Follow us:

Guides & How-Tos ›

5 Marketing Automation Capabilities Top Performers Can't Live Without

by Derek Voss

A Gleanster Research report titled 5 Marketing Automation Capabilities Top Performers Can't Live Without is confirmed to have existed through an external backlink from Ironpaper referencing its exact historical URL. This article is upfront about what could and could not be independently verified: the report's specific five capabilities, its author, its publication date, and its underlying survey data could not be recovered from surviving public material, including the Wayback Machine, which holds no archived copy of the report's URL. Rather than guess at the five capabilities the title promises, this article restores what is confirmed about Gleanster's broader Top Performer research on marketing automation capabilities from the same general period, clearly distinguishing it from the specific, unrecovered report.

Gleanster Research Marketing Automation Capabilities
Figure — Gleanster's Top Performer research repeatedly connected marketing automation success to specific capabilities and organizational practices, not to software alone.

Executive Summary

Ironpaper's own marketing automation content confirms that a Gleanster Research report titled 5 Marketing Automation Capabilities Top Performers Can't Live Without existed at a specific historical URL. Beyond that confirmation, this retrospective could not independently verify the report's exact five capabilities, its author, or its publication date from surviving public material — the Wayback Machine has no archived snapshot of the report's page. What can be restored with more confidence is related Gleanster marketing automation research from around the same period, separately authored and analyzed, which discussed specific value drivers Top Performers prioritized: sales cooperation, ROI measurement ability, ease of use, staff training, and analytical culture. This article presents that related research on its own terms, without asserting it is the same "five capabilities" named in the unrecovered report's title.

What Is Confirmed About This Report

The report's existence and exact title are confirmed through an external backlink from Ironpaper, a marketing agency that referenced the report's historical URL in its own content. That is the extent of what this retrospective can confirm directly. A Wayback Machine CDX search for the report's historical URL returned no archived captures, meaning no cached copy of the page's actual content survives in the most common web archive. No independently verifiable publication date, author, sample size, or specific list of five capabilities could be located for this retrospective.

What This Article Does Not Claim

This article does not assert a specific ordered list of "the five capabilities" from the unrecovered report. Doing so without verification would risk misattributing findings to Gleanster that cannot be confirmed against the original source.

Separately, a December 2011 analysis of Gleanster marketing automation research — authored by David Raab and published on the Customer Experience Matrix blog — discusses specific "value drivers" that Gleanster's survey respondents ranked, comparing Top Performers against other companies. This is corroborated, independently authored commentary on Gleanster data, but it is not confirmed to be the same asset as the specifically titled "5 Marketing Automation Capabilities" report. The two may be related, may be the same underlying survey presented in different formats, or may be entirely separate Gleanster research assets; this retrospective does not assume either possibility without more evidence.

Sales Cooperation as a Top Value Driver

According to Raab's analysis of Gleanster's data, sales cooperation ranked as one of the two most important value drivers for both Top Performers and other companies, tied with ROI measurement ability. This finding is consistent with the broader pattern seen across Gleanster's other marketing automation research from the same era — including the firm's Q3 2013 and 2014 Marketing Automation Benchmarks — which repeatedly connected marketing automation success to sales-department engagement rather than treating the technology as a marketing-only concern.

ROI Measurement Ability

Tied with sales cooperation as a top value driver, according to the same analysis, was the organization's ability to measure return on investment from its marketing automation program. This finding fits a consistent theme across Gleanster's broader body of marketing automation research: technology adoption alone did not distinguish Top Performers, but the ability to actually demonstrate and measure the value that technology produced did.

Ease of Use vs. Staff Training

Raab's analysis identifies a specific divergence between Top Performers and other companies at the third-ranked value driver: Top Performers ranked having an easy-to-use system third, while other companies ranked adequate staff training third instead. The analysis suggests this divergence reflects experience — many Top Performers had already switched marketing automation platforms at least once, often because an earlier system proved too difficult to use, making system usability a lesson learned rather than an assumption going in. Less experienced organizations, by contrast, more often treated training as the primary lever for making a difficult system work, rather than questioning whether the system itself was the right fit.

