“70% of the buying process in a complex B2B sale is already complete before a buyer will talk to a seller.”
If you ever hear some version of this whopper from anyone, you should immediately discount the person as either willfully ignorant, woefully ignorant, or a purposeful skewer of data to sell their own stuff (and if you’ve ever mis-quoted this and then never did it again, you’re my superhero!). Generally this fake stat is followed up with some pronouncement about “If you’re not using social, search, automation, whatevs – HOO BOY, what a loser you are missing all sorts of opportunities. If you’re not doing X, you won’t be successful.” <sigh>
All right. Let’s get this out of the way first – there are absolutely some verticals within B2B where this may be the case. And if that’s your space, good golly – some mix of social, SEO, + whatever likely will be effective marketing for you.
But to lump all ‘complex’ B2B sales opportunities together shows such an extreme simpleton view of business and is mind-numbingly wrong.
(I’m not sure where this statistic started mucking up the dialogue. I believe there was a legitimate study done by the folks at Corporate Executive Board that was then hijacked by the bloviators, but I could be wrong. The CEB team currently has some research that says it’s 57%; I have some quibbles with their current study*. More on that in a bit.)
Here’s what’s wrong with the 70% Proclamation:
- Self-reported? Did the respondents self-report what % of the buying process they were through before engaging with sales or was there some unbiased definition of what a buying process is – creating an apples to apples comparison? It’s similar to when marketers self-report how ‘effective’ they are at, say, content marketing. Does ‘effective’ mean something different for every CMO or are they all using the same definition of ‘effective?’
- ‘Buying Process Definition?’ DanMcDade of PointClear does an excellent analysis of what ’70% of the buying process complete’ looks like. His piece alone will make you rethink the buying process in your space.
- Really? ALL? To use the above 70% claim means that ALL complex sale, B2B buyers are are 70% through the buying process before willing to talk to a seller. This is beyond ridiculous.
- Searching, not searching. For buyers who are searching, it rings true for me that much of their research is done online. But because nuanced research is so rare in B2B, we really have no clear idea what portion of sales opportunities exist with prospects who are unaware of a need, unaware of how much that need is costing them, so …ummmm… not searching for a solution. Loads of fabulous prospects not searching. Loads.
- Social Zealots Are Drunk. Yep. Uh huh. I said it. Just because you are giddy with Social and Search and all the new tools and apps, and maybe you’ve even had some revenue success that you’re not deluding yourself about. But let’s not forget that for a significant portion of B2Bs today, a bad LinkedIn profile is bleeding edge.
- B2B is Complex. Generalizing serves no one. I’ve written several times about the differences and it’s time we start recognizing this. Whether it’s One Size Does Not Fit All or They Can See You But You Can’t See Them, you can slice and dice B2Bs several ways to begin to analyze and design the most appropriate RevGen Strategy including Sales, Sales Support, and Marketing. Stop paying attention to broad brush research.
*I have only two quibbles with the CEB research I linked to above: 1. We don’t know if it’s self-reported by interviewees, which would really skew the picture of what’s actually happening, and 2. The CEB study was done with ’1,400 B2B customers across industries.’ While there may be value for a marketing or sales leader, I’m positing that it’s really too broad to help anyone, beyond get people thinking about how their sectors’ prospects buy.
Marketing “Thought Leaders” – What you say matters. We are serving the folks in the trenches who are not compensated to go out and conduct their own meaningful research. Let’s keep integrity at the forefront, eh?
Marketing Practitioners – I’m sorry. You have serious work to do. For the time being, there’s a lot of dreck out there positioned as truth. There’s likely some good stuff that applies to your space, it’s just going to require a little excavating on your part to find it.
