HiveFire Curata Cuts the Work in Content Aggregation

Summary: HiveFire Curata makes it easy to assemble and republish content on specialized topics, attracting visitors to your company’s Web site.

Here’s an irony for you: the world is awash with content, but marketers struggle to find enough of it. It’s like a sailor dying of thirst.

Of course, sailors really do die of thirst. It happens when they’re surrounded by salt water they can’t drink. Marketers have the same problem: they can’t use most of the content that’s available.

HiveFire Curata aims to solve this problem by making it easier for marketers to extract usable content from the surrounding ocean. In fact, Curata provides a complete system to not just locate the right content but also to organize and present it to the marketer’s target audience. The goal is to make finding and repurposing existing content easier than creating new content on your own.

More specifically, Curata lets marketers build Web sites that republish content on selected topics, such as news of a particular industry. This attracts the marketer’s target customers and positions the marketer’s firm as an authority in the field. Once the audience is assembled, the site can also deliver the company’s own content and advertisements.

The trick to making this work is efficiency. You don’t need a special tool to scan the Internet: a simple Google Alert or Twitter search will do that for free. But you’d still need to read each article, tag it with keywords, and post it to your site. The work adds up so quickly that most marketers can’t afford to do it.

Curata reduces this effort by using natural language processing to automatically identify, classify and tag potential articles. It then presents them for manual review before being posted to a Curata Web site, which automatically adds them to appropriate indexes for future reference. The result is an organized archive that offers real value to someone interested in a topic. Because the search and tagging are highly automated, Curata says a typical client processes 40 to 80 articles each day in about 20 minutes.

Setting up a Curata site requires little technical skill. Users choose a format and then use a page designer to place widgets for articles, blog posts, lists of articles by category, author or entity, news streams, site search, media galleries, subscriptions and user registration. They also define the sources and search terms and exclusions the system will use to find content. Sources can include social media, news feeds, patent registrations and RSS subscriptions. Content on the Web site can also be published through RSS subscriptions, email newsletters, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Because the system is hosted by Curata, it can be set up and maintained without help from the corporate IT department or Web team. This is a critical advantage for many marketers who lack priority access to those resources.

This is all good, and many companies should find Curata well worth the $1,500 per month ($1,200 with an annual contract). But I did see a number of features I’d like added. These include:

- screening the selected articles. Currently the system presents the articles in the sequence they are found, without identifying redundancies or even removing exact duplicates. Intelligent screening could remove some articles and present similar ones together, saving considerable labor when large volumes are involved.

- ranking the selected articles. The system currently reports the traffic attracted by each article, but it doesn’t use this to predict the popularity of new articles. Such predictions should be well within the capabilities of the natural language engine. Nor does the system rank articles on other criteria such as the authority of the source. Ranking could let editors review the most important articles first and discard the others once they had reached their daily quota.

- more subscriber information. Visitors register with the system to post comments and subscribe the email newsletters. But the profile cannot be extended beyond name, password and email address. This is missing an obvious opportunity to capture more information about potential leads.

- subscriber behavior tracking. Curata doesn’t report on the behavior of individual visitors, such as which items they view or how often they visit. This is another bundle of information that marketers and salespeople could use to understand visitor interests and to identify hot prospects.

HiveFire was open to these ideas when we discussed them, so I’d expect to see some appear in the future. But it's worth noting that Curata already has about 40 clients, who are presumably satisfied enough the existing features to pay for them. So even in its current state, Curata is worth a look if you want to sail the seas of content aggregation.

B2B Marketing University: For Now, Marketing Automation and CRM Are Still Separate

Summary: Marketing automation and CRM systems may eventually converge, but for now marketers need help explaining why they need a system of their own.

I hugely enjoyed yesterday’s Boston session of the Silverpop-sponsored B2B Marketing University. (You can catch another session in Atlanta next week and in Seattle on December 1.) I won’t try to recap four hours of insights from Adam Needles from Silverpop, Carlos Hidalgo of Annuitas Group and Joe Moloney of Conselltants (no Web site, it seems), as well as Yours Truly. But there were a couple of topics that caught my fancy:

1. People still don’t understand the difference between marketing automation vs. CRM.

I really thought the distinction was pretty clear by now, but the question came up more than once. My own answer boiled down to a perhaps-not-convincing “trust me, they’re really different”, although I’ve addressed the question in depth in the resources section of the Raab Guide Web site.

