inside the buyer’s brain static vs. interactive

1INSIDE THE BUYER’S BRAIN | S t a t i c v s . I n t e ra c t i v e F i e l d Tr i a l

static vs.interactive

w h a t k i n d o f c o n t e n t c r e a t e s m o r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s ?

i n s i d e t h e b u y e r ’ s b r a i n


i s i n t e r a c t i v e

the answer?It’s hard to ignore the appeal of interactive content.

The idea is when a prospect engages with an interactive tool (like a calculator or an assessment), they’ll

have a more meaningful, exploratory, and self-directed experience. And, because people stay with your

content longer, they’re more likely to buy.

That could be what’s so enticing to marketers—your prospect sticks with your content longer to click

around, explore, and “engage” with all the interactive elements. All your timebound metrics go up, and if

those numbers increase, so do your conversions...at least in theory.

All that extra engagement means you can collect more data, too. With the proper tracking in place, you

can capture more information about your buyer and their preferences based on their choices, clicks, and

answers. As your prospect happily interacts with the content, you’re collecting data to use in a sales

conversation based on their inputs and tailored to fit their preferences.

Considering all these advertised benefits, it’s no wonder 83 percent of marketers and sellers told us they

believe digital content should be more interactive.

Why, then, do only 18 percent say they actually use interactive content over more traditional, static

content like e-books and infographics?

Maybe it’s the extra effort involved in creating interactive tools. If you put forth that extra effort, will you

get a better return? Beyond spending more time with your content, does adding interactivity spark more early-stage sales conversations?

That’s what we set out to learn in this field trial. In this report, you’ll see how an interactive assessment

performs against a static e-book in a sales development campaign. And you’ll discover how your choice

of content can change the entire outcome.

Frank Pinder General Manager,

B2B DecisionLabs

INSIDE THE BUYER’S BRAIN | S t a t i c v s . I n t e ra c t i v e F i e l d Tr i a l

https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklinbpinder/


a p p e a l i n g b u t

unprovenIn a recent B2B DecisionLabs survey of nearly 300 sellers and

marketers, 83 percent said they believe it’s important to make digital content more interactive.

As more analyst firms espouse the value of digital self-service

experiences, marketers are feeling pressure to incorporate

more interactive content into their own efforts. But despite

that pressure, most companies still prefer to use static formats like e-books and infographics.

Why? It might be that marketers are more familiar with static

formats. Even if it sounds more appealing, interactive content

takes more effort, and unless you can show that it pulls in

more qualified leads, decision-makers might hesitate to take a

chance and allocate budget.

Static e-books, on the other hand, have always been a

mainstay for demand gen and sales development programs.

You know static content generates leads. The question is,

could interactive tools do an even better job?

According to our B2B survey:

Our marketing and sales content is delivered in traditional, static formats (like infographics, e-books, case studies, etc.) versus interactive alternatives

Only 18 percent of companies prefer to use

interactive content over more traditional, static formats.

18%

Static only - 1.

2.

3.

4.

Interactive preferred - 5.

It’s important to make digital content more interactive to provide a self-determined experience

83 percent of companies believe it’s important

to make digital content more interactive.

83%

Not important - 1.

2.

3.

4.

Very important - 5.


Turns out, changing just one variable in a sales development

campaign—an interactive vs. static content asset—changes

the entire outcome.

sales conversationss p a r k m o r e

CHOOSE THE RIGHT CONTENT

BUILD A STRONG CADENCE

IGNITE MORE INTEREST


t h e ield trialThis field trial was set up as a “re-ignite” campaign to 947 qualified but

dormant leads.

The prospects on the list had previously signed up for a webinar about

customer retention and expansion, so they had some general familiarity

with the subject matter. But several months had passed since their initial

interest. During that time, they hadn’t taken any further action and had

not responded to a follow-on nurture cadence.

Researchers created two sales cadences for the test, which were carried

out by a team of sales development representatives (SDRs). The SDRs

running each cadence were randomly assigned and were not aware

of the study.

Out of 947 total leads, 473 received the e-book offer and 474 received the

interactive assessment offer. Then, the researchers tracked both cadences

for 90 days.

Mo

tio

n 1

:

dri

ve

en

ga

ge

me

nt

Analyze f indings & determine stat ist ical s ignif icance

Dormant leads

Cl ick #2

Cl ick #2

E-book cadenceInteract ive assessment

cadenceE-book landing page

Interact ive assessment

landing page

Reply ReplyCl ick Cl ickNo

act ion taken

E-book fol low-up cadence

Interact ive assessment fol low-up cadence

No act ion taken

Progress to opportunity

Progress to opportunity

Nurture cadence

Document

Mo

tio

n 2

:

ge

t th

e m

ee

tin

g


contentc h o o s e t h e r i g h t

s p a r k m o r e s a l e s c o n v e r s a t i o n s


s a m e c o n t e n t ,

two experiencesBoth content assets used in this field trial were based on the Corporate

Visions book, The Expansion Sale. Each asset included four sections,

and each section covered a key concept from the book. The text and

call to action were identical in both assets. The only difference was the format in which the information was presented.

