Your Mid-Funnel and Bottom of Funnel ABM Content is Really Camouflaged Top of Funnel Content

While most marketing teams focus on building the pipeline with ABM and demand gen, millions of dollars in revenue are stuck in the pipeline due to leakage and sales-cycle delays because they are not considering the content, messaging, and stories needed for the post-pipeline account experience. As you will read in this article, most content that is pushed out by sales and marketing teams in the mid-funnel and bottom-of-funnel is nothing more than camouflaged top-of-funnel content. Then companies like Uniphore wonder why accounts go dark, buyers become indecisive, and deal momentum stalls after initial engagement with campaigns. 

 

Uniphore in the contact center and conversational AI space created initial engagement with tier 1 banks like Bank of America, TD Bank, and others. But they continued to push out thought leadership content even after sales interactions. They stopped becoming relevant to key tier 1 banks like Bank of America as they continued to push out industry- and persona-based thought leadership around the signals rather than telling the account story. They failed to match the personalization journey to the buying journey.

 

Bank of America has a large IT team that developed, integrated, and is now expanding the capabilities of its AI virtual assistant, Erica. They have hundreds of AI patents. Awareness and generic “consideration” content and messaging would not move this account forward. But that’s the content the team was delivering. The content, messaging, and interactions did not show Bank of America that the GTM team understood the gaps in the bank’s current system and how it’s creating challenges within our clients’ focused use cases: collections, complaint management, and compliance. They didn’t show the bank that they understand:

• The bank’s strategic vision
• Their product roadmap for Erica
• The desires of the bank’s eight different lines of business.
• The impact that our client can have.
• Why the bank should outsource rather than spend time and resources on having its internal team implement the changes our clients would make.

 

Through our deep account research, we learned that not only was Bank of America investing heavily in its self-serve platform, but it was also investing in virtual reality to train agents and in voice-of-customer programs to gather the feedback they need to improve the customer experience. But everything was siloed, and Bank of America was not bridging the gap between the digital and live experiences customers received on the phone and in the banking centers. They weren’t bridging the gap between the customer experience and the agent experience, as they lacked conversational AI and in-call guidance to help agents follow the best practices they learned during training to respond to their banking customers’ struggling moments. There were no processes in place to ensure agents acted on Bank of America’s customer feedback. 

 

This wasn’t the story being told to Uniphore through content and messaging. As buyers move along in their journey, there needs to be increased relevance to help buyers feel uncomfortable about their current situation, yet comfortable moving forward to drive change. What Uniphore thought was mid-funnel content was nothing more than top-of-mind awareness content that is confirmatory and shows prospects that the Uniphore team is smart, up to date on the latest issues and trends, and they’re a savvy, knowledgeable organization. But it didn’t sell, and market the changes that the tier 1 banks need to make. They missed the specific commercial insights that would change the buyer’s thoughts about their specific approach, process, gaps, and impacts. They missed the commercial insights that would uncover the specific big risks the buyers have not considered before, and unseen opportunities. They missed the commercial insights that would cut through the thought leadership noise because it’s provocative, it’s relevant, and it tells the buyers their story vs. a generalized industry story.

Click here to read the complete Uniphore case study

 

We Just Spoke to the VP of Marketing at a Payments/ Fintech Company on How Most Mid-Funnel and Bottom-Funnel Content is Really Top of Funnel.

After guests appear on our ABM Done Right Podcast, we offer them a follow-up strategy session where we discuss their challenges and provide them with insights as a thank you for sharing their ideas with our community. A few days ago, we spoke to the VP of Marketing at a payments and fintech company, who was a recent guest, and we discussed post-pipeline content. We made the statement that the content that most marketers think are mid-funnel and late-stage content,  is really still top-of-the-funnel content. 

 

For example, the payment orchestration category is not clean. The definition is inconsistent and overused as no true market definition exists, and different vendors use it to denote different capabilities. Yet, the company does not have content that shows what payment orchestration should mean to their target accounts, allowing procurement to drag, as stakeholders interpret value differently. That’s a tax on every deal. 

