I would like to have the possibility to make association labels mandatory, so that when a user makes an association, they always need to select an association label
As a workaround, someone from Hubspot was trying to set this via workflow so that if it wasn't filled in by a user, a workflow would set it, however, whilst we can use association labels as triggers or in if/then branches, the ability to set an association label via workflow is not yet possible.
It would be great if we could require CRM object association as part of the creation of another CRM Object.
For example, a deal always has a company and at least one contact, yet we have no way of requiring that these two items be selected. It would be a big win to allow us to require that.
As well, now that the association labels are setup, it would be a gold star bonus if we could requrie not just a Company & Contact be part of a deal, but require that one or more specific Associations be selected. For example, you must add a contact and at least one contact must have a label/association of "Decision Maker" to even create a deal.
I think that without this ability, that workflows will ultimately be almost useless in relation to the association labels because we won't be able to rely upon their existence.
Just want to add a +1 to this idea. It would be great if we could require specific association labels when creating a new deal or, perhaps even better, set a default. For example, we have a label for "Primary Contact" and one for "Billing Contact" - I'd love it if we could have a rule/option "For every new deal created, always associate the Primary and Billing Contacts" with the option to override, if needed.
It would also be useful to be able to set association labels through workflows, rather than having to manually select these or continue to upload through imports.
We have a property within contacts that define what type of contact record is being added (required when creating a contact) for us, this would allow us to use a workflow to assign the appropriate association label.
Adding my voice here too. I'd love to have a way to require an associated object. We have an instance where we have a custom object, an Aircraft, that should always be associated to a deal. Right now our work around is to have the sales rep check a required property on the deal to verify that "An aircraft is associated to this deal" but that's not a great solution. In the interst of keeping data clean, required associations would be amazing.
It would also be great if you could ask for the association later in the deal process. For example, when a deal is moved to won, I would like to associate that deal to a specific custom object but I only know which custom object I should associate it to when the deal is won and not at the creation of the deal. Something like a required field but then for the association
Just adding my +1 here. This would be an extremely useful feature for many of our clients and us. Being able to require an association label and then run workflows off of association labels is essential.
One use case: When a deal is closed, Finance needs to send an invoice to the accounting contact. If it was possible to require the accounting contact to be set, once the deal is won a workflow could run to send the invoice request to Finance, including the accounting contact's information and deal amount, etc. For this use case, each deal will require a contact with a certain association label to be added.
Another use case: Nonprofit organizations often need to separate actual donors from referrals / passthrough givers on a deal, and they have to be clear about which is which. For this use case, each deal will require the associated contacts to have an association label.
Please also make it available, then, to make this a requirement on a specific pipeline stage.
ie. I want to be able to set a specific contact as being the 'account user' - so that when a software account is created from the deal - that user will be used to create the login for. And this must be a required field on a specific stage.
+1 on this idea. It would be awesome, if we could require record associations and specific labels at certain deal stages, just like conditional stage properties.
This would be a vary useful feature. I have a client that would like to require certain association labels be in place at certain pipeline stages. (Decision Maker, Economic Buyer, etc.)
This is seriously needed now, the amount of manual checking that has to go on to identify where these are missed is a nightmare, particularly with limitations on reporting where there is no association label in place.
Completely agree this is overdue. We have significant issues with contact to company association labels. The different types of labels we use drive our different email campaigns, so missing ones are a problem. Whilst we can identify if a contact associated to a single company is missing an association label, we have many scenarios where a contact can be associated to many companies (each with different labels), and for this we cannot identify through reporting if one of those relationships is missing an association label, but all others are ok.
+1 here. Association labels are a critical piece for our system to understand the relationship between event records (a custom object we use for tracking offline engagements) and multiple contacts (e.g. event organizer vs. a prospect they met at the event). Our team never remembers to (or just doesn't?) assign the appropriate association label after the new event is created. It would be fewer clicks for the team, and harder to forget to assign a label, if we required that any contacts associated with the event record on creation must include an association label.
Just want to add a quick +1! Most of our deals have two companies associated and it's hard to enforce proper fill rate for this since there's a strong habit to forget to set the association labels.
This is crucial for us. We need workflows & emails triggered off the association type but at the moment it's easy for the association to be missing completely.
