I recently attended a conference and heard Tom Libretto, CMO of Pegasystems, be interviewed on how to do customer research.

At the beginning of the session he gave a short professional history, which included working in customer research at Nokia.

Saying that you worked in customer research at Nokia is kind of like saying that you were a navigator on the Titanic. Nokia famously missed the shift to smartphones. This is how that impacted its market share.

Nokia market share declining

However, Libretto said that the customer research group knew that Nokia had to develop new products with flat, interactive displays before the first iPhone was introduced. Their research was extensive, including having anthropologists embedded with customers.

The problem, he said, was that the company was not willing to move away from its highly successful existing phones. This has been called The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen. And so, as the industry leader tries to hold back the tide with wishful thinking, a company without that legacy baggage comes in and steals the market from it. The same thing happened with Kodak which invented, but wouldn’t take to market, digital photography; the film business was just too profitable for it to walk away from. Similarly, a young Netflix approached Blockbuster about being its digital distribution channel, but it found no interest.

So the navigators told the captain of the Titanic to change course, but they got the response, “Don’t worry. There are never icebergs in this part of the North Atlantic…”

The massacre in the New Zealand mosques raises again the question of how the social media platforms can control content. The terrorist who killed fifty people planned his attack for social media. His manifesto included social media in-jokes and memes intended to spark conversation, outrage, and sharing. He was wearing a video camera on his head and streamed the shootings live on Facebook. Within a few hours over 1.5 million copies of it were on Facebook, and more on YouTube, Twitter, and other sites.

Obviously social media produces great benefits — that’s why over two billion people worldwide participate in it every month. However, social media also causes obsession and anxiety. Some sites, like 8Chan used by the New Zealand terrorist, are meeting places for white nationalists. Facebook was the primary tool for Russian disruption of the 2016 election. And when the bad from social media can be as horrific as it was in New Zealand, it makes some question if it is starting to outweigh the good.

Management guru Tom Peters, who engages frequently with many people on Twitter, expressed that kind of despair recently:

Tom Peters tweet

I know a number of people who quit Facebook before New Zealand, or took welcome, lengthy breaks from it. Are you using social media less than before, or considering eliminating it entirely?

Unless you already have a huge following (and I do mean huge), it’s unlikely that many people will see the next piece of content that you put out. After all, several million new blog posts are published every day, not to mention the countless videos, infographics, etc. Only one in 20 new pieces of content gets to page one of Google’s search results in the first year and that is usually on a site that already has high domain authority in its industry.

The rest of us need to amplify our content.

The first thing to do is to focus on amplifying your best content. What are people showing their interest in by commenting, liking, and sharing? That’s the content that is most likely to benefit from amplification, too.

Some of the ways that you can amplify it:

  • Post it to relevant online communities
  • Get industry influencers to share it
  • Target paid ads in social media to new people based on title, industry, size of company, location, etc., or to your current contacts by creating a custom list with your email addresses
  • Use remarketing ads to get the content in front of people who have visited your website
  • Advertise on relevant industry sites
  • Sponsor it as featured content for publishers to use in a leadgen campaign for your company
  • Email it to your list

Not everything will go viral. In fact, very little will. But putting a bit of push behind your best content can get it in front of many more people.

I regularly see surveys and articles about the B2B marketing tactic/channel that works better than all others.

It’s events.

Well, no. Not really. It’s email.

Actually, it’s content. By far.

Get serious. It’s account based marketing.

Or all of the above?

Maybe, just maybe, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all marketing strategy (inbound? social media?) that is best for every B2B company in every industry. Maybe experienced marketers really do have to look at the unique situation of each company, run tests, and figure out what works best for them. And be constantly alert to their changing competitive landscape and that what works best today may not work best in six months, a year, or more.

Just maybe. 

Last week the unimaginable happened to Nike: the shoe of the most heralded college basketball player, Zion Williamson, split apart; he hurt his knee and had to leave the game.

