How are people standardizing their program status structures? In every program, do you always want a Has Opportunity and/or Won Opportunity program status that will be updated through a program smart campaign? Is this unneeded? What is THE best practice?
Thanks ahead of time!
We actually sync our programs with SFDC Campaigns, so we adopt the program statuses of those in SFDC. It really depends on the program and it's goal to determine their program statuses.
For our lead nurturing programs we use the following SFDC campaign statuses to determine a lead's advancement through a program:
Member (default status)
Each of our channels have the key stages of our lead lifecycle as the final program statuses:
This helps us report more efficiently (especially since we're on MS Dynamics CRM and can't sync to the campaign object).
Every Marketo program then includes a common smart campaign as follows:
The values for the DVC trigger, include:
And the FLOW looks like this:
It's also important that leads can qualify for this every time (so that they can continue to progress):
Generally I never do it this way because the lifecycle should manage that, but it can be interesting at the tactical level.
True, but we also have the ability to provide very detailed insight for our regional marketers by using this approach. For example, you can't get a report like this using "Model Performance Analysis" in RCE (whereas "Program Membership Analysis" does give you this level of insight if you have your channels/program status setup like we do):
Agreed with Josh here. IMHO, adding a MQL or any lead status as a last program status kind of negates the reality of multi-touch attribution... In other terms, how would decide which program should have the lead in "achieved MQL" when a lead does? The first one? the last one? all the programs that touched the lead? All the programs for which the lead is a success?
And what if the lead is recycled and sent back to nurturing?
Every one of our smart campaigns where success can be achieved, we include the following CDV flow steps:
The "last touch xxx" is a proxy field that then populates the "MQL channel, date, program, ID", "SAL channel, date, program, ID", etc. so that we know which program was responsible for progressing the lead to the appropriate lead stage.
And we're still able to report on all programs that contributed to the progression. Now, it gets a bit difficult when we're dealing with repeat customers that qualify for running through our lead lifecycle again after an opportunity has closed (or recycled). But overall, this works best for us.
Has anyone heard of just using two status' for every channel?
I have heard this is a best practice is that true? What will you miss out on and/or gain if you do this?
I'd highly advise against doing this - especially in some channels (like events) - since specific trigger activity takes place based on the program status (e.g., "registered").