OpenWorks (a facility management service firm) had the aggressive growth goal of reaching $1B market share by 2030. But despite having an ABM program in place with another firm, they consistently missed MoM, QoQ and YoY revenue goals. In assessing the state of their GTM, we uncovered these issues:
- Their ICP was too broad and not predictive
- Their ICP was not operationalized
- They focused on intent – and intent is not predictive
- They retrofitted ABM on top of current processes, systems, content, interactions and experiences
- They followed the old “ABM pyramid model” vs. taking an account- based GTM approach.
- They lacked the account-based enablement that was needed to improve GTM interactions and account experiences.
Challenge #1: The ICP Did Not Define the Accounts That Were Most Likely to Close at a High ACV and Grow with OpenWorks
When you hit the core the right way, that’s when win rates go up, stage progression accelerates, sales cycles go faster, and deal sizes increase. When you align with your core, you build retention, you drive customer lifetime value, and expand with your core as you provide greater value to them.
But… most GTM teams do not have a clear understanding of who their core is and why. This is why most ICPs do not clearly show the “Winnable, Addressable Market” and do not accurately predict the accounts that will get the most value and provide the greatest long-term revenue growth. The #1 reason why accounts churn is that they are not the right customer in the first place.
Because the ICP for OpenWorks Was Not Predictive, It Left GTM Teams Guessing Which Accounts They Should Talk to Next
Their ICP originally focused on:
• Industry (education, professional services, healthcare facilities, property management, warehousing, manufacturing, logistics, office buildings, religious buildings)
• Location
• Company size
• # of buildings and square footage
But this ICP is almost like your TAM. It provided too many targets, many of which are wrong as they would target accounts where they would win 1 to 2 sites at a time or they would select accounts where they would most likely lose on price. Like many GTM teams, OpenWorks used proxies to define their ICP.
They went into Zoominfo, 6sense and others and put in X industries, X size of companies, and other demographic information. They didn’t look for the cultural, operational and executional characteristics that show why their top accounts derive the most value from their solutions and why these companies are staying and growing with OpenWorks. They didn’t shape their ICP modeling to go beyond proxies and focus on the qualitative variables that are most predictive of an account moving forward with OpenWorks, staying with OpenWorks and expanding with OpenWorks.
In looking at where they have the biggest deal sizes and the most sites, we noticed that these accounts make facility management decisions at a regional or corporate level and not the local level (a key characteristic). Yet, teams focused sales and marketing resources on accounts where decisions were made at a local level, even though there was a long road to getting regional and national pilots that way.
OpenWorks didn’t identify the areas where their competition (traditional facility management companies like JLL, standard janitorial companies, and independent providers) were irrelevant.
OpenWorks needed to focus on accounts that have multiple types of buildings with different and regulations where a patchwork of providers or blanket, one size fits all approaches would add risk to the operations. They needed to look for accounts where they have a truly differentiated, situational story to tell, so it’s not just about cleaning the floors, bathrooms, etc.
In looking at accounts where there were win-backs, we learned that the clients returned to OpenWorks because the “new provider” that offered greater cost savings took a blanket approach and put their operation at risk of a shutdown by regulatory agencies. On the other hand, OpenWorks will streamline best practices across all locations BUT will consider individual site needs and requirements.
So instead of focusing on the industry, we focused on subsets like food manufacturers, healthcare manufacturers, and 3PLs/4PLs that have different types of locations with their own nuances (including different temperature zones) and cannot afford to take a blanket approach to commercial cleaning as it adds operational, financial, and governmental regulatory risk. And, within those subsets, we looked for companies that were expanding their supply chain operations and were making investments in getting to market faster. We also focused on companies where there were facility regulatory violations and warnings.
Now, it’s no longer just about cleaning. It’s not just about the activities that will be completed where accounts can compare SOWs and choose the company that can offer the most at the lowest price. It’s about removing risk from the operations so products can go to market fast. It’s about removing risk from the P&L.
