Learn together! Purchase 3 or more training seats for your team or network and save up to $19 per ticket! Users can be assigned and updated after the purchase.

Are you an ��������� Professional Certified Marketer®️? This training is worth 2 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) to maintain your PCM®️ certification.

��������� Members Get the Best Pricing

Not only do members get discounts on training like this, but they also receive exclusive content, downloadable tools, unlimited access to ��������� Journals, membership in networking communities and more.

Join & SAVE

Training Backed By Research

��������� training is unique because of its data-backed approach. The ��������� Competency Model Framework identifies the most impactful skills marketers need to advance their careers. It’s based on our research with more than 1,000 marketing professionals and academic leaders.

Learn More

The post A Modern B2B Marketing Approach appeared first on ���������.

This guide is built for marketers who need events and experience to perform like a true marketing channel not just a line item. Inside, you’ll learn how leading brands define experiential marketing, choose the right formats, and design “money-can’t-buy” moments that create emotional connection and long-term loyalty. Get practical ideas for leveraging AI, RFID, and data to personalize experiences at scale, measure behavior across touchpoints, and connect those insights back to the pipeline and revenue.

The post Experiential Marketing Playbook for Modern B2B Marketers appeared first on ���������.

When a giant multinational like Unilever partners with one of its major suppliers, such as the industrial enzyme-producer Novozyme, the collaboration can fast-track innovation and improve business performance. Such a partnership between a firm and a supplier brings together knowledge, technologies, and other resources to create a product, service, or solution—and industry reports indicate that up to 85% of firms believe these collaborations are an effective means of innovation.

This broader impact of product co-development collaboration is aptly captured in the following public statement by the multinational pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb:

As critical drivers of our strategy, external innovation and partnering have brought significant commercial success and pipeline growth. Twelve of our company’s twenty blockbuster medicines are derived from collaborations. In addition, more than sixty percent of our current development pipeline is externally sourced bringing significant external innovation to complement our internal capabilities and innovation.

However, such collaborations also expose the firm to various transactional hazards such as knowledge spillovers and opportunism. In a , we demonstrate how misaligned contracts can erode innovation outcomes of high-tech firms. The danger looms large when a firm fails to consider its positioning strategy and functional capabilities when crafting innovation collaboration contracts with its suppliers. This creates a barrier to a firm’s ability to generate sustained dividends from its broader marketing strategy.

Strategic decisions taken by firms are based on the presumed value generated from the implementation of the decisions and the presumed costs incurred in the process. As important as innovation co-developments are to a firm’s broader marketing strategy, managers should ask themselves an important question: Will such contracts help sustain any strategy dividend? The strategy dividend can be whittled away if there is no “fit” between a firm’s strategic positioning, functional capabilities, and the governance modes of co-development.

The Downsides of Joint Venture Partnerships

Consider, for example, industry observations that . Economic downturns impose a need for cost efficiencies, and JVs can be useful because of presumed close coordination between the two entities. Yet, as our hypotheses and results show, this economic dividend can only be realized when firms have high technological capabilities. For firms with similar efficiency orientations, we estimate that their technological capabilities are associated with an increase of 5.2% in innovation performance for JVs, but not for technology licensing contracts and joint development agreements.

On the other hand, estimates show that strong marketing capabilities in the same situation are associated with a decrease of 17.9% in innovation performance for JVs. Additionally, marketing capabilities seem to be more benign for joint development agreements in high differentiation-oriented firms. For such firms, marketing capabilities are associated with an increase of 7.8% in innovation performance for joint development agreements.

One of our central themes is that the idea of fit in co-development collaborations comes with underlying notions of misalignment costs that need to be recognized. While mapping the bases of misalignment, we highlight the keystone role of the firm’s positioning strategy in innovation collaborations. Strategy frames how a firm deploys its resources and focuses its energies. So, a misalignment will naturally manifest in inefficiency, perhaps one that will emerge over time. As our empirical results bear out, misalignment between collaboration contracts, capabilities, and strategy significantly erodes innovation outcomes.

Lessons for Chief Marketing Officers

Our study offers three key takeaways:

1. For better innovation outcomes, firms need to select the collaboration form that motivates their partners to share know-how and expertise and facilitate efficient knowledge transfers. At the same time, firms must also pay attention to protecting their valuable knowledge and skills from opportunistic appropriation and ensure effective use of their deployed resources.
2. Firms need to build the “right” functional capability to yield the most benefit from innovation collaborations. For instance, a firm needs to invest in building marketing capabilities if it is driven by high differentiation and consider more arms-length arrangements such as joint development agreements with suppliers. In contrast, firms driven by efficiency considerations are better off developing their technological capabilities when considering a joint venture.
3. Firms must resist blindly copying the practices of other firms, regardless of the appearance of “industry best practices.” Considering the firm’s positioning strategy along with its capabilities is crucial to designing effective contracts. Thus, blanket prescriptions for one or the other types of contracts (e.g., joint ventures during downturns) may be misdirected.

