.




Overview, Continued

Independents

(N = 146-147) 91 – 100% • Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) 81 – 90% • Becoming members of professional / industry organizations 71 – 80% • Sending individual emails directly to prospects (78% - LOW)

• Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts) (73% - LOW) • Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects

61 – 70% • Speaking at conferences / trade shows (66% - LOW) 51 – 60% • Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects (60% - LOW)

• Writing and distributing press releases (58% - LOW) • Sending mass emails directly to prospects (53% - LOW) • Publishing company-authored content in OTHERS’ PRINT publications (52% - LOW) • Connecting with press contacts to gain interviews, quotes, and write-ups (52% - LOW) • Joining online communities related to our field

41 – 50% • Emailing ONLINE company newsletter(s) (50% - LOW • Search Engine Optimization (50% - LOW) • Sending professionally designed direct mail packages to prospects (48% - LOW) • Advertising in print media (48% - LOW) • Running our own in-person events (47% - LOW) • Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows (46% - LOW) • Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s) (45% - LOW) • Publishing company-authored content in OTHER ONLINE publications • Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN ONLINE publications • Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer • Participating regularly in blog-related online conversations

31 – 40% • Publishing a company-authored or company-affiliated blog (39% - HIGH) • Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN PRINT publications (39% -

LOW) • Sponsoring high-profile events or research (35% - LOW) • Speaking in OTHERS’ live online seminars • Search Engine Advertising • Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications

21 – 30% • Advertising on the radio (27% - LOW) • Running our own telephone-based events (27% - LOW) • Running OUR OWN live online seminars (24% - LOW) • Advertising on TV




Overview, Continued

Small

(N = 407) 91 – 100% • Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts)

• Becoming members of professional / industry organizations 81 – 90% spects • Sending individual emails directly to pro

• Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts) 71 – 80% • Writing and distributing press releases (71% - LOW)

• Speaking at conferences / trade shows • Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects

61 – 70% • (64% - LOW) Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects • necting with press contacts to gain interviews, quotes, aCon nd write-ups (63% - LOW)

LOW)• Advertising in print media (61% -

• Search Engine Optimization

• Sending mass emails directly to prospects • Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows

51 – 60% • Publishing company-authored content in OTHERS’ PRINT publications (58% - LOW) • E• Se• Pu• R• Jo

mailing ONLINE company newsletter(s) nding professionally designed direct mail packages to prospects blishing company-authored content in OUR OWN ONLINE publications

ing our own in-person events unnining online communities related to our field

41 – 50% • Sponsoring high-profile events or research (48% - LOW) • Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN PRINT publications (47% -

LOW) • Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s) (45% - LOW)

OTHER ONLINE publications • Sp• Se• A• Se s via a 3rd party referrer • Participating regularly in blog-related online conversations

• Publishing company-authored content ineaking in OTHERS’ live online seminars arch Engine Advertising

dvertising in ad-supported websites and online publications nding emails to prospect

31 – 40% • Running OUR OWN live online seminars • Running our own telephone-based events

21 – 30% • Advertising on the radio (29% - LOW) • Publishing a company-authored or company-affiliated blog • Advertising on TV




Overview, Continued

Medium (N = 101)

91 – 100% • Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) • Becoming members of professional / industry organizations (99% - HIGH)

81 – 90% • Writing and distributing press releases (88% - HIGH) • Speaking at conferences / trade shows (87% - HIGH) • Connecting with press contacts to gain interviews, quotes, and write-ups (86% - HIGH)

)• Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows (81% - HIGH • Running our own in-person events (81% - HIGH) • Sending individual emails directly to prospects • Sending individual letters or postcards to prospects • Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts)

71 – 80% • Advertising in print media (77% - HIGH) • Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects (76% - HIGH)

T publications (76% - HIGH)• Publishing company-authored content in OTHERS’ PRIN publications (73% -• Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN PRINT

HIGH) l packages to prospects• Sending professionally designed direct mai (72% - HIGH)

HIGH)• Sponsoring high-profile events or research (71% - 61 – 70 H)% • Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s) (61% - HIG

• Sending mass emails directly to prospects • Search Engine Optimization

51 – 60

publications

% • Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer • Emailing ONLINE company newsletter(s) • Publishing company-authored content in OTHER ONLINE • Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN ONLINE publications • Joining online communities related to our field

41 – 50 g in OTHERS’ live online seminars

ine publications

% • Speakin• Search Engine Advertising • Advertising in ad-supported websites and onl

31 – 40 or company-affiliated blog

% • Publishing a company-authored• Running OUR OWN live online seminars • Running our own telephone-based events• Advertising on the radio • Participating regularly in blog-related online conversations