By getting the ICP right, OpenWorks increased sales efficiency as they focused on accounts that would most likely move forward with a regional or national deal.
How We Helped Their GTM Teams Define Their Ideal Customer Profile For Each Industry and Solution
Review Existing Accounts
We uncovered the existing accounts that were driving the greatest long-term revenue growth AND were getting the most value from OpenWorks’ solutions. Then we pinpointed the key operational characteristics that are predictive of long term “partnership” success – as well as the business problem profile and the strategic priorities that will predict account readiness.
Complete a win/loss analysis
We completed a win/loss analysis and saw why accounts select Openworks – and why accounts decide to move forward with the competition. We identified the accounts where their competitors are a better fit – and more importantly those accounts where the competition is irrelevant.
Assess the current and past pipeline
We reviewed the accounts that are engaging with Openworks GTM teams right now – and see why they may be engaging and why they are progressing in their buyer journey. We looked at accounts leaving the pipeline or going dark and looked for key common characteristics that would predict accounts that would waste time and resources.
Gap/Impact Story Identification
We learned about the gaps that the OpenWorks solution uniquely fills – and the impact they have. We captured the situational stories that prove their differentiation and looked for accounts in similar situations where their teams have the greatest relevance.
Uncover the right signals
We matched signals to their ICP so AI can efficiently identify your best fit, most ready accounts that match the ICP and the business problem profile.
Test the ICP
We tested the ICP and we looked for the ICP and business problem profile signals that have the greatest strength so we can identify the next market segments for OpenWorks. These are accounts that are most likely to engage – and the existing accounts they should be strategically expanding.
Click here to learn more about our ICP development!
Challenge 2: The ICP Was Not Operationalized Across the Organization
The OpenWorks ICP was put onto a PowerPoint slide and that’s where it stayed. It was not part of how GTM teams make decisions. It was not part of their product/service map decisions.
This was happening because the ICP was treated as project vs. an ongoing program where there is continuous optimization and reiteration and where there is accountability that teams actually focus on the ICP. We need to go beyond defining the ICP and putting it on a static PowerPoint slide and then not have it show up anywhere across the GTM.
While a good ICP definition starts with descriptions and qualitative insights, it can’t stop there. It needs to be translated into account scoring models and data. It needs to be orchestrated across all GTM teams (sales, marketing, customer success and product teams).
Click here to learn more about our ICP management program.
Challenge 3: GTM Teams Focused on Intent Data – and Intent Is Not Predictive
The team invested in ZoomInfo’s Marketing Operating System and focused on those accounts showing intent for certain keywords. The reliance on intent data kept the team from aligning with their core as Intent data is just noise without contextual insights. They were reacting to intent signals and engagement data vs. responding by understanding why there may be intent in the first place. It’s the “why” that should guide content, communications, interactions and experiences.
GTM teams that simply react to intent and engagement data, get stuck in the sea of sameness as competitors react to the same data in the same way. Because teams lack account-based insights they fall back on “persona” and “industry” pain points. When you anchor on industries and personas you stop focusing on the companies and people you need to engage with – and you start telling everyone’s story. It’s the “why” that helps you understand the “account story” to deliver a differentiated account experience.
At Personal ABM, we are strong believers that focus PLUS data+signals-driven insights are must-haves for any successful demand gen or ABM program. However, those signal-driven insights must go beyond intent. As OpenWorks learned, there is very little predictiveness when it comes to intent data and engagement data except that they may be in-market. They could also just be looking or just reading to stay in the know. There’s no predictiveness when it comes to… will this account most likely close at a high ACV and will the account grow with us.
Intent does not mean winnable. The problem with the common take is that intent data is so heavily time-lagged by the time you get it and try to use it. It’s not that it’s wrong. It’s late. In many cases, when OpenWorks went to act on the intent, they discovered that the customer has already moved. Intent also does not mean that you match the company’s ideal vendor profile. As Edgar Baum at Avasta mentioned on the ABM Done Right Podcast, it’s important to look at the ideal vendor profile of the accounts you’re targeting otherwise you’ll be wasting time and resources that will never move forward with you despite showing intent.