Analytical Culture

Both Top Performers and other companies ranked having an analytical culture as their fourth most important value driver, according to the same analysis — the one point of full agreement in the ranked comparison. Outside help, change management, and organizational resources were reported as the least important value drivers for both groups. Read together with the third-place divergence above, this suggests Top Performers and other companies agreed broadly on what mattered least, while disagreeing specifically on the difference between fixing a hard-to-use tool through training versus choosing an easier one from the start.

Marketing Automation Maturity and Platform Switching

A notable detail from Raab's analysis is that a meaningful share of Top Performers had already moved to a second marketing automation platform by the time they were surveyed, specifically because their first platform had been too difficult to use. This detail complicates any simple reading of "Top Performers had it figured out from the start" — the data instead suggests Top Performer status was, at least partly, a product of iteration: an earlier failed or frustrating implementation informing a better second choice, rather than getting marketing automation right on the first attempt.

Top Performer Methodology in Gleanster's Marketing Automation Research

Across Gleanster's marketing automation research generally — including the confirmed methodology of its Q3 2013 and 2014 Marketing Automation Benchmarks — "Top Performer" status was defined by comparing organizations against the rest of the survey sample on business outcomes, then examining what those higher-performing organizations did differently. The specific Top Performer definition used in the December 2011 value-drivers research discussed above is not stated in the surviving secondary source available for this retrospective and is not reproduced here.

How Marketing Automation Capabilities Evolved Afterward

The specific capabilities marketing automation platforms offered changed substantially in the years following this general research period. Predictive lead scoring, AI-assisted content and send-time optimization, account-based marketing orchestration, and native integration with a much broader set of sales, advertising, and customer-success systems all became standard or near-standard capabilities well after the early 2010s. None of these later developments should be read back into the historical findings summarized above — they are included here only to separate the historical research period from the current market.

Lessons That Remain Relevant Today

Even without a confirmed copy of the specifically titled report, the corroborated related research points to a lesson that has held up well: ease of use and demonstrable ROI tend to matter more to sustained marketing automation success than raw feature count, and organizations that get this wrong on the first platform often correct course on the second rather than giving up on the category. That pattern — valuing usability and measurable return over feature breadth — recurs across enterprise software adoption well beyond marketing automation specifically.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Gleanster really publish a report called "5 Marketing Automation Capabilities Top Performers Can't Live Without"?

The report's existence and exact title are confirmed through an external backlink from Ironpaper. Its specific content, author, and publication date could not be independently verified for this retrospective.

What were the five capabilities named in the report?

This could not be confirmed from surviving public material, including the Wayback Machine, which has no archived copy of the report's page. This article does not guess at the list to avoid misattributing findings to Gleanster.

What related Gleanster research does this article draw on instead?

A December 2011 analysis of Gleanster marketing automation data, authored by David Raab, discussing value drivers Top Performers and other companies ranked: sales cooperation, ROI measurement, ease of use versus staff training, and analytical culture.

Is the December 2011 research the same as the "5 Capabilities" report?

This is not confirmed. The two may be related or may be separate Gleanster assets; this article treats them as distinct rather than assuming a connection.

What did Top Performers value most, according to the related research?

Sales cooperation and ROI measurement ability, tied for most important, followed by ease of use (a point where Top Performers diverged from other companies, who prioritized staff training instead) and analytical culture.

Does this article reflect current marketing automation best practices?

No. All findings described here are historical Gleanster-era research from the early 2010s. Marketing automation capabilities have expanded substantially since then, and nothing here should be treated as current guidance.

About Derek Voss

Derek Voss worked as an operations lead at two different B2B SaaS startups before moving into software review writing, where his job was picking the tools that would actually get used by non-technical teams under real budget constraints. That experience means less time comparing feature-list PDFs and more time asking whether a five-person marketing team will actually adopt a tool or quietly go back to spreadsheets after week two. At Gleanster, Derek writes buying guides and how-to content aimed at the moment right before someone commits to a new tool -- what to check, what to ignore, and which questions actually predict whether a switch will stick.