The State of Marketing Technology in 2019

this post originally appeared on the W2O company blog where I was the Director of Marketing Technology at the time of writing (April 2019).

There’s no doubt that marketer’s lives are more hectic than ever; their jobs are becoming more complex, fast-paced, and competitive. Often metrics are now measured in pennies and milliseconds. Even though this dynamic is part of the fun of being a marketer, it also makes every decision feel like high stakes. Even in this increasingly complex environment, it’s often helpful to answer the most basic questions first; who, what, where, and how?

At W2O, we use our proprietary data and tools, combined with our team of expert analysts, to determine who to target. Next, we use our knowledge of the target segment to inform what content and messaging to serve up. Finally, our activation teams develop an efficient and creative strategy to place media where it will work hardest.

Even with all these critical questions to answer, sometimes how to execute and measure campaigns can be the most difficult question of all. One of the reasons that answering how is so complex is the dizzying state of the marketing technology industry.  Marketing Technology is the precinct of marketing, dominated by Software as a Service (SaaS) vendors, that handles every executional component of marketing campaigns. This can start at the organization and analysis of data, all the way through campaign deployment and measurement.

Last week, the collective hive-mind of Marketing Technology came together in San Jose for the MarTech Conference. Below are my biggest takeaways and what it means for clients from the conference:

  1. Overall Vendor Growth is Slowing: This year, Scott Brinker’s spectacular Marketing Technology Landscape revealed that the total number of Marketing Technology vendors grew by less than double digits for the first time in eight years. However, the total number of vendors still topped 7,000 which is an objectively overwhelming number, no matter the slowing growth pace. The sheer scale of vendor choice remains daunting. Our suggestion is always to focus on critical functionality instead of being distracted by flashy sale’s pitches that often over-promise
  2. The Landscape is No Less Confusing: More important than the topline number of vendors, is the question of whether the Marketing Technology space has become easier to navigate. In this respect, the landscape is more confusing than ever. It’s true that the largest players, like Adobe and Salesforce, have acquired many smaller players in order to offer customers a full suite of functionality. However, we are a long way from a one-size-fits-all tool. To help clients navigate, we first look at what tools they already have available and if those tools will meet immediate needs. Next, we work to create critical requirements to narrow the list of possible platforms. Lastly, we deliver a single recommendation with plans for future scaling.
  3. Channel Focus is Shifting: Looking at specific shifts within categories, it’s clear that marketers are increasing their focus on some channels and decreasing on others. The number of Influencer and Chatbot tools grew at 22% and 17% respectively year-over-year. We’ve seen both of these channels mature from ancillary to vital in the marketing mix; this shows the technology space is responding. Conversely, the number of Local Marketing and Sales Automation tools each fell by 7% year-over-year. Our take on this shift is not that the channels are less important, but that they are more mature, and the market has started to choose winners and shed losers. More generally, it’s important for marketers be open to new vendors in emerging channels while trusting the expertise of best-of-breed platforms in established channels.
  4. Data Privacy is Everyone’s Priority: While data privacy has always been important in evaluating Marketing Technology vendors, it’s now the main competing feature of many platforms. More so than any other year, marketers and vendors have been focused on data privacy in almost every aspect of marketing technology. From social advertising to customer data platforms, privacy is priority number one. This is perhaps most exemplified in the 17% grown in platforms dedicated solely to privacy. This is also why W2O has invested heavily to provide our clients privacy and data security consulting that is the best in the industry.
  5. Embrace the Uncertainty: Although the Marketing Technology space has shifted to meet Marketer’s needs over the last few years, the future seems more uncertain than ever. Questions like what’s the next big channel? How do we manage customer data? How do we know we’re being efficient in our technology purchases? How can we be smarter about analytics? and more have been constant. Far from causing anxiety, these questions have been laced with excitement as those of us in the marketing technology space get ready to solve ever more complex problems over the next year.

It’s exciting to see this space expand and contract, shift and realign, to meet the industry’s most pressing challenges. In fact, the more sophisticated and complex the who, what, and were become, the more exciting the challenge of how will become. After being in this space for many years, I’m more confident than ever in the industry’s ability to respond and, more specifically, of W2O’s ability to surpass our client’s expectations.

Build vs. Buy Decision Framework

At the crossroads of marketing and technology, the question of whether to build functionality or to buy it from a vendor constantly arises. Often the question becomes political and tinged by ego; technology may pushback if requirements seem superfluous or marketing may be skeptical that technology can build the same functionality as an established vendor.

In this post, I’d like to posit a framework that will allow technology and marketing to come together and evaluate new functionality objectively, regardless of internal dynamics.

Sounds great, right? Of course, it is! However, it’s not a fool-proof plan for making the build vs. buy decision; it’s more a push in the right direction to get the entire org on the same page.

In this simplified framework, there are two scales to consider:

Customization – How much custom functionality do we require? How much of the vendor’s out-of-the-box product would need to be changed?

Specialization – How specific is the functionality to a specific type of technology or sector of marketing? How much do we need the vendor’s expertise?

With this in mind, we can plot where build and buy make sense:

Buy: If your functionality requires a high amount of specialization (that you likely do not have internally) and a low amount of customization, go ahead and purchase something as close to out-of-the-box as you can

Build: If the functionality that you want to build is pretty standard technology but requires a lot of customization for your specific org, you should consider building internally

Consult: This one is interesting – if you don’t feel a vendor can meet your customization needs, but you also don’t feel you have the internal chops to build the functionality outright, see if you can pay for consulting hours. I personally have not tried this method out yet, but I think it has legs.

Ignore/Hack: If you need functionality that is neither specific nor custom, evaluate if you really need that functionality at all. If you do, see if you can cheaply hack it together for a while, and focus on the meatier initiatives.

Of course, this framework ignores other important factors like the temporal need for the functionality (how long are we going to use this?) and the internal resources (do we have anyone to work on this?) but it should help set you down the right path.