 

When reviewing the fintech company’s content, we don’t see content for:

• “Do nothing” and “build it internally” conversations that sales teams face, as they’re not just competing with vendors. They are competing with internal engineering teams and status quo inertia. Many of the lost deals is due to engineering resisting change due to fears of breaking the payment system.  
•  “Why another layer” conversation that speaks directly to the targeted account’s situation. 
•  Internal buying conversations as the buyer is fragmented, and it’s not a single-persona sale. The GTM teams need to bring together the Payments/Fintech lead, engineering/architecture, finance, product (UX + conversion teams), and risk/fraud teams, who all care about different outcomes. They don’t have a unified narrative based on the account’s situation. 
• Differentiation conversations as differentiation is narrowing. The company’s market is getting crowded with PSPs adding orchestration features, gateways are expanding capabilities, fraud + payments platforms are converging, and many vendors claim “orchestration.” The company’s GTM teams need to teach for differentiation and show how alternatives are irrelevant based on the account’s unique situation. They need to show how competitor-specific gaps will impact their strategic objectives. They need to show how their situation requires more control vs. convenience.
• Reframe conversations that help buyers think differently about their approach based on their situation. They’re not showing buyers how every transaction is a conversion decision point and how authorization = revenue, routing = margins, and failure = lost customers. They are not showing buyers that their payment stack may not be broken, but it’s costing them lost revenue, invisible churn, and higher fees. They are not reframing buyers on how their consolidation = loss of leverage and why their situation requires greater control of their revenue and margins. They’re not showing buyers how they are scaling complexity faster than revenue. 

 

The company’s blog and guides are highly educational with category information, concept explanation, and industry trends. Their webinars teach fundamentals. They do not have decision stage content. They do not provide implementation clarity and show what will happen if companies invest in their payment system and orchestration platform. They are providing definitions, explanations, industry trends, product descriptions, feature explanations, and conceptual benefits – all top-of-funnel content that does not move deals forward. It’s just repackjaged awareness content as it’s educational, broad, non-committal and safe.

 

We Also Talked About This with Rob Young – The CMO at Lockthreat GRC

Rob Young, recenty posted:

We responded that we agree with Rob Young  that most B2B marketing teams are creating content that sales teams do not use. Part of it is the fact that marketing said “yes” before the problem was defined. We agree with Rob that too many marketing teams operate like a content service desk.

• Sales submits requests.
• Marketing produces the assets.
• Everyone checks the box.

 

We  agree that most marketing teams (including ABM teams) fail to ask:

1. What deal is this meant to help close?
2. What objection does it address? What exactly is the buyer pushing back on?
3. How will sales actually use the content?

 

But, we also say the content problem runs deeper than that. Most content creators are great at building thought leadership content. They are great at building top-of-of the-funnel content. Most marketers stink at creating the mid-funnel and late-stage nurture content that sales teams need. Most marketers do not understand Challenger, Winning by Design’s SPICED Method, JOLT and other sales approaches. They do not understand the selling and internal buying conversations that need to happen — so how can they create the content that sales needs for specific conversations?

 

Marketers don’t understand how we need to be reframing buyers, teaching for differentiation, making that emotional connection, and building a buying vision based on current and future needs. They don’t understand how to address the “what happens when we buy” conversation. They don’t understand how we need to be speaking to account-specific and competitor-specific gaps and impacts.

 

What is needed in the post-pipeline is completely different than what is needed in the pre-pipeline, and many marketers and content marketers do not know how to make the switch. This is why many GTM teams come to Personal ABM, as we focus on the deal-level content and account-based enablement that teams need to land and expand key accounts. Rather than waiting for sales to ask for specific types of content, we are shaping the sales conversation and the internal buying conversation by proactively creating and developing the content that teams and buyers will need. 

 

Here was Rob’s response:

Where It’s Breaking Down…

 

Most of the post-pipeline content is still about the topic (as was the case for Uniphore in the story mentioned in the beginning of this article) Top of the funnel is “What is X?” when mid-funnel is “Should we do X and how do we choose?” Most teams stay stuck with “Ultimate guide to….”, “Trends in….”, “Best practices for….”, “How to… That’s awareness. It doesn’t help someone buy, 

 

Most mid-funnel content that teams create has no point of view. No POV = No progress, especially when it comes to ABM. The point of ABM in the later stages is to come to each buyer interaction with a POV about the buyer’s business. Mid-funnel content requires strong opinions, tradeoffs, and clear stances.

