Thought Leadership or Brand - Which Matters More to "Hidden Buyers"?

Edelman and LinkedIn recently published their 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, which was based on a survey of 1,934 management-level business professionals from a wide range of industries and company sizes. The survey was conducted March 17 - April 3, 2025.

The primary focus of this year's study was "hidden buyers" - people in the buying organization who influence a purchase decision even though they are not a primary user of the product or service being considered.

The 2025 report includes several survey findings for "hidden buyers" and "target buyers," defined as follows:

• Hidden Buyers - "People who . . . are a final decision-maker in group purchasing decisions and are primarily involved as a representative of a function that does not require in-depth knowledge of the specific product or service. These functions might include finance, operations, legal, compliance, procurement, and others."

• Target Buyers - "People who . . . are both a final decision-maker and are primarily involved as an expert in the service or product being offered."

Here are some of the major findings from the Edelman/LinkedIn report.

Consumption and Use of Thought Leadership

 Hidden buyers consume as much thought leadership content as target buyers. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said they spend an hour per week (on average) consuming thought leadership, compared to 64% of target buyer respondents.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported using thought leadership content to evaluate potential vendors, compared to 56% of target buyer respondents.

Impact on Marketing/Sales Interactions

Seventy-one percent (71%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported having little or no interaction with vendor sales reps. However, 95% said that strong thought leadership content made them more receptive to marketing and sales outreach from companies producing such content.

Attributes of Strong Thought Leadership

Ninety-one percent (91%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said that a key attribute of high-quality thought leadership content is that it helps them uncover challenges, needs, or opportunities that they hadn't previously recognized.

Two Controversial Findings

The Edelman/LinkedIn report contains two somewhat controversial findings. In this study, the researchers asked participants to rate the importance of several considerations when selecting a vendor.

The following table shows the percentages of hidden buyer respondents who rated each consideration as very important or moderately important.

As this table shows, hidden buyer survey respondents rated "Vendor is the 'safest choice'" as less important than five other considerations.

The second controversial finding relates to the importance of brand. The researchers asked study participants how much they agreed or disagreed with this statement:  "In vetting vendors, if an organization produces high-quality thought leadership, it matters much less to me how well known they are." Fifty-three percent (53%) of both hidden buyer and target buyer survey respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with this statement.

The Alternative View

These two findings differ significantly from the results of other recent research. One example of this research is a recent study by The B2B Institute, Bain & Company, and NewtonX (the "B2B Institute Study").

(Note:  This study is described in a 2024 LinkedIn article written by Mimi Turner and Jann Schwarz, both with The B2B Institute. I understand The B2B Institute is planning to publish  a report or paper discussing this research later this year.)

The B2B Institute Study examined the attitudes and behaviors of hidden buyers and target buyers using definitions of those terms similar to those used in the Edelman/LinkedIn study. The study found that making a "safe" purchase decision is a primary driver for hidden buyers.

• Hidden buyers care more than target buyers about factors such as brand reliability and "peace of mind." (See the graphic accompanying "Finding #2" in the LinkedIn article.)

• About two-thirds of hidden buyers and target buyers said they would prefer products or services that "provide peace of mind without career advancement" over products or services that offer "business growth that involves potential career uncertainty."

The B2B Institute Study also found that a strong, well-known brand is important to both hidden buyers and target buyers, but is more influential with hidden buyers.

• Eighty-one percent (81%) of the study participants said the brand they ultimately bought was known to everyone or almost everyone in the buying group at the start of the purchase process.

• Hidden buyers are 31% more likely to reject brands they don't know and 70% more likely to reject brands that aren't well-known to other members of the buying group.

My Take

These two studies present starkly different perspectives regarding the tendency of B2B hidden buyers to make "safe" purchase decisions and the influence that brand has with hidden buyers.

I suggest that most of these differences can be attributed to differences in the focus and design of the underlying surveys. The B2B Institute Study focused on high-consideration, high-value technology purchases by large enterprises. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the survey respondents in this study were with companies having more than 10,000 employees.

The survey used in the Edelman/LinkedIn thought leadership study had very different survey demographics. In fact, 48% of those survey respondents were with companies having 200 or fewer employees.

Several other recent studies have highlighted the preference of most B2B buyers for safe purchase decisions and the important role that brand plays in B2B buying decisions.

Under these circumstances, I think the findings of the B2B Institute Study provide a more accurate picture of real-world B2B buying.

Top image courtesy of Hans Splinter via Flickr (CC).

[Research Round-Up] A Detailed Look at Real-World B2B Buying

(This month's Research Round-Up discusses the 2024 B2B Buyer Experience Study by 6sense. The 6sense study provides detailed insights regarding how business buyers make purchase decisions in real-world scenarios. This makes the study report a must-read for anyone involved in B2B revenue generation.)

2024 B2B Buyer Experience Report by 6sense 

Source:  6sense

• Based on a survey of 2,509 B2B buyers located in North America (37.46%). EMEA (29.77%), and APAC (32.76%).
• To qualify for the survey, participants must have bought at least $10,000 USD in annualized value within the 24 months preceding the survey. The average value of actual purchases made by the survey respondents exceeded $200,000 USD.
• More than 95% of the respondents were manager-level or above.
• Survey respondents were drawn from five industry verticals, with the largest cohort working at tech and software companies.
• 6sense released the study report on October 9, 2024; the report doesn't state when the survey was in the field.

The 2024 B2B Buyer Experience Study by 6sense is one of the most detailed examinations of B2B buying behavior that I've seen recently.

The study is based on a survey that produced more than 2,500 qualified respondents, and the researchers used various statistical techniques to analyze the survey data.

The study findings, combined with the insights from the statistical analysis, paint a picture of B2B buying that differs markedly from the conventional view. Therefore, this research should prompt B2B marketing and sales leaders to reexamine their strategies from the ground up.

The Basics

The 6sense researchers asked participants about several issues that earlier studies have also addressed. For example, the study found that for these survey respondents:

• The length of the average buying cycle was 11.5 months.

• The average number of individuals in the buying group was 10.9 people.

• The average number of prospective vendors considered by the buying group was 4.6.

• On average, the survey respondents were about 70% through their buying process before they engaged directly with representatives of prospective vendors.

These findings are similar to the results of numerous earlier research studies.

