Download Technology Marketing Research 2015

Technology Marketing Research
2015
Contact: James Foulkes | [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7803 1000
Kingpin, The WireWorks, 78-83 Great Suffolk Street, London SE1 0BU
Technology Marketing Research 2015
1
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. How IT purchasing works ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. How marketing managers think IT purchasing works .............................................................................................................. 10
4. Buyers and marketers must be aligned - some conclusions ................................................................................................. 13
5. Takeaways: What should tech marketers do? ............................................................................................................................... 14
6. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Technology Marketing Research 2015
2
1. Introduction
The technology industry changes
rapidly and at the same time so
too does the way IT decisionmakers (‘ITDMs’ in this report)
operate, whatever vertical industry
they work in. But that sets a
challenge for those of us who
market technology. How do we
keep up?
Given that opening challenge, it
is no surprise that at Kingpin we
are keen researchers of ITDMs.
Depending on the context, an
ITDM can be anyone from an IT
pro to an IT manager to an IT
director or CIO – or even other
directors on the board.
In this year’s technology marketing
report, we interviewed at length
both ITDMs and technology
marketers (‘TMs’ here) in the UK,
Germany and France to find out
what’s going on.
What we found were differences
by country, job title, stage of
the buyer’s journey and more.
Understanding these nuances can
be critical.
For example, busy ITDMs don’t
hate being phoned up. Very few
told us they never want to be
contacted that way. But they
do hate poor quality sales calls
from those who don’t understand
their business needs or even the
technology that’s being touted.
They especially don’t like those
calls minutes after they’ve
downloaded a gated white paper
on a website.
When it comes to influences,
we’ll go on to show here that
vendors’ own websites and search
engines rank above technology
publications and other sources.
Yet a vendor’s ultimate asset –
especially in the final stages of
procurement – is good sales and
account management.
We would love to take this
discussion further. Understanding
ITDMs, working out the best
technology marketing approaches,
staying on top of trends in IT and
marketing – this is what we do.
We welcome your feedback to this
report and hope to catch up with
you soon.
James Foulkes
Co-founder and
Director
Mirza Fur
Co-founder and
Director
Word of mouth will continue to
rank above paid-for or owned
media and, for now, our research
shows that is still less likely to
happen for large B2B technology
purchases over social media than
over a gin and tonic. But as we go
on to say, don’t write off social
media – younger ITDMs use social,
even platforms such as Facebook,
for information gathering.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
3
Demographics
Kingpin mainly interviewed senior
IT decision-makers and marketing
managers.
Our ITDMs came from all industry
verticals and had a wide range of
technology and other needs. IT
manager was the most common
job title.
The TMs we surveyed represent
all kinds of technology sectors,
including hardware, software,
cloud and other services.
Marketing manager was the most
common job title. They were most
likely to be aged 36-45.
Fig 1: Job titles of ITDMs
Fig 2: Job titles of TMs
35%
IT Manager
31%
13%
IT Network Manager
8%
Other
10%
Other
10%
Senior Marketing Manager
10%
2%
2%
6%
4%
Marketing Research Analyst
2%
Marketing Coordinator
2%
CMO
2%
Fig 4: Company size of technology marketers
1-100
18%
11%
1-100
35%
44%
251-500
2,001+
101-250
350+
501-2,000
21%
10%
8%
Marketing Junior
101-250
1
10%
Head of Marketing
Marketing Assistant
Fig 3: Company size of ITDMs
30%
Marketing Executive
Marketing Specialist
4%
Architect
Chief Executive Officer
12%
Business Owner
6%
IS Manager/Director
Engineering Manager/Director
20%
Marketing Manager
Marketing Director
CIO/IT Director
21%
For our methodology, please see
the Appendix section.
21%
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/DNA_of_the_CIO/$FILE/DNA_of_the_CIO.pdf
Technology Marketing Research 2015
4
2. How IT purchasing works
Across the three largest
European markets we asked our
respondents about the decisionmakers and identifiers in their
organisations for IT purchases. We
also asked how the process works.
