Many businesses feel stuck with outdated CRM systems due to complexity, disruption, and cost
- Leaders demand simpler CRMs with immediate ROI and support
- Businesses feel trapped by cost and complexity of CRM
- Successful CRM transitions lead to improved business efficiency
Despite the widespread adoption of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, many organizations struggle with dissatisfaction.
A recent report by Workbooks found while 80% of sales and marketing professionals use a CRM, only 31% feel their current system adequately meets their needs.
This dissatisfaction, driven by the complexity, cost, and disruption associated with CRM systems, has left many companies stuck in a cycle of underperformance, unsure if a change is worth the risk.
Impact on business performance
For businesses, the gap between satisfaction and dissatisfaction with CRM systems is more than just a frustration, it’s affecting critical performance metrics. The report highlights that satisfied CRM users outperform their counterparts in key areas like lead generation and pipeline management.
Users who are content with their CRM system score 5.9 out of 10 in lead generation effectiveness, compared to 4.9 among dissatisfied users. Similarly, pipeline management is rated significantly higher among satisfied users, with a score of 7.6 versus 5.7 for those unhappy with their system.
These figures reveal the potential benefits of an effective CRM system, but they also show the widespread inefficiencies many organizations face.
Even with high dissatisfaction, many businesses feel trapped in their current CRM setup. The Workbooks report reveals nearly two-thirds (62%) of sales and marketing leaders feel “stuck” with their existing systems, largely due to the perceived challenges of making a switch.
The fear of disruption to staff (cited by 55% of respondents), the potential cost (45%), and the time investment required (36%) all contribute to a reluctance to change. This hesitation means many organizations continue to rely on outdated or underperforming systems, despite the negative impact on their business performance.
The complexity of many CRM systems further compounds this issue. According to 45% of the respondents, CRM technology itself is a barrier, with systems that are overly complicated and difficult to adopt, leaving users frustrated and hampering the overall success of the tool.
The report indicates a growing demand among sales and marketing professionals for CRM systems that offer both robust functionality and simplicity. 77% of respondents said ease of use is a top priority when selecting a CRM, while 46% are looking for systems that deliver a return on investment from the outset.
To switch to a new CRM system, there are now incentives like better customer support and more flexible cost structures. However, 31% of respondents still cite the need for better services while 23% continue to seek for lower costs. The findings suggest that the industry’s current CRM offerings are falling short of these expectations, leading many to consider alternative solutions that better align with their day-to-day needs.
The report outlines key concerns around disruption, risk, cost, and time, with disruption being the highest-rated challenge at 7.6 out of 10. Despite these concerns, successful CRM transitions lead to meaningful gains, particularly when organizations prioritize proper change management and invest in comprehensive training to ensure long-term adoption.
“Sales and marketing leaders have a unique challenge of running dual functions. This means it’s even more important that their tools work for, rather than against them. But our research shows that when they find the right CRM approach, it can dramatically improve performance across their wide span of control,” says Dan Roche, Chief Marketing Officer at Workbooks.
“An issue is that many Sales & Marketing leaders don’t have the empirical data to show that moving CRM is not more trouble than it’s worth. With this new research, the benefits of taking a different approach are now clear both quantitatively and qualitatively.”
You may also like
link