Extra Insights

What makes the 6sense study particularly valuable is that it also provides insights about issues that haven't been frequently addressed in previous studies. For example:

• 92.6% of the surveyed buyers had prior experience with at least one of the prospective vendors they considered. 84% had experience with the vendor that was ultimately selected, while 8.6% had prior experience with only a "losing" vendor.

• Buyers initiated contact with prospective vendors 81% of the time.

• In 85% of the buying scenarios represented in the survey, the buying group had their purchase requirements nearly or completely set before initiating contact with prospective vendors.

When Buyers Pick a Favorite

One of the most interesting topics discussed in the 6sense study report relates to when B2B buyers identify a preferred vendor.

At several places, the report's authors assert that most B2B buyers have identified a preferred vendor before they contact any prospective vendors. For example, on page 23 of the report, the authors write:

"Buyers devote nearly 70% of their buying journey to identifying a short-list of potential providers. They review content, have internal meetings and consult with outside resources to establish their requirements and agree on a shortlist and a favored vendor. Only then do they reach out to vendors to confirm that choice, starting with the preferred vendor. They end up buying from the initially preferred vendor 81% of the time."

While I suspect this statement is probably accurate, it's not clear from the study report that the survey data directly supports this conclusion.

The 6sense researchers asked survey participants ". . . whether their first interaction with a provider organization was with the ultimate winner or instead with one of the other providers." Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents reported that their first vendor contact was with the ultimate winner.

The focus of this question is who buyers contact first. However, it's not clear from the study report that the survey specifically asked participants (a) whether their buying group identified a preferred vendor before initiating content with prospective vendors, or (b) what percentage of the time the preferred vendor turns out to be the winning vendor.

I'm not sure why the researchers didn't ask these questions, and I hope they will be included in future editions of this research.

*****

The 2024 B2B Buyer Experience Report provides great insights into B2B buying behavior. I encourage you to take the time to review the full 65-page report.

"No Decisions" - Why They Happen and What You Can Do About Them

The quest to understand how people make buying decisions has probably consumed more brainpower than any other topic in marketing and sales. In B2B, we've also devoted a lot of time and energy to diagnosing why some potential customers fail to make any purchase after conducting a thorough buying process.

Such outcomes are usually called no decisions, and several studies have shown that B2B companies lose more sales to no decisions than to competitors. In the research for their 2022 book, The JOLT Effect, Matthew Dixon and Ted McKenna found that between 40% and 60% of prospective sales result in no decisions.

Rational vs. Non-Rational No Decisions

Some no decisions are entirely rational. For example, a potential customer may decide not to buy because their current solution is superior or equivalent to the proposed alternatives. In such cases, the alternatives don't provide enough additional value to justify a change.

However, many no decisions can't be explained on a rational basis. These are situations where the potential customer has recognized the existence of an issue or challenge that needs to be addressed, the fit and business case for the proposed solution are strong, and the price of the proposed solution is affordable. But despite these circumstances, the potential customer decides not to buy.

Such "non-rational" no decisions point to the role of human emotion and psychology in B2B buying. An impressive body of research has shown that many B2B buying decisions are driven more by emotional and psychological factors than by logic.

So, how do emotions and psychological factors drive no decisions? To answer this question, the starting point is understanding the power and prevalence of fear in B2B buying.

How Fear Drives No Decisions

More than a decade ago, Enquiro conducted a landmark study of the B2B buying process. The research used several methods to gather data from almost 4,000 individuals involved in B2B buying. A core finding of the study was that B2B buying is not a rational process, but rather an "emotional, heuristic process" in which fear plays a leading role.

Gord Hotchkiss, the CEO of Enquiro, discussed the results of the study in The Buyersphere Project, where he described the role of fear in B2B buying in unequivocal terms. He wrote:

"B2B buying decisions are usually driven by one emotion - fear. Specifically, B2B buying is all about minimizing fear by eliminating risk. And in that, there are two distinct types of risk. There is organizational risk, typically formalized and dealt with in various procurement processes and then there is personal risk, which is unstated but remains a huge influencing factor in organizational buying."

The personal risk that is present at some level in every B2B buying situation is the risk that the decision-maker will be blamed if the purchase doesn't deliver the promised benefits. So, fear of blame is a hidden force in every B2B buying situation.

Personal risk often causes business buyers to practice what psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has called defensive decision-making.*

Defensive decision-making occurs when a business buyer doesn't choose the option that would probably produce the most benefits for his or her company, but instead chooses the option that will protect him or her in case something goes wrong.

Defensive decision-making can easily lead business buyers to view their status quo as the safest option, and that results in a no decision.

A Strong Brand Reduces No Decisions

You will never completely eliminate no decisions. As I noted earlier, some no decisions are completely rational. Sometimes, your offering won't be significantly better than what your prospect is already using or doing. Your objective should be to identify these situations early in the sales process so that you don't waste time pursuing a deal you are unlikely to win.

Reducing the number of non-rational no decisions is challenging because, by definition, you are dealing with emotional and psychological factors that are difficult to identify and usually differ for every buyer.

In The JOLT Effect, Dixon and McKenna lay out a four-pronged approach that sales reps can use to reduce no decisions. The authors argue that high-performing reps look for ways to "take risk off the table" (the "T" in JOLT). Examples of these tactics include free trials, opt-out clauses in contracts, and performance guarantees.

One of the most effective ways to reduce non-rational no decisions is to build and sustain a strong brand presence in the relevant market. A strong brand reduces the level of personal risk associated with choosing your company.

If your company/brand is well-known by the decision-maker's superiors and colleagues, the perceived risk is even lower. This explains the rationale of the quote:  "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

In a recent paper published by The B2B Institute, Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman of Ogilvy UK and author of Alchemy, described the power of a strong brand to reduce risks:

"A decision to appoint a respected brand is much less reputationally risky than the appointment of an unknown. If you appoint a well-known company to a task and things go wrong, your colleagues are likely to blame the supplier. If you appoint someone obscure, they may blame you."

Advocates of brand marketing often assert that building a strong brand will improve the performance of demand generation programs, make buyers more willing to pay a premium price, and increase customer loyalty. Unfortunately, it's not usually clear why a strong brand delivers these benefits. One likely reason is that buyers are apt to view a strong brand as the safest choice.

