Improving The Bottom Line
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Improving The Bottom Line as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,256
- Pages: 29
Improving the Bottom Line: A Case Study in List Management NCDM Winter 2002 | Orlando, FL
Signs you’re a direct marketer 10. You lecture the neighborhood kids selling lemonade on ways to improve their response and conversion ratio 9. You refer to the tomatoes grown in your garden as "deliverables." 8. You can find no rational way to explain to your family what you do for a living.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 7. You find you need PowerPoint to explain pretty much anything. 6. You’re the only one at your company who understands that “conversion rates” have nothing to do with religion 5. You wear gray to work instead of navy blue to make a bold fashion statement.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 4. Your friends think you’re a data geek. 3. You ask your friends to "think out of the box" when making Friday night plans. 2. You think Einstein would have been more effective had he put his ideas into a matrix.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 1. You know the people in your database better than your next door neighbors.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Overview ! Microsoft believed that the process for managing external list purchases and data process for U.S. Direct Marketing campaigns was likely redundant and costly. – Multiple preferred agencies – 18 Field Offices – Corporate Marketing – All handling their own list purchases and list processing management Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Goals ! Consolidate vendor resources ! Reduce marketing costs ! Improve direct marketing efficiency
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Objectives ! Improve the ability to obtain quality and cost effective rental lists to improve our direct mail and email marketing. ! Reduce the timeframes and cost of suppressing mailing lists against customer optout files while ensuring privacy compliance. ! Identify cost efficiencies in managing both small and large volumes of data processing for marketing programs. Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Approach ! Current Situation Assessment – Process documentation – Vendor identification – Business requirements
! Process Review and Refinement ! Vendor Evaluation and Selection – RFI – RFP
! Results/Cost-Benefit Analysis Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation ! Needed to understand what was currently happening ! Interviewed and surveyed (38 in total) – Microsoft Corporate Marketing – Agency personnel – Field Marketing
! Documented key findings – Processes and procedures – Vendors used Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! Potential overlap of names used in campaigns by different individuals – Duplication of selection/Over-promotion – List use tracking/performance was insufficient
! No consistently defined process for managing list selection or processing across organization/agencies – Different managers used different vendors, each with their own approach to processing Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! Internal suppression files were difficult to efficiently manage against smaller campaigns – Opt-outs processed against 5,000 record campaigns
! Need to license data for individuals associated with enterprise accounts particularly to improve costs for regular use of names.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! More than 21 different list brokers and data processors were being used – Capabilities varied widely, especially among the data processing vendors
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Directions ! Refine and standardize process for managing external list selection through data processing ! Centralize list broker to improve management of external lists and reduce costs – Reduce and eliminate overlap – Eliminate over promotion – Improve list use tracking and performance – Gain cost reductions through volume Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Directions ! Centralize data processing – Expand processing capabilities – Improve suppression processing – Ensure compliance with opt-out and privacy requests – Reduce time frame for processing
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Processing Refinements ! Consolidation to a single data processing vendor helped reduce the timeline – No longer need to wait days for suppression files to be loaded and processed – Ensure that ALL lists are processed according to specific, defined standards
! Standardization of the end-to-end process provides a benchmark for performance for all involved parties Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Refinements ! 3 Overall process categories for list source – Ad hoc rentals – Prospect database – Internal marketing database
! All have different considerations and processes
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Overview
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Benefits ! Key – all lists selected and used will be tracked (front and back-end) – Manage corporate contact strategy – Manage potential list fatigue • By audience • By source
– Commitment to privacy management
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Decision Requirements ! Objective and subjective scoring matrices were built on the following core requirements: – Objective • • • • •
Defined capabilities Flexibility Scalability Timeframe for delivery Cost
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Decision Requirements – Subjective • Ability to understand Microsoft business and needs • Ability to provide services proposed • Ability to provide required customer service levels