From: Nehal Elhelaly and Sourav Ray, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post The Dangers of Misaligned Product Co-development Contracts—And How They Can Derail Innovation in High-Tech Firms appeared first on ���������.

Buying groups or purchasing cooperatives, a.k.a. group purchasing organizations (GPOs), work together to leverage their collective purchasing power to get discounts from suppliers. They are common across industries such as health care (e.g., Vizient), manufacturing (e.g., IBC), hospitality (e.g., Pandion), and retailing (e.g., Nationwide), representing a considerable number of members and sizeable spending. Buying groups play an important governance role in business-to-business (B2B) exchanges by managing suppliers on behalf of their member buyers. By doing so, buying groups can negotiate on behalf of their members, resulting in suppliers offering better pricing and services to businesses because they place larger orders or spend more money with them annually. But despite the prevalence of such groups across industries, questions persist about their effectiveness.

by Alok Kumar, Huanhuan Shi, Jenifer Skiba, Amit Saini, and Zhi Lu elucidates how buying groups impact buyer–supplier relationships and supplier performance for buyers. The authors propose a framework for analyzing the triadic nature of the relationships between buyers, suppliers, and buying groups. This framework enables practitioners and scholars to grasp the inherent intricacies and nuances within these relationships.

The findings show that buying groups can govern suppliers by monitoring their performance and community-building efforts to create harmonious ties between buyers and suppliers. Buying group monitoring enhances supplier performance, especially when coupled with buyer monitoring. However, community building is less effective when buyer–supplier ties are already strong.

Buying groups can govern suppliers by monitoring their performance and community-building efforts to create harmonious ties between buyers and suppliers. Buying group monitoring enhances supplier performance, especially when coupled with buyer monitoring.

The efficacy of buying group governance also depends on dependence: Buying group monitoring is more impactful when the supplier depends on the group and when the buyer depends on the supplier. However, buying group community building weakens as the buyer’s dependence on the supplier increases. The findings highlight the complex interplays between buying groups and buyer–supplier dyads, suggesting the need to incorporate groups into studies of B2B exchanges. This study provides novel insights into governance mechanisms and the boundary conditions of group–dyad interactions between buyers, suppliers, and buying groups.

Implications for Industry

Although monitoring efforts made by buying groups are beneficial, buyers should put their relational efforts into their interactions with suppliers. In addition, buyers and buying groups should strategically adapt their governance strategies in response to each other:

1. Buyers should emphasize supplier monitoring when buying groups monitor suppliers, and vice versa.
2. Buying groups should emphasize community building when buyer–supplier ties are weak and deemphasize it when the ties are strong.

However, the authors call for further scrutiny on the effects of buyer groups’ attributes, the impacts of community efforts aimed only at buyers (vs. buyers and suppliers jointly), and the distinctive role of contracts and incentives as monitoring practices. We interviewed the authors to gain deeper insight into this study:

Q: Could you please summarize the article for practitioners or undergraduates in a sentence or two? Please include (a) the main insights offered, (b) their impact on managerial decision making, and (c) the advantages for institutional policymakers resulting from your research when explaining it to them.

A: Many buyer–seller dyads engage with independent groups (e.g., buying groups/GPOs, research consortiums, industry associations), but the B2B literature has focused mainly on dyadic relationships, ignoring these groups. We aimed to address this gap by anchoring ourselves in the health care sector. Specifically, we examine how GPOs, GPO-affiliated suppliers, and buyer firms (hospitals) work together to enhance the value delivered to hospitals. We find that GPOs govern their affiliated suppliers through both formal (e.g., benchmarking) and informal (e.g., community building) mechanisms, which support the supplier’s performance as delivered to the hospital, contingent on the hospital’s governance of the supplier as well as the parties’ dependence on each other in complex ways.

Managerially, we suggest that hospitals and buying groups establish clear benchmarks for suppliers, particularly when the supplier is less replaceable, and groups undertake community-building efforts in fragmented markets.

Our work can be relevant to policymakers in the health care sector, where escalating patient care costs are a major concern.

Q: You touched on the primary motivations behind the current study. Could you provide further insight into how this research idea was envisioned? Also, what is the relevance of this topic to managers in the B2B sector that warrants close attention?

A: This paper was a result of a collaboration between a doctoral student (Jen Skiba) and a faculty team at the University of Nebraska. Jen’s industry experience indicated mixed thoughts on the utility of GPOs for hospitals. While Jen was developing her dissertation on the purchasing styles of GPOs, the team came up with a new perspective that focused on the intricate interactions among the multiple actors (GPOs, hospitals, suppliers) involved in the contemporary procurement system of hospitals. We envisioned that governance mechanisms in the procurement system are crucial for improving hospital performance outcomes and patient service quality. Our interfirm perspective offers insights for managers in B2B sectors, suggesting how they can leverage distinct governance mechanisms to coordinate transactions that involve heterogeneous actors (individual firms, groups) and span multiple exchange relationships.