Let me share with you our Dutch point of view on this matter. TNS NIPO (the Dutch branche of the international market research organisation TNS) conducted in January of this year a study among in all 731 Dutch business buyers who had completed a buyer journey in 2012. We covered 18 different categories of b2b products and services, such as company loss insurance, office equipment, energy, broadband services and express deliveries. Make no mistake about it: our study clearly proves that a business buyer on average starts with RFQs by the time that about 1/3 of the buyer journey has passed. This is a far cry from the proclaimed 70%. In fact, if you consider that many buyers contact a supplier even before they ask for a quote, you may argue that 1/3 is even a conservative estimate. Having said that, as a supplier you do need to have sufficient presence during this first 1/3 of the journey in order to be sure that you are added to the long list. Does this mean that you have to invest heavily in social media? No, it does not as barely 2% of buyers makes use of Twitter, Facebook and the likes in any category (admittedly, LinkedIn is the odd man out with some 5% use within some categories). I know, I know, I know, social media are growing rapidly in B2B, but it can't hurt to put it in some perspective. And really, the Netherlands is not similar to outer Mongolia. @regvansteen
Well done, man. Thanks so much for the insight. I ADORE seeing any kind of specific research. Absolutely agree with you on a couple fronts. I'll get to those here in a sec. Often, when I'm proselytizing about misleading statistics (and the shameful folks promoting them) I appear to not be a believer in whatever I'm railing against. So let me be clear: I'm a believer in Search. Even when prospects aren't searching upfront, they likely will be doing some search at some point. I really value this research. Makes sense to me. Is it published? I'd love to promote it on your behalf. The important part for any B2B is to understand what space you're in. For the business types you've ID'd, those folks must understand what's going on in the first 1/3 of the buyer's journey. For folks who are selling structural engineering services in the US - those prospects RARELY search for those services because they get their bids from the same 5 companies. For a seller like that to invest in search (except for getting the notice of influencers, perhaps) would be silly. So I'm an advocate of WISE investing in sales and marketing. But those naughty marketing automaters would have us believe that if we're not investing in a boatload of X, we're not doing it right. grrrrr Thanks!
@Julie_ITSMA This makes me weep with joy. First - I absolutely believe that these numbers likely ring true for IT purchasers and for buyers who are self-motivated and searching or a solution. And I'm completely bugged that this thread of conversation completely neglects the fact that there are LOADS of great prospects that aren't searching. I'd really, really love to hear more about your research here!
Here, here! Maureen, you are a woman after my own heart. At ITSMA we did our own research to test this hypothesis. Our data proves that this is a myth. In fact, we learned just the opposite: 70% of B2B technology solution buyers want to engage with sales reps before they identify their short list. (We asked 299 buyers of complex, large-scale technology-based solutions, “At what stage of the buying process do you find it most useful to engage with sales reps?” Self-reported, yes, but not as nebulous as calculating 70% of a “process,” whatever that is.)
This is actually good news for B2B solution providers. The earlier they engage, the more likely they are helping customers formulate their ideas on how to solve their problems. Earlier engagement means more wins.
Why do people keep quoting these numbers? Because marketers love them. They validate the value that marketing brings to generate leads and nurture relationships. The marketing automation vendors love these benchmarks even more. They prove without a doubt that you need their software to manage your content and fill the funnel, and nurture leads or you will never have another sale. I don't say this to denigrate marketing. Marketing is definitely important. But marketing is not the sole-hero the perpetrators of these benchmarks make us out to be. Marketing and sales have to work together at every step of the process from beginning to end.
@Julie_ITSMA This makes me weep with joy.
First - I absolutely believe that these numbers likely ring true for IT purchasers and for buyers who are self-motivated and searching or a solution. And I'm completely bugged that this thread of conversation completely neglects the fact that there are LOADS of great prospects that aren't searching.
I'd really, really love to hear more about your research here!
Here, here! Maureen, you are a woman after my own heart. At ITSMA we did our own research to test this hypothesis. Our data proves that this is a myth. In fact, we learned just the opposite: 70% of B2B technology solution buyers want to engage with sales reps before they identify their short list. (We asked 299 buyers of complex, large-scale technology-based solutions, “At what stage of the buying process do you find it most useful to engage with sales reps?” Self-reported, yes, but not as nebulous as calculating 70% of a “process,” whatever that is.) This is actually good news for B2B solution providers. The earlier they engage, the more likely they are helping customers formulate their ideas on how to solve their problems. Earlier engagement means more wins. Why do people keep quoting these numbers? Because marketers love them. They validate the value that marketing brings to generate leads and nurture relationships. The marketing automation vendors love these benchmarks even more. They prove without a doubt that you need their software to manage your content and fill the funnel, and nurture leads or you will never have another sale. I don't say this to denigrate marketing. Marketing is definitely important. But marketing is not the sole-hero the perpetrators of these benchmarks make us out to be. Marketing and sales have to work together at every step of the process from beginning to end.
