TARGUSinfo Interactive Insights

Love it or hate it, we learned early on that doing your homework makes a difference.  So now that you your mind is made up and you are committing resources to leverage predictive analytics– what’s next?

You’ve gained acceptance from the top (see, “The First Step is Always Acceptance”) and your leadership has bought on to the idea that analytics is going to be the foundation of your future strategies. Your next step must be to gain a better understanding of  how your peers are using analytics. 

How is your industry using analytics?  Have they already started segmenting their customers?  What types of results have they seen?  Which partners are they choosing if any, to help achieve their goals?

During our recent Scoring Summit, I heard countless applications of real-time preditictive analytics.  For example, Clearwire leverages a data-driven customer acquisition strategy that offers a clear direction for others to follow.

A research-based strategy can help you better understand and evaluate the additional steps that will be necessary to achieve your analytical-based goals. 

When you achieved company buy-in, hopefully you established whether or not you have the right personnel, IT infrastructure and any other necessary tools in place.  Deciding the necessity of those tools will lead you down the path to acquiring the right software, people or both.

The best part of the research process will be training your personnel’s collective minds to start using the analytical sides of their brains.  Asking relevant questions, seeking answers, and implementing actions (wash, rinse, repeat) will enhance your internal analytical processes.

If the project you are researching has anything to do with customer scoring, segmentation or platform-based analytics stay tuned to my updates about how our customers are leveraging real-time analytics to enhance their customer’s experience and bottom-line.

Deryck

@DeryckDC

Regardless of the terms used – status, disposition, outcome, state– every lead should have at least two data points associated with it.  One regarding validity and one regarding outcome. 

In my last post “Clear as Mud: Transparency is Tricky,” I posed a few questions for lead buyers and sellers to think about regarding their business practices.  I’d like to touch on the last two buyer questions regarding lead dispositions.

It is my experience that the line between the status and disposition of a lead is often blurred into one hybrid lead outcome.  While one lead outcome may seem more manageable, the lack of precision in defining the true state of a lead makes refining and optimizing lead processes much more difficult.

Let us take for instance the outcome “invalid lead – not interested.”  Contacting a consumer who is “not interested” does not mean the lead is “invalid.”   The status of the lead is valid – which I define as a contactable phone – but the lead was not workable because the disposition is “not interested.”

As I see it, status and disposition are not synonymous and should not be mixed.  These two data points should be independent and based on different factors.  The status of a lead should be based on the criteria defining validity.  The disposition should be based on the outcome of the lead – i.e. the action taken with the lead – thus only end users will have this data point.

For instance, let us define –

Status has the following values:

• Valid – contactable phone number
• Unknown – inconclusive contact (no answer, fax)
• Invalid – non-contactable phone number (invalid, blank, disconnected)

Disposition has the following values based on the listed outcomes:

Equally as important as maintaining these two data points for each lead, is the definition and standardization of their assignment. 

Whether your classifications are as basic as the ones I’ve described above or more intricate, it is imperative that you clearly define and document the criteria governing each outcome to ensure accuracy and consistency.  This is increasingly important when incorporating a human element – such as a call center agent.

When utilizing a call center, it is often helpful to provide your call center agents with a table in similar fashion to the one displayed above.  A standardized set of outcomes mapped to dispositions creates accurate uniformity, which leads to higher precision.

Retaining information on both validity and outcome allows more granular analysis of lead performance and in turn more accurate decision making.

If you are the end user of a lead, then you have the capacity to attain both pieces of information.  If you are the lead seller, you will only have data points regarding lead validity based on your parameters, unless you have developed transparency in your partnership.  Either way, you’ve got a place to start.

Stay tuned to find out what’s next…

Andi

@Ask_Andi

You don’t need me or any other marketer to tell you that the Hispanic population growth is real. 

Kelly McDonald, the guest keynote at today’s Professional Marketing Association (PIMA) Midyear Meeting in Leesburg, VA, made it clear that marketers need to start thinking about it RIGHT NOW.

Why now?  According to McDonald, the upcoming US Census will unveil that there are 50 million Hispanics living in America.  That number is particularly impressive when she detailed that 50 million means:

1) US Latino population would be the third largest Hispanic country in the world

2) US Latino population is larger than the entire country of Canada

Has your organization felt this wave of opportunity or panic (depending on your situation)?  Do you know how many of your online leads are Hispanic?  How do you know your online ads are reaching Hispanics?

Regardless of your situation, the need to identify, verify and score customers is real time is universal–regardless of industry.  At TARGUSinfo we see firsthand the power of being able to work with clients to help identify targeted audience groups to customize their messaging at every interaction.

Hispanics are online. Hispanics are among the fastest growing purchasers of goods and services today.  Hispanics are here to stay.

It’s a great event so far, and I look forward to learning more about the challenges facing the insurance market and how interactive marketers can help.
Rufus

@RufusManning

In my last post, I said what we’re all thinking–Trust Comes with Transparency. 

Now what?

You’re now engaged in a partnership and you’ve reached a comfortable level of trust with your partner.   Is it time to take the next step and be more transparent?

