More
Template is not defined.

Most Account-Based Marketers Are Not Measured Fairly

3 min
Share
Marketers evaluate their efforts.

Let’s say you’re a B2B marketer and the fiscal year has just ended. It’s time for you and your team to be assessed on your performance. 

You and your team have employed an account-based go-to-market strategy all year. It feels like you’ve contributed to meaningful progress thanks to your tight focus on the best accounts.

Then your manager sits you down and the next thing you know, you’re not being measured on ABM-centric metrics. You’re being measured on… MQLs.

What is wrong with the scenario stated above? Choose one from the list below:

  1. Constant changes to digital ad platforms mean a year-over-year apples-to-apples comparison is impossible — it’s more like comparing apples-to-octopuses.
  2. It’s unlikely that these marketers would be undergoing an end-of-year assessment
  3. The marketers practice account-based marketing but aren’t measured by account-centric metrics

If you have selected Option 3, you are correct. And, if this scenario sounds familiar to you and what happens at your organization, you aren’t alone. 

You Can’t Spell ROI Without ‘ABM KPI’

6sense Research recently surveyed 398 B2B marketers to understand how their companies measure the marketing organization’s contribution to the production of pipeline and revenue growth. 

Seventy-eight percent of marketers we surveyed said their companies employ account-based marketing programs (ABM), but half or fewer said their organizations track account-centric metrics. 

Visualized in the graph below, you can see this lag in adoption displayed across nine account-centric measurements that were included in the survey. For example, while 78% of respondents practice ABM, only 43% of them measure ABM/target account opportunities

78% of marketers practice account-based marketing but just over half or less track account-centric metrics

This bar chart shows the percentage of marketers tracking specific ABM metrics.

57% track accounts with intent detected

66% track accounts reached with ads

55% track accounts engaged with marketing content

48% track buying group level engagement

49% track pipeline opportunities identified via dse-anonymized web traffic

43% track ABM/target account opportunities

35% track ABM/target account pipeline

25% track ABM/target account closed/won
Source: 6sense

Even more notable, when looking at whether three account-centric metrics are included in respondents’ variable-based salary bonuses, the discrepancy between that and ABM adoption grows even larger. Only 21% of marketers said their compensation was connected to target account opportunities tied to their ABM efforts. 

78% of marketers practice account-based marketing but only 21% or less are rewarded according to relevant metrics

This bar graph shows that while 78% of surveyed B2B marketers have adopted ABM, only a tiny fraction are being evaluated on the basis of ABM-centric metrics. 

Only 21% are being evaluated according to target account opportunities sourced through ABM efforts.

Only 16% are being evaluated according to target account pipeline sourced through ABM.

Only 6% are being evaluated according to target account close/won sourced through ABM.
Source: 6sense

Thus, not only are there ABMers who lack metrics they can lean on to understand the effectiveness of their ABM strategy throughout the year, but often they also aren’t being rewarded according to relevant performance indicators. 

How do ‌marketers affected by this disparity feel about it? As you can imagine, not very good. 

We separated respondents that practice ABM into three groups:

  1. ABMers with low adoption of ABM-centric metrics (0 to 4 metrics)
  2. ABMers with moderate adoption of ABM-centric metrics (5 to 8 metrics)
  3. ABMers with high adoption of ABM-centric metrics (9 to 12 metrics)

Across the three groups, those in the lowest metric adoption category were more likely to rate the way their organization measures them as “moderately unfair” whereas those in the high adoption group were more likely to rate it as “fair.” Meanwhile, those in the moderate adoption group rated the way they’re measured as somewhere in between “moderately unfair” and “fair.”  

The more ABM-centric metrics tracked, the more likely account-based marketers are to think the way they’re measured is fair

Marketers who work for companies that track the fewest ABM metrics rate the way they are evaluated as only "moderately fair," while those in companies with high adoption of ABM metrics rate their evaluations as "fair." Marketers who fall in the middle in terms of ABM adoption also fall in between the "moderately fair" and "fair" ratings for how they are evaluated.
Source: 6sense

Note: The differences in groups visualized in this graph represent small, but statistically reliable differences. 

While it’s easy to understand why doing one thing and measuring another is recognized as unfair to marketers and how their performance is measured, what remains a mystery is why these organizations engage in such behavior. 

Employing ABM but neglecting to adopt the appropriate metrics is a fast-track to waste and misalignment. While it’s promising that so many B2B organizations have committed to making the switch to ABM, it’s apparent that they have not yet fully transitioned.

The 6sense Research Team

6sense Research applies objective statistical analyses to primary research that delivers data-driven insights to B2B revenue teams. We empower revenue teams to more effectively plan, execute, and measure their go-to-market strategies, informed by the latest insights about what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Related Blogs