Joe Moloney gave a more detailed answer about limits in Salesforce.com in particular, including lack of CAN-SPAM compliance and limits on mass emails. Someone (I think it was end-of-day panelist Meg Heuer of Sirius Decisions) also pointed out that CRM data is often very dirty, which isn't a problem for salespeople working with one record at a time, but making it hard to use for marketing.

The immediate take-away here is that the industry still needs to educate prospective buyers on why marketers need a separate system. Vendors take note.

2. Will Marketing automation and CRM remain separate?

The discussion also segued into whether marketing automation and CRM will merge in the long run. I still suspect they will, driven by the need for ever-closer cooperation between marketing and sales teams in managing prospect relationships. But the other presenters disagreed, largely arguing that the separate groups have distinct needs. (See Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? Is Salesforce.com a threat to vendors of marketing automation solutions? by Market2Lead CMO Kevin Joyce for a good statement of the separatist position.)

Part of the reason I expect convergence to happen is that it’s already taking place. (The past is so much easier to predict than the future.) The movement is coming mostly from the marketing automation side, presumably because there is more money to gain by moving into sales from marketing systems than vice versa:

- marketing automation systems for small businesses (Infusionsoft, Office Autopilot, Net-Results, etc.) typically include a CRM option for clients who don’t want to pay for a separate Salesforce.com or other license.

- firms aimed at larger installations (Marketo, Eloqua, Pardot, Genius.com, Active Conversion) are providing widgets that give sales people direct access to marketing automation information.

3. Technology may impede Software-as-a-Service sales automation vendors from adding marketing automation.

As Joe Moloney was listing the limits that Salesforce.com places on mass access to client data, I recalled that these are in place fundamentally to avoid large analytical queries that could slow down response for all other users of the shared systems. This isn’t an inherent problem with Software-as-a-Service itself: remember, the B2B marketing automation vendors themselves all operate on a SaaS model, and there is a growing number of SaaS business intelligence systems too.

But even though modern database technology allows one system to handle both CRM transactions and analytical marketing queries, this does take an appropriate design. I strongly suspect that existing SaaS CRM vendors like Salesforce.com would need to fundamentally rearchitect their systems to support serious marketing automation processing, especially for clients with millions of contact records. This may impede them from adding marketing automation capabilities, although newer SaaS CRM systems could emerge that are designed from the start to do both.

From this perspective, another reason combined marketing automation/CRM systems are first being offered to small companies may be that it’s easier to provide good performance for both applications when volumes are small.

Yesterday also triggered another set of thoughts regarding the importance of marketing content. But since one of these was the need to keep materials short, I’ll put them into a separate post.

Aprimo Marketing Studio Expands the Scope of Marketing Automation

Summary: Aprimo Marketing Studio includes traffic generation features missing from nearly all existing marketing automation products. This broader scope should become standard as marketers try to truly integrate their programs.

Aprimo is in the early stages of launching Aprimo Marketing Studio, a new Software-as-a-Service marketing automation suite that is separate from the existing Aprimo product.* The new offering is designed to support all stages of interactive marketing, starting with traffic generation from paid search, Web banner ads and blogging, and continuing with visitor behavior tracking, landing pages and forms, interactive dialogs, multi-step email campaigns, lead scoring and CRM integration. These are supported with Web analytics and extensive marketing operations features including workflow, digital asset management and financial analysis.

If you read that list quickly, it sounds pretty much like every other marketing automation vendor. But in fact it’s a substantially broader scope than I’ve seen in other products.

- Consumer-oriented systems generally limit themselves to outbound email and multi-step campaigns, and sometimes provide real-time recommendations to call centers and Web sites.

- Business-oriented (demand generation) vendors add some Web support through visitor tracking, landing pages and forms, but even they rarely do much with other “inbound marketing” channels including paid search, banner ads, search engine optimization and blogging.

- Both sets of vendors generally do a decent job with asset management, Web analytics and other reporting, although only the consumer-oriented systems tend to offer serious support for planning, workflow and detailed financial analysis.

- Neither group provides tools to build and manage a major corporate Web site (generally called "Web content management", although I've labeled it "Web site management" in the following table). The landing pages, forms and related content management that these systems do provide are only designed to let marketers supplement an existing site. I'm increasingly convinced that effective interactive marketing will eventually require the marketing system to run the Web site.

