So, as we look closely at our leads and evaluate them, and even grade them, how accurate is our grading? What external forces might put pressure on our grades?

1. Looking busy. The desire to look busy is a constant force in business. Marketers and salespeople are no different. If your pipeline looks empty, a natural inclination is to add some less-than-perfect leads to fill it up.

2. Poor fit. Many of the leads in the pipeline are going nowhere because of a poor fit for the work. Wishful thinking causes us to think that an opportunity is better than it seems.

3. Can’t let go. We keep many leads around when they should be closed. Desperation also causes us to think that leads are better than they are.

These are just some of the forces which cause the poor evaluation of leads. As lead or prospect grading becomes more common, so will the forces that make it inaccurate. And this will lead to it being less effective.

• Adam at B2B Marketing ROI writes that “scoring is based on activity”.
• Jon at Modern B2B Marketing, writes that “score is easily computed based on how well the lead matches the ideal customer profile”.
• Christopher Hosford at BtoB Online, writes that “Lead scoring is a system whereby points are assigned to a prospect…Scores can go up or down depending on intent to purchase, time frame or input from sales after contact.”
• Brian Carroll writes “Lead scoring and automation support a process of lead qualification”.

Jon’s definition i the clearest, but it conflicts with Adam’s. For, he goes on to say that “[lead] grading is based on how well a prospect fits your ideal customer profile”. Is grading different from scoring?

Hosford seems to agree more with Adam, since Hosford cites examples of “activity” when defining scoring. And Carroll just says that scoring is part of qualification, which would cover both “activity” and “ideal client proximity”.

So, everyone seems to agree that lead scoring has something to do with scoring leads. Amazing!

For my part, I prefer the simplest approach. So, the first thing I wonder about is the definition of a “lead”.

Paul Johnson defines a lead as a an interested person and a prospect as an interested, motivated, and enabled person.

But, isn’t a lead composed of two ingredients? A piece of possible work and a client/company? Adam seems to be sensitive to this distinction when he introduces “lead grading” vs. “lead scoring”. This distinction seems to try to separate the static elements (the client/company’s static characteristics) and the dynamic elements (when will they buy, how motivated, how engaged, etc.). In this

If we use this approach, we need 2 sets of criteria:

1. An ideal client profile—itemizes the characteristics of a client that are highly desirable, e.g. size, revenue, etc.

2. An ideal opportunity profile—itemizes the characteristics of possible work that are highly desirable, e.g. likelihood to purchase, budget, etc.

Lead scoring then needs to be thought of as 2 activities: client scoring and opportunity scoring. It’s relatively easy to score a potential client. Scoring an opportunity is harder. And this is why people resort to signs. The client’s activity only indicates how good the opportunity is. Their activity in itself is not interesting or important. We use it to give us clues about how good an opportunity exists.

So, in the end, I agree with Adam. But, I would like clearer terms. Perhaps we can say that lead scoring as a discipline is composed of 2 main activities: client grading and opportunity scoring.