Who will get more marketing budget when the sales cycles are long? 👉 The CMO who promised 500 leads 👉 Or the one who promised a 5% increase in awareness You know the answer. 🤷🏼♂️ Marketers are not getting more budget because they can't prove the relationship between awareness and revenue. It's been known for ages that growth is a function of excess share of voice (eSOV). 10% uplift in eSOV is roughly equal to 1% market share growth. In complex B2B most of your audience is not ready to buy. It's logical that for sustainable growth you must first create demand, and then capture it. Despite this, marketers still chase the monthly lead targets, because that's the only thing they can measure. Even when the leads never turn into revenue. 🤷🏼♂️ When your sales cycles are long, use a mix of short & long-term metrics to prove the impact on revenue: 👉 Target accounts: ▪️ Website & key page visits (🔼) ▪️ Content consumption & engagement (🔼) ▪️ Event & newsletter signups (🔼) ▪️ Marketing-driven revenue (🔼) ▪️ Win rate (🔼) ▪️ Marketing-driven revenue (🔼) ▪️ Cost of acquisition (🔽) ▪️ Sales cycle length (🔽) 👉 Brand signals: ▪️ Brand searches (🔼) ▪️ Mentions and recommendations on social (🔼) ▪️ Media & event invites for your key people (🔼) 👉 Purchase intent signals: ▪️ SQLs with actual purchase intent (🔼) ▪️ Sales pipeline velocity (🔼) ▪️ Blended attribution: ask how they found you + combine with analytics (🔼) Some of these metrics are not strong enough on their own. But combined, they paint a different picture. Proving that you helped shorten sales cycles by 15% and increase the win rate among key accounts by 30% is a HUGE win. This has way more impact on revenue than just leads with no purchase intent. Showing the relationship between marketing and revenue is not just a way to get more budget. It's our responsibility as B2B marketers. #b2bmarketing #demandgeneration #longsalescycles
To view or add a comment, sign in
No alternative text description for this image