Q: Given the paper’s reference to previous studies not efficiently comprehending triadic relationships between buyers, suppliers, and buying groups, could it be the case that managers and marketers similarly encounter challenges in effectively approaching and assessing these relationships? If so, what factors might contribute to this ineffectiveness in their approach and evaluation?

A: Managers often face the problem of assessing outcomes in their interfirm relationships. In fact, prior research has shown that a variety of organizational forms, including distribution networks, franchising systems, new product alliances, co-branding, co-marketing initiatives, joint ventures, and so on, face the problem of externalities, in which a third-party actor can impact outcomes in a focal buyer–seller relationship. Yet most of the B2B research that we see is dyadic in nature, ignoring the impact of these third parties (e.g., buying groups). The severity and frequency of this issue could depend on a host of factors, but some prominent ones include the resource endowments of the firms involved, their mutual dependence, and market uncertainty. The directional impact of these factors will need to be articulated considering the larger relationship context.

Q: Do you consider any potential influence of contextual factors, such as industry or market characteristics, to affect the relationships explored in this paper? In other words, are there specific contexts in which the proposed model of triadic relationships becomes particularly relevant?

A: While we did not explicitly test these other industry/market factors, we conjecture that there could be some contexts in which the triadic model proposed in our paper might be more salient. In particular, in industries where buyer firms are small or fragmented (and therefore lack the ability to command good terms from suppliers), we expect the emergence of focused third-party actors (such as the GPOs in the current study) to facilitate buyer–supplier exchange. Another condition could be the nature of the product, namely whether it is a commodity or is custom-made according to the needs of a particular buyer firm. GPOs must satisfy the preferences of many group members (buyers), which is hard to do when the products are custom-made for a specific need. Thus, we expect the third-party model will likely be less salient for highly specialized or customized products.

Q: Can you share more insights into the specific challenges and barriers you faced during your research? For instance, what challenges did you encounter in establishing partnerships with hospital managers, and what advice or pitfalls can you share with future researchers and practitioners seeking similar partnerships?

A: The biggest difficulty was getting hospital purchasing managers to respond to our questionnaire. To alleviate this issue, we had pre-contacted the hospitals and talked directly to the purchasing manager to get buy-in. Even when we had the buy-in, though, it was still difficult to obtain compliance. We offered some incentives to motivate the informants. As a part of this research, we also conducted approximately 25 in-depth interviews with industry participants. Locating these informants and getting them to respond to somewhat long interview sessions was also challenging. However, most agreed to help because the topic resonated with their industry experience.

Q: Could you share your thoughts on possible extensions of the current paper? For instance, how can the findings and methodology presented in your paper potentially serve as a foundation for future research or be applied to related areas within the field?

A: The interorganizational governance angle can be applied to other situations that require coordinated efforts across multiple organizations. For example, an increasing number of hospitals have adopted new programs to provide medical services at patients’ homes. Such programs require coordinated efforts from hospitals, pharmacies, community health services, and technology providers. Hospitals at the center of this network can leverage different governance mechanisms and their interplay to ensure the delivery of high-quality patient services. In addition, as a health care system may contract with multiple peripheral service providers for the hospitals under the system, they play similar roles as GPOs that aggregate hospital demand, monitor activities, and promote collaboration among them.

Read the full article:

Alok Kumar, Huanhuan Shi, Jenifer Skiba, Amit Saini, and Zhi Lu (2023), “Impact of Buying Groups on Buyer–Supplier Relationships: Group–Dyad Interactions in Business-to-Business Markets,”��Journal of Marketing Research, 60 (6), 1197–220. doi:

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post A Triadic Dance: When B2B Buying Groups Shape Buyer–Supplier Relationships appeared first on ���������.

A by the consumer research company Attest found that 89.4% of adults in the U.S. are currently either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to shop around for the best deals on food and beverage products. In , 71% of consumers said they were likely to switch food and beverage brands to save money, and 80% believed brands conveniently cite inflation to justify price hikes.

As a result, shoppers are moving away from large national brands toward private labels. According to a , 40% of shoppers said they have purchased more private labels since 2020, with higher grocery prices as the reason.

Some national brand manufacturers also produce private labels, and with such growth, the practice is likely to become even more commonplace. However, this phenomenon has been largely unexplored because the supply of private labels—and to whom they are supplied—is a well-kept secret.

In a , we explore the complex trade-offs involved in dual branding, that is, the supply of private label products by manufacturers of national brands. We identify private label suppliers to six of the largest grocery retailers in Spain across over 260 product categories and combine that information with purchase data from a national household panel. Armed with this unique dataset, we explore the factors that drive dual branding and what effect it has on the national brands of dual branders.