If you wish to begin the transparent knowledge exchange,  taking the first step is sometimes easier said than done.

Not to worry, below is a checklist of the most helpful–if not the most rudimentary, questions to answer .

For the seller:

• Steps in your lead generation and distribution process?
• Sources and do you differentiate them?
• Data points collected?
• Pre-scrub practices?
• Clearly defined screening parameters?
• Detailed scrub practices?
• Verification practices?
• Return policies?

For the Buyer:

• Steps in the lead evaluation waterfall?
• Sources and do you differentiate them?
• Pre-scrub practices?
• Clearly defined screening parameters?
• Detailed scrub practices?
• Verification practices?
• How do you assign disposition to your leads?
• Are those dispositions standard and clearly defined?

Next step – what and how much are you willing to share?

Start thinking and stay tuned…

Andi

@Ask_Andi

Having a standard definition sets the bar for understanding. 

Transparency raises the bar for trust and innovation. 

Recently, on my post “Whose burden is it anyway?” a reader commented that “making contact is the first step of the sales process, not the last step of lead generation.”

I support this statement, nevertheless, I think we can all agree that a lead must be contactable else the first step in the sales process cannot be taken.  That said, I think that in the traditional lead generation industry, we are working towards having the onus to determine whether or not the lead is valid/contactable fall with the lead generators.  This leaves the lead buyers, those ultimately working the leads, with the responsibility of managing and contacting valid leads.

That is unless the sales terms were established stating that a lead generator will provide not only valid, but “qualified” leads – where “qualified” meets a predetermined set of conditions.  This changes the game of who bears what burden.  In this case, the generator assumes the responsibility of evaluating consumer intent, and I’d bet is charging a premium for those leads.

Today, there exist strong markets for both “valid” and “qualified” lead generation and exchange.  It is important to know in which market you wish to engage and clearly define the rules by which you intend to play.

This is ostensibly a simple concept, yet we still have much of the ‘he said’ ‘she said’ mentality between lead generators and buyers.  I believe that clear definition and transparency are the first steps to harmony in bearing the burden and continuing to move the market toward optimization.

Here’s what I’d recommend:  First step, define all business terms.  Are the leads exchanged expected to be evaluated on a contactability basis – i.e. valid versus invalid – or an intent basis – i.e. qualified versus unqualified?   What are the conditions governing a valid or a qualified lead?  What are the return policies?

Next step, be transparent in your partnerships.  As our friend Mike at LeadCritic.com points out in a March discussion “Lead Generation: Transparency and Love”, many fully developed partnerships continue to lack the trust and in turn the transparency which could directly help optimize business for both parties involved.

Trust, the fundamental building block of any personal or professional relationship, hinges on both parties being open and honest – transparent – about their actions and intentions.  One problem is that trust must generally be earned, leaving both parties skeptical of opening OZ’s curtain too widely or too quickly in a fledgling relationship.

It is scary to unveil processes and decision making strategies to parties who are undecidedly friend or foe.  But a business partnership can never achieve greatness while lacking an integral piece of the foundation – trust. 

So if you have chosen to engage in a partnership, trust is a necessary risk taken to foster the relationship.

I think the risk will be worth the reward in the end.  What do you think?

Andi

@Ask_Andi

What if?  What if a strategic initiative for your company is to better “qualify,” “value,” or “score” someone over the phone, on the web, or in a specific market?  

Our clients span across many industries and could each outline specific steps that were imperative in the success of creating, utilizing, and maintaining scoring models.  The most important step that each organization had to take however is one that should never be overlooked by any organization.

The first step on the road to “scoring” should always be an underlying agreement by the decision makers of your organization that the key to future growth and earnings is to enhance your analytical practices.

Once the leaders of your organization buy-in to the idea that analytical solutions should be embraced and used to drive customer acquisitions, then it is just a matter of allocating the correct resources to accomplish future projects.

A recent article from Marketing Profs painted a beautiful picture of performing a lead scoring project “in-house,” with sales, marketing, and other teams working seamlessly together to develop a real-time model that will allow sales reps to instantly qualify future leads.

However, a company can lose considerable amounts of time, energy, bandwidth, and (most importantly) money to perform the necessary research and analysis that are required to develop a successful, real-time scoring model especially if somewhere along the course of implementing the project other fires need to be put out or it is simply placed on a backburner.

I believe that with practice, understanding, and drive companies do have the ability to develop models in-house; but why go down the road alone?

This would be similar to developing and implementing a strategic long-term plan for your retirement without asking the advice of someone who has had experience in such planning.  Your organization should be having many conversations with experienced players that are equipped to answer the many questions that can come out of the discovery phase.

As in many business practices, this first step of acceptance and “buy in” is by far the most important.  If a scoring project is an “interesting” idea that could have long-term financial benefits, why not talk to experienced leaders in the industry that can relay appropriate expectations about the time, data, and bandwidth necessary for analytical projects?

Once your organization has taken the crucial first step to believe and agree that analytical projects are an important foundation for long-term growth, the chances that a project like “real-time scoring” will succeed are exponentially greater.