And it didn’t happen in a minor game. It happened just a few seconds into one of the most anticipated college basketball games of the year: Duke versus North Carolina. Reportedly tickets sold for up to $10,000; President Obama flew in to attend.

Is this going to be a disaster for Nike? Some people think so.

I don’t.

First, it’s a freak accident. Nike sells close to a billion pairs of sneakers a year, yet when have you ever heard of a new Nike sneaker breaking apart like that? They have a reputation for outstanding quality.

One WNBA player suggested it was a matter of Williamson using the wrong shoe: he is too big/heavy for the style shoe he was wearing.

Swin Cash's tweet

And it was a minor injury. It appears that he’ll miss a week or two, but should be fully recovered after that.

Thirty years ago things might have been different. But Nike, and all companies with crises, are benefiting from our very, very rapid, 24/7 news cycles. They know that within a day or two people will be talking about something else. Politicians have learned how to take advantage of it, too: despite a photo of him in either blackface or a KKK uniform being found in his medical school yearbook, the governor of Virginia seems determined to ride out the storm. Three weeks later, he’s still in office.

Nike stock only went down about 1%. Airlines have had highly embarrasing videos of them mistreating passengers posted online but their stock, too, declined for just a few days and their sales took no hit at all.

Nike has one of the most valuable brands in the world, with an estimated value of $32 billion. Even as high profile of an accident as this will likely not affect them – unless it happens again. And again.

I recently did work with a company that wanted help on marketing a new product. It was very cool. They had probably spent $1 million to $2 million and a couple years developing it, but they had no idea who would buy it, or even if it was a consumer or industrial product.

They had not talked with any customers before developing the product and when I looked at it, cool as it was, I didn’t think that it was necessarily better at anything than what already existed. In many ways it was inferior.

I suggested a number of ways that inexpensively they could get it in front of different customers with different needs and messaging, but they found out that there really wasn’t a niche for it. There wasn’t, in startup language, product/market fit.

Management should have known better. This wasn’t a startup; the company had been around for years. But by not taking the time to talk to a few dozen potential customers they had wasted a couple million dollars.

On the other hand, in the early ‘90s I helped a large telecomm company study the home video-on-demand market — which at that time was still just a dream. They wanted to know how much more consumers would pay for the convenience of streaming movies at home anytime that they wanted to instead of having to go to a videotape rental store?

The answer was $0.

That was not the answer that they were expecting, or hoping for, but at least now they knew what they could expect to charge. And to this day we can stream movies on demand for just a few dollars.

Talking to customers costs almost nothing and yet invariably returns valuable, unexpected insights. Whenever I’ve done customer interviews for companies the CEO has been amazed at what their customers actually want, compared to what they thought they wanted. And this is true even in service companies where presumably they are close to their customers and have frequent conversations with them.

Have non-sales, listening conversations with customers regularly.

In September, 2017, I wrote a lengthy analysis of HubSpot’s customer acquisition costs (CAC), showing that it had more than doubled in just a few years. Since CAC – the average cost of acquiring a new customer – is a key marketing metric, I said that this called into question the whole inbound approach that HubSpot had said they relied so heavily on, and had evangelized almost as much as their marketing software.

The piece got a lot of reads and a fair amount of attention, such as a lengthy analysis from marketing strategist Mark Schaefer. But there was no response from HubSpot.

Until last week.

Last week I saw an article by Ben Jacobson of Marketing Land about HubSpot and inbound marketing in which co-founder and CEO Brian Halligan said, “Inbound marketing at scale works incredibly well.  If you look at our cost to acquire customers over time, it’s largely trending down over time…. We’re our own best case study.”

I responded on Twitter and said, no, HubSpot’s CAC was not trending down: just the opposite. And I had shown the data for that over a year ago. This is the chart showing a skyrocketing CAC from my original post:

Chart showing rising HubSpot CAC

In the original piece I mentioned that the 2011-2014 figures came from HubSpot’s IPO and first annual report SEC filings. I had calculated the 2015 and 2016 with a formula I developed and explained in a footnote because after 2014 they no longer stated their CAC in their annual reports. The numbers for those two additional years didn’t seem surprising to me since they were in line with the trend of the previous four years.

