In our recent ABM pilot mistakes article, we discussed how many teams skip to defining ABM goals, identifying the ICP, figuring out account prioritization and outlining activities, campaigns and cadences. They are simply retrofitting ABM on top of existing processes, so all the GTM teams are doing is better targeted marketing or targeted demand gen.
Click here to read “ABM Readiness: Where GTM Teams Go Wrong When Piloting an ABM Program.”
This is what happened to an AP automation and FP&A tech company that failed to first look for the red in the business, implement new processes, and add an enablement layer that would help all teams drive the desired account experience.
ABM Example #1: The Sales Team at an AP Automation and FP&A Tech Firm Struggles to Make Headway with Named Accounts
We recently talked to the Head of America’s Marketing at an AP automation and FP&A tech firm that came to us at Personal ABM to see how we can “fix” their ABM program that they started just eight months ago. They need to recalibrate their frameworks, processes, and metrics and get a strategic review of their routes to market, as sales teams are not making any headway with named accounts. They are not seeing returns on their time investments in ABM.
In talking to the Head of Marketing, we noticed….
- They automatically focused on new logo acquisition vs. putting ABM where it needed to belong based on a review of the state of GTM.
- They defined their ICP as global operating organizations that are processing more than 50K invoice transactions across multiple formats that have finance shared service centers and multi-ERP environments. But, they did not segment their existing customers by the ones that are providing the FP&A tech firm with the greatest long-term revenue growth and are getting the most value from the platform. They didn’t look for the characteristics beyond demographics and technographics that would define their ICP. They didn’t look to go beyond the ICP and identify the winnable, accessible market, which are those accounts that match your tier 1 ICP, where you have relevant stories (beyond industry and persona) to tell, where you can come with a POV, have reached a certain engagement level and have a key strategic priority in place or is being impacted by a critical key event. They need greater predictability so sales teams do not waste time on the wrong accounts.
- By not segmenting their customers, the FP&A company missed out on identifying opportunities to drive account expansion with existing customers that go beyond selling 1 product or capability at a time. ABM is about driving the greatest revenue streams YoY with your most valuable current and future customers. They missed out on opportunities to uncover their next valuable customers that could become even more profitable if the FP&A tech company was able to change how those accounts buy from them. They missed opportunities to identify “churned” accounts that were lost due to the account experience that the FP&A tech company can potentially win back.
- By not segmenting their customers –and not taking the time to better understand their most valuable customers, they failed to capture the stories that can be used to win over similar accounts and their status quo CFO.
- Their ABM programs were sales-led, which meant that marketing was taking the top 35 accounts of each AE. They were doing 1:many and 1: 1:few campaigns to accounts without any rhyme or reason. There was no “why” behind the accounts that were being targeted besides sales liking the logo. They didn’t have an account-based GTM process where there was a qualification and disqualification process along the way, making sure time and resources were spent on the right accounts.
- They weren’t making a case for change. As the FP&A company targeted global enterprises, in many cases, they have some automation in place. While they have content that shows the ROI and total economic impact of their solution, they didn’t have content that shows target accounts their gaps, their impacts and their cost-of-inaction (COI). They weren’t coming to each interaction with a POV about the prospects’ business, which is impossible to do if you do not have a clear POV about your business.
- By not having a clear point of view, the team struggles to teach for differentiation against SAP Ariba, Coupa, Tungsten Automation, FIS and Emburse. They are challenged to show how other platforms will add risk across the target accounts’ finance operations – and how the FP&A firm will remove the risk.
- They are not providing teams with account insights that should guide communications, on-demand content for selling and internal buying conversations, account-specific value props, account-based messaging, account-based conversational support or account-based buyer enablement that will buyers confidently make a decision in the FP&A tech firm’s favor. Because they do not have the right insights and content, the FP&A firm struggles to move accounts forward. And, when they do win deals – the ACV is not as high as it should be as they are selling point solutions. They weren’t value engineering based on the account’s specific business problems and their specific gaps that would impact achievement of their strategic priorities. And, they failed to map out a buying vision that goes beyond the initial deal. The focus was on getting accounts to pipeline with a bunch of display ads vs. how are we going to improve the account experience to get accounts to revenue at a higher ACV.