*Gerd Gigerenzer is director emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, and director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. For a more in-depth discussion of defensive decision-making, see his book, Risk Savvy:  How to Make Good Decisions.

Image courtesy of Dan Moyle via Flickr (CC).

Buyer Insights That Should Guide Your Planning for 2025

With the fourth quarter of 2024 less than two weeks away, many B2B marketing and sales leaders will soon begin planning for 2025. To develop an effective go-to-market plan, it's vital to understand how the decision-makers in your target market(s) prefer to engage with potential suppliers at all stages of the buying process.

Recent research by McKinsey & Company provides several important insights regarding B2B buyer preferences and behaviors that you should consider as you develop your go-to-market plans for next year. McKinsey's 2024 B2B Buyer Pulse Survey produced nearly 4,000 responses from B2B decision-makers across 34 sectors in eight industries from 13 countries.

Here are some of the key findings from the McKinsey survey.

B2B Buyer Archetypes

McKinsey's research identified three distinct archetypes of B2B decision-makers based on their varying preferences and needs.

• Adapters (44% of survey respondents) - These decision-makers are highly relationship-oriented. "While willing to try new channels, they tend to stick with patterns that they are familiar with and are slow to try new experiences, channels, and suppliers . . ."

• Innovators (20% of respondents) - These decision-makers ". . . are on the cutting edge when it comes to newer technologies . . . They are highly likely to be on any and all digital channels."

• Seekers (36% of respondents) - These decision-makers ". . . demand a seamless omnichannel experience. If they don't get it, they are quick to seek out a new supplier."

Planning Consideration - McKinsey found that all three archetypes are "consistently present" across geographies and economic sectors. Therefore, it's likely the potential buyers in your company's target market(s) will include all three archetypes, and your go-to-market strategy will need to contain elements designed to appeal to each buyer archetype.

The "Rule of Thirds"

McKinsey found that B2B decision-makers interact with potential suppliers in multiple ways. In the 2024 survey, respondents reported that on average, they spend about one-third of their "interaction time" engaging with suppliers via each of three types of interaction.

• Traditional - In-person meetings, direct mail, fax, etc.

• Remote - Phone calls, video conference calls, emails, etc.

• Digital self-service - Company websites, e-commerce, chatbots, internet searches, mobile apps, etc.

McKinsey observed that this "rule of thirds" is consistent across all stages of the buying process and that it holds true across all geographies, industries, company sizes, and buying scenarios (new vs. repeat purchases, high-value vs. low-value purchases).

Even more significant, McKinsey found that the "rule of thirds" is generally consistent across all three B2B buyer archetypes. Adapters have a slightly higher preference for Traditional interactions, but the difference is not great.

The most significant departure from the "rule of thirds" relates to buying scenarios. About 40% of the survey respondents tend to prefer Traditional interactions for "high-effort" purchases. High-effort purchases would include first-time purchases, high-cost purchases, purchases of complex products or services, and purchases from new suppliers.

Planning Consideration - The "rule of thirds" is nearly universal. Therefore, your go-to-market approach should include options for all three interaction types.

Omnichannel/E-Commerce

The findings of the McKinsey survey confirmed the importance of providing seamless omnichannel experiences, including robust e-commerce capabilities. Most survey respondents reported using ten or more ways to interact with potential suppliers during their buying process. This was up from five interaction channels in the 2016 edition of the Buyer Pulse survey.

Equally important, more than half of the survey respondents said they were likely to switch suppliers if they didn't have a smooth experience across channels.

The 2024 survey results also made the importance of e-commerce emphatically clear. Seventy-one percent of the respondents said they offer some form of e-commerce, and in those companies, e-commerce sales generate 34% of total revenue, on average.

The survey also confirmed that many B2B buyers are comfortable making larger purchases via e-commerce and other remote interaction channels. The survey asked participants this question:  "What is the maximum order size that you would purchase through end-to-end digital self-service and remote human interactions for a new product or service category?"

Seventy-three of the respondents said $50,000 or more, 39% said $500,000 or more, and 20% said $1 million or more.

Planning Consideration - Unless your company is an outlier, your go-to-market strategy needs to include a major focus on providing seamless omnichannel interaction experiences, and e-commerce should be the centerpiece of your omnichannel strategy.

*****

Every company's competitive environment is unique in some ways. Therefore, not every finding in the McKinsey survey will be literally and precisely applicable to your situation. However, the broad trends identified in the survey should be carefully considered during your planning process.

Image courtesy of Mike Lawrence (CreditDebitPro.com) via Flickr (CC).

Why B2B Marketers Need to Care About "Opportunistic Learning"

One of the most profound developments in B2B marketing of the past two decades has been the emergence of empowered and independent buyers. When I launched this blog in 2010, my second post was about "The Age of the Self-Directed Buyer."

The explosive proliferation of readily available information has been the driving force behind this development. Because of easy access to a wealth of information about almost every conceivable topic, business decision-makers now believe they can find whatever information they want or need, whenever they want or need it, on their terms.

Information abundance has altered many aspects of how B2B buying decisions are made, and B2B marketers have done a reasonably good job of adapting to most of those changes. There is, however, one impact of information abundance that has been (and still is) underappreciated.

The Rise of Opportunistic Learning  

Most models of the B2B buying process assume the process begins when a company's leaders or managers recognize a need or a problem and decide to address the issue in some way.

These "buyers" then gather information about the need or problem and possible solutions, evaluate the available options, and may or may not decide to purchase a product or service to address the situation.

So, the conventional view of B2B buying behavior is that most information gathering occurs after an intentional buying process has started. While this view may still be accurate in a strictly quantitative sense, it misses an important aspect of B2B buying.

Information is now so abundant and readily available that business people are routinely consuming information about business issues long before they have formed anything close to "buying intent," and long before they have started an intentional buying process.

I call this type of information-gathering opportunistic learning, and it occurs because humans are naturally programmed to seek rewards. We all have a mental radar system that constantly scans our environment to identify reward opportunities.

In a business setting, our radar system is always scanning our environment to identify information that may help us improve our company's performance and/or advance our professional careers.

The growth of opportunistic learning has important implications for B2B marketing, but some marketers haven't fully appreciated its significance.