- Neither group has meaningfully integrated social media monitoring and interactions beyond making it easy to share posts to Twitter and Facebook, although Alterian’s Techrigy acquisition (see my related blog post) and Pedowitz Group’s Sweet Suite (see yesterday's post) are steps in that direction.

I've summarized this in the following table. Of course, I’m generalizing about sets of vendors so there will be individual exceptions.

functionality provided:	consumer marketing automation	business marketing automation (demand generation)
traffic generation:
- paid search management
- banner ad management
- search engine optimization
- blogging
- outbound email	x	x
- social media monitoring, intervention and analysis
relationship management
- Web landing pages and forms		x
- multi-step campaign flows (including trigger, event-driven)	x	x
- real time recommendations to external systems	x
- lead scoring		x
- sales automation integration		x
analytics
- Web visitor tracking (individuals)		x
- Web analytics (aggregate behaviors)	x	x
- general campaign reporting	x	x
- predictive modeling and advanced statistics	x
operations
- marketing planning	x
- content and digital asset management	x	x
- Web site management
- workflow	x
- detailed cost analysis	x

In short: both groups are quite weak when it comes to inbound marketing and social media, and the consumer marketers fall glaringly short when it comes to integrating with Web sites.

The business marketing systems have their own weaknesses, particularly in operational support. But given the obvious and growing need to integrate Web marketing with everything else, the consumer systems’ gap strikes me as more important.

I’m even more concerned because there has been relatively little innovation among the consumer marketing automation vendors in recent years. They have competed mostly by extending and refining existing features than by moving into major new areas. The demand generation vendors have been much more dynamic.

There are good business reasons, or at least explanations, for the consumer marketing vendors' strategy. Number one is probably that their clients haven’t been pushing them to do more. But these gaps in their capabilities ultimately make them vulnerable to new, more comprehensive competitors.

This brings us back to Aprimo Marketing Studio. The new Aprimo product would fill every box on my table except social media, predictive modeling and Web site management. This scope makes it truly different.

Now, promising these features and implementing them effectively are very different things. I can't judge the new Aprimo system because I haven't had a detailed demonstration and the system won't start serving live customer until next month. (The official launch will be in November at the Salesforce.com Dreamforce conference.) But what matters for now is the vision. Even if Aprimo doesn’t execute it immediately, someone else eventually will.

I already mentioned that Marketing Studio is designed as a true Software-as-a-Service system. As discussed in an earlier post, this is unusual for a consumer marketing system – Entiera and Neolane are the only other pure SaaS products I can think of – although it’s standard for demand generation products. Aprimo already serves both types of marketers, so it's a logical candidate to bring SaaS to consumer marketing systems. But other consumer-oriented vendors are also moving in this direction. When you're evaluating those products, the question to ask is whether the vendor has truly reengineered the system to take advantage of SaaS economies, or is simply running its existing software in a hosted mode and sending a monthly bill.

Aprimo Marketing Studio is aimed at mid-size and larger companies. Pricing begins at $4,000 per month for the base version with up to 10 users and 250,000 emails. The marketing operations module adds another $2,500 per month and other modules are priced at $1,500 each. There will also be fees as clients add users and email volume. At the end of the day, Aprimo is expecting the average client to pay $50,000 to $75,000 per year. This is pretty standard territory for consumer marketing systems, but well above the median for demand generation vendors.

_______________________________________________________
* The new product has its own Web site, which you can reach here. The site offers a free copy of an excellent Forrester Research report on interactive marketing, which is well worth the inevitable Aprimo sales call that will follow.

Entiera Offers Consumer Marketing Automation Software as a Service

Summary: Entiera is a sophisticated consumer marketing automation system, offered as a service and at a lower price than conventional competitors.

Entiera Insight is a marketing automation system primarily for companies that sell to consumers. I’m highlighting this because most of my recent posts have been about B2B marketing automation (demand generation) systems, and the two types of systems are quite different. This means I apply different standards to evaluate them.

My template for demand generation systems includes outbound email, landing pages, lead scoring, nurturing campaigns, and CRM integration, while my template for (consumer) marketing automation has planning, project management, content management, execution, and analysis. There is certainly some overlap: “execution” in marketing automation typically includes nearly all the demand generation functions except for landing pages and Web content management. But consumer marketing automation systems generally have more advanced database, segmentation, planning, project management and analytics. (See the paper Demand Generation vs. Marketing Automation in the Resources section of the Raab Guide site for more on this topic.)