My tweet last week prompted a swift response from HubSpot’s COO, JD Sherman, that I was wrong:

Tweet saying that their CAC is down almost 50% since 2014

So he’s saying that, while industry CAC has continued to rise, for HubSpot the chart for the last eight years actually looks something like this:

And they shared the bad news of the first four years in their annual reports, but stopped publicizing it when the news significantly improved.

That’s news because another writer, Samuel Scott from The Drum, had followed up on my article in February, 2018. He couldn’t get that information from HubSpot, either.

Quote from Samuel Scott article about HubSpot

CEO Brian Halligan then joined the Twitter conversation last week and did comment further. First he said,

Halligan tweet that HubSpot CAC has drifted down since IPO and inbound works at scale

When I responded, he added:

Halligan tweet that they don't report the CAC but describe it privately

HubSpot is a public company. Their financial information is supposed to be shared with everyone. Why such selective communication of such good news?

Anyway, in a sense it doesn’t matter. The title of my original post was “Can HubSpot afford to do inbound marketing anymore? Can you?” It’s the second question that’s far more important.

Note that each time Halligan says that inbound works “at scale”. HubSpot itself has spent tens of millions of dollars – maybe over $100 million — over the past dozen years producing content for inbound. Only very large companies, or VC-backed ones, can afford to do that (certainly not the SMBs that are HubSpot’s primary market). If that’s the scale that it takes these days for inbound to work in most industries, then my original observations on its dwindling effectiveness still hold.

According to third party SEO tools (SpyFu, SEMrush, Ahrefs, Alexa.com) HubSpot every year gets the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars of paid search traffic to their site for free from their thousands of ranked pages, which have tens of thousands of external links to them. They could literally stop spending any money on new content and, since it’s so hard to displace a highly ranked page, they would continue to get millions of dollars of free traffic for a long time. That can be the long-term value of inbound (if that traffic also generates qualified leads).

HubSpot’s investment, and results, from inbound puts them in what I sometimes call “the marketing 1%”. In fact, they’re in the .1%; their site ranks in the top few hundred sites globally. That’s what investing tens of millions of dollars in content can produce over time.

But this won’t happen for many other companies. The three situations in which inbound may produce results today are:

  1. Your company is a traditional leader in your industry, possibly through a long-term content program, and has high domain authority
  2. You’re in a relatively new industry, little content has been produced yet and no one has established a leading content presence (maybe companies in AI were in that position in 2013, they certainly wouldn’t be today).
  3. You have a very large amount of money to spend on your inbound program, either because you’re large enough or are VC funded.

Secondly, as I mentioned in an article for growth stage VC firm OpenView, HubSpot has virtually re-defined inbound out of existence. The original idea of inbound was totally anti-advertising. In the second edition (2014) of their Inbound Marketing book, Halligan and HubSpot co-founder and CTO Dharmesh Shah wrote about their defining of inbound marketing: “Inbound was about pulling people in by sharing relevant information, creating useful content, and generally being helpful.”

And they continued their disdain for traditional, “outbound” marketing: “Now, raise your hand if you love getting cold calls from eager salespeople during dinner. Or spam e-mails with irrelevant offers in your inbox. How about popup ads when you’re trying to read an article on the Internet?”

But HubSpot now sells ad management software. So on its website it now says things like, “A common misconception is that inbound marketing and display advertising are simply incompatible. Increasingly, however, marketers are combining the best techniques from both to maximize their reach and find qualified potential customers.” I don’t know how that misconception arose.

I won’t go through everything in that OpenView article here, but check it out. In it, I go into much more detail on why the inbound marketing strategy launched in 2006 just doesn’t work for most companies today.

The reality is most B2B companies outside of the software industry are still doing very little marketing. I studied hundreds of them and found this adoption of marketing programs.