Overview, Continued

Large

/ Very Large (N = 80)

91 – 100% • Making 'warm' phone calls (to existing contacts) (99% - HIGH) • Speaking at conferences / trade shows (98% - HIGH) • Exhibiting at conferences / trade shows (94% - HIGH)

- HIGH)• Writing and distributing press releases (94% H)• Making 'cold' phone calls (to new contacts) (94% - HIG

o prospects (91% - HIGH)• Sending individual letters or postcards t zations • Becoming members of professional / industry organi

81 – 90% • Publishing company-authored content in OTHERS’ PRINT publications (88% - HIGH) • Connecting with press contacts to gain interviews, quotes, and write-ups (86% - HIGH) • Sending mass letters or postcards to prospects (84% - HIGH)

HIGH)• Running our own in-person events (84% - )• Advertising in print media (83% - HIGH

ectly to prospects • Sending individual emails dir71 – 80% • Sending professionally designed direct mail packages to prospects (78% - HIGH)

• Mailing PRINTED company newsletter(s) (75% - HIGH) ations (75% -• Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN PRINT public

HIGH) • Search Engine Optimization (74% - HIGH)

- HIGH)• Sponsoring high-profile events or research (74% NE publications (71% -• Publishing company-authored content in OUR OWN ONLI

HIGH) 61 – 70 mass emails directly to prospects

publications (65% - HIGH)% • Sending

• Publishing company-authored content in OTHER ONLINE • Emailing ONLINE company newsletter(s) (64% - HIGH) • Advertising in ad-supported websites and online publications (61% - HIGH)

related to our field • Joining online communities 51 – 60

HIGH)% • Sending emails to prospects via a 3rd party referrer

• Speaking in OTHERS’ live online seminars (60% - • Running our own telephone-based events (54% - HIGH) • Running OUR OWN live online seminars (51% - HIGH) • Search Engine Advertising

41 – 50% • Advertising on the radio (45% - HIGH) • Participating regularly in blog-related online conversations

31 – 40 y-authored or company-affiliated blog (40% - HIGH)% • Publishing a compan • Advertising on TV (34% - HIGH)




Overview, Continued

Effectiveness of tactics / s

Although firm size does not illum ny differences in how effective the companies find their lead generation tactics and strategies to be, the

trategies

inate ma

following differences do emerge: Mean Effectiveness Rating (5 = Extremely Effective, 4 = Very Effective, 3 = Somewhat Effective, 2 =

ies

Not Very Effective, 1 = Not At All Effective) Rated More Effective By Smaller Compan • Emailing ONLINE company newsletters − For those with annual revenue < $10 million, mean rating = 2.89 to 2.91

ating = 2.52 to 2.65 − For those with revenue $10 million or more, mean r Rated More Effective By Larger Companies • Making “cold” phone calls (to new contacts) − For Independents, mean rating = 2.23 − For all other groups, mean rating = 2.55 to 2.63

• Making “warm” phone calls (to existing contacts) ean rating = 3.30

3.88

3.82

− For Independents, m− For all other groups, mean rating = 3.60 –− For those with annual revenue < $1 million, mean rating = 3.46 − For those with revenue $1 million or more, mean rating = 3.63 –

ws• Exhibiting at conferences and trade sho − For Independent and Small compan

rge / Very Large coies, mean rating = 2.40 – 2.74

mpanies, mean rating = 3.00 – − For Medium and La3.07

• Advertising in print media − For Independent and Small companies, mean rating = 2.10 – 2.28

rge companies, mean rating = 2.59 –

23 – 2.32 th revenue $10 million or more, mean rating = 2.56 – 2.67

• Sponsoring high-profile events or research

− For Medium and Large / Very La2.65

− For those with annual revenue < $10 million, mean rating = 2.− For those wi

− For Independent and Small companies, mean rating = 3.00 – 3.12 − For Medium and Large / Very Large companies, me

3.52 • Writing and distributing press releases

an rating = 3.37 –

− For Independents, mean rating = 2.69 − For all other groups, mean rating = 2.93 – 3.01




Overview, Continued

Effectiveness of tactics / s(continued)

• Becoming members of pr ns / organizations

trategies

ofessional associatio − For Independent and Small c , mean rating = 3.16 – 3.23

rating = 3.61 –

mean rating = 3.24 – 3.25 n rating = 3.56 – 3.59

ompanies− For Medium and Large / Very Large companies, mean

3.69 − For those with annual revenu ,e < $10 million− For those with revenue $10 million or more, mea



BACKGROUND & PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS



Background & Participant Demographics Survey Methodology

Collection Data sets for What’s Working In Lead Generation were collected via an

online survey instrument created by Wellesley Hills Group and RainToday.com. The majority of respondents heard about the survey via RainToday’s free weekly e-newsletter, Rainmaker Report or a separate invitation email. Respondents were screened to ensure that only B2B professional service executia

ves responsible for the lead generation budget nd success of their companies were invited to participate in the survey.