As in previous studies, IT managers
lead the way. Despite a lot of
attention being paid to IT chiefs
such as CIOs (they come second)
as well as other C-level execs and
other business unit heads or end
users, IT managers are the most
likely to identify needs.
There was variation by country.
CIOs (‘C-level IT’) are clearly very
influential in Germany at this
point, as are non-IT roles such as
‘Department head’ in France and
Germany or ‘End user demand’ in
the UK.
The respondents in Germany
are also much less likely to cite
‘Nobody specific’, while across
all countries very few of our
sample left such identifying to
outsourcing partners, which is
perhaps not so surprising given we
polled those who are IT decisionmakers rather than those who
have expressly outsourced IT.
Fig 5: Who in the company identifies an IT need in your company?
UK
France
Department Head 14%
C-level non IT 6%
Germany
37%
24%
20%
C-level IT 16%
52%
7%
IT Manager/Dept 44%
20%
End User demand 20%
Outsourced provider
2%
13%
42%
12%
22%
Nobody specific 18%
37%
4%
And while there is a big theme
in technology media of IT spend
coming from outside the IT
department, for example driven
by those in marketing, finance,
HR and so on, our numbers didn’t
support that.
Our research also allows us to
paint a picture of those involved
in the primary procurement team
(Fig 6).
And who is involved at which
stages? (Fig 7)
purchasing decision. Obviously
that’s a critical stage – though at
the end of a chain of decisionmaking that takes a long time,
often around 18 months.
Other research backs this
up. TechTarget’s 2015 Media
Consumption Report found that
“IT purchase decisions are made
and influenced by many members
of the organisation”. This was
across the various European
markets covered in its survey and
included non-IT department roles
such as “business influencer”.
What can we deduce from all
that? That IT procurement is a
team effort and CEOs and CIOs/
IT directors are only the major
player when it comes to the final
Fig 6: Once a need is identified, who is involved in the primary project team? IT Manager, Head of Department, Outsourced provider,
end user or other?
IT Manager/Dept
Department Head
62%
C-Level IT
End Users
C-Level Non-IT
Outsourced Provider
64%
83%
52%
50%
43%
26% 26%
14% 16%
UK
10% 10%
France
Technology Marketing Research 2015
17%
23%
22%
10% 14%
2%
Germany
5
Fig 7: Who is involved in the decision making of a new project in any of the following stages:
Research
CEO
6%
2%
5%
5%
3%
14%
4%
12%
17%
5%
5% 2% 2%
5%
Vendor negotiating
Final Purchasing Decision
18%
14%
17%
Other
Benchmarking
18%
9%
IT Head/Manager
CFO
8%
12%
IT Director
Other C-Suite
Shortlisting
18%
16%
15%
18%
12%
13%
8%
8%
5%
How to decide?
Respondents told us ‘research’
is the first step they take in any
project – ahead of an RFP process
or project plan. That means they
are looking for information. So
where do they go?
When we asked about the value
and use of 15 types of sources,
leading the way were ‘Direct
contact with vendor’, ‘Search
engine’ and ‘Vendor websites’.
This shows something we have
said for a long time – vendor
personnel, content and owned
destinations are critical.
Something like a vendor’s website
or email database is owned.
Platforms such as social media
aren’t. Social media came bottom.
Taking this further, it could be
seen these leading sources mean
search engine optimisation (SEO),
inside sales and user experience
online are vital – though often not
front of mind when technology
companies look across all
channels. Taking one step further
back this also begs the question
‘What makes someone search or
be aware of a brand or product?’
We begin to see a joined-up
picture where tactics such as
brand display advertising can
be a first step in an integrated
approach.
Meanwhile with social media, a
wide body of research suggests
use is generational, that for
younger ITDMs social channels
will be where they go to find
things out, even including
platforms we associate with our
non-professional lives such as
Facebook.