We find that more than 70% of private label suppliers to these retailers supply both national and private label brands. In the majority of cases, dual branders supply private labels in categories where they have their own national brands; however, almost a third of the time, their private label categories are closely related to, but not the same as, the categories in which they have national brands. For example, consider a private label in beauty creams and a national brand in body milk. Or a private label in toast sticks and a national brand in cookies.

How Does Supplying Private Labels Help (or Hurt) National Brand Manufacturers?

Private label supply is not limited to fringe national brand manufacturers; the strongest driver of private label supply is manufacturers with a large national brand business. Manufacturers of premium and innovative national brands supply private labels, especially to a retailer whose private label is not heavily discounted. Also, the more a manufacturer depends on a retailer for its national brand revenue—and the more intense the competition it faces on that retailer’s shelf—the more likely it is to supply the retailer’s private label. In other words, manufacturers see private label supply as a way to exploit scale and try to gain influence with retailers to benefit their national brands.

Does this quest for influence actually work out? The answer, according to our study, is yes—with qualifiers. First, our research reveals that when a manufacturer starts supplying private labels to a retailer, its national brands enjoy a significant increase in relative distribution depth at that retailer. More items belonging to the brand are stocked, increasing its visibility at the point of purchase. This boost is even more pronounced for manufacturers that previously experienced declining distribution depth and faced higher competitive intensity. In effect, supplying private labels benefits national brands.

On the flip side, despite the increase in relative distribution depth, we find no corresponding boost in the relative share of dual branders’ national brands at the retailer. This may seem odd, but it is important to remember that increasing distribution depth is under the control of the retailer, but an increase in sales is up to consumers.

In sum, while supplying private labels can be a strategic move, it is not a cure-all for struggling national brands. Shelf space is a valuable resource for grocery retailers, most of whose business is still in physical stores. No retailer will continue to expand shelf space for a brand that lacks sufficient consumer demand.

Lessons for Manufacturers

Our study offers two important lessons for manufacturers:

1. Manufacturers should supply private labels if they can succeed in that business as efficient and flexible producers at scale. Those with weak national brands may be better off migrating completely into private label production.
2. Manufacturers that are considering supplying private labels in periods of excess capacity should look before they leap. They may assume they can get out of the private label business whenever they want, but terminating an arrangement with a retailer hurts their national brand distribution depth as much as starting one benefits it.

As national brand manufacturers navigate the private label landscape, our research will help them decide whether they should get into this intensely competitive business. It will also help them build competitive intelligence into the private label decisions of their channel counterparts and competitors.

From: Yu Ma, Kusum L. Ailawadi, Mercedes Martos-Partal, and Óscar González-Benito, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Weighing the Pros and Cons: National Brands in the Private Label Market appeared first on ���������.

U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings increased by 68% in the first half of 2023 from a year earlier, with companies such as Party City, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Envision Healthcare filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A company declaring bankruptcy seeks to reorganize its pre-bankruptcy debt while continuing business operations with the goal of emerging from bankruptcy speedily. Emergence from bankruptcy and the time in bankruptcy are collectively called bankruptcy survival.

However, on average, only 50% of companies emerge from bankruptcy. Previous research has highlighted the role of companies’ financial condition before bankruptcy—such as a solvency risk, size, debt levels, and marketing expenses—on its bankruptcy survival. However, companies, as buyers of goods and services, continue to interact with their suppliers during bankruptcy, and these interactions have been overlooked.

A finds that a bankrupt buyer and its suppliers’ interactions during the buyer’s bankruptcy affect its survival. These interactions happen through acts called motions that either the buyer or its suppliers file in a bankruptcy court. This involves each party providing information to its counterpart by undertaking acts that indicate its intentions, motives, or goals. The counterpart must, in turn, infer the acting party’s intent from the latter’s accommodative and exploitative acts undertaken over time.

Accommodative and Exploitative Acts

Accommodative acts signal a cooperative intent by making concessions to the counterpart. For example, a bankrupt buyer can file a motion that allows a supplier’s payment to be made immediately rather than waiting until the end of the bankruptcy process. Or a buyer can assume a supplier contract, which confirms the business relationship will continue. Likewise, suppliers can also engage in accommodative acts like filing a “no objection certificate” that supports the buyer’s acts. When one party engages in an accommodative act, it signals to the other party that it intends to collaborate. These acts indicate an emphasis on the relationship.

Exploitative acts signal a competitive stance, with the signaler emphasizing its intent to seek concessions emphasizing its own interests, even if such concessions may not be in the interests of its counterpart. For example, the buyer may decide to reject a supplier contract, thus signaling it wants to discontinue the relationship. A supplier can also engage in an exploitative act like reclaiming goods it had supplied just before the buyer filed for bankruptcy. These exploitative motions signal a competitive intent and that the party filing the motion is pursuing its own interest rather than collaborating.

We study nearly 10,000 motions filed by 310 publicly listed buyers and their suppliers over 14 years and demonstrate the key role played by each party’s accommodative and exploitative acts in the buyer’s bankruptcy survival. We find that an increase in the rate of accommodative acts (accommodative velocity) improves the buyer’s bankruptcy survival. An increase in the rate of exploitative acts (exploitative velocity) has the opposite effect.