Most post-pipeline content that teams create focuses on removing friction, but the mid-funnel should introduce productive friction. We need to embrace specifics and not avoid talking about cost, risk, or effort. Most case studies show a rosy picture, but it’s how you handle the thorns that builds trust with buyers. Without the friction, you attract interest but not the intent to buy. 

 

Most post-pipeline content does not map to the buying committee and speak to the concerns of the different buyers. It doesn’t show account-specific and competitor-specific gaps that impact the different buyers across the organization and the collective business.

Post-pipeline content should add commercial tension and force the question: “Are we actually going to do this?” and add urgency, consequence of inaction, and a clear comparison to the status quo so deals don’t stall before it even starts. It should force a decision, introduce trade-offs, quantify impact, challenge the status quo, reframe buyers’ thoughts and ideas, and prepare for internal selling. It should align the buyers on a buying vision based on their current and future needs. 

 

Here Are Some Real-World Patterns of Post-Pipeline Content That Is Actually Just Top-of-Funnel in Disguise

• “Ultimate Guides” are positioned as consideration content and mid-funnel education, but the content is actually introductory awareness, as it’s broad, non-specific, and it lacks decision criteria and vendor-approach differentiation. 

 

• Best practices that avoid tradeoffs, which many GTM teams call buyer enablement but it’s actually safe, generic advice that everyone agrees with, there’s no POV, and no consequences for doing it wrong. It doesn’t create an a-ha moment, which is needed to win. 

 

• Thought leadership that never takes a position. Many GTM teams call this mid-funnel nurturing content, but it’s awareness content with buzzwords, it’s future-focused (meaning non-urgent), and there’s no linkage to a buying decision. Trends don’t close deals; decisions do, and we need to help buyers confidently decide in our favor.

 

• Case studies that don’t help buyers buy. Most GTM teams call case studies their mid-funnel and bottom-of-funnel proof, but it’s actually surface-level storytelling. It’s cherry-picked wins with limited context and no explanation of why their solution worked and why another approach would not have been relevant to the account’s situation. It doesn’t show what conditions made it successful, what almost failed, and how the team overcame challenges, so we can see what it’s like to work with the team. It doesn’t show how the program and the relationship evolved to help the account get maximum value and to achieve its long-term strategic objectives. The case study content doesn’t help buyers see themselves inside the story, so buyers do not move. As the Challenger Sales authors wrote in their book: “It’s not that buyers do not see believe your story, it’s that they do not see themselves inside the story that’s being told.” 

 

• Comparison content that avoids real comparisons and does not teach for differentiation. Most GTM teams call their Platform A vs. Platform B vs. Platform C content as decision stage enablement, but it’s sanitized TOFU. There’s no real differentiation beyond features, and “he says, she says type of differentiation.” There is no clear winner for a given scenario. Buyers cannot see how competitors may not be relevant to their situation, and how the competitors’ approach will impact their strategic objectives. If anything, the comparison content actually enables….it’s a good enough conversation that will result in a decision in your competitors’ favor (especially if they are offering a smaller investment in terms of time and money.)  

Does Your Post-Pipeline Content Pass the Litmus Test?

 

Look at the content that your teams are providing once sales engage, when buyers should be beyond thought leadership content. Does it:

• Support actually buying conversations – is the content designed for specific conversations with specific buyers?
• Support internal buying conversations?
• Focus on the struggling moments that sit at the center of the deal – moments that need to be listened to, understood, catered to, reframed and solved?
• Help buyers choose – or just learn?
• Introduce risk, cost or trade-offs?
• Show the cost of inaction? 
• Differentiate from the competition and the status quo?
• Create a buying consensus among the diverse buying group?
• Embed your solution across the target organization so you are a must-have vs. a nice-to-have?
• Help drive stage progression? 
• Answer the “what if I buy” question?
• Build the buying vision based on your target account’s current and future needs to set up the expansion sale before the initial deal is even signed?

 

If you post-pipeline content fails the litmus test, read our article on the 1:1 ABM content that’s needed to land and expand key accounts. Also, read our article on how marketing can influence greater revenue growth by changing the mid-funnel and last-mile account experience.

Lastly, scroll down and book a free ABM content strategy session.