COMMENTS
1. 3 Million IT buyers have asked me to tell IT vendors PLEASE do not FORCE me to give contact info for content.
As a VP of sales, I want highly qualified leads (known budget, authority to buy, need in an area I can help, and a time line that demands action.) I don't want the name of everyone who downloads a free e-book or white paper. Hopefully marketing should be measured on the quality as well as the quantity of leads. Conversion and margin are what should be measured and repeated.
Lori Turec
Blue Ocean Consulting
www.1boc.com
I really don't think it's a matter of either or...I really think a business should try both.
And THEN either see what works best for THEM or just continue down the path of releasing content each way.
Build out a strategy where gated content and non-gated content can live in harmony.
I've had success on both side of the coin.
In one instance, when I let things go free - my downloads increased - which is fantastic.
I'm bringing folks to my site, they get to see what I'm all about, if they want to get in touch with me they can.
When I put content behind a form, downloads decrease, but I'm left with information that I can take and use to develop a relationship.
I can proactively add value to that relationship (if they choose to opt-in).
Depending on the form fields - I can drill down some data and find out a LOT about my potential customer.
That makes my boss VERY happy.
And it helps us guide our marketing efforts...not just with Inbound, but with traditional methods as well.
The fact that both DM and Hubspot have success with each formula shows that both can work equally well.
p.s. I've been waiting on this debate for like a year...seriously :)
While I can't argue that NOT requiring people to give up their contact information for your special content will certainly lead to more downloads it will definitely make a lot more difficult to track the effectiveness of those campaigns themselves from a conversion prospective. I guess if you are increasing the visibility by that much you should just expect much larger numbers.
Just a tough think to sell to our clients when we say to them, don't worry about giving your content away tons more people are going to look at it and then that will produce you even more leads.....especially when it's harder to produce the concrete numbers to back up the program success this way because it's harder to develop a conversion rate on the response.
Thoughts?
Perhaps a blend of form and no form. If your goal is qualified leads than I think the form model makes sense. The content is worth something so those who would like to avail themselves of it should "give" a little something to get it.
If you are just sharing info, tips, basics etc. than maybe a form at the end of the content that allow folks with more interest to "learn more" might make sense.
Forms with minimal information required has been working fine for us so far. When you ask name/email/phone and six questions to qualify a lead it's too much. Personally, even when I'm a hot lead, I don't fill out forms to get to content that ask more than name/email.
This is a great debate topic ! My opinion - free content is great to drive traffic, but sites who have to drive actual business need some additional step to identify leads -- "free reports", etc.
I focus on small business websites and I think forms are essential, for many of my clients, to drive those precious leads.
Sorry David, but I agree (mostly) with Mike. I have a page of free content - no signup required. But some of my more in-depth content has a form - name and email only required field. That is the balance I strive for.
Love how you made this video.
Jeff Ogden, the Fearless Competitor
Find New Customers
http://www.findnewcustomers.com
@fearlesscomp
Sorry Mike -- you're wrong!
David's and others' numbers support a ratio in the range of 1:15 to 1:50. Wherever the truth is, it's a big multiple. If in doubt, read what buyers have to say -
here's one forum in which IT folks talk about how much they hate gates - and why they are bad for the vendor too. I'm sure there are more.
Your argument simply blames the boss. Obviously if the right thing for prospects, customers and leads is not to gate the content, you need to explain that to your boss and give him/her an alternative. Or find another boss...
Presuming he will listen, how do you show him you are achieving something? David has said in the past you should forget measuring altogether, and I don't know where he stands on that now. But you don't need to, and of course your boss might not want to let you. In which case, use other measures -- of which there are many possibilities. Numbers of downloads, website traffic, hits on a call to action page that's linked from the content, and so on.
Anticipating the argument that these aren't leads - neither are the names you get from a form. They're names of people who were interested in your content - and as every salesperson knows, the vast majority are not leads. It's not a lead until they reach out to you.
I would say that since the debate itself is behind a form, the answer is pretty clear. As Mike says it is something tangible to give your sales team to work with (who are now more than ever symbiotic with marketing), and if someone isn't going to take the time to fill out name & email, they probably won't take the time for an exploration of potential sales. I think the cost of filling out a simple form is negligible for the typical content consumer.
I feel that content pieces that are more "top of the funnel" should not be behind a form. Things like smaller ebooks or whitepapers, short "how-to" videos, etc. should be easily accessed as not to put people off. More in-depth content pieces such as live webinars, "kits" comprised of several content pieces, free consultation requests that I consider more "middle" or "bottom" of the funnel should require some sort of form as those people should already be familiar enough with you that they feel comfortable ponying up an email.
