I recently watched a demo for a product that makes it easy for marketers to identify accounts expressing relevant intent, to determine whether those accounts are being engaged, and, if not, to add those accounts to an automated marketing campaign.
While I appreciate the product’s objective, I’m left wondering: Why does the absence of engagement mean marketers have to immediately engage those accounts?
I feel like this is a common marketing phenomenon, and capabilities, like attribution and intent, make it far too easy for marketers to draw the wrong conclusion: More *is* better.
Don’t get me wrong -- I'm a believer in attribution and intent, but, for similar reasons, both capabilities warrant some prudence, as they both risk leading marketers down a path of bad decisions.
With attribution, it's too easy for marketers to presume more marketing touches means marketing is making a greater impact.
And with intent, surges mean marketing must react and do *something* (especially, if it's not already engaging those accounts).
In both cases, we, as marketers, assume more is better -- that we must do something -- but what if that's not true?
Instead, marketers should be thinking more *versus* better because doing more (or doing anything at all) may actually hurt (and not help) the chances of a prospect becoming a customer.
Wouldn't you want to know whether your actions will help or hurt those chances?
After all, there can be too much of a good thing.
How do you avoid these traps and ensure your marketing (and sales) actions won't cause harm?