To get predictability, OpenWorks needed ICP signals + business problem profile signals. In addition, they needed to add account insights to see if there is a strategic priority that they can play a strong role in — and if they have a differentiated, situational story to tell. By focusing on ICP accounts vs relying on intent-qualified leads, OpenWorks increased sales velocity with high-value accounts. They added predictability by focusing on those accounts that show signals of being part of their ICP (the key executional and operational characteristics of the customers that are providing the greatest revenue growth and getting the most value from you) and signals that show the account matches the business problem profile.
In addition to the lack of predictability when it comes to intent, OpenWorks also learned that intent data focuses on the small percentage of the market that show signs that they may be looking or may be ready to buy. They have predefined needs which resulted in lower value deals for OpenWorks. While it was important for OpenWorks to win those short-term deals, it was also important to focus on long term growth as they wanted to reach $1B in market share by 2030.
They needed to focus on accounts where they have a differentiated, relevant situational story to tell, that match their ICP and their business problem profile, and have a strategic priority that OpenWorks can play a strong role in but are not yet showing intent. With these accounts, the team was able to create the need and the buying vision and capture higher value deals. It’s with these accounts that OpenWorks was able to create the greatest revenue streams possible YoY to put them ahead of schedule to reach $1B in market share.
Challenge 4: OpenWorks Retrofitted ABM vs. Changing the GTM
Instead of assessing the current state of the GTM, the former agency managing the ABM program for OpenWorks, retrofitted ABM on top of existing processes, content, messaging, interactions and account experiences. They were just doing better targeting than before and they were using Mutiny to create personalized landing pages at scale. They were giving the look and feel of “personalization” but the content and massaging told an “industry” and “persona” story. They were failing to tell the “account story” as they did not take the time to deeply understand the customer – and show the human buyers that OpenWorks wanted to engage that the team understands the account’s specific situation, specific business problems, specific priorities, specific strategic objectives, specific vision, and specific gaps and impacts. They focused on getting tangible deliverables out the door as fast as humanly (or artificially) possible vs. focusing on how they can improve the account experience.
Changes needed to be made:
• We started with the siloed team infrastructure that focused sales on regions vs. industry, which would increase their relevance to key accounts. As ABM should be about how you nurture accounts from a sales, marketing, customer success, and product/service perspective, we created “industry” pods where sales, marketing, and account management leaders work together to deliver the right experience, land and expand key ICP accounts in their key industry. They became specialists so they can have the right interactions, tell the right stories, and deliver the right, relevant account experiences vs. their generic account experience.
• The SDR compensation was misaligned with the goals of the ABM program as they were compensated for first-time appointments scheduled. The team was focused on the easier “meeting” wins vs. the decision maker level at ICP accounts. The ICP was not being orchestrated at all GTM levels.
• OpenWorks needed a strong, differentiating point of view and to take a stance on where the industry is going wrong. With ABM it’s important to come to each digital, social, email, live interaction with a point of view about the prospect’s business but before you can do that, you need to have a strong point of view about your own business. They needed to focus on where gaps existed in how other providers approaches facility management and how it impacted the operations, finances and the customer experience of their ICP. They needed to understand how current approaches within their ICP and other providers added risk to the operations and the business.
• Content, messaging, interactions and account experiences needed to align with the ICP, otherwise they’d just do better targeting and accounts will get stuck in the pipeline or go dark. Once OpenWorks got the ICP right, they needed content and messaging that would reframe their prospects thoughts on facility management and how their approach impacts the supply chain, operations, and finance. They needed commercial insights and stories that show how only OpenWorks can solve their target accounts’ supply chain issues with their facility management approach. They needed content, messaging, and experiences that show how OpenWorks can play a strong role in their target accounts’ strategic priorities –which opens higher-level conversations than pain points that speak to local site facility managers.