Fig 8: When researching IT products, services, and solution, can you grade the following in terms of value and use to you on a scale from
1-10 (10 being the greatest value)
UK
France
Germany
6.9
7.3
6.5
Vendor Websites
5.9
4.3
6.4
IT Publications Print
6.2
5.4
6.5 6.4
6.2
6.3
IT Publications Online
Reviews/recommendation sites
Channel/Outsourced partner
recommendation
6.0
4.7
6.1
Email
Events
Direct contact with vendor
Social Media Search
Twitter, Experts Exchange, LinkedIn...
5.3
2.9
5.4
Forums/Peer group online communities
Peer Group
Specialist bloggers
Whitepapers
Case Studies
Search Engine
Technology Marketing Research 2015
5.5
3.8
5.6
6.2
4.2
6.0
5.9
4.4
6.1
6.5
7.2
6.6
6.1
3.9
6.5
7.5
7.6
7.9
6.6
5.7
5.9
6.4
7.3
6.7
6.6
8.4
5.9
6
Lead, me?
How do ITDMs feel about being contacted (Fig 9). This is a big
question for technology marketers.
Platform?
What kind of platforms do you most frequently use
when researching solutions for your company?
Tablet, Smartphones, laptops, print publications,
or other?
We asked:
Fig 9: How do ITDMs feel about being contacted
UK
France
10% | 10% | 14%
84%
PC/Laptop
12%
Print publications
18%
post registration for a free trial
28%
17%
post an event attendance
33%
39%
Other
97%
84%
10% | 7% | 26%
4%
2% | 0% | 8%
32%
12%
post a download
Telephone
Germany
18% | 10% | 28%
Smartphone
6%
I never expect to be contacted
by a vendor after anything
France
Tablet
24%
10%
9%
all of the above
UK
Germany
40%
19%
Very few said they never expect to be contacted (Fig 9).
Although the numbers are still in the minority of total
respondents for each answer, there is a clear quid pro quo
for access in exchange for information, networking or trial
software.
Research we have conducted separately suggests this is all
about the ‘how’. Busy ITDMs have told us they are OK when
someone who is informed and truly useful calls them. Cold,
uninformed sales calls are what makes their blood boil.
And what methods are preferred? Telephone and email far
outstrip the older methods of post and face-to-face, as well as
those who are very hands-off or don’t have a preference
We wondered whether newer ways to consume
information such as smartphones and tablets
were making an impact on where ITDMs
research their information.
We found the traditional PC/laptop still rules1.
Tablets and then smartphones are some way
behind. But remember that the tablet was
barely a category five years ago and these
mobile digital devices still do slightly better
than print and other channels.
When we asked the same question but
about signing up or contacting a vendor, the
proportions were similar but telephone and
other – which includes face-to-face – scored
higher.
Fig 10: What’s your preferred method of initial contact with vendor?
By email, by phone, post, or do you prefer to initiate the contact?
UK
30%
By telephone
By email
Germany
63%
44%
By post 4%
Never
France
37%
40%
40%
6%
22%
10%
I do not have a
preferred method 4% 4%
Face-to-face 10%
This is backed up by other research. TechTarget’s 2015 Media Consumption Report found “laptops and desktops are the primary devices used to view IT-related content” (p41) and IDG’s 2014
Customer Engagement: The Role of Content in the IT Purchase Process % Connecting Content Marketing to Sales Follow Up report found Desktop/laptop computers are used for more time
each day (3.41 hours) than either smartphones (2.51) or tablets (1.51).
2
Technology Marketing Research 2015
7
When it comes to receiving
vendor emails, other studies
have shown some ITDMs use
personal or specifically-created
email accounts. IDG in its 2014
Customer Engagement report
found 27 per cent of ITDMs use
this tactic, which is worth noting
as vendors sometimes rely only
on email addresses to identify
the organisations expressing an
interest.
Fig 11: What determines or influences what organisation you want to deal with
when shortlisting vendors and solutions?
UK
Vendor pre-sales contact
Shortlisting influences
Further along the IT procurement
journey, we asked our ITDMs to
identify what influences them
when deciding on shortlists
(Fig 11).