I agree with Tom Sadler - a mix is needed. Overview content on the site - no forms...Specific topics designed for deeper sales process use - yes, use a form. Specifically if I'm supplying my champion with content (ie, video) to help validate the opportunity and align decisions makers, I definitely use forms (ie, guestbook). When shared internally by a champion vs. me (an outsider), cohorts will fill out their info.
I think they're both right and the key is to see what works best for your particular situation. The end goal is to have the right number of very highly qualified leads to make your sales goal. We're seeing more and more contacts leave junk information that's just a waste of time and we're beginning to move to more free content with secondary offers.
Perhaps having the free content for traffic and search and lot's of secondary offers and specialty forms that encourage highly qualified leads to take the next step is the next migration of the model.
I will say your content is yours and you should do what you feel suits you the best..whether behind forms or not..
"Black Seo Guy "Signing Off"
I think depends on the specific objetive that the content is being published for. If the objective is to get the contect spread, to make as much people as possible to read/download it,there should not be a form in front of it. However, is the objective is to get focused leads, the form should be in front. In other words, if the content is very specific, and is going to drive specific leads, the best way is to ask for registration.
I also agree with Tom Sadler: a mix is a good solution. On our site, we have a video tour that contains our main message. I would never want to put that behind a form. All of our blog content and case studies are free right now; however I think it is OK to ask for basic contact info. for more sophisticated content such as getting a free e-book. I am going to experiment with putting some content behind forms in the near future. I feel if people are serious, they won't mind giving up their name and email address.
I would have to chime in and say it's all about the goal of your marketing plan. Is your plan to increase awareness, brand presence or "share of voice"? Then push that content to all that can handle it, for free. However, if your marketing focus is to generate qualified leads, you can use specific content to prequalify your potential prospects. Granted, both methods will increase awareness as well as generate new leads. But the focus shifts depending on which method you choose.
You both are right. I think it depends on the quality and uniqueness of the info being provided.
If it's general information reformatted in an article, free.
If it's something unique, based on the EXPERT writers experience or if it's a significant amount of information organized for the readers ease, then the least the recipient can do is log in with their contact info.
Both Dave & Mike think forms should be as short as possible, but how can you qualify all the leads then without wasting the sales team time?
I think the double opt-in is the best way to generate leads while still being able to use short forms.
I really like Mike's grading system for leads so I think he wins.
Give it wings I say! While there is no denying the need to develop qualified leads I feel there is always something very hokey about giving up someone's (very personal at times) contact details for something in which has no decided value until it's actually downloaded. There's got to be a better way... until that way is 'found' I say drop all barriers that impeded the contents distribution and focus in on creating value (and customers) through form-free quality content.
I see the value of getting background and contact info, but they are useful only if you have a clear plan to make use if that data. Otherwise, they are not leads -just email addresses.
Has anyone thought on offering optional ways to give something back in exchange for the content? How about you either tweet the love or fill in the form? If the content provider does not get your into, at least they get some link love.
Another idea: enable Facebook/Twitter connect after filling in the form once. You can still track who downloaded it, but dowloading multiple pieces of content from your site requires filling in the form just once - before the first download. Everybody's happy!
To Kevin's point...One strategy is to ask them to register for a next, more interactive step...like attend a demonstration (or another call to action...in the content itself. Here's a mock video content example - if you go to slide 9, your asked if you'd like to register for a web demonstration via an events reg. page (web page) - (Table of contents is to the right of the back/pause/fwd buttons)
http://bit.ly/g78R8D
I love this discussion. I agree with others that there has to be a marketing plan driving the form and that the form needs to be as short as possible. Make it easy to fill out. Lose the Captcha (there are better alternatives).
On the comment that we have to post our comments by going through a form - Yes ! But this form gives us something back - a backlink. Good dialog should reward everyone !
You are both right and I love the discussion since we are having this same conversation at our company. For us, general information should be available without sign up and specific solution based information should be behind forms.
I suggest an approach similar to books available on Amazon.com -- Develop teasers available free, such as Table of Contents, Bios, Marketing message such as "This book will teach you...", Chapters 1-3 (be liberal with free content) and then at some point drop in the registration page (click here to register and enjoy our complete e-book. Voila, qualified leads that have real interest in your content!
I think I'm going to A/B test this on some of my reports.
My current opinion:
Using web forms to capture consumer information is a better solution to generating sales in the personal injury legal field than giving away free digital downloads.
A few points of interest:
(1) Spreading ideas (branding) and capturing information (lead generation) are two different topics. After all, commercials are free content given away daily to millions of viewers. They spread ideas too! If you are in branding mode, give your content away! If you are in lead generation mode, get consumer data!
