Comments on: Thought Leadership #4: Bringing Down the Housse: Smashmouth Marketing with Mike Damphousse http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/01/15/thought-leadership-5-bringing-down-the-housse-smashmouth-marketing-with-mike-damphousse/ a blog for those of us who live and work at the top end of the b2b funnel: Demand Generation, Lead Generation, Online Media, B2B Sales and Marketing, Marketing Automation, DRIP, Lead Nurturing, and Fun. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:43:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Michael Damphousse http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/01/15/thought-leadership-5-bringing-down-the-housse-smashmouth-marketing-with-mike-damphousse/comment-page-1/#comment-1606 Michael Damphousse Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:09:43 +0000 http://www.funnelholic.com/?p=622#comment-1606 Jep, You are right, I see definite growth in outsourced demand gen functions. I have many friends and colleagues who have asked me recently how our company is doing with all the economic issues and such. Frankly, other than one client putting on the brakes, a billion dollar company that just filed bankruptcy, we have been seeing new clients every month on an increasing basis for the past year. The economy may have had a hand in it: 1) Companies don't want to invest in their own infrastructure and hiring, thus they outsource, 2) Companies realize that they have to invest in the top line or there will be no bottom line, and 3) Marketing professionals have realized they need to use experts instead of doing it all themselves (empire building or job survival). The reality is that most specialized vendors are just that, they are specialized. They do what they do because they are good at it and clients pay for it because it works. Jep,

You are right, I see definite growth in outsourced demand gen functions. I have many friends and colleagues who have asked me recently how our company is doing with all the economic issues and such. Frankly, other than one client putting on the brakes, a billion dollar company that just filed bankruptcy, we have been seeing new clients every month on an increasing basis for the past year.

The economy may have had a hand in it: 1) Companies don’t want to invest in their own infrastructure and hiring, thus they outsource, 2) Companies realize that they have to invest in the top line or there will be no bottom line, and 3) Marketing professionals have realized they need to use experts instead of doing it all themselves (empire building or job survival).

The reality is that most specialized vendors are just that, they are specialized. They do what they do because they are good at it and clients pay for it because it works.

]]> By: Michael Damphousse http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/01/15/thought-leadership-5-bringing-down-the-housse-smashmouth-marketing-with-mike-damphousse/comment-page-1/#comment-1605 Michael Damphousse Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:30:50 +0000 http://www.funnelholic.com/?p=622#comment-1605 Steve, What you call dimension, fits perfectly into lead equity. In fact I got a couple emails from people asking more about lead equity, so I put together an overdone article on the topic that elaborates more into the math and understanding of lead equity. Without applying the term "dimension", I believe the example of deciding which vertical market to invest in is addressing it. http://www.damphousse.org/2009/01/poker-equity-and-marketing-ii-lead.html They key to the whole discussion is for us to not just "feel" what the value of a lead is, but to "understand" the value of that lead. Understanding is the first step towards knowledge (isn't that a botched Neitzsche quote?). Steve,

What you call dimension, fits perfectly into lead equity. In fact I got a couple emails from people asking more about lead equity, so I put together an overdone article on the topic that elaborates more into the math and understanding of lead equity. Without applying the term “dimension”, I believe the example of deciding which vertical market to invest in is addressing it. http://www.damphousse.org/2009/01/poker-equity-and-marketing-ii-lead.html

They key to the whole discussion is for us to not just “feel” what the value of a lead is, but to “understand” the value of that lead. Understanding is the first step towards knowledge (isn’t that a botched Neitzsche quote?).

]]> By: Jep Castelein http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/01/15/thought-leadership-5-bringing-down-the-housse-smashmouth-marketing-with-mike-damphousse/comment-page-1/#comment-1604 Jep Castelein Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:47:55 +0000 http://www.funnelholic.com/?p=622#comment-1604 Mike, what do you see is driving increased outsourcing of critical demand-creation functions? I'm actually considering bringing demand-gen entirely in-house to get more value for money. Thanks, Jep Mike, what do you see is driving increased outsourcing of critical demand-creation functions? I’m actually considering bringing demand-gen entirely in-house to get more value for money.

Thanks,
Jep

]]> By: Steven Woods http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/01/15/thought-leadership-5-bringing-down-the-housse-smashmouth-marketing-with-mike-damphousse/comment-page-1/#comment-1603 Steven Woods Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:05:27 +0000 http://www.funnelholic.com/?p=622#comment-1603 Mike, Craig, Great article and great discussion. I like the concept of "lead equity", but unlike poker, I think leads have two dimensions of how "good" they are. I'm not sure if lead equity counts for only one or both of these dimensions. What I mean is a lead can be the "right person" - a key exec in the right industry and right geography, and/or they can show the "right interest" - actively interested in your product or solutions right now. They can be any combination of these, and this leads to different "investments" to increase their lead equity. ie, if you find the right exec, but they are not interested, you would invest in higher level communications, value proposition, ideas, peer comparisons, etc, to spark interest (over time, this nurturing may take many quarters). If you find the wrong person (too junior) with the right interest, your "investment" is to try and get them to move you up the chain to someone with more power. Very different investments. (I wrote a bit more about that here: http://digitalbodylanguage.blogspot.com/2008/12/dimensions-of-lead-scoring.html) I think the lead equity concept is great, but would really need to take the different dimensions into account. Mike, Craig,
Great article and great discussion. I like the concept of “lead equity”, but unlike poker, I think leads have two dimensions of how “good” they are. I’m not sure if lead equity counts for only one or both of these dimensions.

What I mean is a lead can be the “right person” - a key exec in the right industry and right geography, and/or they can show the “right interest” - actively interested in your product or solutions right now. They can be any combination of these, and this leads to different “investments” to increase their lead equity.

ie, if you find the right exec, but they are not interested, you would invest in higher level communications, value proposition, ideas, peer comparisons, etc, to spark interest (over time, this nurturing may take many quarters). If you find the wrong person (too junior) with the right interest, your “investment” is to try and get them to move you up the chain to someone with more power. Very different investments.

(I wrote a bit more about that here: http://digitalbodylanguage.blogspot.com/2008/12/dimensions-of-lead-scoring.html)

I think the lead equity concept is great, but would really need to take the different dimensions into account.

]]>