What's the difference between RPM & marketing automation?

Right now - they begin with different letters of the alphabet in the buzz word dictionary.

In the future - I hope they begin to differentiate points of view around what marketing software can truly do for organizations. Companies looking to "automate" fall squarely into one classification. Organizations that are looking for true Revenue Performance Management will see Marketing Automation Software for what it really is - the tool marketers have been waiting for that maps revenue from the top of the funnel all the way to cash - and beyond.

The initial message that Marketing Automation is a magic bullet to solve lead generation woes has caused more problems that it has solved. As we shift the nomenclature to RPM the message becomes more inline with what MA was truly meant to do, which is provide a revenue management platform that includes outbound, inbound and customer management.

For the vendors who are pushing the term RPM, it's a way to expand beyond Marketing into the rest of the revenue cycle. In plainer English, it lets them sell something to Sales, which has much more budget in most B2B organizations.

For companies, RPM is about a unified revenue generation process that spans both Marketing and Sales. At its simplest, RPM is analyzing and forecasting the revenue cycle; in its broader form, it's about adjusting marketing and sales programs to change the amount of revenue generated. At the moment, the rhetoric is more impressive than the reality but the intention is there.

By contrast, marketing automation is about executing marketing programs only. So, yes, there is a clear distinction between the two terms.

Roger Daltry’s great line comes to mind regarding ERP and CRM and MA and RPM: “then I’ll get on my knees and pray … we don’t get fooled again.” But of course some will.

I think it's about defining the space. "Marketing Automation" as a term, is a little limiting and doesn't account for all the other people, processes, and technologies involved. "Revenue Performance Management" as a term hopes to encompass that larger scope, and be more inclusive of Sales in the dialogue. It's more of a practice (RPM) than a prescription (MA).

There's another term "Integrated Marketing Management" (IMM) which has some appeal to me, especially in very large organizations where marketing systems and teams can be very disconnected. This includes the budgeting, scheduling, and workflows (MRM type functions) with Marketing Automation. IMM also may also be more inclusive of B2C companies - which can benefit from most of these solutions, but are generally left out when it comes to the messaging around "Leads, MQLs, SALs, Opps, etc." that we B2B marketers live and breathe.

I agree with Justin that currently there is not much difference between Revenue Performance Management and Marketing Automation. And I too hope to see the landscape evolve to a point where there is a marked difference between basic and advanced marketing automation platforms.

A change in terminology is often an indicator of change to come. The first step is to get consumers in the mindset that there is something more to aspire toward. SFA is not just CRM, digital marketing is not just internet marketing and social media engagement is not just social media monitoring. Sure many people use these terms interchangeably, but the mere invention of new vocabulary helps to drive the market forward.

If consumers weren't influenced by semantics, KFC would still be known as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Starbucks would still include 'coffee' in their logo.

So if calling Marketing Automation 'Revenue Performance Management' helps gain wider acceptance of the solution within the c-level, I'm all for it. But until then, I'll use the terms interchangeably.

I just finished interviewing with a brand in automation. I won't name names. But they had me do a timed role play in which I was supposed to sell RPM. I had such a rough time because I tend to over qualify and ask too many questions so I know what to position. But in the end, I failed because I felt like I was supposed to tell high level folks that my automation product could turn their revenue around. I hope they didn't think that's because I didn't believe in automation, I just thought it was a lot to promise.

Days later, one of their directors told me to think of it in terms of teaching a company what to look for and ask to ensure marketing and sales drive revenue. Now that makes sense. Then I remembered what it was like in a role that didn't have:
Lead Scoring
Digital Inbound Strategy and nurturing support
Profiling (Understanding who the target customers are and why)
I couldn't share the article I wrote when I journaled these feelings. But I can assure you there were a lot of hard feelings around doing everything I could to accomplish the above and bring revenue. Then getting let go when I didn't bring enough revenue (even though they were just bringing in one of my deals that doubled my quota). We will leave alone the fact that I didn't quote or close the business.

If the above isn't done, the company will fail. Marketing has to support sales and they need to be able to collaborate in order to do so (lead scoring). A company has to have a digital strategy these days. And a company has to know who their targets are in order to hit them. These are basics.

I applaud those pushing RPM for at least recognising that it is about more than just marketing. But I question their motives.

Marketing Automation makes a big noise about how it unites sales and marketing teams. But when you delve a little deeper you get into MQL and similar - suddenly you realise this is a land grab by marketers for the top half of the sales funnel.

The problem is that any technology is as good as the people who design it. And many of the people at the top of the MA1.0 companies are old-fashioned Push marketers with frighteningly limited knowledge of what high level sales people do in the consultative selling processes common in B2B. For example, I took a look at the people Joe Chernov is following on Twitter and it is frighteningly devoid of sales experts (Joe is head of Content at Eloqua). This is NOT a unified approach to business generation nor a true partnership between sales and marketing.

High level sales people manage the human aspects of a purchase - seeing past the "I make the decisions" to the real seat of power. Working out the "What's in it for me" personal angles - much of this change is about personal advancement and fiefdoms, not about what's good for the corporation. Seeing who is a roadblock to your proposal and what will buy them off. Working out what will motivate each decision maker. Massaging the influencers so their voice adds to yours. And being the nucleus of a move for change, rather than simply trying to push it through (a method which only builds resistance).

Nurturing with sequential Push messages is hardly a viable alternative. And simply nurturing the formfiller, instead of all the key decision makers, is simply naive.

We are at an early stage in Technology Aided Prospecting (TAP). But until it genuinely involves sales skills and empowers sales directors it will simply be another reason for sidelining marketers as out of touch with the business.