Why Your Marketing Tactics May Be Out-of-Sync with How Your Customers Actually Buy

Marketing WITHOUT Market Research

The results of several recent surveys of business buyers suggest that many of the marketing tactics currently used by B2B companies are based on an inaccurate picture of how business buyers actually make purchase decisions.

Here are four of the most noteworthy surveys:

• The 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Study by 6sense

• The "buyability" research by LinkedIn and Bain & Company[1]

• A 2022 survey by Bain & Company and Google

• A 2021 survey by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International

Taken together, these surveys paint a picture of B2B buyer behavior that differs significantly from the model used by most B2B marketers. For example, they suggest that:

• Most of a company's potential customers are not actively evaluating the kinds of products or services the company offers at any given time. A trigger of some kind is usually required to motivate a potential customer to begin an active buying process, and marketing programs alone are rarely sufficient to cause a potential customer to initiate a buying process.

• At or near the beginning of a buying process, most buying groups create a list of potential vendors they believe are worth considering, i.e. an initial consideration set. The initial consideration set is created before most members of the buying group have conducted any research and is based on the mental impressions they've formed from a variety of touchpoints such as their prior first-hand experiences, marketing messages, news reports, and conversations with colleagues and peers.

• When a buying process begins, most members of the buying group are likely to be familiar with the product or service category involved in the prospective purchase. Many will have already been involved in several buying processes involving the same category.

• Many buying groups not only create an initial consideration set, they also rank the potential vendors in their consideration set in order of preference before they engage with any of the potential vendors.

• Most buying groups make almost all of their purchases from vendors in their initial consideration set, and most buy from the vendor they ranked at the top of their shortlist.

These survey results indicate that many of the marketing tactics used by B2B companies are out-of-sync with real-world B2B buyer behaviors. For example:

• B2B marketers frequently run marketing programs designed to persuade potential buyers to begin a buying process, but the research suggests that such programs are largely ineffective.

• Most B2B marketers assume that most members of the buying group are not familiar with potential solutions when the buying process begins, and therefore they create a significant amount of "educational" content. However, the research suggests that most buyers are already familiar with most potential solutions at the beginning of the buying process.

• Most B2B marketing efforts are focused on buyers who are engaged in an active buying process. But, the research suggests that most business buyers identify a shortlist of preferred vendors at the beginning of their buying process and almost always purchase from one of those vendors. Therefore, most B2B marketers are largely ignoring potential future buyers when they are forming their opinions about vendors.

If these survey results are accurate, it's clear that many B2B marketers need to make significant changes in their strategies and tactics. But, there's a catch.

None of the surveys described above claimed to use a representative sample of all B2B buyers. Therefore, the findings of these surveys cannot legitimately be "projected" to all business buyers. This explains why market research is vital for all B2B companies.

To develop effective marketing programs, a marketing leader must have an accurate view of how their company's potential customers make purchase decisions, and primary research is usually the only way to obtain this critical information. While data on this issue is scarce, it appears that most B2B companies are not investing sufficiently in this type of research.

In a column for Marketing Week, Mark Ritson made a compelling argument that companies should invest 5% of their marketing budget on market research.

Ritson argued that spending 5% of the budget on research is essential to ensure that the remaining 95% of the budget is invested appropriately. He wrote, "If you cannot invest 5% of your marketing budget on research you do not know what you are doing and you will not be able to make the right moves."

Image courtesy of Jeff via Flickr (CC).

[1]  The LinkedIn/Bain & Company research is described in two LinkedIn articles by Mimi Turner, the Head of Marketplace Innovation at LinkedIn. Those articles can be found here and here.

Why B2B Marketers Need to Know About "Opportunistic Learning"

One of the most profound developments in B2B marketing of the last quarter century has been the emergence of empowered and independent business buyers.

The proliferation of readily available online information has been the driving force behind the increased power of business buyers. Easy access to a wealth of information about almost any conceivable topic has enabled business decision-makers to find most of the information they want or need on their terms. And now, artificial intelligence is making it even easier for buyers to access information.

Information abundance has fundamentally changed how business buyers engage with potential vendors and how they make buying decisions. Overall, B2B marketers have done a reasonably good job of adapting their methods and practices to address most of these changes.

However, there is growing evidence of an important change in B2B buyer behavior that marketers have only recently begun to appreciate and focus on.

A Flawed Model of B2B Buyer Behavior

For most of the past twenty-five years, the accepted paradigm  of B2B buying has assumed that a buying process begins when a company's leaders or managers recognize that a need or problem exists and decide to address the issue in some way.