As Janelle Amos mentioned on LinkedIn, we need to…
ABM Example 2: DAT Freight and Analytics Struggled to Engage and Close High-Value Supply Chain Accounts
DAT Freight and Analytics was ready to jump to ABM tech like Demandbase. But these platforms would have only scaled bad “transactional” sales and marketing processes that are leading to their solution being seen as “nice to have” vs. “must-have.” This was an issue that led to lower-value deals, as clearly seen by reviewing their won/lost opportunities and their current pipeline.
In assessing the deal sizes of their won/lost opportunities, we saw:
- 104 won/lost deals that were greater than $10K but less than or equal to $25K
- 56 won/lost deals that were less than or equal to $50K
- 33 won/lost deals that were less than or equal to $75K
- 8 won/lost deals that were less than or equal to $100K
- 4 deals that were greater than $100K
In looking at the customer base, we saw:
- 30 existing customers that have an ARR of greater than or equal to $100K
- 39 existing customers that have an ARR of greater than or equal to $75K
- 73 existing customers that have an ARR greater than or equal to $50K
- 185 existing customers that have an ARR greater than or equal to $20K
- 132 existing accounts that have an ARR greater than or equal to $10K
This shows that DAT needed a complete account-based GTM where they are bringing in high-value accounts that will see DAT as a must-have and then accelerate those accounts to revenue!
Here are some of the issues we found during our audit of their ABM program:
- They didn’t understand their ICP. They defined their ICP by industry and “freight spend” but did not think about supply chain maturity, the supply chain structure and the strategic priorities of key accounts.
- They weren’t able to communicate their specific value to VPs of Supply Chain and Chief Supply Chain Officers. They were often directed to go speak to the transportation manager (multiple levels down!) In our win/loss evaluations, prospects didn’t see DAT’s value and why they should invest in their platform which comes at a higher cost than its competitors. One of their competitors even offer it for free as part of their solution suite even though the analytics aren’t at the same level.
- While the content provided thought leadership, it didn’t offer commercial insights that help GTM teams teach for differentiation against competitors and the status quo. It didn’t reframe the prospects’ thoughts on rate benchmarking analytics, show new ways of using it and the role it can play in key priorities across the organization (vs. just the transportation manager who will only use it once in a while.) The content didn’t show how DAT can help each team across the supply chain, finance, operations, marketing make decisions based on real-time and predictive rate benchmarking data at the industry and component levels.
- They needed to change the account experience across the buyer’s journey and customer lifecycle as the marketing experience impacted the sales experience, which impacted the customer success experience which impacted the overall account experience and led to client churn.
Click here to read the complete DAT Freight and Analytics case study
ABM Example #3: HR and Recruiting Firm Loses Opportunities to Drive Greater Revenue Growth with Existing Accounts
A large, global HR firm offering recruitment solutions, outplacement, leadership development, career mobility, executive career advisory and digital solutions was starting their first ABM program. But, the firm was focused on the next deal vs. driving the greatest revenue streams YoY with your most valuable accounts. They went based on white space – meaning what existing accounts are not yet paying for the solution that the firm wants to push. They were simply doing targeted demand gen for existing accounts as demand gen is pursuit-led and it prioritizes the company’s agenda over the recipients’ needs while ABM is customer-led. Value props should be designed for individual account needs and not what’s in the solution stable to sell. Value props should be custom designed to the unique opportunity in each account.
The company failed to start off by segmenting their existing customers and understanding the “account stories” of their existing customers to see where the HR firm filled gaps and the specific impact they had. Because they weren’t understanding the account story and seeing where gaps were filled and where gaps still existed which would impact the organization’s strategic priorities, they weren’t able to have the “why stay”, “why evolve” and “why expand conversation.” And instead of taking a 1:1 approach they took a camouflaged approach that had the company name and logo on landing pages and in digital sales rooms. They may have added a video testimonial but most of the content was industry and persona-driven and not account driven. And, they didn’t supercharge their ABM programs by effectively using “champions.”
Because the firm focused on the next deal vs. driving the greatest revenue growth possible, they lost opportunities to drive even stronger, more sustainable NRR growth. Listen to the podcast below to see how ABM can be used to drive account expansion:
Your Next Steps…
It’s time that companies review their ABM programs and look for “why” they may not be getting the stage progression, deal sizes, win rates or revenue growth they expected. It’s time to get an external resource to audit your program and setup new processes and frameworks that can move the company forward.
Click here to learn more about our ABM readiness programs or schedule a time to discuss your current ABM program, your challenges and where growth opportunities may lie. You can get access to our calendar below this post.