Table comparing use of marketing by software and non-software companies

Those numbers are from 2014, and when I discovered how little non-software companies were marketing I was somewhere between sobered and depressed. I recently revisited all 351 companies and found that the only significant changes among those non-software companies were (1) 81% of them now have mobile/responsive websites, and (2) 39% are regularly posting to social media. If anything, content programs “at scale” (which for this study I defined as at least six new pieces a month) declined from 18% to 11%.

This was for B2B companies with 50-1000 employees. These were not solopreneurs are very small companies with five or 10 employees. Many of these companies have been around for decades and are the heart of the U.S. economy. The Census Bureau reports that they employ three times as many people as enterprises with over 1,000 employees.

I work with many companies that have previously seriously under-invested in marketing. They aren’t in the marketing 1%, but they probably make up 80-plus percent of the B2B world. My recommendation for these companies is that they defer inbound marketing and use the strategies that I outline in my Bullseye Marketing approach.

Increasingly I am also working with software channel partners, most of which also have been under-investing in marketing. Unlike the software vendors, who are past the Bullseye Marketing stage, these partners could grow much faster and sell through far more software with this strategy.

But if they focus on inbound marketing, they are unlikely to produce few if any results in six months, a year, or even two. And they may well end up saying, “We knew it. Marketing doesn’t work for us.”

That’s what I recommend. But I’ll give Brian Halligan the last word.

I knew this. So I wasn’t surprised by the results.

If you post to LinkedIn on Friday afternoon your post won’t get seen by nearly as many people, because most people have dialed back their weekly social media activity by then and are less likely to be on LinkedIn over the weekend, either.

Last Friday afternoon I had coffee with marketer Samantha Stone and we swapped books. We took a selfie and, since this was a real-time activity, I immediately posted it to LinkedIn. By Monday morning it had gotten 26 likes and 5 comments, but was only seen by 382 people. Over 7 percent of the people who saw the post engaged with it – a very high engagement rate – but many people ended up seeing it.

LinkedIn post with photo

Compare that to a post earlier in the week that got 6 likes and 1 comment but was seen by 1,407 people!

I find on LinkedIn that posting around 7 or 8 AM on Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe Thursday, produces the greatest engagement and visibility for a post. But late in the week or on the weekend generally results in far less.

Now, this is going to vary depending on the platform and the demographics of your audience, of course. Posts to Instagram may be seen and engaged with throughout the weekend, and the same for Facebook. Test and see what works for you.

But for professional social media, stick to the middle of the work week.

And for emails, similarly, I’m surprised at people who send their weekly email on Friday afternoon. Generally that’s not going to get a lot of play. Emails to senior people early on Saturday morning, though, often do well because they use the weekend to catch up on non-essential reading.

I recently read Bad Blood, the book about charismatic sociopath Elizabeth Holmes and her medical device startup, Theranos. Bill Gates entitled his review, “I couldn’t put down this thriller with a tragic ending.” It is, indeed, a page turner.

In case you haven’t heard of Holmes or Theranos, she dropped out of Stanford in 2003 after one year to start the company. Her promise was to revolutionize medical diagnostics by creating a device that could perform hundreds of blood tests on just a few drops of blood from a finger tip; drawing blood from veins would be unnecessary. But, as Wall Street Journal reporter and Bad Blood book author John Carreyou explains at one point, that was probably never even physically possible: the blood from finger tips can’t provide the same information for tests that blood from veins does.

And very likely Holmes’ goal really was personal wealth and fame. She considered herself (and was often called in articles) “the next Steve Jobs” and imitated Jobs and Apple in many ways, including wearing his trademark black turtlenecks to work. At company meetings she would sometimes say, “If you don’t think that what we’re creating is the most important invention in the history of humanity, then you should leave right now.” Really. Batshit crazy.

Through a combination of connections, charm, and charisma, she ultimately was able to raise close to a billion dollars for the company. Its valuation rose to $9 billion and, since she retained ownership of over half of it, she was listed on the 2016 Forbes 400 as worth $4.5 billion.

But a year later her net worth was $0.

By then the astonishing number of corporate lies that had led to the company’s rise had been exposed by Carryou, the WSJ, and others, the federal government had withdrawn authorization for use of their technology and labs, and the house of cards had collapsed.

