On a broader scale, language defines who we are, what groups we belong to and our culture.   

In Quebec, almost 50 years ago, the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF -  Quebec Board of the French Language) was established to ensure that French would be the primary language in the province of Quebec assuring the rights and identity of the French-speaking majority.

Supposedly first dubbed  ’The Language Police’ by the TV show 60 minutes, the OQLF accepts language complaints filed by Quebec citizens.     Although having no police powers, the OQLF can fine or even shut down an offending business.

Do we need language police in our world of B2B sales & marketing?

The ancient Greeks used the word bárbaros to describe foreigners as ‘those who babble’  (hence the word ‘barbarian’)

Perhaps this is an early example of mis-aligment between sales and marketing.   Could it be that ancient Greek salespeople referred to their marketing colleagues as bárbaros?  

Whatever the case, we continue to face basic issues in B2B sales and marketing.

The core concept of the definition of a sales lead and its workflow is the subject of endless debate and lack of clarity within B2B organizations.

The sales lead is the currency upon which sales and marketing transact their business.     If sales does not agree with marketing on the definition of a sales lead or their role in the lead lifecycle, then marketing’s efforts are futile.     This is akin to doing business between sales and marketing but in different currencies.

The agreement between sales and marketing acts as the catalyst for sales effort.

I propose that it is not the definition of the lead that matters but rather that sales and marketing agree on that definition.    

So here is my definition of a lead that provides any sales and marketing organization with a base to work from: 

The Sales Lead: A defined prospect to be engaged by Sales.  

Implied in this simple definition:

1. A sales lead is defined and agreed upon between sales and marketing and
2. Sales agrees to follow-up on such prospects in a consistent way.    

This approach provides the flexibility that is often needed.    Depending on buying behavior and selling processes, organizations may categorize a lead as an inquiry, an appointment or a qualified lead.   As time moves on, this definition can evolve.

If we can’t get consensus on something as simple and vital as a sales lead, then we should summon the language police.   As B2B organizations we have lost our way and our identity.

Related Blog Posts
An Identity Crisis for the Sales Lead
Sales Leads vs. Appointments
10 Signs that Sales & Marketing are Mis-Aligned

Photo Credit

The irony of course, is that the deliverable for sales is crystal clear – the sale. The contract is signed and the PO received. The heavy lifting from sales is finished and that of accounts receivable begins.

But for marketing, whose key deliverable is often the qualified lead, the picture is confusing: the definition of a sales lead can be all over the map. Is a lead an appointment or a qualified lead (or both)? Is a lead an inquiry, a trade show visitor, a webinar registrant, a downloader of a white paper or a referral?

To some, a lead is defined as an interested responder. To others, a fully qualified BANT lead (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeframe).

A poorly defined lead is one symptom of a crippling disease: sales & marketing mis-aligment (see my post on ten signs that sales and marketing are mis-aligned).

In the simplest possible terms: a lead is a prospect that sales agrees to accept, engage and close. Best-in-class sales & marketing organizations will add richer criteria to the definition, but the willingness of sales to accept a lead from marketing is elegant in its simplicity.

It also takes into account an important distinction: the definition of a lead may vary by the sales rep. For example, a new sales rep with no sales funnel may accept ‘loosely’ defined leads versus a sales rep who has a full funnel who will only accept ‘strictly’ defined, fully-qualified leads.

Unfortunately, the term ‘lead’ is frequently taken out of context by the vendors that sell to B2B marketers. This may artificially enhance the perceived value of the vendor’s solution but adds to the malaise and confusion in the market.

Ask yourself after reading the examples below and apply the simple acceptance rule: can you fathom a field salesperson accepting these ‘leads’?

Data Vendors – A significant number of data vendors continue to merchandise their lists as ‘leads’. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are lists of ‘Accounts and Contacts’.

