on
RE:
This is very important for customers that want a centralized Digital asset management tool, like Celum. In these cases the Digital asset managment tool controls all images in all formats with tags etc. Being able to integrate the digital assets to CI-J is very important. I thought this was already there.
RE:
Strongly Agree as this is very common requirement to filter lookups based on prior field (either choice or Lookup) selection.
RE:
As feature parity between OBM and RTM this should be closed.
RE:
I strongly recommend this feature as marketing team is lost in selection of relevant fields for marketing campaign from whole lot of fields from lead/contact table. This was an ask from one of our client too but unfortunately it's system behaviour
RE:
Yes, this also needs to include a marketing campaign perspecive. We as a Microsoft partner have built this several times for customers. Not very complex but very useful to have. The old campaign-table from classic Dynamics CRM is a good start. With budgets, start/end, products, planning activities etc. Now it should be connected to the different journeys and should maybe be an orchestrator of journeys, segments etc.
RE:
I think this is important to be able to set limits on individual environments and also users so that budgets can be maintained.Larger installations often have multiple production instances for different regions/divisions and any help in maintaining a more complex setup is very useful from an enterprise perspective. Both from budgeting and reporting perspective. A common issue for larger setups is how much of the capacity and licensing costs are to be directed to the different environments. This is important if CI-J is to be enterprise ready.
RE:
Branding with set templates for all channels needs to be prioritized. I agree, both from a branding perspective but also from a time perspective. Anything that can save time for marketeers is good and increases the value of the platform for the end customer. I don't think the copilot based branding is good enough, although a good idea, but it needs to be more strictly fixed as Branding is often very stricty controlled from corporate guidelines.
RE:
I think two different scenarios need to be taken into consideration. B2B and B2C. I have B2C customers that choose CI-J despite its quite steep cost per contact. However, they do choose to build custom solutions with, for instance Send Grid, to avoid light touch contacts to become a marketing contact. As there is a cost per contact there is of course also a potential income per contact. If you map these two in a graph with the cost/income on the y-axis and the contacts sorted by greatest to lowest potential income on the right hand axis, you get sort of a long-tail-graph. Any contacts that are right of the intersection between these two graphs are not worth the cost. Where this is for any business, is of course based on the specifics of that business.
RE:
I agree. It is very useful to at least have a list of the fixes being released and when as we sometimes need to build workarounds for some bugs and when the fix is in place the workaround can be refactored to be a better solution.
RE:
I agree, more extensive custom link management is needed as that enables a lot of different things and allows the end users to be more creative. This should be linked to branded links/Vanity links feature.