Most B2B marketing tactics and programs are designed to identify and reach people who are ready to begin a buying process or to encourage those already involved in a buying process to move toward a buying decision. At any time, however, most of the people affiliated with potential customers are more likely to be opportunistic learners than true buyers.

Engaging with opportunistic learners is important because the impressions they form during opportunistic learning remain influential when they become involved in a buying process. Therefore, if marketers can create and sustain positive relationships with opportunistic learners, their company will have a competitive advantage when those opportunistic learners turn into buyers.

How to Successfully Engage with Opportunistic Learners

Antonia Wade, the Global Chief Marketing Officer of PwC, has offered a compelling perspective on how B2B marketers can successfully engage with opportunistic learners.

In her recent book, Transforming the B2B Buyer Journey (Kogan Page Limited, 2023), Ms. Wade proposes a new B2B buyer journey "framework" that contains five phases - Horizon Scanner, Explorer, Hunter, Active Buyer, and Client. Her names for these phases symbolize the buyer's needs and thought processes that are important during each journey phase.

Ms. Wade's Horizon Scanner phase is similar in several ways to what I have called opportunistic learning. In her book, she writes that Horizon Scanners are people in strategic roles who are always assessing how big market trends and innovation will impact their business. Horizon Scanners, Wade writes, ". . . aren't looking for answers and they're certainly not looking for a sales message; they're looking for ideas."

Ms. Wade makes two major points about successfully engaging Horizon Scanners. First, she argues that high-quality thought leadership content is critically important. Wade contends that compelling thought leadership is what earns your company a seat at the table in the later stages of the buying process.

Second, and equally important, Ms. Wade argues that most Horizon Scanners tend to seek information from respected and trusted sources. Therefore, she contends, your thought leadership content needs to be available in channels you don't own, such as third-party publications or events. This also means, she argues, that public relations plays an important role in reaching Horizon Scanners.

The Takeaway

Whether you call these individuals "Horizon Scanners" or "opportunistic learners," it's vital to remember they are not yet "buyers," and they shouldn't be treated like decision-makers who are engaged in an intentional buying process. Your goal with these individuals is to position your company as an expert and a reliable authority, while also making your company memorable.

Illustration courtesy of Naval Surface Warriors via Flickr (CC).

The Powerful Head Start B2B Marketers Shouldn't Ignore

Imagine you're a world-class athlete about to run a 100-meter dash. Your competitors are also world-class athletes, so the outcome of the race would normally be far from certain.

But in this race, you'll have a major advantage. You'll be allowed to leave the starting line two seconds before the other runners. World-class track athletes usually run a 100-meter dash in about ten seconds. So, with a two-second head start, you're almost certain to win.

In the race to win business and grow revenue, some companies have a significant head start over their competitors. I'm referring to the head start that results when a company, product, or service (which I'll call collectively a brand) is included in the initial consideration set for a prospective purchase.

The importance of the initial consideration set is hard to overstate. In most cases, a B2B buying process begins when a trigger event causes a business person (the potential buyer) to feel a need or desire to solve a problem or seize an opportunity that may require a purchase.

When such a need or desire arises, a potential buyer will quickly create a mental list of the brands he or she feels are worth considering, i.e. an initial consideration set.

This initial consideration set is based on the mental impressions of brands the potential buyer has formed through personal experiences with the brand, marketing messages, news reports, and conversations with colleagues and friends.

Several studies have shown that potential buyers are very likely to select vendors that were in their initial consideration set. Here are two recent examples.

The Bain & Co./Google Survey

Bain & Co. and Google recently surveyed 1,208 people at US companies who were involved in buying several types of business products and services. The researchers also conducted extensive interviews with ten buyers to explore their habits at each stage of the buying journey.

In this survey, 80% - 90% of the respondents (depending on what they were buying) said they had a set of vendors in mind before they did any research. And, 90% of those respondents said they ultimately chose a vendor that was in their initial consideration set.

The WSJ Intelligence/B2B International Survey

In a 2021 survey of business decision-makers by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International, the researchers divided the B2B customer journey into three stages.

The study defined the Pre-Decision stage as ". . . the time between when they had selected a supplier [for a given product/service category] and when the 'trigger' occurred that prompted them to actively begin searching for and deciding on a new supplier."

The survey contained several questions about a recent purchase and asked the participants to reflect on the vendor that was ultimately selected (the winning vendor) and on a vendor that was considered but not selected (the losing vendor).

The survey findings revealed that mental impressions existing during the Pre-Decision stage have a significant impact on purchase decisions.

• Survey respondents were more than twice as likely (79% vs. 37%) to say they were very familiar with the winning vendor versus the losing vendor before their active buying process began.

• At the Pre-Decision stage, respondents had a higher level of pre-existing trust (57% vs. 37%) and confidence (52% vs. 37%) in the winning vendor than in the losing vendor.

The Importance of Mental Availability

So, the research clearly shows that the initial consideration set has a major impact on final purchase decisions. Therefore, marketers should be focused on having their brand(s) included in the initial consideration sets of as many potential buyers as possible. To achieve this objective, marketers need to run marketing programs that will increase the mental availability of their brand(s).

The concept of mental availability was popularized by Byron Sharp and his colleagues at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science. According to Sharp, mental availability is the likelihood that a potential buyer will think of a brand in the context of a specific buying situation.

To design marketing programs that will increase mental availability, marketers must keep two important points in mind.

First, increasing general brand awareness isn't enough. Potential buyers create their initial consideration set based on the specific context of each buying situation. Therefore, marketers need to run programs that will build and refresh the memory structures that connect their brand(s) to the specific needs and desires their potential buyers are most likely to experience.

Second, because potential buyers create their initial consideration set quickly after a trigger event occurs, marketing programs designed to increase mental availability need to reach potential buyers before they have started an active buying process. This explains why reaching "out-of-market" buyers is vital for effective marketing.

Increasing mental availability and being included in the initial consideration set of a larger number of potential buyers won't, in itself, guarantee success. The rest of the B2B buying process still matters. But being included in more initial consideration sets provides a head start that B2B marketers can't afford to ignore.

Top image courtesy of tableatny via Flickr (CC).

The Power of Context in B2B Buying, and What That Means for Marketers

The context in which people consider buying something has a significant impact on how the buying decision is made and on what is (or isn't) ultimately bought.