CRM Vendors – Most CRM solutions have separate buckets for accounts/contacts and leads. Although I agree that leads need a home in the CRM system, the lead bucket seems to be a dumping ground for all flavors of inquiries and marketing responders. A more applicable label would be ‘Prospects’

Marketing Automation Vendors – A popular and vital process in the demand generation process is ‘lead nurture’. I agree that this is an easy to understand term for describing the cultivation of prospects until the prospect is sales-ready. However, these contacts are not leads but are prospects that are not yet ready to speak to sales. At one time, some of these prospect may have spoken to sales and subsequently disqualified. A better term would be ‘Prospect Nurture’.

It is important for marketing to under-promise and over-deliver to sales. It makes sense to ask their vendors to do the same.

Call me a stickler if you want, but until we see greater success in sales and marketing alignment and in particular, lead definitions, we need to be a lot more careful in the way that we throw around a pivotal term like ‘lead’.

Otherwise, it becomes one of those four letter words.

Your thoughts?

Photo Credit: Ash-rly

Just this past week, Ruth and co-author Bernice Grossman, president of DMRS Group, a marketing consultancy, released an interesting study of major online sources of B-to-B data (Thanks to Ruth for acknowledging in the appendix my modest contribution).

As discussed in this comparative analysis of B2B data providers, the Internet has spawned new competitors like Jigsaw and Zoominfo and enabled self-service list procurement and instant download.

Ruth and Bernice asked fifteen compiled list providers to participate in the analysis and ten responded. The list providers were requested to provide counts across a variety of industries and asked to match data to ten real-world contacts that shared their contact information.

The ten providers included: Demandbase, idExec, Jigsaw, Lead411, NetProspex, OneSource, SalesGenie, Selectory, Zapdata and ZoomInfo.

Ruth and Bernice provided some observations and recommendations:

• The data quantity and quality varied widely, even between providers that were subsidiaries of the same parent.
• Run a test by providing a file to a number of vendors for data append.
• Be aware that some vendors may be strong in some industries but weak in others.

We have experienced first-hand the differences between data providers. My organization, Direct Impact Marketing, maintains a strict privacy policy: no lists are shared between clients, so we often rent lists and then conduct lead generation programs.

I would like to share some insight that we have on working with data providers:

A breakthrough on minimum order sizes – With the advent of online data providers, B2B marketers can now order small quantities without penalty.

The temptation of batch-and-blast email – Just because you can now order or append email addresses, doesn’t imply that you will be well-served by blasting out emails to prospects. Most of our clients are disappointed with this tactic. A more rewarding approach is to call the prospect and then send a 1to1 sales-style email that is personalized to the prospect.

One size rarely fits all – We have found that it is difficult to find one list provider that meets all of our client needs. Sometimes one data provider can provide very accurate information at the account level but the number of contacts is sparse. This is especially true when we try and target mid-level contacts. We often will merge two lists to get the best of both worlds.

Centralized vs. decentralized authority – A critical consideration is whether you are targeting centralized locations (i.e. headquarters) versus decentralized locations (i.e. branches). Should you wish to focus on decentralized locations, a response or subscription list may be a better choice, given the demonstrated affinity or interests of the contacts.

Watch out for list hustlers – If the price sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Check out the scoop on this data provider.

Just say no – Rental lists can be highly addictive. I have spoken with many marketers who would rather rent than invest the time in their house file. Once your list is of a reasonable size, you will be best served by focusing on marketing to your house file and growing that list organically.

Size vs. list criteria – Sometimes larger lists will offer fewer selection criteria. Make sure that you have prioritized your selection criteria to ensure that you get a list that fits your needs. It may make sense to pay for more selection criteria and fewer records if the list is a better match to your target market.

Ask your data provider to stop using the term ‘sales leads’ – A data provider is in the business of selling suspect records, accounts or contacts but not leads. For a data provider to refer to the data as ‘sales leads’ is mis-using a key B2B term and over promising on their product. A sales-ready, qualified lead is very different than an unqualified name on a list.

Resources:

Online Sources of B2B Data – March 2010 – update