These "buyers" then gather information about the need or problem, evaluate the available options, and may or may not decide to purchase a product or service to address the situation. So, the conventional paradigm of B2B buying behavior holds that most information gathering and buyer "learning" occurs after an intentional buying process has started.

Several recent research studies have shown that this widely-accepted paradigm is not accurate in many instances.

The 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Report by 6sense describes one of the most recent studies regarding B2B buyer behavior. This study consisted of two surveys of business buyers that together generated nearly 4,800 responses. The survey respondents were located in North America (46%), Continental Europe (20%), Asia-Pacific (14%), and the UK and Ireland (20%).

The respondents to the 6sense surveys evaluated an average of five vendors per purchase, and they filled four spots on their vendor shortlist at the very start ("Day One") of their buying process. They also said they purchased from one of the four vendors on their Day One shortlist 95% of the time. In addition, 97% of the respondents said they had prior experience with at least one of the vendors on their Day One shortlist.

Earlier studies have produced similar findings. For example, in a 2022 survey of business buyers by Bain & Co. and Google, 80% - 90% of the respondents said they had a set of vendors in mind before they did any research, and 90% of the respondents said they ultimately chose a vendor that was in their initial consideration set.

A 2021 survey of business buyers by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International also illustrated the importance of the vendor preferences that B2B buyers bring into a buying process.

In this study, the survey contained several questions about a recent purchase and asked the participants to reflect on the vendor they ultimately selected (the "winning vendor") and on a vendor they considered but did not select (the "losing vendor").

The researchers divided the purchase journey into three stages and 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 findings revealed that the mental impressions of vendors held by buyers during the Pre-Decision stage exerted significant influence on purchase decisions. For example, survey respondents were more then twice as likely to say they were very familiar with the winning vendor versus the losing vendor before their active buying process began. Respondents also said that during the Pre-Decision stage, they had a higher level of pre-existing trust and confidence in the winning vendor than in the losing vendor.

Enter Opportunistic Learning

These results clearly demonstrate that most business buyers do not begin a buying process with a "blank slate." In fact, most buyers bring strong opinions about vendors to the process.

These pre-existing opinions develop because information has become 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" or started an intentional buying process.

I call this type of information consumption opportunistic learning, and it occurs because humans are naturally programmed to seek rewards. We all have a mental radar system that is constantly scanning 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 career.

Opportunistic learning has important implications for B2B marketing, and some marketers have started to recognize its significance. The research findings discussed above show that reaching opportunistic learners is important because the impressions they form during opportunistic learning remain influential when they become involved in a buying process.

Making an impact on opportunistic learners requires marketers to use a particular approach to marketing messaging, and in my next post, I'll discuss the kind of messaging that's needed to connect with opportunistic learners.

Image courtesy of onewaystock.com via Flckr (CC).

"Buyability" Isn't Really New, But It Is Really Important

For the past several months, I've been following developments relating to a research and thought leadership initiative launched by LinkedIn in collaboration with Bain & Company. The goal of the initiative is to identify what causes a B2B buying group to purchase a particular company's offering.

This initiative has been led primarily by Jann Schwarz, the Senior Director, Marketplace Innovation & Strategy at LinkedIn, Mimi Turner, the Head of Marketplace Innovation at LinkedIn, and Jamie Cleghorn and colleagues at Bain & Company.

The researchers at LinkedIn and Bain have coined the term Buyability to describe what business buyers need to believe to have the confidence to make or recommend a purchase.

A survey of 750 B2B buyers conducted by the initiative's researchers identified five main factors that business buyers need to feel confident about. When the researchers analyzed the survey results, they found that the most important factor buyers identified is to feel confident they can defend their decision if the purchase goes wrong. This was slightly more important to buyers than feeling confident the product or service they recommended could do the job.

These research findings strongly suggest that an essential element of Buyability is that business buyers must perceive a prospective vendor's product or service to be a "safe" choice.

Buyer Risk Aversion Isn't New

The bias of business buyers toward "safe" purchases is not new. It has been discussed frequently in the B2B marketing literature for many years.

For example, in his 2009 book, The BuyerSphere Project, Gord Hotchkiss emphasized the importance of buyer risk aversion in the B2B buying process. He wrote:

"B2B buying decisions are usually driven by one emotion - fear. Specifically, B2B buying is all about minimizing fear by eliminating risk . . . The importance of risk aversion on the part of the buyer cannot be overstated. It's the essence of B2B buying. To state it in plainer terms, '99% of B2B buying is about covering your butt.' "

The Corporate Executive Board (CEB) (now part of Gartner) and Google also pointed to the importance of buyer risk aversion in their popular 2013 white paper, "From Promotion to Emotion:  Connecting B2B Customers to Brands." CEB and Google observed that B2B buying often exhibited greater emotionality that B2C buying and offered this explanation.