A few takeaways:

  •            A free press is SO important. While many people in Silicon Valley and elsewhere had their doubts about Holmes and Theranos, it wasn’t until the WSJ published their story that they made their doubts public. This is similar to what happened recently with the rapper R. Kelly, who got away with decades of sexual harassment that was well known in the music industry until Lifetime ran a several part documentary on him.

And anonymous sources, in the hands of reputable journalists and publications, are necessary. Theranos had iron-clad non-disclosures for its employees and was highly litigious, using the law firm of David Boies to threaten and intimidate employees who might have spoken out. The parents of one young employee – who was not even sued by Theranos – spent $400,000 on lawyers to deflect the attacks of Theranos and Boies.

BUT, an uncritical free press also fueled Theranos’ rise earlier on. You have people like Jim Cramer on his Mad Money show  giving Holmes a platform to respond to the initial WSJ articles, and then later interviewing Carryou and tutt-tutting Holmes. 

  •           The charisma trap. Holmes was apparently quite charismatic in person and could convince people that – despite little relevant industry experience – she could do the impossible. Once she had former Secretary of State George Schultz on her board, she could parlay that into a board full of esteemed elder statesmen (Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, James Mattis, etc.). Indeed, most of her initial investors and board members were men over 70. None had medtech experience. (Apparently the Silicon Valley medtech VCs were for the most part not convinced and did not invest.)

On one level this is a story of startup board negligence, but since Holmes retained ownership of over half the shares the board was little more than a figurehead anyway. There was no way that they could have initiated an independent investigation of her or the company’s practices once the stories broke. When one board member started to express doubts, he was kicked off the board.

But kudos to WSJ owner Rupert Murdoch who was, before his paper broke the story, the largest investor in Theranos. Despite having put $125 million into the company, he refused Holmes when she asked him to squash what she said was going to be an inaccurate article in the WSJ. He probably gets, and brushes off, those requests all the time.

  •         How could so many people – hundreds – stay at a company that was conducting medical fraud? Ultimately Theranos had to void over one million tests it had performed. I know a job is important, but come on, this wasn’t a game or productivity app: we’re talking about peoples’ lives. That is just shameful. Kudos to the employees who quit and, even more so, to those that dropped a dime.

It’s a fascinating book. At first it’s kind of like watching a corporate train wreck. Time after time you see someone get close to the truth only to be told to stay in their lane, or that a partnership with Theranos was too important to stop. Ultimately you begin to wonder how it’s all going to be brought down. And the final quarter of the book — the story of how Holmes, Theranos, and Boies tried to stop the truth from ever getting out – is quite a gripping tale in itself. 

It’s no secret that President Trump is an active user of Twitter. David Meerman Scott thought that had a big impact on why Trump won. I don’t necessarily agree, but in an election that was decided by fewer than 100,000 votes across three states, almost anything could be said to have made the difference.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the first year Representative from The Bronx and Queens in NYC, has a totally different and even more impressive use of social media.

First, the numbers: She has 2.40 million followers on Twitter, 1.8 million on Instagram (each up 200,000 in just the last week), and 425,000 on Facebook (Facebook is not her thing, and she’s not real active on it).

After winning her election (she upset the incumbent in the primary and was unopposed in the general election), she did a great job of sharing with people what it was like to be a freshman rep.

For example, she wasn’t the least ashamed of where she had come up from. She posted about how she couldn’t afford to move to DC until her Congressional pay started; she simply didn’t have enough money saved.

She put her new medical coverage in the context of the coverage she had had as a waitress.

And when conservatives improbably posted a video of her dancing in college as if it was some kind of scandal, she responded with a very short video of herself dancing in her congressional office.

While Trump pretty much sticks to text, AOC uses lots of images and video. Most of all, she seems to be having a lot of fun, unlike Trump who seems to constantly be scowling and angry.

She’s just really good at this. And as a result has – by far – the second most social media mentions of any politician. After just two weeks in office!