@ssusina Thanks for stopping by, Steve. Let me see if I can clarify : ) I am an opponent of sweeping generalizations. They're harmful to business. With Nate Silver's help, I believe I evidenced why. I am a FAN of strategies that work. I am a fan of folks like you and me, and anyone who cares about efficacious RevGen, staying current on what's working for which sectors. But B2B is complex, as I highlighted in some of the posts I linked to. You make several sweeping generalizations in your comment. And while I don't disagree that your perspective is absolutely spot on in many situations, it's absolutely irrelevant in others. And if the 'precise number IS 27%, 39% or even 57%" then yes, saying '70%' is absolutely woefully or willfully ignorant. And there are folks in our space who claim 'all B2B prospects are 70% through their buying process before talking with a seller,' to sell more of their, say, marketing automation. If you're advising or supporting a space where prospects are doing some amount of searching upfront, then by all means design your RevGen strategy accordingly. But if you're in a space where targets aren't searching before, then this kind of talk sends well-meaning folks in the wrong direction. As an example of a company stratifying beautifully, you might be interested in Eloqua's post: http://blog.eloqua.com/2012-email-marketing-benchmarks/ I hope we start to see more specifics in our complex space. Thanks!
@Wittlake As usual, you've brought even more clarity. Thanks, friend. Keep thinking we need to be collaborating more!
A quick search suggests the 70% number is from SiriusDecisions.
I don't agree with the premise that this is a "whopper". Having worked in demand generation, customers today are far less likely than in the past to take an early stage sales appointment--what we used to call a "discovery" call. A few years ago it was relatively easy to get sales appointments with nothing more than a "Let us come by, learn about your business objectives, and share what's new from our company". Today? Customers not only won't take that meeting, they turn down gift cards, steak dinners, iPods, sports tickets, etc.--all to avoid having to ensure a sales call.
Because the buyers know what comes next. Take a "discovery" call and endure weekly phone calls from the vendor wondering how soon to expect the PO.
On the other end, I don't think its unusual to come across situations where the customer has already concluded that they have a potential challenge, researched the various solutions, identified potential vendors, built an internal business case, and decided to move forward--all before they've taken their first sales call. Does all that up-front effort amount to precisely 70%? Who really knows for sure.
More importantly, does the percentage really matter? I say, no. Regardless of whether the precise number is 57%, 70%, 39%, 27% etc, B2B marketers have to align themselves with the reality that customers have been increasing their up-front research and analysis, and if the vendors aren't visible during that window, they're not going to be on the list of those invited in for that first sales call.
@ssusina Thanks for stopping by, Steve. Let me see if I can clarify : )
I am an opponent of sweeping generalizations. They're harmful to business. With Nate Silver's help, I believe I evidenced why.
I am a FAN of strategies that work. I am a fan of folks like you and me, and anyone who cares about efficacious RevGen, staying current on what's working for which sectors.
But B2B is complex, as I highlighted in some of the posts I linked to. You make several sweeping generalizations in your comment. And while I don't disagree that your perspective is absolutely spot on in many situations, it's absolutely irrelevant in others.
And if the 'precise number IS 27%, 39% or even 57%" then yes, saying '70%' is absolutely woefully or willfully ignorant. And there are folks in our space who claim 'all B2B prospects are 70% through their buying process before talking with a seller,' to sell more of their, say, marketing automation.
If you're advising or supporting a space where prospects are doing some amount of searching upfront, then by all means design your RevGen strategy accordingly.
But if you're in a space where targets aren't searching before, then this kind of talk sends well-meaning folks in the wrong direction.
As an example of a company stratifying beautifully, you might be interested in Eloqua's post: http://blog.eloqua.com/2012-email-marketing-benchmarks/
I hope we start to see more specifics in our complex space. Thanks!