Tech publications print
14%
16%
14%
14%
14%
6% 7% 2%
26%
23%
20%
Case studies
17%
10%
7%
18%
12%
33%
12%
6%
27%
24%
Project team recommendations
Incumbent/legacy relationship
8%
12%
Peer group recommendations
Channel partner recommendations
32%
10% 7%
Tech publications online
12%
26%
Fig 12: What is the single most important factor in determining what vendor to use
for your project?
UK
France
Compatibility with Business systems
18%
Cost vs Value
18%
And lastly we looked at the most
important final selection factors.
Could it be that relationships
aren’t as important in the UK as in
France and Germany? We ask the
question after seeing the answer
for ‘Trust’ in Fig 122.
20%
24%
Vendor events face-to-face
Social presence
c%
18%
12%
Vendor events online
30%
20%
10%
14%
Vendor content via 3rd party
Online community
Germany
7%
20%
Vendor content on their website
Specialist bloggers
As we have long said, vendors
must respect the preferences of
all would-be customers. Some
frown on telemarketing or email
marketing but these have their
place when done well.
France
24%
Reliability
14%
Reputation
12%
Knowledge base
10%
Germany
10%
2%
3%
13%
12%
6%
7% 2%
2%
20%
Trust
10%
Fig 13: Post negotiation, what are the most important factors for you before you
finally select a vendor?
Meanwhile, when it comes to
influences (Fig 13) above all
kinds of marketing what stands
out is the importance of vendor
personnel.
UK
Vendor pre-sales/sales/account
management contacts
Vendor content on their website
Project team recommendations
Peer group recommendations
18%
14%
Case studies
10%
14%
Channel partner recommendations 4%
Online community
Social presence
Tech publications online
6%
8%
10%
8%
Germany
27%
26%
14%
10%
Vendor events face-to-face
Vendor events online
France
20%
30%
32%
12%
6%
27%
4%
16%
30%
6%
18%
12%
8%
10%
Vendor content via 3rd party 6%
12%
Incumbent/legacy relationship 2% 3% 12%
Specialist bloggers
Implementation Support
Tech publications print
Meet Needs
6%
10%
10% 7%
6%
6%
17%
Project Delivery
6%
Quality of products/services 10%
Price/expertise 7%
It should also be noted that ‘trust’ is a major factor in sources of information, not just for deciding one vendor over another. As such, technology media will point to its trusted position – which is
all the more important as vendor-owned channels such as brand publications and websites grow. IDG’s 2014 Customer Engagement report found “77 per cent of ITDMs report association with a
known, familiar source drives trust”.
2
Technology Marketing Research 2015
8
Size matters?
While gathering vendor
information for a new project,
both large and small companies
in the UK tend to prefer spending
three months or less on research.
The same holds true in both
France and Germany, although
large companies in both countries
may spend longer doing so.
Similar responses were seen in
the negotiation process, where
both small and large companies
in all three countries tend to
prefer wrapping up talks in three
months or less; larger companies,
however, can often take longer
to negotiate deals, particularly
in Germany, where negotiations
are as likely to run between three
and nine months as they are to be
completed in three or less.
There is also a difference by
company size in the number of
assets that are downloaded. IDG’s
2014 Customer Engagement study,
albeit skewed more towards a US
sample base, found an average
of seven informational assets are
downloaded during the purchase
process but there was a split
between enterprise organisations
and SMBs, respectively eight
assets versus six.
The time it tends to take to
make a final purchase decision
also varies between large and
small companies in all three
countries we surveyed. In the UK
and Germany, both large and
small companies prefer to make
their final purchasing decisions
within three months, although
a significant proportion of each
takes longer. Small companies
in France strongly prefer coming
to a decision in three months or
less, while larger companies are
nearly as likely to take three to six
months in deliberations.
Fig 14: Do you generally prefer to work directly with a vendor or through a
specialist partner?