1,441 professionals entered the survey; 1,032 proceeded through screening; and 731 completed the survey in total (roughly 60 questions). Respondents who completed the survey received a results summary of the data.

Analysis Surveys were tabulated by Florida Atlantic University market research

professor Mark Eisner of Eisner and Associates. Respondent group results were tested at 5% risk levels, for 95% confidence of significant differences. Most observations within the study refer to significant differences in the data tested between groups defined by specific demographic information or other information gathered in the survey. Only respondent groups consisting of 30 or more responses were tested for significance. The base number of responses for particular questions is notated with “N = ___” in corresponding charts and data tables throughout the study. When results are discussed from base groups with fewer than 30 responses, they are referred to as “trends” or otherwise indicated in the discussion. Analysis and commentary are provided by Mike Schultz, Publisher of RainToday.com, John Doerr, Principal of the Wellesley Hills Group, and Andrea Meacham Rosal, Chief Content Officer of RainToday.com.



About The Participant Firms

Industries The B2B professional services firms in this study came from the following

industries:

Industry

% Respondents (N = 1,240)

Marketing, PR, Advertising Services 20%

Architecture / Engineering / Construction Services 18%

Management Consulting 17%

IT Services / Consulting 11%

Accounting, Tax, Payroll, Bookkeeping Services 8%

Training / Executive Education 7%

Financial, Insurance, or Real Estate Services / Consulting 7%

Law Firms / Legal Services 6%

HR / Organizational Development Consulting 4%

Other Consulting / Professional Services 4%

Mix of Services Companies represented in this study offer services that are:

Services Offerings % Respondents

(N = 1,353)

100% B2B 70%

Mostly B2B with some B2C 21%

Equal mix of B2B and B2C 10% Among respondents whose companies provide at least some B2C services, only those who could answer “Yes” to “Will you be able to complete this survey by responding only regarding your company’s B2B activities?” were invited to participate.




About The Participant Firms, Continued

Titles tles fell into the following categories: Respondent ti

Title % Respondents

(N = 1,025)

CEO / President 29

Principal / Partner 23

VP / Director of Marketing 11

Managing Director / Managing Partner 7

VP / Director of Business Development 6

VP / Director of Sales 4

Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) 3

Marketing Manager 3

Chief Business Development Officer (CBDO) 2

Consultant / Practitioner 1

Sales / Business Development Manager 1

Founder / Owner 1

Marketing Coordinator 1

Marketing Specialist / Analyst 1

Other Sales / Marketing 5

Area of company

9):


Respondents were representing areas of the company as follows (N = 1,03

Other 1%

A service line or businessunit within your company

8%A regional/local office of

your company 7%

Your company as a whole84%



About The Participant Firms, Continued

Location Respondents’ companies were located in the following countries:

Country % Respondents

(N = 735)

United States 82

Canada 7

United Kingdom 7

Australia 5

Other (See Detail) 8 C r” include:

Russia

ountries represented in “Othe

Argentina Germany

Austria India Singapore

Bangladesh Ireland South Africa

Belarus Italy Trinidad & Tobago

Botswana Japan Spain

Brazil Mexico Sweden

China Netherlands Switzerland

Denmark New Zealan y d Turke

Dominican Republic Nigeria raine Uk

France Pakistan Vietnam With additional areas/definitions mentione

Asia Pacific

• South America


d: •• Central Europe • EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) • Global • Middle East



About The Participant Firms, Continued Number of full-

professionals

espondents’ company sizes ranged from independent practitioners to more

Number Of Full-Time Professionals %

Rtime than 10,000 full-time professionals:

Respondents

1 (Self) 20

2 to 9 professionals 32





1,000 to 9,999 professionals 4

10,000 or more professionals 1 M

edian Number Of Professionals = 9.3

Annual revenue in most recent fiscal year

T ue in B2B professional services in the m

he participating companies’ annual revenear at the time of the survey collection was: ost recent fiscal y

100 or more,

7%

50 to 99.9 ,3% 25 to 49.9,

4%

9%

5 to

4.9,25%

Less than 1, 10 to 24.9,

43%

Revenue (Millions)

9.9,9%

1 to



2octave

3n National Notification Network

451 Consulting

A Mano Fisios

A.J. Martini, Inc.