(2) In our present economic condition, (if one must choose) lead generation is a better investment than branding. It creates sales more quickly - which can then be used to generate referrals. During better economic times, branding is a wise investment - it helps carry you through recessions.
(3) This debate is industry, market, and buying stage specific - especially since different market segments respond according to their personalities and current needs.
Great debate!
Great discussion and I too think they are both correct, but ultimately, it depends on your business.
Consider Hubspot - as a customer, we had to do a huge amount of work to get up and running and learn inbound marketing. Having a simple form is a barrier, but also a screening tool - who wants to deal with thousands of non leads?
We are a small financial planning firm and our clients have to put a good amount of effort into the work they do with us to develop and maintain their financial/retirement plan. The form is just the first step and if they aren't willing to do that - we probably don't want them. For us, it's not just about huge numbers, but attracting more qualified leads.
I like Mark Sarpa's comment that General Solution information should be in front and that Specific Solution information should be behind forms. This division makes great sense. General Solution information draws in the large body of traffic but the Specific Solution information now narrows that traffic down to visitors with very specific needs -- the best visitors to capture as leads.
I don't bother to read blog content if even a pop-up appears before I'm "allowed" to read. If content is presented as downloadable only, I'm less inclined to download it when I must fill out a long form. It's all about niche marketing. What kind of customers take the time to fill out online forms? How many fields are they willing to fill out? What kind of information will they give? What kind of information do they want? What questions make them close the form? What kind do not? Does one miss out on a specific demographic when requiring potential customers to fill out a form? I'd love to see a Hubspot infographic about this.
Loving the debate between two great thinkers.
I wrote about this same debate back in November. From my conversations at the time and since on the matter, I've come to the conclusion that you likely need a mix of both. This is based on a two-prong analysis.
First, I think there's a quantity/quality aspect to it. If you're hot and heavy for the SMB market, mainly targeting a high volume of smaller deals, then you might want to think twice about throwing up a reg form around your content. It's far more viral, easier to blog and tweet. Chances are 90% of your content is aimed at just getting prospects in the pipeline. If you're after a smaller volume of large deals, then gating your content might be worth it. Prospects from large organizations usually realize that they're allowing you to nurture them.
Secondly, you probably should only gate high-value content that can actually move the needle for a prospect. If you doubt whether your content fits that bill, then it probably doesn't. One way to tell: Ask yourself, "Did I learn anything in producing this? Was I surprised by what I found?" If yes, then maybe you have something really unique.
Anyway, here's my post on the subject: http://blog.eloqua.com/mixed-use-or-gated/
Thanks for starting this discussion.
Jesse Noyes
Corporate Reporter
Eloqua
FORMS VS NO FORMS
Every person, every market is unique. The issue needs to be tested for YOUR customers. And the content and wording of the forms needs to be tested. I believe both sides of the debate won! And both are correct.
I like to use a mix of both, give them say 20% of a whitepaper in blog form then if they like it they can download the full pdf by filling in the form.
Ralph, you raise a great point. Blogs and articles are essentially short eBooks - and they are available form-free. It sounds like you could marry DM & Mike's viewpoints by putting valuable content in your articles / blogs and then having "learn more" CTA's that require form submission to get a more detailed white paper.
I really like the format of this discussion. It helps a viewer to build their own thought process as they look at the issue.
I think if your product is essentially ideas and commentary based upon researching those ideas it is easier to give the information away "free" than if your product is more tangible and difficult to absorb. (I think it is interesting that giving your name and email has become currency in today's marketing world).
The concept of tiered levels of interaction where you give a large percentage of your material away and then use followup and repeat interest on the part of the viewer to let your readers self qualify to make the contact through a form seems logical and consistent to me.
Its like going back to the old interruption based world where the consumer makes the decision to look more closely at your products when they finally enter the store...your chance to have a higher level of interaction.
Is that not the same as what we do today with trials, free kits of tools, online webinars, demos and eventually structured one on one telephone contact?
I think it makes sense for Hubspot to put content behind a registration wall. Hubspot earned that privilege by consistently providing quality content that I find valuable enough to register for. Hubspot has set the bar high though, and they need to keep providing valuable content to justify the additional investment of form completion.
Other companies that require registration for poor quality content need to re-think their lead generation strategies. You earn the require to ask for registration.
I think @Stephen Wade is right in saying that there is room for both, depending on your objective. I disagree though, that the objective is driven by the macroeconomic conditions. Your business's current position in its lifecycle is far more important.
If I am brand new to the market, and especially if my product or service requires customers to grasp a new concept or a different take on an existing one, then a no-form branding approach is best.
