8992144_l

For my upcoming book, Global Content Marketing, I create a framework for Global Content Marketing Cycle and share relevant content marketing case studies for enterprises and small businesses. I also address several topics such as the key elements of a content plan, quantity vs. quality of content, original content vs. curated content and more. One of the questions I discuss in my book: “With the rise of social media and fragmented marketing channels, is the purchase funnel still valid for content planning?”  Below are my thoughts and an excerpt from the book. Love to hear your feedback.

In 1898, Elias St. Elmo Lewis created the modern concept of the purchase funnel. He divides consumer interest and behavior into four stages (AIDA)[1]:

1

You may have seen this as a version that includes sell-up and post sale support:

2

If you search the Internet for “purchase journey” or “purchase funnel”, you can see various versions of the purchase funnel framework with different stages being added or modified. But the core concept of a purchase cycle stays the same: your customer recognizes they have an issue or a need. You have a product or service to address their issue or satisfy their need, but they don’t know about it. You market your product or services to make people aware of it. Because customer issues need to be resolved or their needs have to be fulfilled, they do research and discover your products (try to make it easy for them). They become interested in what you have to offer. Then, they evaluate multiple options, if any, and eventually make a purchase decision based on the information available to them at the time they’re ready to buy.

In theory, the purchase funnel is pretty linear and straightforward, but the customer’s purchase journey “looks less like a funnel and more like a flight map” according to Google’s Zero Moment of Truth (ZMOT) Handbook.[2]

Through constant searching and content consumption using their mobile devices, tablets and PCs, customers bounce back and forth between awareness, consideration, and evaluation stages at any given time with multiple different touch points.

Buying is a process involving starts and stops, resets, reevaluations and adjustments. Looking from the sideline, it’s hard for marketers to make sense of a customer’s journey, but it’s logical from the lenses of customers. For instance, a customer may download awareness-oriented content from your website, then immediately consume a product deployment guide that provides an indication that this customer may be ready to make a purchase. But no purchase is made at that time. Then three weeks later they return and consume a couple of product introduction videos and possibly go to product review or competitor sites.

This going back and forth, hopping in and out of the purchase stages, is how we shop now. The purchase funnel is linear, yet our purchasing behavior is not.

Does that mean the purchase funnel is no longer valid for the purpose of content planning?

 As part of content creation planning, it still makes sense to create content for the different stages of the purchase funnel. However, it does not make sense to map content to customers’ multiple touch-point purchase behaviors, since everyone’s purchase journey is different.

In a way, mapping content to customers’ purchase behaviors is a content placement and promotion discussion. The truth: we may never know exactly how each customer reaches a decision to buy our products and services, but we should have a basic understanding of where our customers usually go to search and consume our content or any content for similar products and services. Take the content to where customers go.

One more noteKathy Baughman posted the following comments, when I shared this post on LinkedIn’s B2B Content Marketing Group:

“I agree that b2b brands need to publish content for each journey point. Discoverability is key in the dynamic buying cycles that we see today. In addition, to buyers going back and forth between buying stages, the multiple decision makers invovled in purchase decisions each have different content needs. It’s important to follow a process that not only creates content for each buyer persona but understands where each looks for content and be present in multiple places besides your owned channels.”

Well said, Kathy!

 

[1] Tim Asch, Landing Page Optimization, P. 39

[2]  Jim Lecinski, Google Think Insights, http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/2012-zmot-handbook.html, June, 2012. Referring to a quote by John Ross of Shopper Science.

Enter your email, get the latest marketing updates & tips and the first chapter of my Global Content Marketing book for free.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Author

Pam Didner

Posted on

July 9, 2014

Category
Content Marketing, Global Marketing Blog, Marketing Know-Hows, Uncategorized
  • Carlos Abler

    Yes the funnel is still valid. The challenge it seems you are outlining is in being able to properly attribute what stage a customer is actually at through the filter of engagement data. From a “stage” perspective the customer who is reading the deployment guide may still be at a “consideration” or “research” type stage, but they are certainly past “pre-awareness” or “awareness”. Someone reading a deployment guide certainly reflects a strong intent to evaluate whether the solution is the right one for them. For example since deployment is an aspect of total cost of ownership or provides insight into what life post-purchase is like, or how a product is applied in a manner that reveals facts “about” the product; these still feed that pre-purchase/post-awareness stage(s). The challenge is we don’t always know “for sure” where they are at. This even continues of course past marketing qualified lead as someone who because sales qualified might need to get kicked back to marketing tactics once sales learns more about where the customer is “really at”. Right? But none of these mis-attributions are inherently problems with the funnel, per se; assuming that the stages and behaviors are accurately modeled. They are rather challenges to attribution. In other words are data only tells us so much. But at least we know a lot more than if we did not try to model, create the (hopefully) appropriate engagements, and learn and adjust as we fail and succeed forward. That’s my take anyway.