A+ Top Rated Insurance

ABR, Inc.

ABRG

Absher Construction Company

Acara

Access Group, LLC

ACSF Ancora

Acumen

Adecco

ADI Group, Inc.

Adland USA

Adler PPT

AdminConcepts

AECOM

AESI, Inc.

AffluNet Services

Afni, Inc.

Agilis Associates

Alan Halford Consulting

Albert Kahn Associates

Alchemy Corporate Pr operty Advisors

Alexander, Aronson, Finning

Allen Austin Executive Search Consultants

Alliance Consulting Group

Anspach Meeks Ellenberger

Alliance Data

AMEC

AMES A/E

Apostasy, Ltd.

Applied Technology Group

AQCEL Consulting

Archstone Consulting

Arizona State University

Arketi Group

Arnold & Finlay

Aronson / Heintz Associates, LLC

Arthur BIZ

Atlantic Consultants

Atos Consulting

ATS

ATSheridan , LLC & Associates

Audacity Gu ns y Productio

Axiot Ltd

B2B Sales C Limited onsulting

B2Buzz

Baker Botts, LLP

Baker Tilly

Baldwin & Clarke Corporate Finance, Inc.

Ballew and As . sociates, Inc

Bardane, Inc.

Barnes Dennig

Bashey, Hutchinson & Walter, PLLC

Basler Group, Inc.

BB Marketing Plus

BDRI

Be

Bentley Architects

acon Consulting Group

Beals associates, PLLC

Bearing Point

Becker Consulting Services

& Engineers

Bermultinational Limited

olloway A

Berry

Bert Doerhoff CPA, P.C.

Better Cost Control

Beyon int B, LLC

Binary es Pvt, Ltd

BizVision Financial Services, Inc.

Blais & Associates Economic Development Consulting

Blake Dawson Waldron

Bloom Group

B Australia

B Group, Ltd.

B

Blum Shapiro & Co. P.C.

B

Bolen Communications

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC

Bookkeeping Express

B keting

B m Management

BP Media Group

BPCO Group

Bradley & Bradley

Brand Buddies

Brand Chemistry

BrandSavvy, Inc.

Bransgroves Lawyers

Braver Group

Brinte

Brooks Bell Interactive

Bernardon Haber Hrchitects

Dunn

d Po

Vib

lue Star Print -

lueberry Business

luepool, Inc. Consulting

MG

ottomLine Mar

oyden Interi

ch

Participating Companies




Brooks Borg Skiles

BSC, Ltd

Build Your Firm

Business Advancement, Inc.

Business Development Group, Inc.

Business Diagnostics & Solutions

Business Growth, Ltd

Business Intelligence Solutions

Business Process Consulting, LLC

Butcher & Gundersen

Bentz Whaley Flessner

CAI

Cambridge Healthtech Associates

Capaccio Environmental Engineering, Inc.

Capgemini

Capital Tax & Accounting Services, Inc.

CARC, Inc.

Carollo Engineers

Carter & Burgess, Sacramento

Catena Consulting Engineers

Cathy Moore

Catseye Global

CBDS, Ltd

CDM

Celstream Technologies

Centrica

CertifiedMail, Inc.

Chadwick Martin Bailey

Cherry, Bekaert & Hollan

Champlin/Haupt Architects

Charles, Charles &Associates

d, LLP

Chesber, Inc.

CHG

Chiefadvisors, LLC

CISTMS

CKMedical, Ltd

CLARITY Advisors to Management

Clarkston Consulting

Clear Thinking Group, LLC

Clifton Gunderson, LLP

Clockwork Design Group, Inc.

Closerlook, Inc.

CMG

CMK Architects

Collaborative Peoples' Resources

Communication Arts Group, Inc.

Communication Facilitation

Complex Communications

Concord Computer Services

Confidential

Connecting Point Communications

Consistacom, Inc.

Constructive Communication, Inc.

Consulting Development, Ltd

Coppertoppe

CoreStrata

Cornerstone of GroupCompanies

Cost Containment Strategies

Cowan, Bolduc, Doherty & Company, LLC

Cowan, Gunteski & Co., P.A.

CPActuaries

Creative Qualitative

LLC

CS&L CPAs

Cummings Group

Curt De t Associates, Inc.

CxT Group, Inc.

D&B

D. Kerry ycock, LLC

DAMIC , LLC

Damron Communications

Daniel Kuznitz & Associates

DASSE Design, Inc.

Data Conversion Laboratory

Dataseek

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Davies Engineering, Inc.

Davis, Kingsley & Company

DDI Electronic Engineering & Ma

Dea n & Company, Inc.