If my product, service, or brand is better established, then an approach that emphasizes qualified lead generation would be best.
Jason, good point! Product life-cycle is definitely a factor in whether or not you choose a branding / lead generation strategy (which may influence protection of content behind forms).
Macro-economic conditions are still a factor though. Branding accomplishes two broad goals: 1) reinforces existing customer loyalty and 2) influences decision makers for future acquisitions. The problem with number two is that the sales cycle is much longer - possibly years. That can present a cash flow issue - especially if you are in a recession where volume demanded has shrunk. Lead generation tactics are more aggressive (demanding more information on a form, for example) - but can result in a shorter sales cycle and improved cash flow.
Plus - the sales from lead generation can prop up branding activities by a) providing extra funds and b) creating more happy customers to spread the word of your awesomeness.
I'd like to think, like most things in life, there is a middle ground. I see occationally great articles that allow the abstract to be read for free (thus sharing the heart of the information), and requiring registration to see the details of the article. I think this is acceptable, because if the abstract is written correctly, it provides both data and conclusions, and those who are curious for truly detailed review have the option to sign up.
My opinion somewhat mirrors Tom Sadler's.
Give the document away for free via a delivery page with their document linked clearly and freely right up top. Below that, provide a form asking them for a bit of information if they found the information useful or would like to be contacted.
I feel that people appreciate the opportunity to see what you're offering before committing their information to you. It also helps qualify them as a "more interested" lead. (You're passively weeding out folks who ONLY filled the form out grudgingly to read the document).
Sitting in on @mktgexperiments #webclinic right now.. they made a point that I think applies to this conversation:
"For every action you desire a visitor to make, [submitting a form, in this case] there must be an immediate promise of value that outweighs the cost of that action."
I think Jason hit it well with the lifecycle of one's business comment. Taken with the value-of-the-content notions expressed here, those seem the gate to determine gate or no gate. I also think that when our current generation of marketers is able to perfect dialogue of the repeatedly- and miserably-failed 1:1 marketing--more license will be given to gate access. Right now, most people don't want brands blowing in their ears because they gave them a "look".
I commented here before I had watched the whole debate. Now I have watched it, here’s a more considered response.
Mike is still wrong. Apart from the fact it’s more interesting to take a position than to say “you’re both right,” I think Mike’s arguments are too flawed. Plus I badly want an autographed book, and it’s David’s book not Mike’s.
David’s starting point is that you’ll get more downloads and more exposure if you don’t have a form to fill. There isn’t much data on this in the market, but numbers on split tests I have seen support that. Mike’s first couple of counter arguments—that he and other marketers typically have a target number of leads to meet, and that he has to keep the salespeople busy—amount to the tail wagging the dog. Plus these aren’t leads—at least most of them aren’t. They are names of people who wanted a piece of content. Some of them will be students writing marketing papers—maybe lots of them are students writing marketing papers.
Where Mike has a point, is that HubSpot’s 28% conversion rate (i.e. the proportion of people filling a form once they have landed) is much better than most others’. The best uplift HubSpot could get if they removed the forms would therefore be less than 4:1, versus David’s cited 50:1 (i.e. 1/0.28 = 3.6). This is likely because the content is generally very good and people want it enough to jump the hurdle. I’ve personally filled HubSpot’s forms dozens of times, and complained about it to HubSpot. Though since it’s free and I am not a customer, I don’t really have a leg to stand on—which is doubtless why they have ignored me.
But does this get them quality leads, or just lots of leads?
It gets them lots. And lots. And lots. Therefore Mike presumably succeeds in keeping the salespeople busy. And from all these leads each salesperson closes about three new accounts, on average, per month. (See footnote for where I got the numbers).
The sales force can’t possibly follow up all these leads, so they prioritize. We can be sure they were prioritizing anyway, but now HubSpot has formalized the process by assigning points to type of lead. People reaching out for a demo are worth 10 times as much as those filling out a form. Even those opting for a free trial are reckoned to be worth four times as much as someone filling out a form. I suspect that in actuality, the real ratio is higher and I bet if I asked a HubSpot salesperson, they’d agree.
In any case, HubSpot recognizes that leads which come from forcing people to give them their information aren’t worth much. Should HubSpot really have 50 salespeople each closing three customers a month, or should they take only the leads from secondary offers—where people reach out to HubSpot—and have 25 salespeople close six deals each per month (perhaps 5.8 because they occasionally miss a hidden gem), at half the cost of sales?
Perhaps it depends on how badly you need to grow and how important your cost of sales is—or isn’t. For a VC-funded start-up, it might be the right formula. But for most firms, I’d bet the latter makes more sense.