Hundreds of research studies conducted by cognitive scientists over the past four-plus decades have shown that contextual factors can affect everything from how we react to marketing messages and offers, to how we perceive specific products or services, to how we make buying decisions.

More recently, neuroscientists have used functional MRI technologies to identify the specific areas of the brain that are activated under various decision-making conditions. This research has confirmed that contextual factors can impact what areas of our brain are involved in making decisions.

Understanding the "buying context" is therefore vital for effective marketing. Context obviously affects how individuals make buying decisions, and I plan to address that topic in a future post.

In this post, I'll discuss how the buying context shapes the attributes of the B2B buying process, and I'll argue that most B2B companies need marketing strategies and programs for more than one type of buying process.

The Many "Flavors" of B2B Buying

Most of the research and published literature about B2B marketing has focused on "high-consideration" purchases that typically involve multiple decision-makers, complex decision-making processes, and lengthy buying cycles.

For example, in the 2022 B2B Buyer Behavior Survey by Demand Gen Report, 59% of the survey respondents said their average buying group included four or more individuals, and 23% said their average buying group contained seven people or more.

But, high-consideration purchases with large buying groups and long buying cycles have never represented all (or even most) B2B buying. In fact, many B2B purchases are routine, with buying decisions being made fairly quickly, often by one person.

The importance of buying scenarios that don't fit the high-consideration stereotype can be seen in the expanding role of B2B e-commerce and, more specifically, in the rapid growth of online B2B marketplaces.

Online B2B marketplaces have become the fastest-growing segment of a rapidly growing B2B e-commerce market. Digital Commerce 360 has estimated that online B2B marketplaces will produce $112 billion in sales in 2023, up 100% from sales of $56 billion in 2022.

Research has also shown that marketplaces and other B2B e-commerce channels are no longer just for low-ticket purchases. In a 2021 survey by McKinsey, 85% of business buyers said they are willing to spend $50,000 or more on a single purchase made via an e-commerce channel or other remote interactions, and 35% said they are willing to spend $500,000 or more.

The reality is, many B2B companies derive significant revenue from more than one type of buying situation, and these different buying scenarios require different marketing strategies and programs to produce maximum results. Therefore, identifying the buying scenarios that are relevant for your company should be an integral part of your go-to-market planning.

The Buying Context Shapes the Buying Process

The characteristics of a B2B buying process are largely dictated by the context in which a potential purchase is considered, as the following diagram illustrates.

The box on the left side of the diagram contains several factors that describe the context in which potential purchases are considered. One common denominator across most of these factors is that they capture the level of risk associated with a prospective purchase. In this case, "risk" includes both risk for the buying organization and professional risk for the individuals participating in the purchase decision.

For example, buyers will likely perceive a high level of risk if they aren't familiar with a product or service, or if the product or service has a high level of strategic importance for their company.

The box on the right side of the diagram describes the major attributes of the buying process. These include the size and composition of the buying group, the length of the buying cycle, the volume and nature of the activities performed in the buying process, and the use of formal procurement processes.

As the perceived risk associated with a proposed purchase increases, buyers will take steps to mitigate that risk, and these steps will largely dictate the attributes of the buying process that's used.

As a result, the buying process used for a high-risk purchase will usually involve more people, include more research activities, and require more time to finish than the process used for a low-risk purchase.

Not all contextual factors are directly linked to perceived risk. For example, the explicit functional goals and the implicit psychological and emotional goals of the individuals involved in making the purchase decision will also affect the attributes of the buying process. I'll have more to say about this topic in my next post on context effects.

The bottom line is that marketers need to understand the "buying contexts" that are relevant for their company and develop marketing programs that will fit each of these buying scenarios.

Top image courtesy of Lukas Koster via Flickr (CC).

When Planning for 2024, Focus On the Jobs Your Customers Need to Get Done

Understanding what will motivate a potential customer to buy your products or services is a critical prerequisite to developing an effective marketing strategy and creating compelling marketing communications. As thousands of marketers will attest, this isn't a simple task.

As marketers, we develop customer value propositions and we create content we believe will resonate with our potential buyers. But too often, our marketing programs don't produce the results we expect.

This lackluster performance frequently stems from the methods marketers typically use to define their market(s) and to determine and describe how their products or services will create value for customers.

Most B2B marketers define their market(s) based on a combination of product/service characteristics and the attributes of their potential customers (company size, industry vertical, etc.). 

So, for example, a marketer might define his or her market in these terms:  "We sell manufacturing execution system software to large enterprises that are engaged in both discrete and process manufacturing."

Then, marketers use these definitions to guide the development of their customer value propositions.

The problem is, these conventional approaches to defining markets and identifying how products or services create value don't help marketers pinpoint what actually motivates people to buy. Fortunately, there's a proven way to solve this problem.

Understand What Customers Need to Get Done

The starting point for understanding what will motivate your potential customers to buy is to recognize that people don't buy a product or service because they want the product or service itself. In most cases, what they really want is what the product or service will enable them to accomplish. 

For example, most small business owners don't really want a company brochure, or a direct mail campaign, or, for that matter, a website. But, many will invest in these things because they see them as effective tools for increasing sales.

Theodore Levitt, the legendary professor of marketing at the Harvard Business School, memorably expressed this idea when he often told his students, "People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole."

In their 2003 book, The Innovator's Solution, Clayton Christensen and co-author Michael Raynor built on Professor Levitt's thinking to describe what is now widely known as the jobs-to-be-done framework (the "JTBD framework"). In 2005, Christensen and co-authors Scott Cook and Taddy Hall further described the importance and value of the JTBD framework in a landmark article published in the Harvard Business Review.

The basic idea of the JTBD framework is that when people identify a "job" they need or want to get done, they look for a product or service they can "hire" to perform the job.

Christensen and his co-authors argued that this is how customers "experience life." Their thought process begins with an awareness that they need or want to get something done, and they seek to hire something or someone to do the job for them.

So, the presence and recognition of a job that needs to get done are what trigger and energize a potential customer's motivation to buy. This makes the job - not product/service features or customer demographics/firmographics - the primary unit of analysis for marketers who hope to develop and execute high-performing marketing strategies and programs.

