Here are some top line results from the analysis of our 2010 business development activity on behalf of our clients.

They summarise why a prospect will agree to meet an agency based on calling prospects who meet the agreed criteria of vertical market, size, spend, profile and location.

1. Rapport with prospect (this scored highly in those disciplines where there are neither discernible differentiators nor clear ROI, for example, creative or corporate comms agencies)

2. Direct relevant experience supported by case studies (this scored highly in all disciplines, particularly PR and creative)

3. Proven ROI supported by case studies (particularly relevant in PR and DM)

4. Unique methodology (primarily in research)

5. Niche skill set, namely in technology (mainly in digital and research)

6. Chance of gaining insight from the meeting (mainly in creative and PR)

7. Location of the agency (again, mainly in creative and PR)

This insight into what prospects are looking for when meeting new agencies is one of the many reasons our clients win new business from working with us.

Another key reason is our ability to develop rapport with prospects through asking the right questions and being able to empathise with their current challenges.

Our Sales Director, Dave, will be writing a more detailed paper on this, so watch this space…

Do the lengths companies go to research consumer habits today have any limits? It would seem not! Working with a research client for over 3 years I’m fully aware of companies employing neuroscience as a method finding out what makes consumers tick, but this takes the biscuit.

Earlier this year Royal Mail commissioned Millward Brown and Academics at Bangor University to undertake a study to determine if the brain reacts differently to marketing messages delivered through direct mail in comparison to email campaigns. This was based on the assumption that consumers tend to engage more to physical objects that they would to an electronic format.

Participants were shown the same creative format in both digital and print. Following this a measurement of brain activity was taken in the MRI scanner to identify parts of the brain that show increased activity by imaging changes in the blood supply.

The research showed that certain parts of the brain were more active when given a piece of physical direct mail (you don’t say). So in short the research found that actually holding something in your hand is “a significantly more multi-sensory than marketing that appears online”.

The study concluded that “when a piece of DM was held and read by a participant, their reactions suggested that they were experiencing thought patterns similar to those the brain exhibits when processing memories and emotions. Other studies have shown that emotional processing can generate a positive response to brands and their messages, and enhanced levels of engagement. When someone engages with an emotional response through tangible material, it produces an enhanced recognition that can result in increased attention given to the brand in the future.”

This is all very interesting stuff and I agree that holding something in your hand will of course create a stronger response within the brain than looking at the same creative on your computer, but perhaps the next study should look at how we can promote the brain to pick it up and read it instead of chucking it in the bin in the first place?

Now there’s a thought.

There were reports in the press recently that a Labour leaflet campaign was targeting cancer sufferers with a message that their lives could be at risk if a Tory government was to come into power using the strap line “are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Labour claims that they used publicly available social demographic data and the data management company Experian confirmed that both Labour and the Conservatives use its Mosaic database, which divides voters into 67 groups and identifies likely cancer patients using anonymised hospital statistics, including postcodes and the diagnoses of patients.

This throws up interesting questions about what customer information a brand should use in tailoring their communications.

The holy grail of all customer marketing is surely to get to a point where brands can treat their customers as individuals but if they are seen to be taking advantage of someone’s disadvantages to promote a product or service then this risks alienating the customer and potentially turning into a PR nightmare.

As a Business Development Manager I have the advantage of being able to react to information I receive during a conversation and amend my communications accordingly.

When I am making new business calls to marketing decision makers part of my job is to identify ‘pain points’ and highlight requirements that are not currently adequately provided by their internal resources or current suppliers. This gives me a great reason for them to meet my client. However I’m always very aware that identifying pain points is one thing, but overstating them is likely to turn the prospect off.

Quite often the questions I ask are designed to raise these areas in the prospect’s mind but sometimes ‘in their mind’ is enough and these ‘problems’ remain unspoken. If, in their mind they can see a problem that is currently unsolved and match that with a potential solution that my client has expertise in then I’m more than half way there.

In my experience there is such a thing as overselling your benefits and if that is on the back of excessively highlighting a prospective client’s (or for that matter voter’s) problems then you’re bound to risk appearing mercenary or as Phyllis Delik, 80, who received one of Labours leaflets described it “callous”.

What do you think the limit should be on marketers using sensitive data to target their customers, if any?