Footnote: I derived traffic estimates from Alexa, multiplied by 28% and divided by the number of sales people, which according to Mike is about 50. If my estimate exaggerates by as much as a factor of five, the real number is still thousands of ‘leads’, per salesperson, per month. The number of new accounts per month has been made public by HubSpot and was about 150 for the last six months of 2010.
having a form is not harmful. I think it really depends on company's customers, objectives and culture, if company focus on increasing brand awareness, without form might be better, if customers of the company do not use email heavily, no point to use sign up form, put a facebook fan page like button could be even better. If a company is very practical,sales team needs tangible results or warm leads to follow up, a behind form is the way to go. Interesting debate, i think there is no right or wrong!
I think that David's stance on free content works really well when you are the named author on much of the content, and the goal is activating business leads for yourself. David provides a level of social engagement with his content, and his lead funnel is managed likely in a less complex way than most larger organizations where one piece of content may need to drive leads to a network of salespeople.
IF each salesperson could socially activate the content, then there is no need for a gate because the salesperson would be getting a sense for who is a lead and who isn't. The gate that Mike advocates will make the content less able to be socially engaged, but that's OK because many salespeople are less interested in social engagement than closing leads. In the end it is much easier for marketers to count lead form submissions than to try to motivate social engagement and get around to measuring the leads that come from it.
3 Things 1.) Thank you very much for this debate as I, and many others, have been waiting for it for a long time. Also, I am sure we would love a Round 2 after you collect data from many of the questions posed in this 1st video.
2.) RE the debate I believe David 'won' due to consistency of logic, and his argument focusing on the philosophy of the actual results vs. Mike's was influenced by external factors that colored his thinking (e.g. boss, sales team). Scientifically speaking, we should all follow the data, and not even give those a 2nd thought unless the data says otherwise.
3.) Does Type of Content Matter?: This was a point that I was hoping got brought up, but it didn't really seem to happen.
Here is my potential theory -
Content that is more inspirational, creative, anecdotal, and/or perspective based is more likely to spread, cause reciprocal ROI, and should be gate free. Content that is technical, research in itself, research driven, or strategically instructional is better behind a gate for end ROI purposes. The ebooks that (to my knowledge) have spread the most and generated ROI for the authors fit this criteria. Just look at Seth Godin, David Meerman Scott, Chris Guillebeau, and others.
Now look at Hubspot's (and Marketing Sherpa) gated content, and it is mostly strategically instructional and/or research driven.
I think until we take the time to code the nature of the content, and then test how that impacts bottom line ROI (not leads per say) this debate won't be thoroughly answered.
I personally think that you should have a mix of good content available in both "free" areas as well as behind a lead capture form. As long as the "offer" behind the lead capture form is targeted with a product or service that you could eventually up sell on then the quality of those leads are pretty high. I think the money is in the list so consistent follow up and a combination of soft sell and hard sell techniques would work best.
Property Marketing
Working in a B2B with some fairly private clients, our biggest battle is getting content we're happy to "give away".
Sure you should have some flagship content that needs a registration to download, but why make it difficult for potential clients to see you're a thought leader?
As other readers have commented, I will attempt to comment in 200 words or less:
1) As usual, the best answer is that both methods should be used with the key differentiating factor being sales cycle stage. In other words, sales organizations should
map different content to different stages in the sales cycle. 2) As a general rule, more basic content should be 'free' and more advanced, detailed or technical content should be behind a form.
3) The working assumption (especially for B2B) is that as people move along the sales cycle they start asking more detailed questions and therefore
require more detailed, technical information. 4) I would have no more than 4 sales cycle stages
(Awareness, Consideration, Fan, Ready to Buy) 5) Then map your content (or different versions of the same content) to these four stages and put
ONLY content mapped to Ready to Buy behind the form. In this way, it seems like you get the best of both worlds.
Great debate!
Tod Hirsch
ContentConnect
Since all the comments this debate provoked were so great, we did a random selection of 5 commenters below. The Real-Time Marketing & PR will be sent to: Ralph, Matthew Nelson, Chuck Jones, Lee Kirkby and John Stevens. Thank you all for the participation!
While you guys are debating whether it's tomato or tomahto, I am hear to say that it's neither when I can't view the Flash video debate on my iPad.
Can't help but think this isn't as black and white as so many passionately believe. Wouldn't it make sense that different sites serving different industries (and therefore serving completely different types of customers) have vastly different experiences?
Just as many commenters above have stated: fantastic debate, but in the end, all one can do is test to determine which option (or a mixture of the two) would provide the best results for the specific site he or she is working on.
[still chuckling at Rick's comment above...]