Dearborn Engineers & Constructors

DecisionPath Consulting

Dees Engineering

Degenkolb Engineers

DeHavilland Associates

Deloitte

Delve Group

Demopoulos Associates

Dent Baker & Company, LLC

Crossing the Chasm,

cker

La

ON

Dated Events

David DeLong & Associates, Inc.

Participating Companies, Continued

nufact ring u

n Maso




Design Workshop, Inc.

Dewar Consulting, LLC

Dinkum Interactive

Direct Connections International

DirectMarketing

Diversified Learning Partners

Dixon Environmental

DMBPA

DMG Consultancy

DMJM H&N

DMM Group

Dorman Management Consulting

Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP

DTA World Wide

Duke Corporate Education

Dunaway Associates, Inc.

Dunn Associates, Inc.

Durrette Bradshaw, PLC

EAP Technology

Eartheon

Ecosystem Solutions Pty, Ltd

Edgar, Dunn & Company

Edge, Inc.

Edge Learning Institute

EDSA

EH&E

EI Team, Inc.

Eide Bailly

Elgin Surveying & Engineering, Inc.

eMagine

eMarket2

Enablihng Space

EnerNOC, Inc.

Enterprise Business Solutions, LLC

ERE, LLP

ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC

Evans Hagen & Company

Everon Technology Services, LLC

Excel in Marketing, LLC

Excellence In Motivation

Expense Management Solutions

Expense Reduction Analysts

Expert Communications

Extraprise

Facility Programming and Consultants

FCS GROUP

FGM Architects Planners

First Wellesley

Fisher Vista, LLC

Fletcher Tilton & Whipple, PC

FMA

FPMSI

Freedman Solomon & Company CPA's, P.A.

Freeman Marketing Research

Fulcrum Studios, Inc.

Fullhouse

G. Temple Associates, Ltd.

Ganek Architects

GASAI

Geek Housecalls, Inc.

GEI Consultants

Gelmtree, LLC

Gelst

General Business Consultants

General Business Solutions, Inc.

Gilbert Consulting


Gilbert Heintz & Randolph, LLP

alleran & Ciesla,

garty &

al LT

tes

c.

.C.

Ltd

y,

ociates Management

Haley Marketing Group

Gilshenan & Luton Lawyers

Giordano, HP.C.

GL Co.

Glenn Rasmussen FoHooker

Global Boost

Global executive search

Glob

GNU Group

GNU2 Consulting, Inc.

Go Pensions

Goetting & Associa

Goss

Gould & Pakter Associates, LLC

GP Worldwide

GPD Group

GPmicro, Inc.

Graystone Associates, In

Great Numbers! LLC

Greener Consulting

Greenfield Architects, P

Greenfield Enterprises

Griffioen Consulting Group, Inc.

Group2

Growth Solutions Provider

Grubb and Ellis

Grunley-Walsh, LLC

Guthmiller Accounting,

H. B. Maynard and CompanInc.

HAH AssConsulting




HALO Business Advisors

Hamilton Group

HBLA Certified Public Accountants, Inc.

HCG

Health Capital Consultants

Henderson Architect

Hiab, Inc.

Higginbotham

Highliner Group

Hill Schwartz Spilker Keller, LLC

Hill, Barth & King, LLC

Hitachi Consulting

Hoard Clients System

HOK Visual Communications

Holden Advisors

Holder Construction Coimpany

Holland & Davis, LLC

Hollis Chase & Associates

Hopper Dennis Jellison

Horovitz, Rudoy & Roteman

Hotham Associates

HRA Solutions

HRshopper

HSA Engineers & Scientists

Hudson Financial Solutions

Hunter & Associates, PA

Hydro Designs, Inc.

Hyperactive Communications

ipCapital Group

Idea Catchers Group, LLC

Image Builders

Impact Systems, Inc.

Improving People

Incentive Logic, Inc.

Inom Limited

Insight Security & Investigations

Integrated Management Solutions, Inc.

Integrated Marketing Solutions, LLC

Integro Insurance Brokers

InterControllers, Inc.

Interim Executives U.S., LLC

International Marketing Solutions

Intetics Co.

InTouch, Inc.

INVICTUS Solutions Group

Invisible Marketing

Inxight Information Companies, LLC

IRS Solutions

ISR Insight

ITBusinessEdge

ITSMA

Ivy Architectural Innvovations, PC

J.E. Mittler & Company

Jack & Associates

Jack B. Keenan, Inc.

Jackson Kelly Solutions, LLC

Jan Riley, Inc.

Johnson Stephens Consulting, Inc.