The Marketing Conversation Needed to Change So Sales Can Move Away From Commoditized, Transactional Pain Point Selling
Previously, marketing content, campaigns, and marketing-created sales outreach, and cadences focused on persona pain points, automatically building the foundation for a transactional sale. Pain is annoying and it can be frustrating but it’s not a strategic business problem. Pain isn’t enough to drive business decisions at a strategic enterprise level. Yet, OpenWorks focused on pain points vs. account-specific business problems, root causes, gaps and impacts. They focused content and messaging on the pains of:
• Working with multiple vendors and why they should take a consolidated approach
• Working with unreliable providers and/or employees that result in missed scheduled cleanings.
• Hearing complaints from employees about the conditions of facilities.
As a result, when there was engagement based on the pain, it was only at the local level and not at the regional and national level. The conversations often led to price-based decisions that were often not in our clients’ favor. Content and messaging were not tied to a business problem. It was still about cleaning floors, windows and bathrooms.
They weren’t telling the situational stories and showing how their ICP accounts were being put at risk because their providers are taking a blanket approach across all locations, even though each location had different temperature zones and regulations that they needed to adhere to. They weren’t sharing how others like them were almost shut down by regulators – and how operations were disrupted because the facilities, including conveyor belts, were not cleaned and maintained properly. They weren’t discussing service performance issues and delivery delays to customers like Walmart.
These real business problems and stories were not captured and were not being told by marketing or sales. They didn’t have content that showed how your facility management approach can impact supply chain operations, the go-to-market, service performance to customers and the P&L. By changing the marketing conversation and focusing on the business problem, sales was no longer talking about the list of activities they’ll complete. They were talking about how they’ll remove risk from manufacturing operations, how the facilities will become a driver for growth and how they’ll help protect profit margins as regulator fines will be eliminated and on-time, in full penalties will be minimized. The marketing and sales conversations engaged regional and national leaders – and they weren’t being redirected to the local level. Most importantly, they were able to win regional and national deals.
Remember that Real Strategic ABM is about PROBLEM SOLVING, and educating key people on value propositions that matter to them.
Challenge 5: They Followed the Old “ABM Pyramid” Model
The ABM pyramid, which was created 10+ years ago, puts ABM as a tiering, segmentation, and prioritization strategy when ABM should be much more. The ABM pyramid also puts 1:1, 1: few and 1: many as 3 separate programs when the 3 should blend to create an account-based GTM. The ABM pyramid doesn’t show the account acceleration that needs to happen and how 1:1, 1:few and 1: many should work together to create an account experience where there’s more relevance along the way to create the greatest revenue streams possible YoY from future and existing customers.
The biggest reason why GTM teams struggle with account stage progression is because there’s very little “relevancy” progression as buyers move forward in the journey. You may start off with ICP-personalization where you speak to industries within your ICP and the personas within the ICP you want to engage with. This is your 1: many account-based demand gen programs. But the relevance needs to progress.
With those engaged ICP accounts, you now focus on cluster-level personalization where you speak to similar accounts with similar situations. This is your 1: few account-based demand gen programs that further qualify accounts for 1:1.
With those ICP accounts that qualify for 1:1, you add on account insights to tell the account story. You get relevant at the account level. You personalize to the account and their strategic priorities, their strategic objectives, their gaps and their impact.
From there, you personalize to the decision-maker level and focus on how the business gaps will impact them and their teams as well as the business as a whole. This leads you to specific stakeholder-level personalization.
Click on the image below to listen to our podcast on why the ABM pyramid is irrelevant and why that model was wrong for OpenWorks.
Challenge #6: They Lacked Account-Based Enablement
When sales, marketing and customer success teams only align vs. integrate to win as 1 team, ABM becomes nothing more than targeted demand generation as teams are still having a hand-off vs. a hand-shake. Marketing is still just impacting the pipeline (a small portion of the buying journey) vs. impacting stage progression, sales cycle time, deal sizes, ARR (annual), GRR (gross retention) and NRR (net retention – expansion). OpenWorks was relying on sales enablement and their just-in-case training vs. providing content, messaging and insights to overcome the struggling moments that sit at the center of every enterprise deal. These struggling moments need to be listened to, understood, catered to, reframed and solved.