We find that an increase in the rate of accommodative acts improves the buyer’s bankruptcy survival. An increase in the rate of exploitative acts has the opposite effect.

Our findings indicate that managers should pay attention to the underlying intent that emerges from accommodative and exploitative velocity. High accommodative velocity indicates an intent to cooperate. While high exploitative velocity indicates a competitive intent.

The rate of acts provides more credible information on the party’s intent than one-off acts.

Findings and Lessons for Chief Marketing Officers

Here’s how the rate of accommodative versus exploitative acts affects bankruptcy survival:

• A 1% increase in a buyer’s accommodative velocity improves bankruptcy survival by 39%, while a 1% increase in a buyer’s exploitative velocity decreases bankruptcy survival by 33%.

• Similarly, a 1% increase in suppliers’ accommodative velocity increases the buyer’s survival by 32%, while a 1% increase in their exploitative velocity decreases survival by 28%.

• The positive effect of accommodative velocity on a buyer’s bankruptcy survival is more pronounced when the behavior is consistent.

Our findings lead to four vital lessons for bankrupt buyers, their suppliers, and policymakers:

1. Buyers and their suppliers should be strategic in their use of accommodative and exploitative acts. To improve the chances of a buyer’s bankruptcy survival, they should increase the rate of accommodative acts while reducing the rate of exploitative ones.
2. It is important for both buyers and suppliers to realize that the rate of accommodative acts has a greater effect on bankruptcy survival, even though these acts represent only 15% of the motions filed during bankruptcy.
3. Although the influence of suppliers’ acts on bankruptcy survival is less potent than that of buyers, their effect is nevertheless substantial. Suppliers of companies undergoing bankruptcy should strategically engage with the buyer because this affects the buyer’s bankruptcy survival.
4. Policymakers are keen on having suppliers engage in the buyer’s bankruptcy process. However, not all suppliers participate because of the associated costs or a lack of interest. Our findings indicate that the rate of suppliers’ acts affects buyers’ bankruptcy survival, thereby providing evidence in support of increased supplier participation in the bankruptcy process.

From: Sudha Mani, Vivek Astvansh, and Kersi D. Antia, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post The Secret to Surviving Bankruptcy: Pay Attention to Buyer–Supplier Interactions During the Bankruptcy Process appeared first on ���������.

Our recent finds two important areas where B2B marketers are struggling. The first is measuring results (41%), and the second is making data actionable (39%). What that tells us is the name of the game in B2B demand generation is data.

When calculating the effectiveness of data-driven demand generation programs. 73% of B2B marketers feel they are only somewhat successful in implementing strategies for these data-driven demand programs, highlighting the need for an improved automation platform that can streamline strategies and efforts for more successful outcomes.

Benefits of an Effective Data-Driven Demand Generation Strategy

Get ready for more accurate campaigns, a streamlined qualification process and a way better customer experience.

When you use data to generate demand for your B2B services or products, your programs are more accurate. And that matters, because when your marketing programs are more accurate, you tend to spend less for better quality leads in the long run. Relying on data for demand generation can certainly have big impacts on your business goals, but it’s also an important way to help your customer feel seen, cared for, and excited about your company.

Improves Lead Quality for Your Teammates in Sales

Nearly half of the B2B marketers we surveyed called out lead quality specifically as their number one benefit after implementing more data-driven demand generation programs. That’s because using data to drive decision making helps to streamline the qualification process. The more you know about your audience, and then tailor your messaging to that audience, the more successful demand gen efforts can be. When you offer products and services to people who need them and are close to making a decision, that close is a lot closer.

Improves Customer Experience

Another important benefit called out by our survey respondents was the impact to customer experience. When you’re using data responsibly in your , there’s an opportunity to provide such a different experience for the people visiting your website or interacting with your content anywhere. Tailoring your message with segmented email or dynamic page content is a great way to connect with the right leads and get them excited about your CTA.

This adds up a stronger sales pipeline, better conversion rates and more qualified customers. Using data-driven demand generation as part of your lets you connect with your target customers when and where they are ready to buy.

Does utilizing data significantly improve B2B demand generation strategies?

The vast majority of B2B marketers say yes. 95% of those surveyed agree to some extent with the statement, “Demand generation is significantly improved when a data-driven strategy is used.” Despite varying degrees of success, utilizing data will continue to improve B2B demand generation strategies.

Access to Data Continues to Be a Major Hurdle

If you agree that data would help your strategy, you’re right. The challenge is that many are unable to access the data needed to help solidify their strategies. 32% of the B2B marketing professionals we surveyed said having the right data to make effective decisions is a struggle.

Luckily, using a marketing automation platform can help B2B marketers find success. Your automation tools should be collecting all the data you need. It’s all a matter of the correct set-up.