"B2B purchases entail personal risk - far more than most B2C purchases. B2B purchase stakeholders fear:

• Losing time and effort if a purchase decision goes poorly
• Losing credibility if they make a recommendation for an unsuccessful purchase
• Losing their job if they are responsible for a failed purchase" (Emphasis in original)

Unbalanced Incentives Cause Buyer Risk Aversion

Most business buyers are predisposed to favor "safe" purchases because of unbalanced incentives. Most buyers perceive that they will receive only minimal rewards (tangible or emotional) if they recommend buying something that works well, but they also believe they can significantly damage their career if they recommend a purchase that goes badly.

As a result, most buyers are inclined to choose what they perceive to be the safest solution that meets basic performance requirements, rather than one that appears to be "better," but more risky.

Buyability Has Great Potential

So, the buyer risk aversion component of the Buyability model isn't really new, but that doesn't diminish the importance or the potential value of the LinkedIn/Bain initiative.

The initiative has already generated a significant amount of interest in the B2B marketing community, and several industry organizations - including, among others, WARC, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), and the International Advertising Association (IAA) - are supporting the initiative, which should further increase interest among B2B marketers.

In addition, during a recent presentation, Jann Schwarz and Mimi Turner stated that they are now beginning the work needed to operationalize the Buyability model. This probably means they will soon be providing examples of actions that B2B companies can take to nurture a perception of safety in the minds of their potential buyers.

While we await these examples, the research already done by the initiative's leaders makes three things abundantly clear.

• The most influential factor for building a B2B buyer's confidence in purchasing from a prospective vendor is having previous personal experience with the vendor.

• The second most powerful confidence-building factor is recommendations from colleagues or from similar customers with similar needs and use cases.

• Negative feedback from a buyer's colleagues or peers in the buyer's network, or from other similar customers will usually stop a deal in its tracks.

These research findings suggest that, when performance and cost factors are generally equal, what influential third parties say about you becomes critical for making potential buyers feel confident enough to do business with you.

Looking Back, Looking Forward - 2026 Edition

Source:  Shutterstock

The beginning of a new year is what behavioral scientists call a temporal landmark - a date that is more meaningful than others. Temporal landmarks often prompt us to make significant life changes or commit to pursuing new goals.

If you doubt the power of temporal landmarks, just consider how often we make "New Year's resolutions" to lose weight or begin a regular exercise program.

Like many marketers, I used the final few weeks of 2025 to reflect on what happened during the year and plan for 2026. For the past few years, I've used my first post of the new year to review a few of the major developments that occurred in B2B marketing during the year just ended, and preview some of the topics I'll be writing about in the year ahead.

So, here's a look back at 2025 and a look forward to 2026.

Looking Back - Another "Year of AI"

Artificial intelligence was one of the hottest topics in marketing in 2025, as it was in 2024 and 2023. OpenAI's release of ChatGPT in November 2022 ignited an arms race of epic proportions among the mega-cap technology companies.

As a result, the performance of the large language models that power generative AI has been increasing at an exponential rate, and the number of software applications incorporating AI in some form has exploded.

Despite the obvious importance of the subject, I did not publish a single post in 2025 that focused primarily on AI. I decided to steer clear of the topic because an abundance of information about AI is available from other reliable sources.

If you want to stay on top of what's happening in the AI space, I strongly recommend that your subscribe to Christopher Penn's newsletter. Penn is my go-to resource for insightful and pragmatic commentary on the latest advances in AI. His December 14, 2025 newsletter contains an excellent review of the major developments in AI that occurred in 2025.

Looking Back - B2B Brand Building Gains Traction

After languishing in the shadow of demand generation/performance marketing for nearly two decades, B2B brand marketing seems to be on the cusp of a renaissance. The volume of content highlighting the importance of having a strong B2B brand has increased dramatically over the past couple of years.

The growing interest in B2B brand building can be attributed to several factors. For one thing, many B2B marketers are finding that marketing tactics that worked well only a few years ago have become less effective.

In addition, several recent research studies have provided insights about the real-world B2B buying process that make the value of a strong B2B brand abundantly clear. The most recent research addressing this issue is the 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Study by 6sense, which I wrote about in November.  

