The guest on this ABM Done Right Podcast mentioned on LinkedIn recently that in many cases ABM = Almost But Meh. 𝐆𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 ‘𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧’ 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐁𝐌 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐲. 𝐆𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐬.
He also said that – Most teams say they “do ABM.” What they really mean is they run a few ads to a named account list, and call it a strategy. That’s not Account-Based Marketing. It’s “Almost But Meh.”
ABM only works if you’re all in and deeply focused. The end state is that each account becomes effectively a market of one.
– Sales and marketing are aligned on the same few accounts
– Content is built for specific buying committees, not just personas in theory
– Every touchpoint is orchestrated
Brad Felher, Head of Growth Marketing at Prolific, joined Kristina Jaramillo and Eric Gruber to discuss:
- How and why most ABM programs are almost, but meh.
- How most teams are not ABM-ready before they launch.
- How teams are using legacy frameworks and approaches developed 22 years ago.
- How teams are trying to scale ABM (even 1:1 ABM) and failing — and how ABM cannot be automated even though platforms like Mutiny and Tofu are talking about scaling 1:1.
Listen to This ABM Done Right Podcast Episode with Brad Fehler, Kristina Jaramillo, and Eric Gruber:
Here Are the Reasons Why Brad, Kristina, and Eric Say Most ABM Programs Are Almost….But Meh:
- Most ABM programs are essentially account-based demand generation, or list-based marketing, as they focus on the list rather than the interactions required with buyers within the companies we want to land and expand—and the account experiences that need to be delivered. Most ABM programs are only impacting a small portion of the buyer journey, and they make ABM about sourcing the pipeline when it should be about moving accounts to revenue and existing accounts to greater net retention and revenue growth.
- Many companies are simply retrofitting ABM on top of existing processes, content, and messaging, so most teams are pushing out the same thing and having the same social, email, digital, and live conversations, and expecting different results because they are targeting better. They are not making changes across the GTM and optimizing brand, demand, land, and expand functions to create greater long-term revenue growth. Teams are not thinking holistically about the buying journey and the important considerations buyers face at each stage.
- Most organizations do not have an entire GTM team aligned around the objective of progressing accounts through their stages of awareness and engagement with their organization. Take the content, take the technology, and put that all aside. If everyone’s not fully aligned internally on how we are going to progress accounts and the role that each team member will play, you will realize full value from your ABM program.
- Teams are doing the minimalistic approach to ABM, starting with defining their ICP. GTM teams are not doing the necessary customer research to really understand their ICP. They are following the proxies set in Demandbase, 6sense, Terminus, and Zoominfo, versus understanding which companies align with us the best, and why they align with us. Why are they getting the most value from us? Where are we relevant and the competitors irrelevant? Teams are focusing on intent, which is speculative, without really understanding why there may be intent, and then they’re pushing out content and massaging based on the intent (just like their competitors) vs. aligning their communication with where the organization is looking to go. They are failing to align with the key accounts they want to land and expand, and their business vision. Without a complete understanding of the accounts you want to engage, you can’t orchestrate meaningful interactions, which is what ABM should be about. If you want to present your company as a strategic partner, then you need to demonstrate that you deeply understand the challenges that buyers specifically face and their specific situation, gaps, and impacts.
- We need to do deeper account research into the organizations that we’re interested in and understand the nuance we have that will uniquely solve the account’s business challenges. We have to find what will get buyers to lean in to what we have to say, vs. just push out generic industry and persona content and messaging that has some light personalization. We want our organization to be a character in their story, vs. than vice versa, and that comes down to how intricate we are with how we communicate.
Here Are the Ways That Brad, Kristina, and Eric Say GTM Teams Are Not ABM Ready:
- Many teams are retrofitting ABM vs. making the necessary changes. ABM should change how CMOs and their teams are thinking about their business and ensure that the organization has a strong point of view, so teams can come to each interaction with a point of view about the buyer’s business. It should also change how the business packages its solutions to meet the ICP needs, how GTM teams communicate their value, and how teams are structured so that we can work as one function. It should change the content, interactions, and account experiences that are delivered across the board, and ABM should really change how go-to-market teams engage buyers across an organization. It should : change how we enable buyers to confidently make a decision and how teams overcome their buyers’ risk aversion, how we demonstrate the cost of an action, and how we teach for differentiation against competitors, or even the status quo. So with ABM, you should be optimizing your go-to market across brand, demand, land, and expand motions, but a lot of go-to market teams are kind of rushing to identify this ICP, creating their lists, and then putting a list of activities and cadences together.