A quick search suggests the 70% number is from SiriusDecisions. I don't agree with the premise that this is a "whopper". Having worked in demand generation, customers today are far less likely than in the past to take an early stage sales appointment--what we used to call a "discovery" call. A few years ago it was relatively easy to get sales appointments with nothing more than a "Let us come by, learn about your business objectives, and share what's new from our company". Today? Customers not only won't take that meeting, they turn down gift cards, steak dinners, iPods, sports tickets, etc.--all to avoid having to ensure a sales call. Because the buyers know what comes next. Take a "discovery" call and endure weekly phone calls from the vendor wondering how soon to expect the PO. On the other end, I don't think its unusual to come across situations where the customer has already concluded that they have a potential challenge, researched the various solutions, identified potential vendors, built an internal business case, and decided to move forward--all before they've taken their first sales call. Does all that up-front effort amount to precisely 70%? Who really knows for sure. More importantly, does the percentage really matter? I say, no. Regardless of whether the precise number is 57%, 70%, 39%, 27% etc, B2B marketers have to align themselves with the reality that customers have been increasing their up-front research and analysis, and if the vendors aren't visible during that window, they're not going to be on the list of those invited in for that first sales call.
Oh, where to begin.
Ok: 70%.
I've been guilty of using this statistic, however when I tried to trace it back to a real source last year, I found there isn't one. This is a great example of a "known fact" created simply by repetition among bloggers and marketers. As you point out, CEB has a pretty different figure. I believe the 70% has been twisted from an older estimate of the portion of research that happens outside of direct dialogue with sales, it doesn't mean sales isn't involved until the process is 70% complete. (ie 30% is directly in dialogue with sales, a really big number!)
Next: Social Zealots are Drunks.
I'm quite certain I've seen Ninjas and Gurus with LDS affiliations in their Twitter bios. I'm thinking there are stronger illicit drugs at work here. Just sayin'
Moving on: The CEB study.
I'm not familiar with the methodology, but the fact that it is survey-based definitely points to some type of self-reported statistic. Even before slicing it up by industry, country, etc, we should recognize that it is a picture of how buyers buy on average and every process is different.
Finally: The abuse of statistics.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics are easily twisted (ignoring for the moment the fact the 70% one isn't even a real stat).
What should the 57% really mean? This is all: many buyers do their own research before connecting with sales. Does your sales and marketing consider these buyers? If not, should it?
This should take into account your industry (as you pointed out), the type of solution (completely new paradigms versus differentiated but well understood categories versus complete commodities), as well as your business goals. Even if this buying process is common in your category, it doesn't define every single buyer. You may be able to establish a very solid business even ignoring people that do research first (or even: letting your competitors spend time to educate them on the category and then delivering when they are ready to buy).
Ok, I'll stop before the comment becomes as long as the post! Great, as always, thanks for posting!
@Wittlake As usual, you've brought even more clarity. Thanks, friend. Keep thinking we need to be collaborating more!
Oh, where to begin. Ok: 70%. I've been guilty of using this statistic, however when I tried to trace it back to a real source last year, I found there isn't one. This is a great example of a "known fact" created simply by repetition among bloggers and marketers. As you point out, CEB has a pretty different figure. I believe the 70% has been twisted from an older estimate of the portion of research that happens outside of direct dialogue with sales, it doesn't mean sales isn't involved until the process is 70% complete. (ie 30% is directly in dialogue with sales, a really big number!) Next: Social Zealots are Drunks. I'm quite certain I've seen Ninjas and Gurus with LDS affiliations in their Twitter bios. I'm thinking there are stronger illicit drugs at work here. Just sayin' Moving on: The CEB study. I'm not familiar with the methodology, but the fact that it is survey-based definitely points to some type of self-reported statistic. Even before slicing it up by industry, country, etc, we should recognize that it is a picture of how buyers buy on average and every process is different. Finally: The abuse of statistics. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics are easily twisted (ignoring for the moment the fact the 70% one isn't even a real stat). What should the 57% really mean? This is all: many buyers do their own research before connecting with sales. Does your sales and marketing consider these buyers? If not, should it? This should take into account your industry (as you pointed out), the type of solution (completely new paradigms versus differentiated but well understood categories versus complete commodities), as well as your business goals. Even if this buying process is common in your category, it doesn't define every single buyer. You may be able to establish a very solid business even ignoring people that do research first (or even: letting your competitors spend time to educate them on the category and then delivering when they are ready to buy). Ok, I'll stop before the comment becomes as long as the post! Great, as always, thanks for posting!