Many times the sales teams and the marketing teams are under different mandates and use completely different metrics as well as different forms of communication. Recently a number of very intelligent people spoken about how the marketing and sales teams at their respective companies function in a closed loop. Thinking harder about this closed loop, what would happen if it was decided to eliminate the two separate spheres, thus having a closed-loop system as a starting point?

With this model, there would be no “lobbing” leads over the fence in blind hope that they are good. This model would also eradicate the repetitive echoes: “Well, I did my part,” and “What am I supposed to do with this?”.

This one group’s goal would become client acquisition, and this group would be named as such: “Client Acquisitions.” This group’s one concern will be bringing in new clients. The newly formed group, now titled “Client Acquisitions,” will be challenged by the same MBOs, only in this scenario the individual will be measured for results. Our ability to produce actionable pipeline assessments would be greater, and the client’s ability to make quick changes would be easier. At any point in the funnel, a company can thus measure the success of a team and its members. In addition, gap analysis will return much more precise data. The dynamics would change from finger-pointing to finding the right contact point and person for a specific stage of the deal that is in the process of being worked out.

Account managers are often considered to be nurturers. They show concern for their clients. They help them get what they need out of projects. They look out for their clients’ interests. Hence, we have the term “client partner” as a synonym for “account manager” in some companies.

On the other hand, salespersons are often considered to be opportunists. They sell what they can when they can without regard for the long-term benefit to the client.

So, the argument goes, sales is very different from delivery.

And if sales were about opportunism, then I would perhaps agree.

But, of course, sales is not about opportunism. At least it’s not properly so. Rather sales is about fitting a solution to a client need. And this naturally requires understanding a client’s needs. And this in turn means that a salesperson has to have empathy with the potential client. Such empathy is exactly what that account manager is supposed to possess exclusively.

So, i don’t agree with the distinction. And i don’t agree with account managers when they claim to dislike sales. To show your concern for the client is to also be able to sell them things that they need to help their business. Thus, all good account managers are good salespersons.

1. At what point is it acceptable to abandon or ignore a social media tool?
2. When does it make sense to include a new social media tool as part of your social marketing strategy?

It’s clear that social media is here to stay as a tool for spreading the word about products and services. Facebook has worked hard over the last year trying to make the tool business-friendly. Twitter seems to be business-friendly right out of the gate. LinkedIn was built for business. Each of these tools can be a part of a marketing strategy, but you must first  determine which of the tools is right for your business.

If you are currently on one of these sites, you should carefully review your participation in your company’s pages or general activity on each of these sites to determine if they still warrant your attention. If the participation has declined, you might want to look at your promotion techniques. Are you promoting or posting to your page often? Are you ‘tweeting’ compelling content regularly?

Another factor for decreased participation could be that your target market has moved on to another site… the ‘hot, new’ social media platform on the block. Social media users are far from brand loyal. If a new tool comes along that works better and is more interesting, they are really likely to switch the bulk of their attention to the new tool. They probably won’t completely give up on the old tool (right away anyway), but they will spend less of their available time with it, thereby decreasing the possibility that they will pay any attention to your presence there.

New social media tools seem to pop up all the time, but does it make sense to include them in your marketing strategy? Who are the people that are using the tool? Are they your target? If not, it might be OK for your family photos or posting about your trip to the grocery store, but it might not be right for your business.

At a revival, the audience has to be ready to be converted. They know why they are there. At a mission, the audience’s primary goal isn’t getting converted. But, the mission manager is appealing to their hunger and cold in order to get them in the door.

I’ve met many salespeople who want to run their companies like a revival. Only those truly “ready” to consume their service get in the door. The good thing about this approach is that you’re likely to convert more people. But, you will have a smaller audience. In addition, those who convert are more likely to stay converted, because this is the reason they are there in the first place.

Others work like a mission. They use non-sales methods to attract their audience. Then, while they are consuming these ideas/services/etc., they try to educate and convert them. Lead nurturing is like this. The goal here is to meet people’s immediate needs/desires, and then work on serving their “real” needs down-the-road.

Lots of people don’t think the mission approach is worth it. It takes too much time and effort, they say, to deal with these people and eventually convert them. On the other hand, the revival approach seems perhaps unnecessarily limiting. If you allow only a few people into the tent, then you naturally can’t convert more than a few people.

So, which is a better approach?

I am a fan of the mission. Without being deceptive, I think it’s important to meet people where they are and move them along gradually. In our business, we can’t expect our future clients to be fully educated and informed and ready to convert. This is especially true in today’s climate of layoffs and overwork. Many of our clients just don’t know enough to find, never mind attend, a revival.

Usually, when someone (marketing copywriters especially) puts adjectives in front of a noun, they are covering something up. These offenses take several forms.

• Redundancy—adding an adjective that repeats the meaning of the noun. I am provoked mainly by the adjective “smart,” as in “smart marketing.” Isn’t that just marketing? Isn’t all (real) marketing already smart? If that’s not bad enough, consider the case when you add another common word, “truly,” as in “truly smart marketing.” Yikes! Now it’s not just redundant. It sounds like you’re protesting too much. Why draw so much attention?
• Obviousness—adding an adjective that is already implicit. Here, I am thinking about terms like “great offer.” Why would you offer me something that’s not great?
• False excitement—adding terms that are designed to generate enthusiasm. The most common is “exciting,” as in “an exciting offer.” I don’t need your rah-rah adjectives (or participles, or whatever) to tell me if the offer is exciting or not. I can decide that myself based on the offer.