Here are a few ideas to configure your system for the best possible use of data:

• Use tracking pixels on your website to collect information about how people behave when visiting your site.
• Track email engagement to see what’s connecting
• Integrate your tech stack so you can track event attendance and interactions with your team

This data can give you a look into what is working and what isn’t, allowing you to adjust your strategy for demand generation gains.

Data Quality is Key

If the data behind decision-making is irrelevant or of poor quality, it is incredibly difficult for a B2B demand generation strategy to be effective. Only one-third (34%) of B2B marketing professionals report feeling certain that the quality of their data allows them to make effective decisions on where to spend marketing and sales resources.

Feeling certain about your data is critical to your demand generation strategy. Using a marketing automation platform helps improve data quality and provides a complete picture of your customers by consolidating and storing all the data in one place so that it becomes a single source of truth.

The Importance of Customer Journey Mapping

Understanding when, where, and why customers enter and exit the buying journey is key to creating a more effective strategy that results in growth. The smartest B2B marketers use customer journey mapping as a key part of their demand generation efforts. 

Here are a few reasons why customer journey mapping is so effective:

• Reveals the big picture of the buying process
• Uncovers points of friction in the buying process, include content or product gaps
• Provides a basis for predicting customer behavior
• Improves the customer experience

Creating a customer journey map is a great way to gain a better understanding of your customers and their experience with your brand. Follow  to get started with creating a customer journey map. 

Once you have a better understanding of your customer journey, marketing automation can help you push out the best-fitting touchpoints for customers at each stage of their journey. 

Data Impacts More Than Just the Numbers

Marketing involves understanding your customers and why they should want your product or service. Data insights help give you a glimpse into who they are, their buying behavior, and how to communicate with them. But data isn’t just for baselines and benchmarking. Data impacts many different facets of marketing, from demand generation to , to customer experience.

Demand generation strategies rely on quality data, because to serve the right ads or create the right webinar topics, you’ve got to know the audience. To serve them in the right places with the right budget is a whole ‘nother level. 

Coupling your data-backed demand gen strategy with marketing automation allows you start with more targeted programs and then take the guesswork out of nurturing. Streamlining your touchpoints for a more customized experience is more appealing to leads and creates a more efficient process for your company.  

People appreciate personalization. An effective way to ensure you get personalization right is by  to reach a variety of different audiences. Try using segmentation strategies when analyzing your data, giving you a more in-depth look into your leads and who is attracted to your brand. Using data with a more segmented approach helps you create high-value, relevant content for potential customers, which also helps drive demand generation and get more qualified leads into the pipeline. 

The Beat B2B Marketing Demand Generation Programs Begin & End With Data

Effective demand generation strategies help drive growth for B2B companies by delivering highly targeted and engaging content. Whether that’s organically through good content, or paid for with ads, syndication or events, successful demand generation is crucial for a healthy business. 

In order for these strategies to be effective, they need to be driven by data. Gaining this data through marketing automation gives you the insights you need and helps you streamline your approach and keep winning new business. 
Data-backed demand generation is just one of the many in B2B marketing that can help inspire your decisions moving forward, as you find different ways to connect with and convert new customers.

Wanna know how YOU can use data to drive demand? Get all the inspiration you need from the full report below!

The post B2B Demand Generation Trends: The Newest Data appeared first on ���������.

In a , our research team examines the nature, functioning, and performance relevance of Machiavellianism in alliance partnerships.

We do so by focusing on a fundamental issue alliances face—both the bright side and dark side of alliances shape their effectiveness. Alliances offer a platform for joint learning that can serve the interests of the partnership (bright side) or they can foster learning-related exploitation and the use of power to prioritize one’s own goals (dark side). The tension between these routes can be used by an alliance partner with Machiavellian characteristics.

Machiavellianism in an alliance is a firm’s strategy of social conduct that involves manipulation of the partner for own gain, often against its best interests. Our Theories-in-Use interviews with executives confirmed that Machiavellianism resonates strongly in the marketing alliance context. For example, one CEO commented that “For companies like mine, tie-ups are a unique vehicle that offer great opportunities to benefit from the partner and its skills. We are masters of manipulation.”

Like other social psychology constructs transferred from the individual to the firm level, Machiavellianism is partly dispositional (internal beliefs) and partly manifest (behavioral). We did not find evidence that Machiavellianism is a fixed, firm-level disposition. Instead, our interviewees were convinced their firm’s Machiavellianism and its dimensions (i.e., distrust in the partner, desire for status, amoral manipulation, and desire for control) vary across alliance settings. For instance, the managing director of a marketing alliance was adamant that “It can change. Our motives, needs, and desire to lead in the production of new skills … change, as it is often easier to chalk up another victory by deceiving rather than leading.” 
 
Our main study examines a firm’s Machiavellianism as a driver of its performance effectiveness in the alliance via learning and power mechanisms. We find that Machiavellianism harms performance by: (a) weakening motivations to develop and learn new knowledge with the partner (i.e., collaborative learning); (b) strengthening motivations related to anxiety about failing to access and learn new knowledge from the partner (i.e., learning anxiety); and (c) increasing the use of power to dominate the alliance’s agenda. 
 