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Developed an RFI to evaluate core capabilities of vendors to meet Microsoft’s needs – Administered to 21 identified vendors currently used
! Based on capabilities, scored RFI against the objective business requirements ! Identified 3 brokers and 4 data processors to move to the RFP stage Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Developed RFP obtain specific details of capabilities – Administered to 3 brokers and 4 data processing vendors
! Scored RFP responses on the both objective and subjective requirements ! Narrowed list to 2 brokers and 2 data processing vendors Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Performed site-visits where necessary on the finalists ! Chose final vendors ! Developed Service Level Agreements ! Negotiated final pricing ! Contracted with vendors
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated ! Just rolling out, but we anticipate: – Data Processing • A 56% reduction in overall process time from final list selection to out-the-door. – Reduced time to market with our marketing campaigns – Improved workload management due to streamlined processes
• Reduced cost-per-thousand fees for processing by approximately 90%
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated – List Procurement • A 50% reduction in lists costs due to consolidation of all lists to one broker • Reduced cost-per-thousand fees for list purchase by approximately 90%;
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated – Overall • A 43% overall reduction in the cost of an average campaign (not including agency fees/creative) • Processing improvements add other value – Identified additional processing capabilities that will improve deliverability – Ensure compliance with privacy guidelines, opt-out requests and new state-do not call regulations
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Next Steps ! Still have much work to do: – Build business rules and standards for processing – Initialize the processes internally – Customize list management and tracking system with broker – Define quality measure and compliance to ensure performance and achievement of anticipated results/savings – Build enterprise prospect database Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Thank you! Q&A Dave Harkins Randy Taylor Taylor- Harkins Group [email protected] [email protected] www.taylorharkins.com
Trisha Lacey Microsoft Corporation www.microsoft.com
Signs you’re a direct marketer 10. You lecture the neighborhood kids selling lemonade on ways to improve their response and conversion ratio 9. You refer to the tomatoes grown in your garden as "deliverables." 8. You can find no rational way to explain to your family what you do for a living.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 7. You find you need PowerPoint to explain pretty much anything. 6. You’re the only one at your company who understands that “conversion rates” have nothing to do with religion 5. You wear gray to work instead of navy blue to make a bold fashion statement.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 4. Your friends think you’re a data geek. 3. You ask your friends to "think out of the box" when making Friday night plans. 2. You think Einstein would have been more effective had he put his ideas into a matrix.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Signs you’re a direct marketer 1. You know the people in your database better than your next door neighbors.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Overview ! Microsoft believed that the process for managing external list purchases and data process for U.S. Direct Marketing campaigns was likely redundant and costly. – Multiple preferred agencies – 18 Field Offices – Corporate Marketing – All handling their own list purchases and list processing management Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Goals ! Consolidate vendor resources ! Reduce marketing costs ! Improve direct marketing efficiency
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Objectives ! Improve the ability to obtain quality and cost effective rental lists to improve our direct mail and email marketing. ! Reduce the timeframes and cost of suppressing mailing lists against customer optout files while ensuring privacy compliance. ! Identify cost efficiencies in managing both small and large volumes of data processing for marketing programs. Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Approach ! Current Situation Assessment – Process documentation – Vendor identification – Business requirements
! Process Review and Refinement ! Vendor Evaluation and Selection – RFI – RFP
! Results/Cost-Benefit Analysis Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation ! Needed to understand what was currently happening ! Interviewed and surveyed (38 in total) – Microsoft Corporate Marketing – Agency personnel – Field Marketing
! Documented key findings – Processes and procedures – Vendors used Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! Potential overlap of names used in campaigns by different individuals – Duplication of selection/Over-promotion – List use tracking/performance was insufficient
! No consistently defined process for managing list selection or processing across organization/agencies – Different managers used different vendors, each with their own approach to processing Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! Internal suppression files were difficult to efficiently manage against smaller campaigns – Opt-outs processed against 5,000 record campaigns
! Need to license data for individuals associated with enterprise accounts particularly to improve costs for regular use of names.