-Deryck B
@DeryckDC

A question posed in a recent LeadCritic.com post titled  “Scapegoat or Actually a Valid Return?“ is an ongoing contention between buyers and sellers.

Are buyers returning leads to sellers that are truly invalid?  The bigger question is – what are the parameters of a valid versus an invalid lead?

I agree with the author’s observation that lead return policies continue to be abused.  In my opinion, a valid lead is one that is contactable – i.e. can be reached by phone, direct mail or email depending on the desired contact channel.

Technically, isn’t every live person you reach on the other end of the telephone a contact and therefore a potential lead for your business?  I do not feel that a consumer’s lack of interest or the inability of a sales person to close a consumer warrants a buyer return for credit.

Truth is, many of the leads generated online are just noise and not viable leads – no matter who generates it, who sells it, who buys it.  So ultimately, who’s burden is it to bear?

I surmise that the starting point for both lead buyers and seller must be with contactability.  The rest should work itself out.

Andi

@Ask_Andi

Make your plans for Vegas today, because  we are thrilled to announce that Greg Stuart, former CEO, IAB, and Emily Riley, principal analyst and research director, Forrester Research Inc., will be this year’s keynote speakers at the annual Interactive Insights Summit, October 13-14 at the Wynn Las Vegas, NV.

Formerly known as the Online Lead Quality Summit, the Interactive Insights Summit will host a unique blend of leaders from national advertisers, lead generators, lead exchanges, interactive agencies, ad networks and ad exchanges from around the digital world.  

Check out pictures from our 2009 Summit here.

“Last year, more than 350 senior marketing and advertising executives took part in our most successful summit yet,” said Joy Nemitz, senior vice president, market development, TARGUSinfo. 

“The new name reflects the evolving conversation that is taking place in the digital world, as will agenda topics that range from best practices in analytics and scoring to the importance of lead quality, and will also include case studies involving third party data in online display advertising.”

The Interactive Insights Summit bridges the lead generation industry to preeminent digital marketing and advertising trends.  In addition to hearing from industry experts, strategically planned and executed networking events will offer valuable face time with potential partners to help drive your business.

“The industry is increasingly moving from buying mere impressions towards buying focused audiences,” said Eshwar Belani, vice president products and business development, Rocket Fuel Inc.  “Data is playing a very influential role in this transition and TARGUSinfo does an excellent job bringing together industry thought leaders to discuss the latest trends and identify opportunities for the future.”

Stay tuned for the full agenda and more details at the end of July.

Rufus

@RufusManning

I recently posted a link to an announcement that was made by DePaul University out of Chicago. The nation’s first Predictive Analytics Master of Science program is a testament to the momentum of analytics in our society and will undoubtedly be followed by similar programs from other esteemed universities.

Reading some of the comments at the end of the article, however, made me realize the stigma that can oftentimes be associated with terms that are used on a daily basis at TARGUSinfo.

Contrary to popular belief, “Predictive Analytics,” “Lead Scoring,” and/or “Customer Segmentation” are NOT solely used by huge Fortune 500 companies or institutions that generate and buy hundreds of thousands of leads a month.

Don’t get me wrong, custom scoring algorithms are proving to be powerful tools for larger companies who want to better understand who their best customers are, eliminate churn, and determine cross-sell/up-sell strategies. It’s important to understand, however, that smaller organizations can make use of the data that they regularly see as well.

Whether it is an “off-the-shelf” type of scoring model or simply coming up with a more efficient way to collect customer data, there seems to be no excuse in today’s day and age not to use analytical strategies when making the decisions about how to interact with your customers.

So here’s to the next generation of analytical minds coming out of DePaul University (and others). More importantly, here’s to your organization for taking the necessary steps to transition from making “gut” decisions, to those that are powered by the readily available data provided on a daily basis by your customers.

If you (or anyone in your organization) have any questions about how big or small organizations can benefit from “Predictive Analytics,” “Lead Scoring,” and/or “Customer Analytics,” I would be more than happy to help get you answers.

Deryck
@DeryckDC

I’m routinely asked to specify the difference between terminology that the online lead generation industry uses.  For instance, one that repeatedly comes up is the difference between lead validation and lead verification.

Truth be told, there is a significant distinction between the two despite their synonymous use.

Validation determines if individual pieces of input identity information are valid per format or range specifications – i.e. could it exist, not, does it exist.  Verification determines the relationship between the valid input identities – i.e. does that valid ten digit phone belong to John Smith and does he live at 123 Main Street?  Input identities must be evaluated as valid before their linkages can be verified.  Thus, like the square and the rectangle, a verified lead is valid, but a valid lead is not necessarily verified.

At TARGUSinfo, we go a crucial step further than simple validation strategies which are often dated and home-grown.  Our On-Demand Verification solution not only determines if the individual pieces of input information are valid but then identifies the relationship between the input name, address, and phone identities offering you extensive insights.

Currently, TARGUSinfo provides only email validation services.

If you are interested in learning more about TARGUSinfo’s verification services, please email andicook@targusinfo.com.

Andi

@Ask_Andi