In demand generation, a heavy weight falls on the marketing automation platform in order to execute campaigns. It’s no shock that when it comes to generating demand, success is usually measured through data and the marketing automation platform is what creates and tracks the data.

So as campaigns get planned and executed, there is a large responsibility on the owner of the marketing automation technology (MAT). While the marketing ops team will always own the marketing automation platform, the entire responsibility of executing programs doesn’t have to lie on them.

We have seen the different structures and approaches marketing teams have taken, and while one size does not fit all, there are definitely pros and cons for different structures. Let’s discuss.

Don’t touch my MAT!

MOps owns the MAT, no one else can touch it

In this model, only MOps has access to the marketing automation platform. Program owners have to go through MOps to get their programs set up and emails sent.

Pros

• Standardization - MOPs can make sure everything is set up properly, and programs are uniform
• Less room for error with a MAT expert
• Clear visibility into all the sends, so that possible overlapping audiences can be adjusted

Cons

• Heavy responsibility on MOps, leaving little time for more strategic operations projects
• Execution time is slowed down because everything is funneled through MOps

Tips for making this structure work:

• When handing over elements for the campaign (content, audience criteria, etc.) everything should be fully approved to reduce back and forth.
• Use a campaign execution ticket system where program owners can submit their program requirements in a tool, so communication and information can stay within the ticket, making it easily reference-able. Nobody likes to search around their inbox to piece things together. Hint: if you don’t have a project management tool, you can create a system using Google Forms.
• Deadlines and SLAs should be implemented. If too many requests are coming in daily for the marketing operations team, it can start to feel like swatting flies. The wider marketing team needs to provide things far enough in advance for MOps to execute in a calm and collected fashion. For marketing ops to do their best work, they should set SLAs and enforce them.

Boundaries.

MOps owns MOST of the MAT, other marketers do their part

In this structure, other marketing team members have limited access to the marketing automation technology so they can create their landing pages and emails. MOps still sets up the programs, lists and hits the “activate” button on campaigns.

Pros

• MOps can still have final sign off on programs - reducing possible mistakes
• MOps has clear visibility into all programs and can prevent overlap in campaigns
• Program owners can feel more in control of their programs with the ability to input and update content

Cons

• Still reliant on MOps for execution - could be a bottleneck in the process
• There is some room for error on landing pages and emails if marketers are not trained properly

Tips for making this work:

• Training - it’s easy for a marketing ops person to view building emails and landing pages as “straightforward” because it’s second nature to us. Consider that others are on the team are probably brand new to the technology, and some less tech-inclined in general. Training sessions, explainer videos and documented instructions will help ease growing pains, and hopefully prevent some back and forth questions.
• User friendly templates - if you’re going to have program owners work in landing page or email templates, make sure they are “easy” enough for them to work within. For instance, using drag and drop modules, or even just going with plain text emails. If your templates are difficult to navigate, try tokenizing them and training the team on using tokens, so formatting is preserved.

It takes a village.

MOps and the wider marketing team co-own the MAT, everyone is responsible for their own program

MOps and other marketers work in the MAT. Program owners build the bulk of their programs, with MOps doing final review, then program owners activate.

Pros

• Faster execution
• Less burden on MOps - leaving more time for strategic projects
• Program owners have more ownership and control over their programs (this could also be seen as a con)

Cons

• More room for error when non-MOps people have the ability to create/edit and delete
• Program owners might be sending their campaigns to overlapping audiences without knowing it, causing audience fatigue

Tips for making this work:

• Create tried and tested program templates and set up training sessions, videos and documentation on how to use the program templates. Ensure everyone is cloning from the program templates in order to keep things standardized. Hold a weekly campaign meeting where everyone can discuss which campaigns are going out each day. Discuss possible overlap in audiences and shift the schedule if need be.
• Create an official campaign calendar visible to everyone on the team, with some rules around it. For instance, campaign needs to be in the calendar X days in advance. Implement onboarding training for your marketing automation platform. When someone new joins the team that will be creating campaigns, make sure they are trained up on the process, and the tool.
• Implement “peer review” process where team members can review each others programs. At least two pairs of eyes should take a look at email campaigns before they are sent to avoid mistakes.

Which structure is the best for your marketing team?

Everybody’s favorite answer... it depends. Factors like team size and campaign volume will influence what kind of structure is needed, but weigh the pros and cons of each of these structures to determine what is 1) most efficient and 2) doable for your team. For instance, if you have a marketing team of one ops person and 3 other marketers, structure 1 might work well for you because MOps isn’t dealing with too many requests. For much larger marketing teams with a high volume of campaigns, structure 3 might work best.