Accuracy is the number one concern for business marketers when buying third party data for marketing purposes, according to new research from B2B Marketing magazine, in association with Experian.
According to the research, 63 per cent of buyers cited ‘accuracy’ as their chief data concern, outstripping ‘breadth of information on contacts’ and ‘compliance with data protection legislation’ in second and third places by a considerable margin (18 and 15 per cent respectively).
Correspondingly ‘more regular refreshment of data’ was overwhelmingly top of buyers’ wish lists for improvements that they would like to see clients make to their data (also cited by 63 per cent). Other potential improvements are apparently far less desirable (eg. ‘clearer accreditation of providers and list sources’, which was cited by 19 per cent).
Intriguingly, price is virtually off buyers’ agendas, with only two per cent stating it as their primary concern, and four per cent touting it as an area for improvement. This suggests that data providers who could guarantee greater accuracy could potentially charge a premium for their services.
There was better news for data providers in that the market for third party lists remains strong, with 73 per cent of B2B marketers currently buying lists for marketing purposes. Of these, 74 per cent buy at least once every six months, implying that there is a healthy market for business data.
Data suppliers can take further heart from the finding that double the number of buyers believed that business data had improved during the last five years than those suggesting that it had declined 38 per cent compared with 15 per cent. However, 47 per cent opted out of this question, stating ‘don’t know’. This implies a level of ignorance about standards and expectations amongst buyers, and may help explain why data accuracy issues/concerns have persisted and why it has remained a hurdle for B2B marketers for so long.
Data owners (such as Experian, D&B and LBM) are the most popular source of third party business lists (48 per cent), followed by specialist list brokers (40 per cent). Only a handful buy through a specialist consultancy or value-added reseller (seven per cent) or via a data-pooling programme such as Abacus (four per cent). Clearly only a minority of business buyers are taking advantage of the analytical benefits of working with consultants, or the potential cost-savings to be gained through data pooling. Potentially lack of awareness is hindering both.
The survey also throws up evidence of a lack of understanding of how to secure the best possible list: 35 per cent currently do not run data against a suppression list prior to purchase, thereby missing the opportunity to cut wastage. Of these, 45 per cent were not aware this was possible.
And this potential for avoidable waste extends through and beyond the campaign, with only 39 per cent seeking refunds for ‘returns’ and ‘gone-aways’ due to poor quality data.
It would seem that business data buyers have much to learn about cost reduction, but also that list providers have a job to do in educating the market in ways of smarter buying and using of data. Arguably the results to the question What is your opinion of the quality of B2B data? best sums up the situation regarding business data, from both a user and supplier perspective: 68 per cent regard it as ‘acceptable’. In other words: okay, but could do better.
By Richard Lloyd, MD of Experian’s Business Information Division
As usual, the results of today’s B2B Marketing survey makes interesting reading. And, it is particularly welcoming to third party data providers that 81.5 per cent of B2B marketers who responded felt that the quality of third party data was acceptable or good. But, that doesn’t mean that the industry can afford to be complacent far from it. The industry needs to deliver and continually innovate to deliver the best quality and most accurate data. Accurate mailing lists, customer databases, data enhancement, data cleansing services, email marketing tools, provision of advanced segmentation and profiling services, the list goes on. All these are all only as good, and as accurate, as the information on which they are based. That’s why it is surprising that nearly 60 per cent of those surveyed do not seek ‘goneaway’ returns after a campaign. More than ever before, B2B marketers and data suppliers need to pay greater attention to the quality of their customer and prospect data. Due to the volatile nature of business data, rigorous standards need to be enforced. That’s why B2B marketers should always ask their data supplier about its goneaway rates, its data sources and how it backs up its reputation with regards to data quality. Experian provides a refund on every ‘goneaway’ and has the lowest goneaway rate in the industry, less than half of the industry average of five per cent. Unfortunately, not all data providers provide this guarantee with some only providing refunds when an ‘unacceptable’ level of goneaways is reached. This may help to expalin why so many respondents (59.6 per cent) do not claim. But, data providers should welcome the return of ‘goneaways’ to ensure that data can be checked, corrected and data accuracy maintained. That’s why Experian offers a moneyback guarantee to encourage B2B marketers to provide us with returns. In addition, one of the key ways in which data can be kept up-to-date and accurate, is for data suppliers to capture and verify business data from different incoming information sources. There are considerable accuracy benefits to be gained by taking this multi-dimensional approach and B2B marketers will be well served by challenging data providers to demand the very best data and solutions on which to achieve the best campaign results. Are B2B marketers only as good as their last campaign? If so, can you afford for your data provider to let you down?