We also find that while Machiavellianism naturally drives learning anxiety, it can encourage collaborative learning when there is situational knowledge furnished by collaborative history. The path to use of power is unaffected by collaborative history. Using history to understand the situation opens the way for Machiavellian pragmatists to favor bright-side (collaborative) learning over the more intuitive dark-side (anxiety) route in the race to learn. Using collaborative history, we find moderating conditions that can benefit performance by neutralizing the negative performance effects of Machiavellianism through collaborative learning and learning anxiety, but not use of power. 
 
Our quasi-longitudinal study allows us to recognize that learning and power effects take time to unfold. We unveil evidence that performance outcomes of learning are contingent on the alliance development stage. We observe an inverted U-shaped moderation at the alliance development stage on the paths from collaborative learning and learning anxiety to performance. Once an alliance partnership is past its peak, opportunities fade for both learning-related mechanisms.
 
We further observe that the competitive mechanism, use of power, appears to be problematic because it is resistant to the conditioning effects of both knowledge built via collaborative history and the alliance development stage. Machiavellian use of power to dominate the alliance’s agenda is a key concern for alliance management. 
 
We advise managers that Machiavellian firms’ preoccupation with dark-side learning anxiety and use of power could preclude a focus on collaborative learning, to the detriment of performance. Still, it is important that managers factor into their planning the conditioning effects of alliance situational factors like collaborative history.
 
Understanding how to identify a Machiavellian partner is beneficial for practitioners because such partners are adept at creating the illusion of cooperation. Our Theories-in-Use discussions surfaced manifestations of Machiavellianism’s behavioral side that would allow the detection of a Machiavellian partner. Machiavellian firms are likely to exhibit behaviors that reflect its dimensions, such as hypervigilance, authoritative work patterns, and calculative adaptations.
 
Firms may find it prudent to set up an alliance with a partner with Machiavellian characteristics, provided the partner offers a good fit of capabilities for the alliance work. The challenge facing managers is to surface this partner’s Machiavellianism and suppress its deleterious effects until they can find value in collaborative learning.

. 

From: Giuseppe Musarra, Matthew Robson, and Constantine Katsikeas, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Read the authors’ slides for sharing this material in your classroom

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Navigating Machiavellianism in Corporate Alliance Partnerships appeared first on ���������.

As a B2B marketing professional, we understand that securing impactful results across the board, generating high-quality leads and delivering strong return-on-investment are vital to your success — as an individual, a department and a business.

Within this E-Book, you will discover how a simple code can help you achieve it all — detailed analytics to enhance website performance, the power to personalize, real-time alerts for instant communication and nurturing, high-caliber marketing data and the chance to turn every visitor into a piping hot lead — even if they haven’t made a website inquiry. Download E-Book now!

The post The Ultimate Guide to Reverse IP Tracking | Lead Forensics appeared first on ���������.

When most think of customer loyalty programs, these are the types of programs that come to mind. Earn your way to a free cup of coffee or a flight upgrade. Or, maybe you’ll get an “exclusive” discount. While many customers sign up for these programs and redeem their rewards, they’re . And, oftentimes, the perks aren’t enticing enough to keep customers interacting with the program (or company). Customer service, product consistency, and just  may be stronger predictors of loyalty in these cases.

Customer loyalty programs date back to 1793 when retailers gave customers copper tokens with their purchases that they would redeem for future purchases. Because the tokens were expensive, they started using stamps in 1896.

In today’s online world, it’s easier than ever for customers to switch products. Consumers are not as loyal to brands due to just convenience or necessity. The low (or non-existent) barriers to entry for new players make new options common. With COVID-19 making it more difficult for businesses to engage with customers, there has been a rapid shift toward digital engagement. Customers who embrace digital technology make it even easier to switch to them.

Customer  as they expect a consistent, personalized experience from every interaction. And the payoff is big. Customers are  with brands that are exceptional at meeting their individual needs. This makes keeping your customers loyal more important than ever. And, like many of the shifts in business, there are big shifts in how you need to think about customer loyalty.

Shifts in customer loyalty programs

 date back to 1793 when retailers gave customers copper tokens with their purchases that they would redeem for future purchases. Because the tokens were expensive, they started using stamps in 1896. These programs evolved through time from boxtops with coupons or rewards and prizes in cereal boxes to modern-day frequent flyer mile programs and loyalty cards that track purchases. 

In 2009, Starbucks launched its mobile app that now includes its  loyalty program and ties earning additional stars to paying through the app. They made it simple and convenient for customers to track their progress toward rewards and make purchases. Customers quickly changed their paying habit making it the . And, by adding personalized offers based on past purchases, it also drives additional sales.     