Vendor
Partner
26%
30%
62%
64%
60%
UK
France
Channel?
Across the three markets, there
was quite a similar proportion
– about a 2:1 ratio – of ITDMs
preferring to work direct rather
than through a specialist partner.
The UK respondents prefer that
approach a little more than the
French, and the French a little
more than the Germans. But note
the use of ‘prefer’ – almost all will
use a mix of sourcing approaches
and won’t always get the delivery
they prefer.
Broken down by company
size, smaller companies (500
employees or fewer) in the UK
tended to prefer working with
vendors instead of partners (by
about 2.5 to 1) slightly more than
do larger enterprises (more than
500 employees), which show a 2
to 1 preference for vendors over
specialist partners.
38%
Germany
When asked whether they
purchase business-critical
applications and services via
an outsourcing partner, smaller
companies in the UK express a
strong preference for doing so.
Larger companies, on the other
hand, are twice as likely to not
work with an outsourced partner.
In France, small companies are
about evenly split on whether
they do or don’t use an outsource
partner, while larger companies
prefer outsourcing by more than
a 3 to 1 margin. In Germany, both
small and large companies choose
more often not to purchase via
an outsourced partner, with the
preference slightly stronger for
large companies (more than 2 to
1 versus less than 2 to 1 for small
companies).
In France, however, both small
and large companies prefer
vendors over partners by a ratio
of about 2 to 1. In Germany,
meanwhile, larger companies
prefer vendors over partners by a
ratio that is close to 2 to 1. That
preference is slightly less strong
among smaller companies.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
9
3. How technology marketers think
IT purchasing works
As we turn our attention to
the technology marketers we
surveyed, we can say they skewed
senior (most common titles
were marketing manager and
marketing director) and older,
with under a third younger than
36 and 20 per cent aged 56 and
older. Just under half (44 per
cent) came from small companies
with fewer than 100 employees
and they represent all kinds of
technology sectors, including
hardware, software, cloud and
other services.
They tend to target larger
organisations but across most
vertical sectors.
Success?
These marketers are cognisant
of those who react best to their
messages and contact. The short
answer is they get better traction
with technical types – unless
they’re board-level, like most CIOs
and some IT directors (Fig A).
However, possibly the biggest
issue for them is the question of
which key performance indicators
(KPIs) they are asked to measure
and hit, as opposed to those they
are able to (Figs B and C).
That again differs to what they tell
us they can control.
When it comes to planning
cycles, quarterly planning is
most common. However, we
know from various research – not
only ours – that those who are
buying often operate against
much longer cycles, of even up
Fig A: Which job function do you typically attempt to target in targeted companies?
51%
Technical
45%
Business Head
100%
Board level
35%
Board level IT
We do not typically attempt…
8%
12%
Other
Fig B: In your current role, which KPIs do you have to hit?
Revenue Target
Awareness Growth
Pipeline Target
Thought leadership/perception
Quantity of MQLs
Engagement Scores by prospect…
Quantity of SQLs
Other
In my current role, there are no KPIs…
58%
49%
40%
38%
33%
33%
22%
4%
7%
Fig C: In reality, which of the following do you feel you can accurately measure?
Awareness Growth
Quantity of MQLs
Revenue Target
Pipeline target
Thought leadership/perception
Quantity of SQLs
Engagement Scores by
prospect/customers…
None of the above
Other
47%
39%
31%
29%
27%
20%
14%
4%
2%
Fig D: What are the primary cycles you currently work to?
Daily
4%
24%
Weekly
27%
Monthly
43%
Quarterly
Yearly
to 18 months. TechTarget’s 2015
Media Consumption Report found
a majority of IT purchases take
place in under three months but
theirs was of a sample skewed
towards SMBs and still a large
proportion of IT buying takes
place in the 3-6 month and 6-12
month brackets.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
12%
What’s perhaps more worrying is
that after top answer ‘quarterly’,
next came not ‘yearly’ but
‘monthly’ then ‘weekly’. If you’re
not being given enough time to
deliver results, the chances are
your peers are being given even
less.