Back to Entiera. Although their Web site is tagged as “on demand marketing automation”, they have in-house staff to build, run and analyze client databases, plus compiled consumer and business files that can provide prospect lists or enhance customer records. This makes them sound more like a “hosted” vendor than “Software-as-a-Service” (SaaS), per the distinction in my July 25 post. But I ultimately classify them as SaaS because they offer self-service versions of their data loading and analysis tools. This is unusual among consumer marketing automation vendors.

Entiera Insight includes modules for campaign management, predictive modeling, marketing planning, reporting, and database management. Content management and project management are handled within the campaign module. Thus, Entiera offers all five elements of my consumer marketing automation template.

Like most consumer marketing automation products, Enteria is primarily focused on outbound campaigns. Users construct each campaign from components including filters (list selections), paths (segment definitions), channels (messages), suppressions and deduplication rules. These are laid out in a half-tabular, half-graphical format based on columns that each contain a single type of component.

For example, the first column in a typical campaign would contain a filter to select a universe; the next column might contain several path definitions that divide the universe into segments; and the third column could contain several channel definitions, each linked to one previous path. A multi-step campaign would contain several columns of channels, with each channel linked to a channel in a previous column. The terminology and interface are unusual, but should work well after some practice.

Filters and suppressions are constructed with powerful query builder that supports multiple statements, calculated values, and different types of samples (fixed quantity or percentage of universe; random, ranked or Nth selects). Records selected in one filter are automatically excluded from subsequent filters in the same column. This is a standard approach in consumer marketing systems, but often missing in demand generation products. Users can save standard queries and reuse them across multiple campaigns – another feature that’s more common in consumer than B2B systems. Entiera is rolling out a new Adobe Flex-based interface that will have similar functionality but with a more flexible, drag-and-drop style.

The channel (message) objects are assigned channel types, start dates and end dates. These dates are separate from the start and end dates of the parent campaign, although the channel dates must fall within the campaign’s date range. Channel objects can either be triggered by a specific event or execute after a specified waiting period. Although one channel object cannot be shared across campaigns, the objects are built with offers and marketing contents (such as a specific email template) that are themselves reusable. The system captures detailed information about offers, including target audience, limits on how many times they can be used and accepted, effective dates, unit cost, and retail value. This is an impressive set of features.

Campaigns are executed outside the system, either through transferring files or by sending messages to an external API. Entiera currently uses Exact Target as its email partner, although it could work with others. Users can build and reuse standard execution templates for specific destinations. They can also manage seed lists and control groups. Each campaign can execute once or on a regular schedule. The system is designed to support real-time interactions, although no client has yet deployed it that way.

Planning in Entiera is largely at the campaign level. Campaigns can be assigned start and end dates and tagged by type, objective, category and products. This lets users analyze their plans and results across different dimensions—an important need in complex marketing programs. Users can also enter actual and estimated figures for costs, revenues, audience count, responses and conversions. They can define fixed and variable costs for a campaign and have the system calculate the total costs based on volume.

Although the vendor is working on an expanded planning system, this is already more features that many marketing automation systems provide. Project management is less impressive, currently limited to campaign-level task lists. Tasks cannot be assigned to specific individuals, although this should be added by the end of 2009.

Reporting is available through a mix of standard and custom reports. Standard reports track performance by campaign, type, and channel, including responses, conversions, revenue, costs, and return on investment. Users can also see results for different offers and creative types, as well as responder profiles based on demographic information appended from the vendor’s compiled files. Custom reports are built in Jaspersoft open source software. Users can access different views of the underlying database, allowing them to work with data that is organized and named in ways that suit their individual needs. Custom reports can be saved, shared, combined into dashboards, and distributed by email on a regular schedule.

Entiera also supports advanced analytics and database management. A graphical interface lets clients create complex data flows to import and combine multiple sources. It can do name/address matching for customer data integration and can easily incorporate the company’s compiled lists. Kxen statistical software is integrated for end-user predictive modeling and scoring.

I trust it’s clear by now that Entiera is designed to support complex marketing operations. Security is also enterprise-grade, allowing different users to access different functions, data sets and campaigns. The interface supports different languages for different users within the same installation, a subtle feature which identifies enterprise systems. Entiera also supports portals (with message boards, document repositories, Wikis, etc.) that can be open to everyone or limited to a particular group.