With more purchase points and consumers engaging across many channels before deciding to buy, businesses need to find a way to consolidate customer share of spend and increase share of wallet. Brands are increasingly competing for customers’ mindshare and retention. Understanding how customers want to engage with loyalty programs is key to keeping competitors from pulling them away.

Experiential customer loyalty rewards

Loyalty programs offer a powerful vehicle to acquire customers and . However, this rich data is not being effectively used to drive experiences based on true understanding of customer preferences, affinities, and behaviors to build an emotional connection with the brand. Analyzing the data is the key to building better loyalty programs that offer the level of personalized experiences customers expect.

Brands are increasingly competing for customers’ mindshare and retention. Understanding how customers want to engage with loyalty programs is key to keeping competitors from pulling them away.

As consumer expectations continue to evolve (and because they are very aware that they’re sharing their data with companies in exchange for personalized experiences), loyalty programs also need to change to adhere to these new expectations. To increase customer “stickiness,” companies need to expand their programs to provide better value and offerings. Instead of earning the same free cup of coffee after the tenth purchase that everyone gets, companies need to shift to experiential rewards. Some companies, including the Starbucks Rewards example above, are embracing this approach. A leading airline offers tickets to premier league soccer games based on the top-tier member preferences. Top retailers offer rewards including early online and in-person access to major sale events or opportunities for top-tier members to earn trips to major global events and special classes.

Expanding your loyalty strategy beyond ”earn-and-burn” and making it an enterprise-wide strategy is what helps to drive experiential programs. Many companies stick their customer loyalty management program with one department or even small teams within a department. This often limits the scope of the program, resulting in transactional experiences. A loyalty program shouldn’t be a siloed endeavor — it should span the entire business. Customers expect consistency across all interactions and touch points they have with companies, regardless of department or the reason for the interaction. Boosting internal adoption and engagement for today’s successful program requires buy-in and engagement from all areas of the company.

Also, developing a complementary partner ecosystem can expand the experience beyond the limits of a company’s own products. Consider what complementary products may provide more value and increase stickiness to the program. For example, a frequent flyer program could partner with popular restaurants so travelers can redeem their points for a meal in the city they’re visiting. That increases the engagement of the overall program.

With , the goals are engagement and advocacy rather than just retention. Personalized rewards build emotional connections that transform customers into advocates. It’s what takes customers from getting their card punched to being truly delighted with an experience they can’t wait to tell their friends about.

Reimagining the customer loyalty experience

Creating the type of experience customers now demand takes more than an evolution. It’s time to completely reimagine what the loyalty experience needs to be. 

Companies need to address and remove organizational silos that inhibit customer experiences. Are your marketing, commerce, and customer service teams taking advantage of rich loyalty insights to deliver a coherent and consistent customer experience? Or are there business, cultural, or technology blockers inhibiting the ability to drive a consistent member experience?

Providing the right technology and tools is key for success. Gone are the days of paying for highly-customized programs that take years to deploy and are outdated before launching. Integrated loyalty ecosystems enable personalized, connected experiences that can connect the dots throughout the customer journey to deliver on the brand promise across every customer touch point. 

Are your marketing, commerce, and customer service teams taking advantage of rich loyalty insights to deliver a coherent and consistent customer experience?

Next generation loyalty programs are all about driving highly personalized, contextual, and dynamic experiences. And creating this kind of experiential loyalty program requires brands to harness data and leverage it across every customer interaction. Companies can glean powerful insights about customer affinities and preferences from the digital footprints of customer interactions and then put them to work.

Embedding loyalty insights – powered by metrics and analytics –  that are available to all employees and driving business processes influenced by loyalty can lead to holistic and differentiated experiences delivered by everyone across the customer journey spectrum. An end-to-end loyalty platform empowers businesses to create intelligent, differentiated experiential engagements that grow relationships and increase customer lifetime value.

Aligning B2B and B2C loyalty programs

While customer loyalty programs are more common for B2C companies, B2B companies are adopting programs as they realize the value it brings. B2B loyalty programs can better engage partner and distributor channels with incentives that will improve performance and foster long term relationships. It also helps them align their channel partner initiatives with end-consumer initiatives, which is a must. 

Beyond driving economic value from increased purchases, B2B companies can use loyalty programs to increase both stakeholder and brand value by including rewards that bring long-term value for both. For example, setting up a program in which the partner earns points for additional product training, providing feedback, and engaging with the program. The points earned could unlock co-marketing funds to drive even more sales or “exclusive” training to help them sell better. Or, as customer interest in purchasing from companies who support corporate citizenship continues to grow, point redemptions could go toward a cause or local community development.

What’s next?

Earning a customer’s loyalty is both valuable and important. Effective customer loyalty programs require putting the customer experience at the center of your program and delivering personalization at scale. Salesforce Loyalty Management gives access to tools companies need to create the experiences that can help increase customer engagement and value.

The post Why Your Customer Loyalty Program Isn’t Profitable – and How To Fix It appeared first on ���������.