Should you renew Marketo Measure?
A B2B SaaS company was moving past a mostly inbound model to four go-to-market motions, and its Marketo Measure renewal was coming up. ORM wrote the decision framework for that renewal. The company's name is withheld.
By Pete Furseth, COO
- Company
- B2B SaaS, name withheld
- Platform today
- Adobe Marketo Measure, formerly Bizible
- Motions
- Demand generation, ABM, product-led growth, expansion
- Paths weighed
- Renew, build in-house, move to ORM
- Criteria
- Seven
- Typical switch
- 4 to 6 weeks, led by ORM
At its Marketo Measure renewal, the team had three paths and seven criteria to judge them by. Renewing kept a model it had struggled to adapt. Building in-house meant owning every part of the model for good. ORM offered attribution set up around the team's own rules, with analysts included. The real question: who does the modeling work as the business keeps changing?
What changed in the business?
The business was moving past a mostly inbound model. It needed to measure four motions: demand generation, ABM, product-led growth and expansion. Each one needed its own rules for what counts as pipeline. All four still had to add up in one framework.
Marketo Measure caught the touchpoints well. The logic on top was the problem. Credit had to follow how the business defined qualified pipeline and revenue in each motion.
When does a free trial count as pipeline?
When sales accepts it. Here, a free trial opened an opportunity in the CRM before it was true pipeline. Count pipeline when the opportunity opens, and every trial pads the pipeline number. So the framework tied credit to the Sales Accepted date and the team's own rules.
- Trial starts
- Counted too early Opportunity opens
- Counted as pipeline Sales Accepted
- Closed won
What did the next platform have to do?
The framework listed five things the next setup had to do.
Count only true pipeline
Tie credit to the Sales Accepted date and the team's own rules. A trial counts once sales accepts it.
Cover every motion
Inbound, ABM, product-led growth and expansion each keep their own rules and still add up in one framework.
Show expansion on its own
Marketing's part in upsell and cross-sell has to show up apart from new logos.
Change when the business does
The logic has to bend to the team's own process as the go-to-market model shifts.
Keep the build load in check
A custom build in the data warehouse is flexible. It also needs engineers, data scientists, upkeep and stakeholder support for as long as it runs.
What were the three options?
Renewing put off a migration. The team also had the data engineers and scientists to build its own model. ORM was the third path.
Renew Marketo Measure
Keep the platform and work around it.
Strengths
- The platform and process are already in place.
- It catches touchpoints well.
- It puts off a migration.
- It carries the team through the current renewal.
Watch-outs
- The model had been hard to adapt to the new motions.
- Credit was hard to line up with how the team defines qualified pipeline.
- Expansion and new business were hard to measure side by side.
- Support had not always met the team's needs.
- Closing the gaps could still take extra work from the team's own analysts.
Best fitA short bridge if the team is not ready to switch by the renewal.
Build in-house
Write and run the model in the company's own data warehouse.
Strengths
- The most control over the logic.
- It fits the company's own rules and motions.
- It builds on the warehouse and data teams already in place.
- It ends the reliance on an outside vendor's model.
Watch-outs
- It needs engineers and data scientists for as long as it runs.
- The company owns design, validation, documentation, upkeep and stakeholder support.
- The logic has to change each time the product-led, ABM or customer marketing motion changes.
- It adds one more production app to maintain.
- The team that builds it has to keep people trusting the numbers, year after year.
Best fitA company that wants full control and will staff it for the long run.
Move to ORM
ORM sets up attribution around the company's own rules. Its analysts and data scientists come with it.
Strengths
- It follows the company's own rules for what counts as pipeline, down to Sales Accepted timing and free trials.
- It runs on the Marketo data and Munchkin history already collected, so the tracking script and past touchpoints stay put.
- New business, expansion, ABM and product-led growth sit in one framework.
- It looks at the whole account and buying group, beyond the contacts listed on an opportunity.
- It credits both the source that brought a buyer in and the content or offer that moved them.
- It carries attribution into revenue quality, forecasts, ROI and where to invest next.
- The company gets ongoing access to ORM's analysts and data scientists.
Watch-outs
- It needs a rollout and change management with stakeholders.