The cost for all this is not cheap, but still considerably below a traditional enterprise marketing automation system. Part of the difference is that Entiera includes database management, reporting, analytics, hardware and other costs that would be purchased separately with traditional marketing automation software. In addition, fees for Enteria are just not that high: a mid-size consumer marketer might pay $20,000 to $40,000 per month, which is about half the cost of a traditional on-premise system.

Entiera was founded in 2005 and released the first version of Insight in 2006. The company has about a dozen Insight clients, and many more using its other services.

Why Most Consumer Marketing Automation Systems Are Not Software-as-a-Service, And When That Will Change

Summary: Consumer-oriented marketing automation systems have been slower to adopt the Software-as-a-Service model than business marketing (demand generation) systems. But this will soon change, bringing lower prices and better systems as a result.

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is now the standard model for business-to-business marketing automation (a.k.a. demand generation) systems. Any vendor who didn’t sell that way would be an oddity. But consumer-oriented marketing automation products from vendors like Unica, SAS and Teradata are still commonly sold as traditional on-premise software.

Hosted vs SaaS: What's the Difference?

Many of the consumer-oriented vendors do offer “hosted” versions of their systems. These resemble SaaS in that the software is maintained off-premise by a third party. But clients typically still purchase of a perpetual license rather than paying monthly fees, as in SaaS. More important, the hosted systems are still largely configured and managed by the vendor or a business partner such as a service bureau. To me, the essence of a SaaS system is that users can largely do this for themselves.

I’m making a distinction here between running the software on your computers, which both hosted and SaaS vendors do, and managing each client’s implementation and on-going data maintenance. Hosted vendors do this for their clients but SaaS clients do for themselves. Although this distinction may be fuzzy in some cases, I still think it's important.

There are also technical distinctions that identify SaaS systems, such as whether one system serves multiple customers ("multi-tenancy"). Some people would argue that true SaaS systems are by definition multi-tenant and hosted systems are not. Mostly I’d agree, except that I can think of several conventional systems with versions that a service bureau can install to support multiple clients. Those are multi-tenant by any reasonable definition, but they’re managed by the vendor in the way that SaaS software (as I conceive it) is not. Multi-tenancy itself comes in several versions, depending on whether the hardware, software, and/or the database instance are shared. These have important technical and cost implications, but they aren't relevant to this post..

Why Consumer Marketing Systems Have Lagged in SaaS Adoption

What caused the divergence between consumer and business marketing systems? Much has to do with timing: the major consumer-oriented products were developed when on-premise software was the standard, and the large organizations who are their major customers have been relatively slow to accept SaaS in general. By contrast, the demand generation systems are newer and are sold to smaller companies, which have been early adopters of SaaS.

In addition, consumer marketers tend to manage the entire customer relationship, which requires integration with other corporate systems such as billing and customer service. Until recently, few SaaS vendors could handle such integration effectively. Business marketers generally limit their focus to lead generation and nurturing, which at most requires light synchronization with sales.

Consumer marketing databases also generally have more data feeds and more complex update processes than business marketing systems, again because the consumer systems are managing existing customers as well as leads. This makes them harder for consumer marketers to run without assistance, and thus less suited to the self-service-based SaaS approach. Yet even this is changing, as SaaS tools deliver greater power to non-technical users. For example, SaaS-based business intelligence vendors like Birst and Autometrics offer data integration capabilities that could form the basis for building a marketing system. The increasing openness of SaaS products also makes it easier for them to call on external data integration services.

In short, there’s nothing inherent in consumer marketing that prevents use of the SaaS model. The early obstacles that led to quicker adoption by business marketers are rapidly falling. We can expect the major consumer marketing automation vendors to continue to evolve their hosted offerings towards a true SaaS approach. We can also expect new entrants that are SaaS-based from the start, such as Neolane and Entiera (which I plan to review next week). And we’ll probably see marketing capabilities added by SaaS vendors in related industries such as email services (early example: Silverpop’s acquisition of Vtrenz, now Engage B2B) and Web content management (see my reviews of Marqui and SiteCore).

SaaS Systems Will Bring Lower Costs and Better Products

This can only be good news for consumer marketers. Pricing of conventional consumer marketing automation systems has remained stubbornly high in recent years. This is in part because of limited competition, but also because the bulk of the ownership cost is in the labor to deploy and maintain the systems. High labor costs mean that lower software prices would do little to encourage sales, since the buyer’s total expense would remain nearly the same.

