In another lifetime while managing the purchasing department at a large home-building company I inherited the task of overseeing the implementation of an online software program that construction managers in the field were to use in scheduling and paying vendors. For 2003 such an application of technology in an industry that’s a slow adopter anyway was considered radical. In theory the software claimed it would reduce build-time and issue checks faster. Reality, however, was another matter. Remember I said I inherited this project. The guy before me was let go, so no pressure.
Naturally the grizzled construction managers who relied on phones and faxes to get homes built blamed the technology. It was too impractical and full of glitches. The contractors were equally distrustful. For them the software doubled scheduled their crews and issued the wrong payment amounts. Since this initiative was dictated by corporate, pulling the plug was not an option, and thus, getting to the root of things fell to me. After digging into the matter I soon discovered that the problem was us and had nothing to do with the software whatsoever.
As a general principle when implementing new technology organizations need to ensure their manual processes are as simple as possible before someone ever clicks on a mouse. This had not previously happened. Our related manual processes were overly complicated and inefficient, and the scheduling software only amplified that dysfunction. It took some time, but once we fixed our broken processes, the construction managers and vendors warmed to the software, and in turn, it yielded the intended results.
The misconception that technology will somehow solve a company’s persistent problems is still prevalent today particularly when it comes to sales and marketing alignment. It’s almost unheard of for a sales-driven organization to function without some form of CRM; at the same time companies have nearly doubled their spend on marketing automation over the past five years and by all indications they will continue to do so in the next five. Yet despite the many benefits these two basic platforms offer, even when integrated together they do not ensure the alignment of the sales and marketing functions, and furthermore, as with my opening example, may even create more problems such as lost sales opportunities, an outcome companies can’t afford to squander.
The flip side of this is that when sales and marketing are truly aligned the outcomes are impressive. The Aberdeen Group’s March 2014 report, Sales and Marketing Alignment: A Primer on Successful Collaboration, found that, of what they classified as “Best-in-Class” companies, 77% had a strong functional relationship between sales and marketing with 99% of those companies reaching their overall sales quota for the year. These companies also reported a 13.1% year-over-year increase in revenue while 33% noted a reduction in the sales cycle compared to the prior year. In another recent study involving over 1,400 participants across 84 countries, MathMarketing found that those businesses with the greatest alignment grew faster than did similar companies within their industry, and they closed 38% more deals while losing 36% fewer customers.
These results make a compelling case for aligning sales and marketing, but for many the question then becomes how exactly to go about getting these two entities in sync. Like with the implementation of the scheduling software a lot of groundwork needs to be covered before companies can ever hope to get the maximum benefit from their CRM and marketing automation tools. Specifically there are four key areas that need to be addressed once you have management’s buy-in.
Alignment of your sales and marketing teams won’t happen overnight. It will require patience and refinement. However, if you can’t agree on these four areas, then don’t plan on technology saving the day or getting you the results that companies with true alignment are achieving.