In the HBR article, Christensen and his co-authors put it this way:

"The marketer's task is therefore to understand what jobs periodically arise in customers' lives for which they might hire products the company could make. If the marketer can understand the job, design a product and associated experiences in purchase and use to do that job, and deliver it in a way that reinforces its intended use, then when customers find themselves needing to get that job done, they will hire that product."

I've previously written about how the JTBD framework can be used to guide the development of marketing content. The point of this post is that the framework can also be a powerful tool for thinking about market definition, market segmentation, and value proposition development during your marketing planning process.

So, as you begin planning for 2024, take enough time to identify the jobs your potential customers are facing that your products or services can perform. This is the real key to understanding what will motivate your potential customers to buy.

Image courtesy of Got Credit (www.gotcredit.com) via Flickr (CC)

[Book Review] An Insightful Guide to Customer Experience Innovation

Source:  BenBella Books, Inc.

Innovation has long been an important element of business success. For years, astute business leaders have looked for ways to improve the quality and value of the products or services they offer.

More recently, business leaders have recognized that delivering great customer experiences is vital to achieving competitive success.

A new book by Allen Adamson - Seeing the How:  Transforming What People Do, Not Buy, to Gain Market Advantage (Matt Holt, an imprint of BenBella Books, Inc., 2023) - brings innovation and customer experience together to describe a recipe for creating competitive advantage that some of today's most successful companies have adopted. 

Allen Adamson is a recognized expert in marketing and branding. He is currently a managing partner of Metaforce, a marketing consultancy that works with clients on strategy development, go-to-market planning, branding, creative, and activation. Prior to Metaforce, Adamson was the chairman of Landor Associates, a full-spectrum brand consultancy.

What's In the Book

The central focus of Seeing the How is experience innovation, which Adamson describes as reimagining how people could do the things they are already doing in ways that would make the experience faster, easier, and/or more satisfying.

An experience innovation that is profound enough to trigger a large-scale change in customer behavior can rightly be called a disruptive experience innovation.

Adamson argues that many businesses have achieved success and built competitive advantage by designing and delivering innovative experiences around everyday activities. He writes that these companies are finding success, ". . . not in making something new, not in creating new tech to do something, but in changing the experience of doing what we were going to do anyway." He calls it rethinking the how, not the what.

Most of Seeing the How is devoted to discussing eight "lenses" that entrepreneurial marketers and other business leaders can use to identify and seize opportunities to create innovative experiences. Adamson discusses each of these lenses in a separate chapter and includes several examples of companies that have used each lens to achieve success.

Here's a quick summary of the eight lenses.

Focus in and drill down - Identify a specific problem or friction point in the customer experience and find a way to solve that problem or reduce the friction. Examples:  1-800-Contacts, Calendly.

Customize and make it personal - Consider "how you can take what you do and know best and make it specific to the region, type, or personality of your customer." Examples:  Netflix, Stitch Fix.

Joining Forces - "Take what you do so well and work with someone else who does what they do well" to deliver an experience that neither organization could deliver on its own. Examples:  Casper (Target), Audible (Apple).

See like a concierge - Develop the expertise and ability "to solve problems better and faster than the average person can on their own, even after hours of research." Examples:  Apple (Genius Bar), Ford, Sodexo.

Go the rental route - Look for opportunities to "rent" a product or service for a particular period, thus eliminating the negative aspects of ownership. Examples:  Rent the Runway, United Rentals.

Approach things as a broker - Look for opportunities to create a two-sided marketplace. Examples:  Uber, Airbnb.

Explore virtual options - Identify opportunities to build a virtual business in a product or service category where virtual businesses don't exist. Examples:  Peleton, Coursehorse.

Getting close to the customer - Look for opportunities to eliminate the need to rely on intermediaries. Examples:  Apple (its retail stores), Warby Parker.

My Take

Seeing the How will be a valuable resource for anyone who has responsibility for driving revenue growth at their company. Allen Adamson argues that customer experiences are now responsible for more growth than product or service differentiation. Therefore, in today's business environment, delivering innovative customer experiences has become a strategic imperative for most companies.

Seeing the How is an enjoyable read because Adamson's writing style is engaging and because he devotes much of the book's content to stories about companies that have achieved dramatic success by creating innovative customer experiences. This narrative approach makes it easy to read the book in bite-sized portions.

The "lenses" Adamson discusses in the book constitute a useful and valuable framework that can help business leaders identify opportunities to innovate the customer experiences they provide. But Adamson also makes the point that you won't get the full benefit of using the lenses unless you have a deep understanding of the existing customer journey or journeys.

Adamson rightly observes that this level of understanding is hard to gain. One primary reason is that it's difficult for customers to describe an experience that does not yet exist, and yet creating a new experience is one of the requirements for a truly disruptive experience innovation.

Can Marketing Content Trigger a B2B Buying Process?

Most B2B marketers recognize that their toughest competitor isn't usually a company offering an alternative product or service, but rather what their potential buyers are already using or doing. No sale can be made unless potential buyers first become willing to seriously consider alternatives for their existing methods and practices.

Over the past several years, marketing pundits have promoted a variety of tactics marketers can use to "break the grip of the status quo." I've discussed these techniques in previous posts (here, for example), but I've often wondered if they are consistently effective.

For decades, the Holy Grail of marketing has been to provide every potential buyer "the right message at the right time." The belief underlying this goal is that the right message delivered at the right time will cause a potential buyer to be more likely to make a purchase.

There's no doubt that marketing content can influence business buyers at several stages of their buying journey. But can marketing content alone cause a business decision-maker to begin a buying process? In other words, is marketing content sufficient, in itself, to break the grip of the status quo?

The answer to this question has implications that are often underappreciated by marketers. It affects the shape of marketing strategy and the allocation of marketing budgets. But it has a particularly significant impact on the substance and form of marketing messages and content.

The Trigger Imperative

Astute marketers have long recognized that some kind of "trigger" is usually required to ignite a B2B buying process. A trigger is an event that causes a business person to feel a need or desire to fix a problem or seize an opportunity.

A myriad of events can provoke a buying process, but there's been little recent research about what specific kinds of events most frequently create buying process triggers. A 2021 survey by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International directly addressed this issue.

The "Trust Your Decisions" study was a survey of 1,601 business decision-makers who had recently led or participated in the selection of a new vendor for their company. All survey respondents were affiliated with companies having at least $250 million in annual revenue. Survey respondents were drawn from the United States (50%), Europe (25%), and Asia (25%). The study evaluated four purchase categories - technology, finance, professional services, and marketing services.