By contrast, business marketers have seen ever-lower prices and rapid innovation as a multitude of SaaS-based vendors enter the field. These systems take very little labor to deploy, since that’s inherent to the SaaS model. In fact, implementation fees have in many cases fallen to zero, making the software fee itself the main expense. (The user’s own labor is another cost, but it’s largely hidden and difficult to estimate in advance; it therefore plays a minor role in the purchase decision.) The result is heavy competitive pressure to cut software prices, as vendors scramble to gain enough customers to cover their (largely) fixed costs.

SaaS-based consumer marketing automation systems have fundamentally similar economics, so we can expect similar results: new entrants able to deploy their systems at lower total cost than conventional software (because users do more of the work) will reduce their prices to achieve an adequately-large customer base.

The process will play out over several years as the SaaS based systems evolve to support more sophisticated marketing and greater end-user self-service. This means the new systems will start in the less-demanding lower and middle segments of the market and eventually work up to the largest marketing automation deployments. Still, the trend is clear and, so far as I can tell, quite inevitable.

It’s a great time to be a marketer.

Cloud-Based QlikView Still Isn't Available as a Service

Summary: Pay-as-you-go pricing would make QlikView easier to buy, but the company doesn't offer this option. To make a stronger business case for the purchase, include the value of shifting work from IT to business users, and of producing results faster.

Last week’s post about QlikView 9.0 prompted an inquiry from a manager who has been trying for a year to convince his company to consider the product. Having run into this issue many times, I easily felt his pain and we speculated a bit on what might help things along.

One obvious tactic would be to purchase QlikView on a pay-as-you-go basis, presumably cloud-based. But a quick check with QlikView confirmed that they don’t allow this and have no plans to change.

The closest they come is to let their partners offer QlikView-based applications as a service. For example, they pointed me to SportsDataHub, which lets users analyze football statistics for $40 per year. But the key point about this and similar QlikView services is that you can only access data loaded by the partner. You can't define and load your own data sources directly. At best, you might be able to create your own reports based on the loaded data. (See QlikTech Marketing SVP Anthony Deighton's comment on this post for a little more on the subject.)

I don’t understand QliiView’s reluctance to adopt a Software-as-a-Service model. It has proven viable for many other software companies, including other business intelligence vendors. To me, it seems a natural extension of the company’s “seeing is believing” sales approach as well as a good way to sidestep the barriers raised by corporate IT.

In fact, QlikView’s tremendous ease-of-use makes it an excellent fit for the SaaS model, because business users can deploy it for themselves with minimal technical support. In our conversation last week, QlikTech's Deighton said the majority of clients already implement the system without purchasing any external services. If there was ever a piece of software suited to SaaS, this is it.

Be that as it may. The lack of a proper SaaS offering left my correspondent with several avenues to pursue:

- find a QlikView partner who would build an appropriate application and sell it to him on a services basis. This doesn’t seem very plausible because he probably won’t be able to commit enough funding to make the project worthwhile for the partner. I mean, if he had that much money, he could just buy the software outright in the first place.

- use an alternative system that costs less. Yes, QlikView is unique and wonderful, but products from ADVIZOR Solutions, Lyzasoft, Tableau Software and TIBCO Spotfire offer some of the same advantages at a much lower entry price. Again, this is far from ideal, and it might not work at all because I didn’t explore precisely which aspect of QlikView my correspondent found attractive. Still, it’s better than nothing.

(Vaguely related aside: today, people often cite author Jim Collins’ phrase “good is the enemy of great” as a reason to avoid compromise. Previously, I was more likely to see Voltaire’s “the best is the enemy of the good,” which means that compromise is better than nothing. I’m sure this reversal says something important about our society, although I can’t say what. You're welcome.)

- Find a way to sell QlikView internally. Of course, my correspondent had already been trying, so his question was whether I had any new ideas for how. This actually prompted some very deep thinking over the weekend, which will show up in my Information Management magazine column over the next several months. To summarize four pages in 100 words, there are two approaches to consider:

- do a cost of ownership analysis showing the savings from letting business users perform tasks currently done by IT. Traditional cost analysis compares the time it takes IT to do the work with one tool vs. another. This hides rather than highlights the advantages of QlikView and similar products.