The e-book was a 21-page PDF

document that prospects could

download and read at their own pace.

The interactive assessment was

a digital asset that asked prospects

a series of questions. Prospects were

required to score themselves on a

scale of 1–5 before receiving the next

piece of information.

View this asset

View this asset

https://win.corporatevisions.com/rs/413-YED-439/images/ExpansionSale_Ebook.pdf

http://www.expansionquiz.com


cadenceb u i l d a s t r o n g



c a l i b r a t e y o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n s

Cadences are essentially conversations.

And like any other sales conversation, you

need the right combination of messages,

content, and skills to win.

But how do you know what works best?

In this field trial, researchers used SalesLoft analytics to see how every message performed. As a result, they could

closely track engagement and interest and knew

exactly how many meetings occurred from using

an e-book vs. an interactive assessment.

Using a multi-touch and multi-channel approach

also leads to more activity. Our customer

research indicates that when cadences include

three or more channels (like email, phone, and

social media), prospects are 3.2 times more

likely to engage.

Detailed analytics mean you can continually test,

refine, and validate your sellers’ conversations

across the cadence.

You can also pinpoint where your cadence falters

and isolate the precise variable that needs to

change to improve your results.

Jeremey DonovanSVP Revenue Strategy, SalesLoft

w h a t ’ s a

sales cadence?To get people engaged in a sales conversation, you need an active way to begin and

sustain that conversation. That's where sales cadences come in.

A sales cadence is a carefully planned series of touchpoints that sellers can use to reach prospects through emails, phone calls, and social media interactions. Unlike generic drip campaigns, sales cadences are designed to appear as if they come from

an individual SDR.

Each step within a cadence includes messages, content, and call scripts to guide the seller

on what conversation needs to happen and when. That means sellers can deliver more

touches in less time, without having to think about what message to use or how they

should deliver it.

Different situations also call for different cadences. A cadence designed to generate

interest from cold prospects, for example, looks very different from a cadence designed to

expand business within an existing account. You might also build several solution-focused

cadences for each of those audience groups.

When you’re running tens or even hundreds of different cadences at the same time, a

technology solution like SalesLoft can help manage and measure those conversations.

Of course, simply building a cadence won’t automatically generate more opportunities.

The messages you create make a difference, and, as the results from this field trial show,

the content you choose to reinforce those messages can completely change your results.


creating t h e c a d e n c e s

The sales cadences in this field trial contained two motions.

All the messaging in each step was identical. The only difference between the two cadences was that one offered a static PDF

e-book as the call to action in Motion 1, and the other offered an interactive assessment.

Motion 1: drive engagement

Step Day Step type

1 1 LinkedIn: connect

2 1 Email #1

3 3 Email #2

4 5 LinkedIn: like or comment

5 7 Email #3

6 9 LinkedIn: message or InMail

7 10 Email #4

8 12 Transfer lead to nurture or Motion 2

Motion 1 was a highly automated cadence designed

to drive the prospect to engage with the content

asset—either the e-book or the interactive assessment.

When a prospect responded, they moved to Motion 2.

Motion 2: get the meeting

Motion 2 was a more personalized cadence designed

to get a meeting with a prospect who engaged with the

content asset and qualify them as a pipeline opportunity.

Step Day Step type

1 1 Email #1

2 1 Call with voicemail

3 3 LinkedIn: message or InMail

4 5 Call without voicemail


6 7 Email #2


8 8 LinkedIn: like or comment

9 10 Email #3

10 10 Call with voicemail

So, which kind of content won? Read on.


interesti g n i t e m o r e



t h e r e s u l t s :e n g a g e m e n t a n d

activityThe initial engagement results showed a 19 percent

difference in click-through rate in favor of the e-book.

But the gap widened from there.

Prospects who reviewed the static e-book were significantly

more responsive than prospects who interacted with the

assessment. The e-book garnered 61 percent more email replies and 58 percent more answered calls.

Since the messaging was identical in both content assets,

it’s clear the interactive assessment experience didn’t create

the same level of motivation nor inspire as much interest to

meet with sales.

Click-throughs


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 9 %

19 percent more

prospects clicked through

to the e-book vs. the

interactive assessment.

Email replies


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6 1 %

The e-book cadence led

to 61 percent more

email replies than the


Answered calls


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5 8 %The e-book led to

58 percent more

answered calls than the



w h a t ’ s m o r e

enjoyable?

EEG signals measured during previous brain study

Valence Arousal Attention Motivat ion Working memory

Fatigue

E-book Assessment

A previous B2B DecisionLabs EEG brain study of the e-book versus

assessment showed that the interactive assessment led to greater arousal

(or alertness), working memory, and motivation to act.

However, that brain study also showed that participants felt more

negatively (low valence) and experienced higher levels of fatigue while

taking the interactive assessment.

This field trial seems to corroborate prospects’ negative experience with

the interactive assessment, as indicated by the lower response rates.

The e-book was more enjoyable, which led to greater engagement. But

beyond initial activity, what kind of content won more meetings?


https://win.corporatevisions.com/rs/413-YED-439/images/Research-Brief-Interactive-Experience.pdf


meetingsThe meeting results further confirm how much more

effective the e-book was than the interactive assessment.