The researchers asked survey participants what kinds of events triggered their decision to search for a new vendor/service provider. The following table shows the percentage of respondents who selected each of twelve trigger events.

These survey results illustrate that a wide variety of events can trigger a B2B buying process. More importantly for marketers, the table shows that trigger events primarily involving the consumption of marketing/sales/news content (shown in red in the table) were near the bottom of the list, which indicates that marketing content alone won't be sufficient to trigger a buying process in most cases.

Implications for B2B Marketers

So, what does this mean for B2B marketers? The key lesson here is that you need to use different kinds of marketing content with potential buyers who haven't experienced a triggering event.

If you were using marketing content to trigger a buying process, marketing messages should focus on the "pain" created by an issue or challenge and emphasize the need for change. The objective of the content would be to cause potential buyers to feel the pain of their status quo sufficiently to provoke a willingness to consider change.

But since marketing content alone isn't sufficient to trigger a buying process in most cases, the better strategy with out-of-market buyers is to use marketing content that emphasizes how an issue or challenge can be successfully addressed and describes the benefits such a change will produce.

You also want to use thought leadership content that showcases your company's expertise on those issues that are most likely to be buying process triggers for your potential buyers.

These types of content probably won't trigger the start of a buying process, but they will make it more likely that buyers will remember your company when they experience a triggering event.

Top image source:  ccPixs.com via Flickr (CC).

What Is the 95:5 Rule? Does It Apply To Your Company?

In 2021, The B2B Institute, a think tank supported by LinkedIn, published a report featuring several papers authored by researchers with the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science.

One of the papers was written by Professor John Dawes, the Associate Director (Operations) at Ehrenberg-Bass. The main topic of Professor Dawes' paper was how advertising works, but he began by describing what he called the 95:5 rule. He wrote:

"It might surprise you to learn that up to 95% of business clients are not in the market for many goods and services at any one time. This is a deceptively simple fact, but it has a profound implication for advertising. It means that advertising mostly hits B2B buyers who aren't going to buy any time soon."

The 95:5 rule is based on business buying patterns. Professor Dawes gave this illustration of the rule:  "Corporations change service providers such as their principal bank or law firm around once every five years on average. That means only 20% of business buyers are 'in the market' over the course of an entire year; something like 5% in a quarter - or put another way, 95% aren't in the market [in any given quarter]."

Professor Dawes argued that advertising "works" because it builds and refreshes memory links to a brand in buyers' minds. These memory links will be activated when buyers do come into the market. Therefore, he writes:

"To grow a brand, you need to advertise to people who aren't in the market now, so that when they do enter the market your brand is one they are familiar with. And, that they mentally associate your brand with the need or buying situation that brought them into the market. That way, you increase buyers' purchase propensity. And if you do that across enough buyers, your market share will grow."

Professor Dawes' paper should trigger two questions in the mind of a B2B marketer.

1. Does the 95:5 rule apply to my company/in my market?
2. Should I follow Professor Dawes' advice and market to buyers who aren't "in the market?"

In this article, I'll discuss some of the major nuances of the 95:5 rule. I'll address the second question in a future article.

Is the 95:5 Rule Valid and How Does It Actually Work?

The 95:5 rule makes sense on an intuitive level. If, for example, your company has just purchased and installed a new HVAC system for its manufacturing plant, it probably won't need to replace that system for several years. So, it won't be in the market for HVAC equipment for quite some time.

The rule is also supported by other research. For example, recent research by NetLine Corporation (the operator of a content syndication platform) found that 30.8% of the B2B professionals who access content via the NetLine platform expect to make a purchase within 12 months, 15.2% expect to buy within six months, and 7.6% expect to make a buying decision within three months.

It's important to recognize that the percentage values in the 95:5 rule were never intended to be interpreted literally or viewed as universal. In his paper, Professor Dawes wrote, "The 95% figure is not meant to be a precise rule. We're using it as a heuristic to get the idea across that the vast majority of businesses, for a large proportion of products, are not in the market in particular time periods."

In fact, the 95:5 rule can't be universal or precise for several reasons. Here are three of the more important reasons:

Category Differences - The percentages of buyers who are in or out of the market during a given period are based on how frequently they purchase a particular product or service, and purchase frequency can vary significantly across product or service categories. For example, the percentages will be quite different for a company selling industrial machinery that customers purchase about every ten years than for a company selling personal computers that customers replace every four or five years.

Averages Aren't Always Accurate - The percentages produced by using the rule are product/service category averages, and they may not accurately reflect the purchasing patterns of your company's customer base.

Unexpected Events - The rule doesn't account for unexpected events that may disrupt normal customer buying patterns. For example, the appearance of a major new technology may cause customers to replace their manufacturing equipment more quickly than usual.

Even with these caveats, the 95:5 rule describes a valid and useful principle. It can, for example, enable marketing and sales leaders to estimate when particular customers or prospects may be ready to initiate a buying process.

***

As I noted earlier, Professor Dawes argued in his paper that companies should advertise to potential buyers who aren't currently in the market. I'll discuss this issue in a future article.

Illustration courtesy of Colin Kinner via Flickr (CC).

Why You Need More Than One Go-To-Market Strategy

The stereotypical view we have of B2B commerce is that it involves expensive and/or complex products or services, large buying groups and long buying cycles. But in reality, most B2B companies earn substantial revenue and profit from other types of sales. So, unless your company is an outlier, you need more than one go-to-market strategy in order to maximize revenue growth.

For nearly two decades, most of the research and other published content about B2B marketing has focused on "high consideration" purchases that involve multiple decision makers, complex decision-making processes and lengthy buying cycles.

For example, in the 2022 B2B Buyer Behavior Survey by Demand Gen Report:

• Fifty-nine percent of the respondents said their average buying group consists of four or more people, and 23% said it consists of seven or more people.
• More than half (55%) of the respondents said the length of their buying cycle has increased somewhat or increased significantly compared to the previous year.

In an earlier survey of sellers by Forrester, 94% of the respondents said they sell to buying groups of three or more people, and 38% said they sell to groups of ten or more people.