10
Targeting
Do the TMs use different marketing tactics for different job titles? They do and across nearly all the ways they
try to influence the ITDMs (content, email, events, advertising etc.).
Fig E: Thinking of the previous tactics, which do you use for different audiences/job roles?
18% 18%
Content syndication
Direct Marketing post mailing
22%
Email marketing
Events offline roundtables, seminar, etc.
None
2%
4%
29% 29%
24%
33%
27%
22% 24%
29%
Print advertising
Research qual, quant, audience seg…
Social
59%
47%
39%
Other
6%
10%
45%
27%
22%
Marketing technology choices
Marketing technology has seen a lot of investment in recent years, not least
from technology marketers. Our research identified the categories getting
the most investment. Top of the list came marketing automation, email
delivery platforms and CRM (first chart), though it wasn’t the same story when
respondents told us about how effective each had been in helping them hit
their objectives (second chart).
What has been your organisation’s greatest marketing technology investment
2%
6%
6%
14%
14%
20%
CRM
Email delivery/Marketing platform
Automation
Content Management Platform
Analytics
Social tools
63%
Reach
31%
24%
37%
How effective has the implementation of the following factors been in terms of enabling
you to hit your objectives? (Marked out of 10.)
Fig F: What factors do you consider when
deciding on which media tactics to use?
Cost
20%
Automation
Email delivery/marketing platform
CRM
Analytics
Content Management platform
Not sure
Social tools
Other
This is in line with the growth
in spend on areas such as
programmatic advertising and
network-based media spend
over traditional first-party media
purchases. Their lower unit cost
enables a larger audience to be
reached.
No special factors
20%
20%
18%
There is one important footnote on
the media channels our respondents
mentioned. (For a comprehensive
look at technology media and B2B
technology marketing see our
report: Future of B2B Technology
Media report 2015.) Cost and reach
came out as the clear priorities,
above even editorial style and
guaranteed response (Fig F).
29%
31%
16%
Telemarketing
Guaranteed Response
39%
39%
4%
PR
Editorial Style
IT Technical
Business Level
Board Level
21%
6%
Online advertising
Other
44%
27% 29%
20%
16%
Events online webinar, demo, etc.
33%
24%
20%
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.4
6.2
5.8
In each category, the leading suppliers were clear:
CRM – Salesforce.com
Email delivery/marketing platform – Marketo
Marketing automation – Marketo
Analytics – Google Analytics
Social tools - Hootsuite
The exception was in content management systems. Our view is that while
WordPress has evolved into the most common CMS, even among publishers
known for needing robust platforms, the enterprise CMS market is still
fragmented, with a mix of specialist platforms, use of other marketing software,
consumer-grade platforms and self-build bespoke.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
11
Social
Social media isn’t universally used
by our sample (Fig G).
This could be a factor of age – we
expect younger marketers to be
more active on social media – but
also it’s an improvement on our
snapshot two years ago, when 53
per cent of respondents told us
social was ‘Not very important’.
An IBM study on B2B marketing
released in March 20153 found
that both Millennial and Gen X
buyers tend to value social media
contacts with vendors more than
do Baby Boomers. The survey
found that 41 per cent of younger
Millennials (21 to 25 years of age)
use social media to connect with
vendors. Among older Millennials
(ages 26 to 34), only 18 per cent
prefer to do so.
Also different is the rise of
Facebook, where every kind
of audience – not least B2B
technology – can be targeted.
Facebook has moved from third
to clear first place for our TMs.
Twitter remains second. The big
loser is LinkedIn, falling from first
to third place.
Fig G: How active would you say you are in terms of Social Media?
24%
Occasionally
37%
Very
18%
Seldom use
Don't utilize
2%
Looking more broadly at the
numbers around social media
platforms, it’s not that LinkedIn
is doing badly – it is growing as
a company – just that for our
audience it is doing less well than
Twitter and especially Facebook.