Prospects who responded to the e-book were 77 percent more willing to schedule a meeting, and every

one of them showed up.

These results might surprise some people. Engagement

and activity are one thing, but if one of the most advertised

benefits of interactivity is that it leads to greater motivation,

this is where you’d expect the interactive assessment to pull

ahead and win.

It didn’t happen that way. The e-book might have sparked

just the right amount of interest and curiosity in the

prospects’ minds, so they saw more value in taking a

follow-up sales call.

Prospects who responded

to the e-book were 77 percent more willing to

set a meeting than those

who responded to the


100 percent of

the prospects who

responded to the e-book

took the meeting.


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7 7 %

Meetings set

Meetings held


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2 X

t h e r e s u l t s :


Sales Accepted Leads

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 3 %

Sales Qualified Leads

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 0 0 %

opportunitiesThe ultimate test for any sales development program is

whether it generates Sales Accepted Leads (SALs), and

even more importantly, Sales Qualified Leads (SQLs). These

numbers indicate how many leads get added to the pipeline

with a level of confidence that they’ll convert to a won deal.

In this study, the same trend persisted from meetings

to pipeline. Meetings with prospects who read the e-book resulted in a significantly higher conversion rate to SAL and SQL pipeline opportunities.

From engagement and activity to meetings and pipeline,

the e-book consistently generated better results than the


Meetings with prospects

from the e-book

cadence resulted in a

significantly higher conversion rate to Sales

Accepted Leads.

Meetings with prospects

from the e-book

cadence resulted in a

significantly higher conversion rate to Sales

Qualified Leads.


E-book

Pro

spe

cts


E-book

Pro

spe

cts

t h e r e s u l t s :


n o m o r e g u e s s i n g

t o o m u c h t o ask?Why did the interactive assessment perform so poorly against the static e-book?

There are a few possible explanations.

Traditionally, marketers have used interactive assessments as a self-service tool—either as

part of a social media campaign or on a website. The value of that kind of self-discovery

experience apparently doesn’t transfer to more of a “push” scenario.

When you send a lukewarm prospect an interactive assessment, you’re asking them to

put in more effort to get the insights you’re trying to share. That’s a very different (and

potentially negative) experience than seeking out and choosing to take an assessment on

your website.

As a result, prospects might have felt a level of resistance to engage in something that

seems invasive. They might have been skeptical about how we planned to use their

information. Or perhaps they felt like they had already experienced sales discovery in

the form of a self-administered assessment. What additional value would they get from a

sales conversation?

Tim RiestererChief Visionary, B2B DecisionLabs

These results hold a cautionary tale for

sales organizations.

Like most everyone else, your sellers and

marketers are being barraged by analysts and

“thought leaders” who spend all their time

pontificating about new ideas. And when your

well-meaning team wants to put an idea into

practice, most companies have no way to

measure whether it’s working (or not).

What can you do?

Field trials like this illustrate how you can test

and measure how your messages, content,

and even your sellers’ skills perform in a real-

world setting.

That means you don’t have to take your

best guess and hope it works. The next time

someone suggests something like changing

your early-stage cadence to include an

interactive asset, you won’t have to waste the

effort. You’ll already know that e-books are,

in fact, the most effective approach.


What kind of content creates more sales conversations? At the

top of the funnel, e-books generate more interest than interactive

assessments.

Considering how quickly companies “churn and burn” through new

leads after a campaign, this field trial shows that offering dormant

leads new insights in an e-book is an effective way to see if there’s

latent opportunity among your once-interested prospects.

When you choose the right content and build a strong cadence

to deliver it, you can test and refine your approach and get

significantly better results.

sales conversationss p a r k m o r e

CHOOSE THE RIGHT CONTENT

BUILD A STRONG CADENCE

IGNITE MORE INTEREST


a u t h o r

c o n t r i b u t o r s

Jeremey Donovan

SVP Revenue Strategy,

SalesLoft

As B2B DecisionLabs’ General Manager, Frank Pinder has created

a field testing methodology and framework that have improved

inside sales teams’ performance around the globe. Frank has

extensive experience working with small and large organizations

alike to provide top-notch testing environments directly linked to

business growth and overall success.

Frank PinderGeneral Manager, B2B DecisionLabs

a b o u t B 2 B D e c i s i o n L a b sB2B DecisionLabs is the only B2B research firm dedicated to studying how

decision-makers frame value and make choices. Unlike traditional market

research and advisory firms, B2B DecisionLabs conducts rigorous research

studies based in several Decision Science disciplines:

• Behavioral studies – understand why buyers behave the way they do.

• Neuroscience research – observe what’s going on inside their brains.

• Field trials – validate your approach in the real world.

CONTACT US TO LEARN MORE

in partnership with

© B2B DecisionLabs | 888.664.2660 | b2bdecisionlabs.com

Tim Riesterer

Chief Visionary,

B2B DecisionLabs

https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklinbpinder/

https://b2bdecisionlabs.com/contact/



Documents

inside the buyer’s brain static vs. interactive