Account-Based Marketing (ABM) continues to command a significant share of marketing investment, shaping how B2B companies engage with their most important customers. Our recent benchmark research illustrates the latest in ABM budget and resource allocation, and how companies expect these to change next year, while demonstrating that there are many ways to organise ABM teams. Let’s delve into the findings.
ABM budget
Our research shows that an average of 22% of the marketing budget is allocated to ABM. This allocation remained stable on last year for 88% of respondents despite difficult trading conditions, and over half (54%) expect this to increase next year. This continued investment underscores the ongoing commitment to ABM as a strategic initiative.
ABM headcount
The study also reveals that, on average, 16% of marketing headcount is dedicated to ABM. This figure is also consistent with last year’s allocation for most companies, signalling the sustained importance of ABM within marketing teams. Looking ahead, marketing leaders remain optimistic: a significant 58% anticipate an increase in their ABM headcount next year. This reflects a recognition that despite its resource-heavy nature, ABM is more effective than any other form of B2B marketing in driving revenue growth.
Less than half (40%) of those surveyed employ dedicated, full-time ABM teams. However, many programmes still rely on part-time resources where a B2B marketer works part time on ABM and part time on other marketing activities, such as field or industry marketing, or demand generation activities.
Centralised, decentralised or hybrid?
There’s no silver bullet when it comes to team organisation and reporting lines. Both centralised and decentralised models are prevalent.
Half of companies (50%) operate a decentralised model with ABM-ers reporting to local marketing leaders in the field, often having a dotted line into an ABM Centre of Excellence (CoE). Here ABM responsibilities might be distributed across various regional or product-focused marketing team. One respondent clarified, ‘Our ABM-ers are decentralised across 10 major markets. They are based where the account is, and have a dotted line to the CoE, forming a community of interest.’
Just over one third (39%) have a centralised team of ABM-ers, reporting directly to a Head of ABM. One respondent explained, ‘All of our ABM-ers are full time and report directly into the market with a dotted line to global,’ while another said, ‘We have 150 people in marketing and 100 are in corporate functions. Around 35 are in ABM, aligned by region and industry where appropriate. ABM-ers are full time in region, reporting globally.’
The remainder have adopted a more hybrid model. ‘Global ABM is centralised, local ABM is decentralised’ is how one respondent described their structure, while another agreed, ‘We have a hybrid model — some ABM-ers centralised into a CoE and some in region.’
What’s right for you?
While companies are clearly making significant investments in both ABM budgets and headcount, the optimal team structure depends on each individual organisation’s goals and context. Whether you opt for a centralised, decentralised, or a hybrid model may depend on how your company organises its account management, sales and wider business operations. Whichever approach you take, success hinges on having a clear strategy, effective resource allocation, and a strong commitment to delivering exceptional value to your most important accounts.
Highlights from our full ABM benchmarking survey can be found here: http://bit.ly/3YhzJBX.