Perhaps one indication about
social’s relative immaturity is
that more than twice as many
marketers told us ‘We do not
measure the ROI/effectiveness
of social media campaigns’
as the next closest answer on
measurement criteria, namely
‘engagement’.
http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2015/27408/b2b-buyeing-millennials-vs-gen-x-baby-boomers
3
Technology Marketing Research 2015
12
4. Buyers and marketers must be aligned some conclusions
What does this all mean? As
always, there is a disconnect
between those who are buying
IT and those working for vendors
who are marketing what vendors
sell. Sometimes this difference
isn’t critical – an example would
be in the still maturing area of
social media marketing – but
other times it is.
One example of the latter that our
research highlights is the way TMs
are evaluated – on quarterly or
even shorter cycles. At the same
time, many buyers are working
to much longer purchase cycles,
as they need to for such big and
complex investments.
There is also a dumbing down,
by the whole industry, on the
nature of decision-making and
who does it. It is easy for everyone
to become obsessed with the
CIO – or even the CMO in the very
recent past4, for some categories.
But IT managers are much more of
a sweet spot.
Definitely indisputable is the
importance of a vendor’s presales/sales account management
people. They’re not what most
people would normally class
as a marketing asset but, in a
world where ‘Our people are our
greatest asset’ is usually a cliché,
in this case it would seem to be
true.
Even then, IT managers are part of
a team (Fig 6) where different job
roles come to the fore at different
times (Fig 7).
Where should TMs allocate their
budgets? Their own assets are
critical. We saw (Fig 11) that their
websites and content are key.
You could make phone calls and
emails part of that argument too
(Fig 10).
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2350509/transform-2014-cios-will-lose-control-to-the-cmo-as-internet-of-things-and-big-data-explode
4
Technology Marketing Research 2015
13
5. Takeaways: What should tech
marketers do?
(i) Synchronise buying cycles and
marketing
This might well be easier said than
done but our research showed
IT decisions take months while
technology marketers have a
much shorter time to show how
effective they and their campaigns
have been. This is a shift that
needs to take place across the
industry.
(ii) Don’t write-off the IT manager
While not the most senior IT
decision-maker, the IT manager
represents the sweet spot for
most technology marketers. By
all means know which job titles
to target at different stages of
the buying journey but don’t be
tempted into ignoring this core
role.
(iii) Owned assets
While it is easy to get wrapped up
in analysing traditional media or
newer social media, what shined
through is the importance of
things any vendor controls. That’s
everything from websites and
email lists to meeting people at
events. As such, tactics for getting
people to those destinations or
in front of your sales team are
important.
(iv) How to contact
Rarely do ITDMs say they never
want to be contacted. What
they do report is shockingly
naïve cold calls or contact
just hours or minutes after an
asset such as a white paper has
been downloaded. Reach out
intelligently to ITDMs with agents
who know what they’re talking
about – who are happy to listen
and be useful. Understand and
nurture before selling.
(vii) Understand your targets
Perhaps above all else, never
make assumptions about ITDMs.
The roles are evolving, as are
the ways ITDMs behave. Keep on
studying, keep on seeking insights,
be open to new ways of reaching
and influencing them.
(v) Europe isn’t all the same
Our research again highlights
that procurement takes place
differently by country. No vendor
should have a European strategy
that doesn’t take that into
account, though we come across
monolithic approaches all too
often.
(vi) Social media – don’t write it
off
Don’t assume social media is a low
priority or even irrelevant for B2B
technology buyers and marketers.
It will rise in importance over the
years and already plays its part
among younger ITDMs. Don’t write
it off before it’s really even got
going.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
14
6. Appendix
We contacted European ITDMs in France, Germany and the UK at the start of 2015. We also surveyed a mix of
EMEA marketers working for various technology vendors.
Kingpin adheres to the Market Research Society (MRS) code of conduct. All information is fully protected and
is not weighted in any way.
For more information about our methodology please contact the Kingpin Market Research Team.
Technology Marketing Research 2015
15