A great way to test if your adjectives or adverbs are problematic is to substitute their opposite (or at least a contrary) in the expression. If it sounds weird, then your original modifier wasn’t adding any information. If it sounds normal, then chances are your original term was helping. An example here is drawn from above: “a bad offer.” Who would offer something bad?  So, that means that “great” is useless. But, if you say “a limited-time offer,” then the opposite would be “a non-time-limited offer.” There are such kinds of offers, too, and knowing the difference is important. So, “limited-time” is acceptable. It’s actually clarifying what kind of offer you have.

The point of all this is to help you streamline and simplify your copy. Simple concepts and expressions are more powerful and get more results.

Every successful marketing project results in a tangible expression – that is, an item of communication. This piece of communication contains attractive design and well-articulated content. In other words, good marketing puts a company’s best foot forward.

The business benefits of this are obvious: increased leads, sales, clients, and so on. But, there is another key benefit. When members of the company see, read, and understand these materials, they start to see their own company in a new light. Creative, intelligent communications pieces speak well of the company to its own employees.

The more this happens, the more it can contribute to a positive transformation of the company’s culture. At its most extreme, this effect can help transform a company culture from being depressed and pessimistic about future growth to excited and motivated.

So, don’t forget the internal power of external communications. These side effects are real and powerful.

Using marketing automation is essential. But, which tools are most appropriate?

Good lead nurturing requires tracking the prospects activity. When activity happens offline, it becomes very difficult to track. Sure, you could have sales or marketing personnel enter data by hand, but this is expensive and unreliable. By far, the best choice is to use your Web site to perform this tracking.

A Web site can track individual activities. This means that you will know about all the touchpoints between your company and your prospect.

Note that your Web site is probably not already interesting in and of itself to perform this function. You will need to think of all your marketing efforts as leading somehow back to the Web site. And to do this effectively, you will need to be sure to have content related to problems and solutions, so that (eventually) you can go (back) and look at which of those the prospect was/is interested in.

With the advent of interactive communications such as email, online advertising, blogging, etc., print has taken it on the chin. Fewer clients request print and fewer agencies recommend print. Therefore, when engaging in a print project, you should look at the plethora of techniques available: emboss, spot varnish, custom bindery, metallic inks, laser cutting, synthetic paper, custom diecutting, etc. Don’t just use it because it’s there, but look for opportunities where the use of a non-standard printing technique fits the goals for the project and supports the strategy behind the creative.

One word of warning: overuse of these techniques could tread into tacky territory. They should be used sparingly and with great care.

On your next print project, take a step back to review all the different options that you can employ. If you are an agency, consult with your printer for ideas. If you are a client, ask your agency if additional print techniques could be used to push your strategy further.

All these concerns are valid. But, I want to bring up something else. Even if these statistical potential anomalies are dealt with, you still might have invalid data.

This hidden source of error lies in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg (a German physicist) taught us that, at least in the realm of subnuclear physics, you can know the position or the motion of a particle, but not both at the same time. This is true because every attempt to know these features alters the particle somehow. In other words, the measurement tools themselves introduce changes in the subject.

We can apply the same “observer effect” to our understanding of market research. Imagine a focus group. You’ve convened this focus group to learn if one of your new offerings will meet a need. So, you ask the group something like “Do you have a need for a waterproof flashlight?”. This seems harmless enough. But, the problem is that just that question, just the thought of that question, introduces new thoughts to the members of the target audience. They had never thought of a flashlight that’s waterproof. So, now they are thinking about it. And whether they say “yes” or “no” to the question, there is no doubt that the question itself caused a change in the audience.

You might think that the problem here lies in the formulation of the question. Perhaps it would solve the problem to ask something more like “What needs do you have?” However, even this seemingly unprejudicial question causes changes. For one, people don’t think of having “needs”. They live their lives in an active way; they don’t contemplate their existence and thematize their mental states. To even to ask them to do this causes them to disengage from their active “use” of their needs and think about them objectively. And this conceptualization is a different view, thus their perception is altered by the question.

Does this make market research impossible? Couldn’t we do some contextual research instead of asking questions? If the subject knows she is under observation, we will have the same problem, just at the level of action instead of verbally. What if she doesn’t know she’s under observation?

This might be the best approach, but I still think we have a fundamental problem. Even the observational act places the subject into a certain artificial context. That is, to even observe another human being is to alter their existence to “fit” into your frame of reference. In this sense, it is perhaps impossible to know what “market needs” anyone really has. Perhaps it’s just as impossible as ever really knowing anyone. Human beings are just not objective beings (like trees or rocks).

So, should you give up on market research? Probably not. Just be careful. Be aware of how your observations and study can alter the object of your study. And because of this, don’t be a slave to the research data (or researchers). That is, be prepared to downplay or even eliminate research that doesn’t seem to fit. Sometimes, there is no substitute for good old human judgment.

The Masters has been around since 1934, so it’s a longstanding brand with a cherished history. How do they (and Augusta National Golf Club, where the tournament is played) protect this history? By keeping the Masters brand pure — free from distractions or affiliations with any other brands that may not have as great a reputation.

At the tournament, the Masters brand is front and center. Every available food item is Masters-branded (see the photo of the Masters crackers). You can order cola (which happens to be Coca-Cola), sports drink (which happens to be Powerade), or peanut butter crackers (Lance crackers). There are very few sponsorships of any kind, and the ones that are there are done very tastefully. You won’t see anyone handing out samples of chewing gum or headache powder.

At the Masters, it’s all about the golf and the history of the game.

How does this relate to you? Be careful how you promote your brand. Be careful of affiliations with your brand. It may not be realistic to completely isolate your brand in the same way the Masters has done, but there is something to be learned about the care with which they have protected theirs.