The Revenue Cycle: A New Model for Explosive Revenue Growth
Traditionally companies have talked about and analyzed the 'Sales Cycle'. The problem is that the sales cycle looks at only a portion of the complete revenue process. This presents two main problems:
- Insufficient to manage and guide growth beyond the current or subsequent quarter. The Sales cycle can usually predict revenue in the short term, but because the sales forecast is based on what a specific account will do at a specific time, the forecast for future revenue becomes increasingly inaccurate. Asking the sales organization — which by definition is focused on revenue in the near term — to predict revenue in future quarters is typically highly misleading. For this, a company should look to the function that is inherently focused on the long term: the marketing organization.
- Inefficient processes result in reduced sales effectiveness and wasted marketing budget. The traditional model of a sales cycle that begins when sales accepts a marketing lead or contacts a prospect directly results in waste and inefficiency. It means as much as 50% of sales time is spent on unproductive prospecting even as reps ignore 80% of marketing leads. The resulting lost sales productivity and wasted marketing budget costs companies at least $1 trillion a year. The sales cycle mentality also ignores the fact that before, while, and after sales interacts with a prospect or customer, marketing has been and will continue to touch the prospect with marketing messages via the website, campaigns, advertising, and PR. Ignoring this is like ignoring the ambiance at a fine restaurant — even if the food is good, if the ambiance isn't in sync the whole experience is off.
CEOs and marketing and sales leaders who care about revenue need to recognize that the sales cycle mentality is making it harder for them to meet and exceed their revenue goals. Instead, they need to focus instead on the complete "Revenue Cycle", which starts from the day they first meet a prospect and continues through the sale and beyond to the customer relationship. This is important since when marketing and sales coordinate their activities as part of a unified Revenue Cycle, companies get better at properly identifying and prioritizing opportunities, and better quality leads result in easier and better quality sales cycles, with more wins and ultimately more revenue.
Enabling the Revenue Cycle
The Revenue Cycle means more than just tacking marketing onto to the front of an existing sales process; it requires coordinating marketing and sales activities throughout the entire cycle to generate maximum impact. The old model of a linear handoff from marketing to sales must give way to an intertwined model where both organizations jointly own prospect relationships and coordinate their activities. To use an analogy, imagine a fighter jet that first ran with just the left engine, then turned that engine off and lit up the right engine. That's pretty inefficient compared to lighting both engines and going full speed!
The Revenue Cycle requires collaboration between marketing and sales activities, but of course this is easier said than done. (Even my own organization, which is laser-focused on achieving this goal, finds new challenges every day on our journey to holistic revenue cycle management.) The key challenge is that each function works differently, thinks differently, and has different usage requirements (aka "Sales is from Mars, Marketing is from Venus").
Viva la Revenue Revolution
Companies that can figure out how to coordinate marketing and sales in a way that respects the different strengths and needs of each function will experience what I'm calling a Revenue Revolution. The Revenue Revolution occurs when marketing and sales stop pointing fingers, cease working within their own silos, and unite to create dramatic improvements in marketing ROI, sales productivity, and most importantly top-line growth. I invite any readers who care about revenue to join in and demonstrate their own commitment to marketing and sales alignment by signing the Revenue Revolution Manifesto at http://www.marketo.com/revenue-revolution.php.

I've worked in a business-to-business environment for more than 25 year; and the majority of that time in the Marketing and Sales departments of the organizations. For the most part the sales and marketing groups were not on the same page (particularly if the revenues were below target). But I have seen a trend in the last 4 or 5 years of these two functional areas working much closer together - and when they do so, being much more successful. Hopefully that trend continues; and the revolution expands!
Posted by: Kris | August 18, 2008 at 08:54 PM
I like the general direction you are taking here, but it sure isn't easy, especially the comment: "The old model of a linear handoff from marketing to sales must give way to an intertwined model where both organizations jointly own prospect relationships and coordinate their activities." This is much easier said than done. How can two functions both "own" relationships?
This gets into organizational behavior and the whole idea of power sharing and all the complexities of relationship management. Years ago I was talking with a friend about how the datacenter and telecom departments rarely work together well, he said he had solved much of that issue in his firm (he was the chief technology officer). What he did was make half of the compensation for the datacenter manager dependent on telecom system metrics, and half of the compensation for the telecom manager dependent on datacenter metrics. That insured that they worked together and had reason to help each other succeed.
So, should there even be seperate marketing and sales groups, or should they be mergered into one integrated function?
Alden Cushman
SiriusDecisions
Posted by: Alden Cushman | January 22, 2009 at 07:13 AM
Alden –
I firmly believe marketing and sales bring different DNA and abilities to the table and should not be merged into one organization. Instead, the right processes, metrics, and communication methods need to be established to establish collaboration in a way that reflects the unique strengths of each function. This will not happen naturally and needs to be encouraged by executive leadership as well as technology. Your suggestion about sharing goals and MBOs is an important idea; at Marketo, the demand generation team is bonused exclusively on exceeding quota for creation of new sales opportunities.
Some may ask whether even this is possible. You ask “how can two functions both ‘own’ relationships”? I look to the relationship a married couple has with their kids. In this example, both parents absolutely own the relationship with the children, yet each parent brings a different perspective to their role. This works – but only with good and constant communication.
Posted by: Jon Miller, Marketo | January 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM
Hello Jon,
Interesting that the demand generation team is bonused on exceeding quota for creation of new sales opportunities. I'm sure you include a certain leading scoring criteria, since that is such an important part of your product. However, many times we see that in times such as these, quanity of leads trumps quality and sales feels the effects as more leads of suspect quality clog the pipleine and actually result in more friction between sales and marketing. It's like the famous example of good intentions but faulty execution where the software developers are rewarded based on the number of bugs they find in thier code. The result is that they are less careful when writing code and they get paid to correct their own bad behavior.
Anyway, my point is that using a well designed and understood lead scoring process and system can result in the right leads getting through to the sales pipeline and sales being all the more appreciative of marketing efforts. It would be interesting to study what percentage of your client base is seeing lead scoring result in fewer marketing qualified leads but of higher quality being sent to sales, but more of those leads closing successfully. In effect fewer leads from marketing but more wins and at a higher overall rate. Have you seen such results? Thanks
Alden Cushman
SiriusDecisions
Posted by: Alden Cushman | January 27, 2009 at 06:28 AM