- do a “time to result” analysis that measures the time spent waiting for IT to deliver solutions through multiple iterations. This applies to many analytical databases, not just QlikView, because their flexibility reduces the time spent building conventional BI structures like star schemas and data cubes.

Perhaps one of these will work. I hope so, because we could all benefit from finding ways to take advantage of what new technologies like QlikView have to offer.

LucidEra Takes a Shot at On-Demand Analytics

Back in March, I wrote a fairly dismissive post about on-demand business intelligence systems. My basic objection was that the hardest part of building a business intelligence system is integrating the source data, and being on-demand doesn’t make that any easier. I still think that’s the case, but did revisit the topic recently in a conversation with Ken Rudin, CEO of on-demand business analytics vendor Lucid Era.

Rudin, who has plenty of experience with both on-demand and analytics from working at Salesforce.com, Siebel, and Oracle, saw not one but two obstacles to business intelligence: integration and customization. He described LucidEra’s approach as not so much solving those problems as side-stepping them.

The key to this approach is (drum roll…) applications. Although LucidEra has built a platform that supports generic on-demand business intelligence, it doesn’t sell the platform. Rather, it sells preconfigured applications that use the platform for specific purposes including sales pipeline analysis, order analysis, and (just released) sales lead analysis. These are supported by standard connectors to Salesforce.com, NetSuite (where Rudin was an advisory board member) and Oracle Order Management.

Problem(s) solved, eh? Standard applications meet customer needs without custom development (at least initially). Standard connectors integrate source data without any effort at all. Add the quick deployment and scalability inherent in the on-demand approach, and, presto, instant business value.

There’s really nothing to argue with here, except to point out that applications based on ‘integrating’ data from a single source system can easily be replaced by improvements to the source system itself. LucidEra fully recognizes this risk, and has actually built its platform to import and consolidate data from multiple sources. In fact, the preconfigured applications are just a stepping stone. The company’s long-term strategy is to expose its platform so that other people can build their own applications with it. This would certainly give it a more defensible business position. Of course, it also resurrects the customization and integration issues that the application-based strategy was intended to avoid.

LucidEra would probably argue that its technology makes this customization and integration easier than with alternative solutions. My inner database geek was excited to learn that the company uses a version of the columnar database originally developed by Broadbase (later merged with Kana), which is now open source LucidDB. An open source columnar database—how cool is that?

LucidEra also uses the open source Mondrian OLAP server (part of Pentaho) and a powerful matching engine for identity resolution. These all run on a Linux grid. There is also some technology—which Rudin said was patented, although I couldn’t find any details—that allows applications to incorporate new data without customization, through propagation of metadata changes. I don’t have much of an inner metadata geek, but if I did, he would probably find that exciting too.

This all sounds technically most excellent and highly economical. Whether it significantly reduces the cost of customization and integration is another question. If it allows non-IT people to do the work, it just might. Otherwise, it’s the same old development cycle, which is no fun at all.

So, as I said at the start of all this, I’m still skeptical of on-demand business intelligence. But LucidEra itself does seem to offer good value.

My discussion with LucidEra also touched on a couple of other topics that have been on my mind for some time. I might as well put them into writing so I can freely enjoy the weekend.

- Standard vs. custom selection of marketing metrics. The question here is simply whether standard metrics make sense. Maybe it’s not a question at all: every application presents them, and every marketer asks for them, usually in terms of “best practices”. It’s only an issue because when I think about this as a consultant, and when I listen to other consultants, the answer that comes back is that metrics should be tailored to the business situation. Consider, for example, choosing Key Performance Indicators on a Balanced Scorecard. But vox populi, vox dei (irony alert!), so I suppose I’ll have to start defining a standard set of my own.

- Campaign analysis in demand generation systems. This came up in last week’s post and the subsequent comments, which I highly recommend that you read. (There may be a quiz.) The question here is whether most demand generation systems (Eloqua, Vtrenz, Marketo, Market2Lead, Manticore, etc.) import sales results from CRM systems to measure campaign effectiveness. My impression was they did, but Rudin said that LucidEra created its lead analysis system precisely because they did not. I’ve now carefully reviewed my notes on this topic, and can tell you that Marketo and Market2Lead currently have this capability, while the other vendors I’ve listed should have it before the end of the year. So things are not quite as rosy as I thought but will soon be just fine.