Jon Oliver & Associates

Jonathan Steele Company

KBA Group, LLP

Keith Warren Limited

Keyne Insight, Inc.

Kathleen Greer Associates

KL Consulting

chitects

ciates, LLC

ions

Bogan, Inc.

Associates

ntian Group

agement Group

ms, Inc.

ichael & Associates,

m

c.


Kleinfelder

KNH, Inc.

Knightsbridge Solutions

Koch Hazard Ar

KoMarketing Asso

Kosovsky Pratesi & Co.

Kranz Communicat

Krex Consulting

KS Associates

Kudzu Graphics

La Visual, Inc.

Lahey Consulting, LLC

Lahive & Cockfield

Lake Corporation

Landry &

Lanzo, Lutz &

Larson Binkley, Inc.

Laurel and Associates, Ltd.

Laure

Law Offices of Bernard C.Dietz, PC

Leadership Capital Group

Leadership Man

Leadership Strategies

Leads Source

LEAPJob

Lei J Incorporated

Leppert Business Syste

Level 9

Lewis-MInc.

Lidings Law Fir

Lindsay Exhibit Group, In

Linkage




LexisNexis

Logarithmic Impact

Lorglen Management Services

L.Robert Kimball & Associates

Luminare

Lydon Fetterolf Corydon

M Group Communications Training

M. I. B. Chock, LLC

M/E Engineering, P.C.

Macquarie Wealth Management

Mahlum Architects

Major Client Selling

Management Vectors, Inc.

Mapping Analytics

Mark Mauriello, PC

Marketing Acumen

Marketing Leverage, Inc.

Marketing Mentors, Inc.

Marketing To Mexico

MarketSharp

Matris Associates, Inc.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP

MC Marketing Communications, Inc.

McCord & Associates

Medical Device Consultants

MDS Diseno Consultoria

ME

Mesirow Financial Consulting

Metagio

Meyers Norris Penny

Mezzanine Business Consulting

MHTN Architects

MicaBlue Creative

Michael Graves CPA, Inc.

Mighty Oak Ministries

Mind-n-Money

Mintleaf Studio Pty, Ltd

MKM Book Services

MMIC

MMM Design Group

Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group

Mohr Partners

Moreland Associates

Morningstar Multimedia

Morris-Anderson

MSH Associates

MST Consulting, Inc.

MulvannyG2 Architecture

Naden/Lean, LLC

Nash Lipsey Burch

National Cable Splicing Certification Board

Nerica

NetElixir, Inc.

NetPartnering

Networks

Newagen Group, LLC

NewStar Financial, Inc.

NexCore Group

Niski Communications

Noble Erickson Inc.

Nolte Associates, Inc.

Norlight Telecommunications

Norton Associates

NSA Corp.

NTH Consultants, Ltd.

Nth Degree Events

OBD

Omnium Worldwide Inc

eting

ium

t Productions

tion Services, Inc.

eative Solutions,

ey

s, Inc.

rvices

ices, Inc.

Truck Leasing Co., L.P.

PS

Info-Media, Inc.

ervices

velopment

rketing

ons

Computing


O'Neill Direct Mark

Oneocean, Ltd

Open Access Consulting, Inc.

PACE

Pallad

PanRigh

Parsons Brinckerhoff Construc

Partners for CrInc.

Partners Usr

Pate Engineer

Pathfinder Consulting Se

Payment Serv

Peacock Publishing

Penske

Performance Benefit Solutions

Perot Systems B

Personalized

Peter S. Cook

Petra Geotechnical, Inc.

Phoenix Management S

Pinnacle Business De

Plancorp, Inc.

PLC Networks, Inc.

PMA, LLC

PMZ Ma

PNC

Positive Interacti

Positive Response

Posternak Blankstein & Lund

Powers Law Offices, P.C.

Pratt

Precision Websites

Presentations Plus




Primary Intelligence

Primary Point, Inc.

Prime Engineering, Inc.

Primus Global Resources

Professional Service Industries

Profit Revolution Pty, Ltd

Project Innovations, Inc.

Prophet Strategies

Protiviti, Inc.

PSI

PageSoutherlandPage

Pulse Corporation

Purchasing Services, Inc.

Pyramid Consulting

Q3 Technologies

Quiet Storm Solutions Limited

Randy J Elder, CPA, PC

Raphael Sammaa Brand Counsel

Real Web Devices

Realized Performance

Relationship Audits & Management

Report Source

ResearchWorks

Resolve Associates

Reveille Consulting Group

RGHeins & Associates

Ricca Newmark Design

Richmond & Associates

Risk Management Associates, International, LLP

Robertson Training Group

Robinson, Noble & Saltbush

Robust Designs

Rockwell Automation

Ropes & Gray, LLP

Rotman School of Management-MBA

RPA Associates Inc.