We are still in the early stages of the resurgence of B2B brand building, but the momentum is real, and I expect it will continue to build in 2026.

Looking Forward

Each year, I try to identify a small group of issues or circumstances that I believe will play a prominent role in B2B marketing during the coming year. These issues or circumstances will provide the themes for many of my posts here.

In 2026, one set of issues I plan to focus on relates to the scope of authority and responsibility of the senior marketing leader and the marketing organization in a B2B company.

There is a widespread belief in the marketing community that the role and influence of the marketing function are more narrow today than they were in the past. Many marketers describe this issue in terms of the 4P's of the marketing mix.

In Marketing Week's 2025 Career & Salary Survey, over 88% of the responding marketers said they or someone within their team have influence over advertising (promotion). But:

• Only 48.5% said they have influence over product development
• Only 34.1% said they have influence over price
• Only 32.7% said they have influence over place

Others describe the issue in terms of marketing's lack of involvement in the business strategy development process at many companies. For example, in a 2024 survey by McKinsey & Company, only half of the surveyed CMOs said that marketing executives are involved in the strategic planning process at their organization.

In my upcoming posts, I'll discuss this issue, and I'll explore what the role and primary responsibilities of the marketing organization should be in a well-managed B2B company.

Here's to a year of successful marketing in 2026.

[Research Round-Up] 6sense Study Provides Critical Insights on B2B Buyer Behavior

Source:  6sense

6sense published the findings of its "2025 B2B Buyer Experience Study" (the "2025 Study") earlier this month. The 2025 Study is the third edition of 6sense's B2B buyer experience research. Previous studies were conducted in 2024 and 2023.

The objective of the 2025 Study - as with the earlier studies - was to capture insights regarding how B2B buyers actually make business purchases.

Study Methodology and Participant Profile

The 2025 Study was based on two surveys. The primary study received nearly 4,000 responses from B2B buyers. 6sense also conducted a supplementary survey to specifically examine how artificial intelligence and economic uncertainty were affecting B2B buyer behaviors, and that survey produced an additional 766 responses.

Here's an overview of the survey respondents' attributes:

• Respondents represented a wide range of levels and roles in their organization, with nearly half (49%) being VP-level or above.

• Respondents were located in North America (46%), Continental Europe (20%), the UK and Ireland (20%), and Asia-Pacific (14%).

• Nearly half of the respondents (49%) worked for companies having from $10 million to $500 million in annual revenues.

• 80% of the respondents worked for companies providing technology (42%) or services (38%).

• Respondents included buyers of services (41%), software (33%), and physical goods (26%).

What Has Changed

The 2025 Study revealed two significant shifts in B2B buyer behavior compared to the earlier 6sense studies.

Buying Cycles Were Shorter

 Globally, the average length of the buying cycle in 2025 was 10.1 months, down from 11.3 months in the 2024 edition of the study. In North America, the length of the buying cycle was virtually unchanged - 11.1 months in 2025 vs. 11.4 months in 2024.

The shorter average buying cycle was due in part to a change in the mix of purchases represented in the 6sense studies. There were more purchases of physical goods in the 2025 Study compared to the 2024 study, and the buying cycle length for physical goods was shorter than for the other types of solutions represented in the research.

More importantly, the 2025 Study showed that economic uncertainty played a significant role in shortening the average buying cycle. Nearly half of the surveyed buyers (49%) said economic conditions had led to shorter buying cycles.

The study report states:  "Many organizations with approved budgets may have been eager to commit funds quickly, before potential pullbacks due to tariffs, cost-cutting, or other macroeconomic risks."

Buyers Engaged With Sellers Earlier

The second major shift in buyer behavior revealed in the 2025 Study was that buyers initiated contact with sellers earlier in the buying process. In the 2025 Study, the average "point of first contact" between buyers and sellers occurred when buyers were 61% through their buying process. That was down from 69% in the earlier 6sense studies.

Survey respondents pointed to two factors driving the earlier seller engagement.

• 58% of the survey respondents said their need to evaluate how prospective vendors were implementing artificial intelligence in their solutions caused them (buyers) to engage earlier.

• Nearly 62% of the respondents said they engaged earlier because of economic uncertainty.

What Hasn't Changed

The 2025 Study revealed that many of the B2B buying patterns and buyer behaviors identified by 6sense in its prior studies remained largely unchanged. For example, the 2025 Study found that:

• The surveyed buyers evaluated an average of five prospective vendors.