The reality is, high consideration purchases with large buying groups and long buying cycles don't represent all (or even most) B2B commerce. Many B2B purchases are routine, with buying decisions being made fairly quickly. In a 2021 survey of "industrial buyers" by Thomas, more than half (53%) of the respondents said they typically make buying decisions in less than a month.

While we don't have much current data about the distribution of B2B purchases across various types of buying scenarios, it's likely that substantial dollars are associated with scenarios that don't fit the high consideration stereotype.

The important point here is that many B2B companies derive significant revenue from more than one buying scenario. It's equally important to recognize that different buying scenarios require different go-to-market strategies to produce maximum success. Therefore, identifying the buying scenarios that are relevant for your company should be an integral part of your go-to-market planning.

The Buying Context Dictates the Buying Process

The characteristics of a B2B buying process are largely determined by the context in which a potential purchase is considered, and the dominant factor in the buying decision context is usually how much risk the potential buyers perceive is associated with the prospective purchase. The following diagram illustrates this relationship.

The top box in the diagram contains several factors that define the context in which a potential purchase will be evaluated. The common denominator across all these factors is that they will capture the level of risk the buyers associate with the prospective purchase.

For example, buyers will perceive a higher level of risk if they aren't familiar with a product or service, or if the acquisition and implementation of the product or service will require major internal changes.

The bottom box in the diagram describes the major attributes of the buying process. These include the size and composition of the buying group, the length of the buying cycle, the volume and nature of the activities performed in the buying process, and the use of formal procurement processes.

As the perceived risk associated with a purchase increases, buyers will take steps to mitigate that risk, and those steps largely dictate the attributes of the buying process that's used. As a result, the buying process used for an expensive and/or complex product or service, or for a purchase that will require major internal changes will usually involve several decision makers, include substantial research activities, and require a significant amount of time to finish.

In contrast, when a potential purchase has a low level of perceived risk, buyers will typically use a decision-making process that involves fewer people and less research, and they will make the buying decision faster.

Buying Scenarios That Don't Fit the Stereotype Now Matter More

The importance of buying scenarios that don't fit the high consideration stereotype can be seen in the expanding role of B2B e-commerce and, more specifically, in the rapid growth of online B2B marketplaces.

Online B2B marketplaces have become the fastest growing segment of a rapidly growing B2B e-commerce market. In 2021, B2B marketplace sales grew 7.3 times faster than overall B2B e-commerce sales.

Research has also shown that marketplaces and other e-commerce channels are no longer just for low-ticket purchases. In a 2021 survey by McKinsey, over three-fourths (77%) of business buyers said they are willing to spend $50,000 or more on a single purchase made via an e-commerce channel or other remote interactions, and over one-third (35%) are willing to spend $500,000 or more.

The bottom line is, you need a go-to-market strategy for all of the buying scenarios that can potentially produce significant revenue for your company.

Top image courtesy of Willi Heidelbach via Flickr (CC).

[Research Round-Up] A Look at the Attitudes and Behaviors of B2B Technology Buyers

Image Source:  TrustRadius

In June, TrustRadius published the findings of its sixth annual survey of B2B technology buyers. The 2022 B2B Buying Disconnect report is based on a February 2022 survey of business professionals who were involved in the purchase of new software or hardware for their organization in the year preceding the survey. 

The survey received 2,185 responses from technology buyers. Seventy-five percent of the respondents were manager level or above, and just under two-thirds (63%) were affiliated with companies having 500 or fewer employees. Sixty percent of the respondents were millennials (ages 25-40), and 29% were GenXers (ages 41-56).

The primary message of this year's survey findings is that B2B technology buyers are more committed than ever to taking control of their buying process. For the press release announcing the publication of the survey report, Vinay Bhagat, the Founder and CEO of TrustRadius, said:

"The main theme echoed throughout our 2022 report is that we are in 'The Age of the Self-Serve Buyer.' In past years, we found that millennials and generation Zs were primarily relying on self-service channels. It's a fact that we've come to expect, but now, we're finding that all generations and decision-makers are following suit. Our research found that virtually 100% of buyers want to self-serve all or part of the buying journey, a 13% increase from just last year."

It's important to emphasize that the TrustRadius research focused exclusively on the attitudes and behaviors of B2B technology buyers. Therefore, the findings of the research may not be completely applicable to all types of B2B purchases. However, most of the findings are relevant for those that involve high-consideration products or services.

Information Used to Support Buying Decisions

A primary focus of the TrustRadius research has been to identify what sources of information B2B technology buyers use to support their purchase decisions. The researchers asked survey participants what resources they consulted during their evaluation process. The following table shows how respondents answered the question in the 2022 survey and in the 2021 edition of the survey. The table also shows the change in reported usage (percentage point difference) between 2022 and 2021.

As this table shows, except for product demos and vendor blogs, the use of vendor-provided sources of information by technology buyers declined from 2021 to 2022. In contrast, the use of most "independent" sources of information increased over the same period. This finding confirms that technology buyers are relying less on vendor-provided information when researching products and services.

TrustRadius also asked survey participants what information resources they considered most impactful when making purchase decisions. A majority of survey respondents identified five information resources as impactful.

1. Product demos (71% of respondents)
2. Free trial/account (67%)
3. Their own prior experience (67%)
4. User reviews (59%)
5. Consultant recommendation (52%)

This finding clearly demonstrates the importance that B2B technology buyers place on having or gaining first-hand experience with a product before they make a purchase decision.

What Buyers Want To Do On Their Own

The latest survey also focused on the researching/buying activities that B2B technology buyers want to be able to perform on their own. The following table shows the percentage of surveyed buyers who indicated a preference for self-service for nine buying process activities.

This finding highlights the importance that technology buyers place on being able to find basic information (prices, technical specs, etc.) about products via a self-service channel. 

In fact, when TrustRadius asked survey participants what vendors can do to make them more likely to buy, the top suggestion (selected by 71% of respondents) was to make pricing information available on the vendor's website. Conversely, 16% of the surveyed buyers said they will stop considering a product if they can't easily find product information.

***

As noted earlier, the TrustRadius research focused exclusively on the attitudes and behaviors of B2B technology buyers. However virtually all types of B2B buyers are now relying more on independent sources of information when researching potential purchases, and they increasingly expect to perform many buying activities on their own. Astute B2B marketers will address both of these buyer expectations.