Marketo Aims to Simplify Demand Generation

As I wrote last week, demand generation vendors have a hard time differentiating their systems from each other. One company that has made a concerted effort is newcomer Marketo. Marketo has a one-word elevator speech: simplicity.

That’s not to say Marketo is a simple product. Functionally, it covers all the demand generation bases: outbound email, landing pages, Web site monitoring, lead scoring, multi-step nurturing programs, prospect database, analytics, Salesforce.com integration. It even adds A/B testing for landing pages, which you don’t see everywhere. The depth in each area is perfectly respectable as well.

Where simplicity comes in is the user interface. Like every other demand generation vendor, Marketo has wrestled with how a branching, multi-step lead nurturing campaign can be made easy enough for non-specialist users. The traditional approach has been a flow chart with lines and boxes. This is, after all, the way “real” process diagrams are built by programmers and engineers. It does express the logic of each flow precisely, but it also can get incomprehensibly complex very quickly.

Marketo’s solution is to do away with the branches. Each campaign flow is presented as a list, and any deviation from the sequence is treated as a diversion to another flow. The list itself can be presented in a collapsed format with each step as a numbered item, or an expanded format where the actions taken at each step are exposed. (Or, users can expand a single step at a time.) Actions include adding or removing the lead from a list, changing a data value or score, sending an email, moving the lead to a different flow, removing it from all flows, and waiting a specified period of time. The system can also add the lead to a Salesforce.com database, assign or change the owner in Salesforce.com, and create a Salesforce.com task. Each action can be associated with a set of conditions that determine whether or not it is executed. One step can include multiple actions, each with its own conditions. The system can be told to execute only the first action whose execution conditions are met, which is one way to implement branching logic .

Other components of Marketo are more conventional, although still designed with simplicity in mind. Users can set up Web landing pages and email templates using a drag-and-drop interface modeled on PowerPoint—the one tool, as Marketo points out, that every marketer is guaranteed to know how to use. These templates can include variables selected from the Marketo database for personalization. Users can also create forms to capture data provided by site visitors or read automatically from the form or URL parameters. Forms can be reused across campaigns.

Campaign lists are built with another drag-and-drop interface, allowing users to layer multiple selection conditions. These can be based on lead data and constraints such as Web search terms, event frequency, and date ranges. Lists can be frozen after selection or dynamically refreshed each time they are used. Users can review the members of a list and click on a name to see its details, including the log of messages sent and activities recorded in Marketo. Like other demand generation systems, Marketo uses cookies to track the behavior of anonymous Web visitors and merge these into the lead record if the visitor later identifies herself. Lead scores are calculated by adding or subtracting points for user-specified behaviors. These values can automatically be reduced as time passes after an event.

Leads can also enter a campaign through triggers. Trigger events can include clicking on a link, filling out a form, changing a data value, creating a new lead record, and being added to a list. The system reacts to triggers as soon as they happen, rather than waiting for lists to be updated.

Campaigns can be scheduled to run once or at regular intervals. So can the wide range of standard reports covering, covering campaign results, email performance, Web activity and lead statistics. Users can run a report against a specified list and can have a report automatically emailed to them on a regular basis. A custom report builder is due by the end of July.

Marketo’s integration with Salesforce.com also bolsters its claim to simplicity. The system feeds data to Salesforce in real time and receives data from Salesforce every five minutes. This will go to real time as soon as Salesforce permits it. The integration is based on the Salesforce Force.com platform, which allows new installations of Marketo to connect with Salesforce in minutes. It also allows Marketo fields to appear within the regular Salesforce tabs, instead of a tab of its own. The lead activity summary from Marketo does appear separately within Salesforce.

It more or less goes without saying that Marketo is sold as a hosted service. This, combined with the automatic Salesforce.com integration, enables new clients to get started very quickly. The company cited implementations in as little as 24 hours, although I’m not sure this is a standard promise. They do say users become proficient after two hours of training. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the system is easy to install is that the company doesn’t charge a separate set-up fee—definitely not something all its competitors can say.

In fact, Marketo pricing is about as simple as it gets: a straight monthly fee ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 depending on the number of leads, page views and email contacts.

Marketo was founded in late 2005 by veterans of Epiphany. Its leaders spent the first two years researching market requirements and raising capital. They officially launched the Marketo product in March of this year and now have about 35 clients. These are primarily mid-to-large business-to-business marketers.