Associating company records with a common identifier is critical for Account Based Marketing as well as other sales and marketing methodologies. Lacking a common identifier makes it difficult to
- De-duplicate company records
- Associate subsidiaries and branches with headquarters
- Perform both real-time and batch data enrichment of firmographic, technographic, and social links.
- Associate company news and sales triggers to key accounts.
- Tie together company records across multiple platforms.
- Assess the risk (e.g. credit, supplier, reputational) associated with a business.
The best way to keep data clean is to use a globally known, unique identifier, or a “data backbone.” My company prefers to use URLs as identifiers. They’re free, globally recognizable, high-quality data points that enable you to efficiently gather information on a business’s industry, online activities, and functionality. For example, Cisco is a company that also goes by Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Precision Tools. If sales containers required users to type in one unique URL, http://www.cisco.com/ for all those different branches, it’d be much more difficult to create duplicate accounts, which helps keep data clean. Perhaps more important, URLs facilitate communication between people, systems, and even departments. Whether it’s the customer relationship management platforms used by sales teams, enterprise resource planning software used by purchasing teams, or the account-based marketing technology employed by marketing teams, the business intelligence platform can recognize a unique URL and attach it to clean, usable data. Unique identifiers let you know you’re pulling from the sources and contacts you’ve intended to track.
I agree with 90% of what Fowler states, but disagree with his recommendation that URLs are the best unique identifier for his “data backbone”. There are a number of reasons that URLs fall short:
- URLs are not persistent. If a company is acquired or renames itself, the old identifier (URL) is not retained. This creates a potential disconnect between the old and new name.
- URLs have a many-to-one mapping which treats most subsidiary and branch locations the same as the headquarters. For some companies, mashing together all locations into a single record may be sufficient, but it is a highly flawed approach as it loses much of the nuance concerning companies that operate across multiple sectors and countries (e.g. General Electric). It also makes it very difficult for sales reps to sell deeper into an organization which lacks linkage data.
- Conversely, companies with multiple URLs are not tied together. This could happen due to differing country identifiers (e.g. .UK, .FR), division names, brand names, and subsidiaries. Each of these scenarios treats companies as a separate business. Amazon has many distinct businesses including Amazon Web Services (aws.amazon.com), Zappos (www.zappos.com), Alexa Internet (www.alexa.com) Audible (www.audible.com), Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), and soon Whole Foods (www.wholefoods.com). URLs do not provide a consistent data backbone when subsidiaries, acquisitions, and branches have different domains.
- When a division or facility is divested, there is no way to determine which locations have been spun off.
- Franchises are treated as part of the parent company when they are separate legal entities.
- Not all companies have websites.
- URLs can be sold. They can also be reused if a company goes out of business or abandons a URL.
Finally, business decisions related to logistics, credit, supplier risk, and financing need to understand the underlying structure of companies. It is not just marketing and sales that are impacted by standardizing on a non-persistent, quasi-unique identifier.
I would therefore recommend looking at credit data companies as a better source of unique identifiers. Companies such as Dun & Bradstreet, Experian, Equifax, and Infogroup all offer location level detail and linkage associated with unique identifiers that have been developed over multiple decades. They offer sophisticated entity matching and enrichment tools such as Dun & Bradstreet’s Optimizer service. Furthermore, these firms support multiple functions across the organization helping assist with cross-platform entity linking and on-demand decisioning.