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Findings ! More than 21 different list brokers and data processors were being used – Capabilities varied widely, especially among the data processing vendors
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Directions ! Refine and standardize process for managing external list selection through data processing ! Centralize list broker to improve management of external lists and reduce costs – Reduce and eliminate overlap – Eliminate over promotion – Improve list use tracking and performance – Gain cost reductions through volume Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Current Situation Directions ! Centralize data processing – Expand processing capabilities – Improve suppression processing – Ensure compliance with opt-out and privacy requests – Reduce time frame for processing
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Processing Refinements ! Consolidation to a single data processing vendor helped reduce the timeline – No longer need to wait days for suppression files to be loaded and processed – Ensure that ALL lists are processed according to specific, defined standards
! Standardization of the end-to-end process provides a benchmark for performance for all involved parties Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Refinements ! 3 Overall process categories for list source – Ad hoc rentals – Prospect database – Internal marketing database
! All have different considerations and processes
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Overview
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Process Benefits ! Key – all lists selected and used will be tracked (front and back-end) – Manage corporate contact strategy – Manage potential list fatigue • By audience • By source
– Commitment to privacy management
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Decision Requirements ! Objective and subjective scoring matrices were built on the following core requirements: – Objective • • • • •
Defined capabilities Flexibility Scalability Timeframe for delivery Cost
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Decision Requirements – Subjective • Ability to understand Microsoft business and needs • Ability to provide services proposed • Ability to provide required customer service levels
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Developed an RFI to evaluate core capabilities of vendors to meet Microsoft’s needs – Administered to 21 identified vendors currently used
! Based on capabilities, scored RFI against the objective business requirements ! Identified 3 brokers and 4 data processors to move to the RFP stage Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Developed RFP obtain specific details of capabilities – Administered to 3 brokers and 4 data processing vendors
! Scored RFP responses on the both objective and subjective requirements ! Narrowed list to 2 brokers and 2 data processing vendors Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Vendor Selection ! Performed site-visits where necessary on the finalists ! Chose final vendors ! Developed Service Level Agreements ! Negotiated final pricing ! Contracted with vendors
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated ! Just rolling out, but we anticipate: – Data Processing • A 56% reduction in overall process time from final list selection to out-the-door. – Reduced time to market with our marketing campaigns – Improved workload management due to streamlined processes
• Reduced cost-per-thousand fees for processing by approximately 90%
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated – List Procurement • A 50% reduction in lists costs due to consolidation of all lists to one broker • Reduced cost-per-thousand fees for list purchase by approximately 90%;
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Results Anticipated – Overall • A 43% overall reduction in the cost of an average campaign (not including agency fees/creative) • Processing improvements add other value – Identified additional processing capabilities that will improve deliverability – Ensure compliance with privacy guidelines, opt-out requests and new state-do not call regulations
Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Next Steps ! Still have much work to do: – Build business rules and standards for processing – Initialize the processes internally – Customize list management and tracking system with broker – Define quality measure and compliance to ensure performance and achievement of anticipated results/savings – Build enterprise prospect database Copyright 2002, Taylor-Harkins Group. All Rights Reserved.
Thank you! Q&A Dave Harkins Randy Taylor Taylor- Harkins Group [email protected] [email protected] www.taylorharkins.com
Trisha Lacey Microsoft Corporation www.microsoft.com
Related Documents
Improving The Bottom Line
November 2019 33
The Weekly Bottom Line
December 2019 27
Bottom Line
April 2020 19
The Weekly Bottom Line
December 2019 26
Bottom Line July 2008
November 2019 14
Triple Bottom Line
April 2020 10More Documents from "Ananta"
Developing Continutiy Of Contact Program
November 2019 7
The Secret Of Effective Data Stewardship
November 2019 7
Improving The Bottom Line
November 2019 33
Summer 2009
June 2020 13
Performance Mgt Overview
October 2019 22