- ORM leads the rollout, which typically takes 4 to 6 weeks.
- It can replace Marketo Measure outright or after a short parallel run.
Best fitA team that wants the freedom of a custom build and would rather share the work of running it.
For a feature-by-feature look, read ORM vs Bizible.
What was the real decision?
Who does the modeling work as the business changes. Renew, and the team keeps working around a model it had struggled to adapt. Build, and its own engineers and data scientists carry the whole job for good. Move to ORM, and the model is set up around the team's rules, with ORM's analysts on hand as things change.
The framework weighed four things: how flexible the model is, how well it handles the changing motions, what it costs in people and the risk of the switch.
How should you compare attribution platforms?
Hold every option to the same seven criteria. These are the ones this team used, and why each one mattered here.
| Criterion | What it tests | Why it mattered here |
|---|---|---|
| 01Fit to your rules | Counts pipeline the way you do: trials, expansion and the Sales Accepted date. | Trials hit the CRM before sales had accepted them. |
| 02All your motions | Measures inbound, ABM, product-led growth, new business and expansion in one framework. | Four motions, each with its own rules. |
| 03Keeps your history | Uses the activity and touchpoint history you already have. | A new tracking script would have meant rebuilding it. |
| 04Room to change | Changes as the motions, rules and reporting needs change. | The go-to-market model was still moving. |
| 05Load on your team | The engineering, data science, analyst, admin and support time it takes, year after year. | An in-house build would need engineers and data scientists for as long as it ran. |
| 06Support | Experts on hand to maintain the system, check the outputs and adapt the models over time. | Support on the current platform had not always met the team's needs. |
| 07Risk of the switch | A way to prove the new approach without breaking reporting or trust in the numbers. | The renewal date set the clock for any switch. |
How do you switch from Marketo Measure to ORM?
Two ways. Pick by the renewal date and how much proof the team wants first.
Direct replacement
- ORM sets up over a typical 4 to 6 weeks.
- Attribution is built around the team's rules and motions.
- Past Marketo activity and touchpoints carry over.
- Reporting and people move to ORM, and the company avoids paying for two platforms long term.
Parallel run
- ORM runs next to Marketo Measure for a limited time.
- The two get compared on touchpoint coverage, attribution results and how each one handles the business rules.
- New business, expansion, product-led and account-level cases get checked before cutover.
- It suits a team that wants more proof before it switches.
The bars are not drawn to scale. Only the setup time comes from the framework.
What should a parallel run prove?
Three things. Ask them of any attribution platform, ORM included.
- 1
Does it keep the touchpoint view the team trusts today?
- 2
Does it get the team's rules right in every motion, from new pipeline to expansion?
- 3
Does it cost the team less engineering and analyst time than building its own model?
The framework's aim was a clear answer: should ORM become the company's long-term attribution and analytics partner? The switch plan came second.
Common questions
What does Marketo Measure do?
Marketo Measure, formerly Bizible, is Adobe's B2B multi-touch attribution tool. It tracks marketing touchpoints and gives them credit for pipeline and revenue. In this case the touchpoint tracking was a strength. The logic on top was the problem.
Is it worth renewing Marketo Measure?
As a short bridge, yes. Renewing keeps the platform, the process and the touchpoint data in place, and puts off a migration. Here the framework saw it as a bridge, because the model had been hard to adapt to four motions and to the way the team defines qualified pipeline.
Should you build marketing attribution in-house?
Build it if you want full control and will staff it for the long run. You get all the flexibility. You also own the design, validation, documentation, upkeep and stakeholder support. And the logic has to change every time a go-to-market motion does.
How long does it take to move from Marketo Measure to ORM?
ORM leads the rollout, which typically takes 4 to 6 weeks. The team can cut over at once, or run both for a limited time and compare the outputs first.
Do you lose touchpoint history when you leave Marketo Measure?
Teams on Marketo keep it. ORM builds on the Marketo activity data and Munchkin history already collected. The tracking script stays in place and past touchpoints carry over.
How should attribution handle free trials?
Give credit when sales accepts the deal, using your own rules. A trial that opens an opportunity at sign-up is not pipeline yet. Count it there and marketing looks like it produced more than it did.