Talked to an old school marketer at a conference last week and it changed how I see lead scoring

I was at the B2B Summit in Chicago last Wednesday and got stuck talking to this guy who's been in marketing since the 90s. He asked me how I qualified leads and I said MQLs and SQLs based on download behavior. He laughed and said his best deals came from calling prospects who requested a brochure and then ghosted. He told me his team used to track which sales reps talked to which leads and found reps who followed up within 2 hours closed 3x more. It hit me that I've been so focused on automation I forgot the human side of judging intent. Now I'm wondering if my whole lead scoring model is off because I ignore the timing of when a rep actually reaches out. Has anyone else had luck mixing old school sales follow up rules into their automated scoring?

2 comments

2 Comments

nancy8244d ago

I have to wonder if this old timer isn't just making it sound more complicated than it needs to be. A 2 hour follow up rule is common sense, not some secret sauce from the 90s. It sounds like your basic scoring is probably fine if you just add a simple time stamp to your lead routing.

kim_martin4d agoTop Commenter

Wait, wouldn't ignoring the 90s stuff mean missing out on some legit hard-won lessons though? I get where you're coming from, but this isn't just about a time stamp or a two hour rule. The old timer is probably talking about how to figure out which leads are actually worth chasing first, not just when they came in. A basic score with a time stamp can work, sure, but it can also send you running after a warm lead that goes cold, while a slower but way more ready lead sits there. I've seen it happen a lot in my own field, where people think simple is better but then waste hours on duds. A good lead scoring system looks at behavior and intent, not just when someone clicked a button.