• Buying groups filled four of the five spots on their vendor shortlist on Day 1 of the buying process.

• 94% of the surveyed buyers said they ranked their shortlist vendors according to preference before contacting any vendor.

• 79% of the surveyed buyers said they initiated contact with prospective vendors. They contacted their top-ranked vendor first about 80% of the time, and they ultimately bought from their top-ranked vendor 77% of the time.

An Important Resource

The 6sense study represents a genre of research that we need more of in B2B. Much of the popular research in the B2B space consists of surveys of marketers. While it's useful to know how other marketers are thinking and what they are doing, it's far more valuable to understand how business buyers actually make purchase decisions.

That's what the 6sense study addresses, and I strongly recommend that you take the time to review the full study report.

What Has (and Hasn't) Changed in B2B Marketing

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun."

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version)

"Don't throw the past away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When everything old is new again."

"Everything Old Is New Again," Peter Allen and Carole Sager, 1974

In my last post, I argued that many of the criticisms of the 4Ps model of the marketing mix are unfounded because they are based on a flawed understanding of the model. To support my argument, I used several quotations from E. Jerome McCarthy's 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing:  A Managerial Approach (Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960). 

McCarthy was the developer of the 4Ps model, and he introduced it in his 1960 textbook.

As I read McCarthy's book, I was struck by how relevant the core principles discussed in the book are today. Certainly, some portions of the textbook - particularly some of the case studies and examples -are outdated. But the central elements of McCarthy's model and his broader view of marketing's role in a business are as relevant today as they were in 1960.

Perceptions of Change

If we surveyed a representative sample of B2B marketers, an overwhelming majority of our survey respondents would probably say that the last two decades have been a period of unprecedented change in B2B marketing. In some ways, this view is completely accurate.

Over the past twenty years, we have witnessed the proliferation of marketing channels, the explosive growth of marketing technologies, and the appearance of several new marketing techniques, including content marketing, social media marketing, and account-based marketing.

During the same period, several major consulting firms introduced an array of concepts and models describing the B2B buying process and exploring the role that marketing can, should, or does play in revenue growth at B2B companies.

Most of these developments have felt new, and many have been presented as new. But in fact, many of these "new" models of B2B marketing and buying aren't new at all. They have antecedents that go back several decades.

Wisdom From the Past

This phenomenon is evident in Frederick E. Webster, Jr. and Yoram Wind's 1972 book, Organizational Buying Behavior (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972). Here's how Webster and Wind described the six distinctive attributes of "organizational" (a/k/a B2B) buying:

    1.    "First, and perhaps most important, organizational buying decisions are made more complex by the fact that more people usually are involved in them and different people are likely to play different buying roles."

    2.    "Second, organizational buying decisions often involve major technical complexities relating to the product or service being purchased."

    3.    "Third, organizational buying decisions typically take longer to make than consumer (individual) decisions."

    4.    "Fourth, the greater time required for organizational buying decisions means that there are significant lags between the application of marketing effort and obtaining a buying response."

    5.    "Fifth, each buying organization is likely to be significantly different from every other buying organization in the potential market in ways that may require viewing each organization as a separate market segment."

    6.    "Finally, the organizational members participating in the buying function are neither purely 'economic men' nor are their motives purely emotional and irrational. Rather they are human beings whose decisions and behavior are being influenced by both task- and nontask-related variables."

If I change a few words here and there, it would be easy to believe these six attributes were written this year instead of more than 50 years ago. For example, the first attribute captures the essence of what we now call a B2B buying group, and the fifth attribute is remarkably similar to the original concept of account-based marketing.

Organizational Buying Behavior also presents a thoroughly modern view of marketing's ultimate purpose and mission:

    "In a nutshell, the marketing concept as it exists today is a business philosophy that sees the fundamental purpose of the business as the creation of satisfied customers . . . The responsibility of marketing management, according to this philosophy, is to interpret conditions in the marketplace and to coordinate and influence the direction of company operations so as to ensure that the company's offerings of products and services have the highest probability of satisfying customer needs."

Again, with just a few word changes, this statement could have been written this year.

All this may seem like the ramblings of someone who has too much time to read old books, but this is just one example of a larger and more important truth.

The pace of change in some aspects of B2B marketing has been so rapid over the past twenty years that it's far too easy to lose sight of the fact that many of the core principles of marketing and buyer behavior have changed very little. The tools and techniques we use are certainly different, but the thoughts and emotions we need to evoke in customers and prospects are essentially the same today as they were decades ago.  

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)