RSI Logistics

RSM McGladrey, Inc.

RTKL

S&ME, Inc.

Sabath Supply Chain Consultants

SalesChannel Europe SARL

SalesFUSION

SalesStars/CAS Systems

Salisbury Management Services

Sam Schwartz Engineering, PLLC

San Filippo & Associates, LLC

Sanford Group Marketing Consultants

SC Associates

Schilling & Maure

Schulz & Consulting

SCT Group

Second Story Solutions

Sector, Inc.

Sequent Learning Networks

SESS Midwest

Shaw Resources

Sherman Group, Inc.

Sierra Systems Consulting Group

Silicon Valley--Japan Connections

Silverton Consulting, Inc.

Smart Marketing

SmithGroup

Snelling Staffing Services, LLC

Solid Oak Consulting, LLC


Spardata

SponsorLogic, Inc.

lliance

on Resources,

ciation

sociates, Ltd.

terprises Consulting

ration

nc.

ies, LLC

Pty, Ltd

tects

TD Banknorth

Spryance

SRGPE

SSOE, Inc.

St. Meyer & Hubbard

Stellar Systems, Inc.

Steven Dunn

Stradley Ronon

Strategic Asset A

Strategic DirectiInc.

Strategies for Business Ownership

Strategy & Communications

Strategy 2 Market

Stratelogics

Strauss Event & AssoManagement

Stroud, Pence & As

Studio Graphique

Success En

Superfund

Sure Marketing Systems Pty, Ltd

Synovate Loyalty

Systema Corpo

Tacamor, I

Tailored Technolog

Talkwerks

TARGIT

Tax and Financial Services

TBL Technologies

TBS USA

TC Archi




TDI The Trane Company Vimbrio


Vink Teague & Associates

ssociates Inc.

ll & Associates

ion

ctural

tes

.

d

ing

WS Display &

nvironmental Strategies

.

Team Telecom, LLC The Ultimate Sales Executive Resource

Virtual ServicesTechnology Management Assoc. Inc. The Yeomen Group

Vistage International TEM Associates, Inc. Theatre Projects Consultants

VOA ATerry Griffin Design Think! Inc.

W.M.AngeTESTCo

text-centric

Thomas J. Dyer Company Wade Trim Transportat

Three Step Consulting

Thrive NWalker Printing Co.

Walsh Engineers The Geddes Group etworks, Inc.

Thales Tier Solution Welch Consulting

ThatWhitePaperGuy Titan Software Sales Western Archite

The Advocates, P.L. TLC Wheat Scharf Associa

The Beech Consultancy TMP Associates, Inc. Wellesley Hills Group

The Coaches Topline Solutions, Inc. Wilke Studio

The Collateral Resource Group TPG Willie Publishing Co

The Design Alliance Architects Trade Boost Pty, Ltd Wilson Marketing Group, Inc.

The DR Group Transcription Matchmaker Windridge Consulting

The Etica Group, Inc. Transonic Wipro

The Florida Growth Coach Traub Design Associates

Triad Advisors GrouWolcott Group

The JS Group p, LLC Wolf Greenfiel

The LaMarche Group, Inc. Trigger Marketing Works Woods Peacock EngineerConsultants, Inc. The Last 3 Feet Total Typing Solutions

Workforce Now The Leverich Group

The Links Estat

UCI Architects, Inc.

WorkMatters es Ungaretti & Harris

WOW! WINDOThe Marketing Station, LLC University of North Carolina Design Ltd.

The Performance Group Unleashed Write It Well

The ProAction Group Unstuck Marketing WSA

The Proteus Organisation Urja Communications WSP E

The Renaissance Group (tm) UtiliTech Xancam Consulting, Ltd

The Seneff Law Office V.I.P. Litigation Funding, LLC Xerox

The Simple Solution Virtual Assistanc

V.SOP Design Yuishin Fleet Management e

Venture Drive Consulting ZAHN Consulting, LLC The Systems House



ABOUT RAINTODAY.COM & THE REPORT AUTHORS



About RainToday.com

RainToday.com - the website growing

RainToday.com rce for ins or your professional services business. Based m,

Massachusetts, core offerings inc • Free articles pected marketing, sales, and service business

experts such as David Maister, John Doerr, PatricLowe, Mike S een on core marketing pro

• Interviews w marke , and firm

leaders • Best practice benchmark research such as

Benchmark R al Services Mar m the Client PerspectivAdvice, And L sional Service ho Have