- Many teams are not ABM-ready as they haven’t thought through the complete Full Funnel Initiative. The funnel is not a nice triangle. it’s hourglass-shaped as Winning By Design depicts it. Once a deal is signed, only half the work has been completed. We still have a huge opportunity in terms of churn prevention and expansion revenue growth. Many teams do not have the competencies needed to deliver on this objective across the funnel. They do not have the right teams nor the right alignment across the teams to meaningfully interact with different buyers across different channels and the landscapes where they play.
- Teams are not looking for the bottlenecks in their GTM program. They need to look for the red in the business to understand where and how ABM should be applied and how account experiences and interactions need to be changed. Teams are failing to complete a state of the GTM assessment and build out a vision for the ABM program that aligns with the strategic goals of the business and addresses the issues that will keep GTM teams from achieving those strategic goals.
- Many GTM teams lack a POV, which means GTM teams cannot come to each buyer interaction with a POV about the buyers’ businesses. Prolific is very opinionated about where they can add value. When Prolific enters a relationship, buyers understand Prolific’s viewpoint. Buyers understand the position Prolific wants to take and where Prolific can add value. There’s no ambiguity. Buyers are fully aware of why they are engaging in conversations with Prolific. If you’re not opinionated and you’re not confident with your opinions, then you’re vanilla. The ones that are having the greatest impact with ABM prefer Rocky Road over Vanilla.
The Legacy ABM Approaches and Frameworks Brad, Kristina, and Eric Say Teams Are Using – And What They Should Do Instead:
- Many ABM agencies and teams are using legacy approaches and frameworks that were created over 20 years ago, so even the ones integrating AI are not as moden as many would perceive. They continue to use the ABM Triangle that has teams doing 3 distinct ABM programs that involve dedicated high, medium, and low touch, depending on the tier. So in many cases, it becomes a guessing game on which accounts should be in what tier, what type of touch, versus aligning that go-to market with the outputs and costs, and having an integrated go-to market with the different touchpoints based on where buyers are in their journey. The ICP should become the operating system. The go-to market model flows from it. Tiers become irrelevant because every motion is aligned to the accounts that matter the most, the journey they’re actually on.
- Brad and Prolific is taking an account-based go-to market that matches the motions based on engagement level, awareness stage, buying stage. He focuses on what stage of awareness are the ICP accounts at with Prolific. The broader engagement level are for those that are far away from deep product awareness with us. As accounts become closer to the brand, relevance is increased and their personalization journey matches the buying journey. The closer the company comes to the brand, the more Brad and his team at Prolific craft messages and communications that mirror the deep research the team completed. It speaks to the account and the individual buyers. It demonstrates their commitment and understanding of the organization to those accounts that have proven they are worthy of white-glove attention.
Here’s How Brad, Kristina, and Eric Say Teams Are Trying to Scale ABM and Failing:
- Authentic human experiences, be that online or offline, are more important than ever. So whilst you can grow pipeline, by… : X amount through automated means, accounts are not progressing to revenue as GTM teams are not zooming in on where they think we have a right to win, and how they go about doing that. Prolific has seen higher response rates, higher close rates, and higher retention rates with more authentic 1:1 interactions as buyers progress in their journey.
- Prolific starts with that human interaction. Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t automate in other areas. They do. But when it comes to 1:1, they infuse their content and messaging with as much authenticity and deep understanding as possible. When it comes down to one-to-one level activity, they get as nuanced, personal, and, again, as authentic as they possibly can. They go beyond personalization and become personal to the account, the different buyers, and the different stakeholders.
- When you’re doing 1:1 ABM, you are writing content for specific selling conversations with specific buyers. You’re thinking, How do I need to reframe that specific buyer? How do I need to overcome their specific objections? How do I make an emotional connection? How am I managing the struggling moments that sit at the center of every deal? Moments that need to be listened to, understood, cater to… reframed, solved.
- When you’re doing 1:1 ABM, you are creating content that enables sales teams to have the right conversations and enables buyers to have the right internal conversations. You are creating a specific buying vision based on the account’s current and future needs to land and expand key accounts. AI can give you all those different dots and an understanding, and they can help you a lot, but they need that human touch to now put that content, that messaging, the stories together in a way that moves the buyers so we can have a more intentional, meaningful engagement. You have to listen to what buyers say and don’t say. You have to read their body language. You have to understand their challenges, and then go away and produce that material.