OpenWorks needed:
• Account-based insights so teams do not fall back on “persona” messaging, generalized pain points, and product messaging. They needed to stop telling “everyone’s story” in content, messaging and in live conversations. By putting in place an account insight process and an account intelligence program, OpenWorks go-to-market teams now know what their future and existing customers are focused on as those strategic initiatives for the business trickle down to every department across the organization. They’ are now able to clearly show key decision makers the role they can play in the prospect’s strategic initiatives and the impact they will have so they are not just another item on their list of things to do eventually. Click here to see the account intelligence that’s needed.
• Content that meets specific buyer expectations. In today’s digital environment where sales and marketing is pushing out more messaging and content, Gartner found that additional customer research and learning does not lead to greater clarity but rather deeper uncertainty. More often than not, today’s customers are left with no clear means for evaluating trade-offs or moving forward with sufficient certainty to justify an expensive, potentially disruptive purchase. OpenWorks needed to provide buyers with the right information through the right channels in a way that helps buyers buy. They needed to dramatically increase confidence and reduce skepticism while prospecting and nurturing by helping buyers evaluate information, prioritize various sources, quantify trade-offs and reconcile conflicting information — all while helping customers arrive at their own understanding on why they should move forward with OpenWorks.
• Content to support ABM and sales vs. campaigns. Previously, OpenWorks content was designed to support campaigns vs. the “selling conversations” and “interactions” sales need to close accounts. Sales teams were left to their own devices to reframe thoughts and ideas, demonstrate relevance, make an emotional connection. build the business case, teach for differentiation, and move the prospects through the funnel to the close. They also didn’t have the content the on-demand content that was needed to penetrate target accounts, VPs across divisions/business units and the C-suite. The teams didn’t have the content they need to influence a buying consensus and win the internal conversation that their teams were losing as buyers focused on price vs. thinking about the big picture impacts of their facility management decisions.
• Account specific buyer messaging as messaging needs to be customer-led. Value props need to be designed for specific customer needs — and custom designed to the unique opportunity in each account. And, the messaging will need to speak to and with the human buyers as each interaction will be treated as a mini sales and marketing conversation.
• Account-based conversation support to change the interactions that GTM teams had with buyers. OpenWorks’ sales teams were consistently losing accounts to the status quo as teams were not equipped to overcome customer resistance to changing their current approach for solving a problem. Sales and revenue teams did not have the support they needed to engage in a two-way conversation that helps future customers understand the gaps and the costs/risks of their current facility management approach. They didn’t have the support to stop responding to pre-defined needs and actually create a need and a specific buying vision.
OpenWorks needed to enable sellers and customer success teams to have social, email and live conversations with the buyers and influencers in the organization that they do not yet have relationships with. They needed account-based insights and personal content that earned sales and customer success teams a conversation and the right for the C-suite and VPs to engage and get involved in the buying, renewal or expansion process.
Customer success and sales teams needed to know what content to use, know when to use it and how to deliver the right message across the organization. And, that is not automated sequences in Sales Loft or Outreach. Teams needed to know how to deliver high-touch, personal 1:1 messages and content that shows how you are aligned with their business vision, you understand their specific gaps and how it would impact the key decision makers teams are trying to reach – as well as their department and the company as a whole.
Click here to learn more about our account-based enablement program.
How Slowing Down and Focusing on Getting ABM Ready Accelerated Success for OpenWorks
By slowing down to build their ABM readiness, OpenWorks increased their “precision” on the accounts they should be engaging with and the “precision” on their buyer interactions and account experiences to get accounts to revenue. They were able to stop MoM, QoQ and YoY revenue misses and they are now on track to reach their $1B in market share by 2027. That’s 3 years ahead of schedule – and it’s because they took the time to get ABM ready.
Click here to learn more about out ABM readiness program
Click here to see more examples of how companies are not ABM ready