It, and How To Become A Thought Leader, ts at Rai

• Premium content, products and tools designed ping

service providers to grow their firms

• Webinars, se s for rainmakers and service marketers

is the premier online sou ight, advice, and tools f in Framingha

RainToday.com's lude:

by well-resk McKenna, Suzanne

chultz, and Charles Gr topics in selling and fessional services

ith world-renowned services ters, rainmakers

and How Clients Buy: The keting and Selling froeport on Profession

e, The Business Impact Of Writing A Book: Data, essons From Profes Providers W

Done by the analysts andexper nToday.com Research

specifically for hel

minars, and conference

Rainmaker Report – the newsletter worldwide. Visit http://www.raintoday.com

Rainmaker Rep ee newsletter of R , brings 5 new pieces of content each week to rainmakers and rketers

to subscri

ort, the flagship fr ainToday.com services ma

be.

RainToday Research res

The RainToday roduces best practices and benchmarking earch to help and leaders of professional services firms

business. The RainToday Research teet and clie or

mplete list of sit http:/

Research team p marketers, sellers,

to grow their mark

am also delivers custom nt research studies for individual ganizations. For a

/www.raintoday.com.co available research titles, vi



About The RainToday Research Team

M

ike Schultz As Publisher of RainToday.com, Mike Schultz is responsible for leading the world’s foremost content publication on growth strategy, marketing, and selling for professional services firms. Mike is also a Principal with the Wellesley Hills Group and consults to professional services firms

Prior to joining the Wellesley Hills Group and RainToday.com, Mike was Director of Training and Education Partnerships for Linkage, Inc. At Linkage, his primary responsibilities were leading the company’s public and in-house seminar divisions, growing revenue and profit by over 800% in his tenure with the firm. Mike has also served as a marketing and sales process and strategy consultant with the boutique firm Product Knowledge Systems. Mike holds an MBA in Marketing and Entrepreneurship from Babson College. Email Mike at [email protected]

worldwide. He has written articles, case studies, and research reports onmarketing and selling for professional services.

.

John Doerr As a Principal with the Wellesley Hills Group, John consults with

professional services firms in the area of growth strategy, marketing and lead generation, and business development. Before the Wellesley Hills Group, John served as the President of Management Centre Europe, the largest pan-European management and leadership training company, as President of AMACOM Publishing, and Senior Vice President at American Management Association. John is a frequent public speaker and prolific author, and holds an MBA, magna cum laude, from the Graduate School of Management at Boston University. He is also a contributing editor with RainToday.com. Email John at [email protected]

.

Andrea Meacham Rosal

As Chief Content Officer of RainToday.com, Andrea oversees the content, and day-to-day operations of the site, as well as Rainmaker Report, the site’s flagship weekly newsletter. She is responsible for the online publishing site’s growth, product quality, marketing initiatives, content, and continuing value to service firm marketers and business developers worldwide. Andrea has worked as a consultant, writer, marketer, and researcher within professional service firms and non-profit organizations. She has written numerous articles, white papers, e-books, and major market research reports on a number of business and management subjects. Andrea holds an MBA from the John M. Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis, with emphasis in organizational leadership, marketing strategy, and entrepreneurship. Email Andrea at [email protected]

.


About RainToday.com RainToday.com is the premier online source for insight, advice, and tools for service business rainmakers, marketers, and leaders. Based in Framingham, Massachusetts, RainToday.com’s core offerings include: • Free Articles: Written by industry practitioners and experts, RainToday.com offers the most up-to-date

and relevant free resources

• How-to Guides and Tools: Purchase how-to guides and tools built to aid professional service marketers and business developers to be more effective and grow their revenue

• Research Reports: Best practice and benchmark research by the analysts at RainToday.com Research

• Weekly Newsletter: The Rainmaker Report is RainToday.com’s free weekly newsletter providing resources to help professional service providers generate more revenue and grow their firms

• Interviews: Original interviews conducted by RainToday.com staff with world-renowned services marketers, rainmakers and firm leaders

• Case Studies: Real life case studies focusing on service firms’ growth and success and how they got there

• Webinars, Seminars, and Conferences: Designed for Rainmakers and service marketers

Rainmaker Report—The Newsletter RainToday.com’s flagship newsletter Rainmaker Report is read each week by tens of thousands of rainmakers and marketers worldwide. Rainmaker Report brings 5 fresh pieces of content per week to our readers. Visit www.raintoday.com to subscribe to the free weekly Rainmaker Report.

RainToday.com 600 Worcester Road, Suite 301

Framingham, MA 01702 [email protected]

508-405-0438

whats working in lead generation

Documents