Olá! Nós temos uma Comunidade em Português!

I'm shocked lead scores can't be incremented every time an action is taken


Why isn't it possible to increment lead scores every time an action is taken? This should be an option when setting up scoring for each property. As the system currently stands, if someone visits my website on 20 separate occasions, they get 1 point. What if they read 100 blog posts? Have 1 point.


The point of lead scoring is to provide an indication of how engaged a prospect is with your company and your content over time, which undoubtedly includes repeat visits to a website, multiple marketing emails opened, etc. I'm utterly flummoxed as to why repeat actions don't count toward lead scores. How is this not a thing? All the other major marketing automation platforms assume that this is how lead scoring works.


I've read Hubspot's community article suggesting a workaround, which is really not a workaround at all. It suggests I create separate rules that say, "If a prospect views a second web page, add another point," and "If a prospect views a third web page, add another point" ... but clearly this is not a scalable or sustainable solution.


Is there a real workaround (not a highly manual accounting for every possibility) that exists now, or does Hubspot at least have a fix for this in its development pipeline?

3 Respostas 3

You can setup lead scoring in a way that allows somene to get more points depending on the number of visits.   But here's a counter argument to think about with your scoring model.


I read 100 blogs.  50 in January, 20 in March, 20 in June, 8 in September, and 2 in October.

Another visitor reads 100 blog posts, 5 in January, 20 in June, 30 in September, 45 in October.


Both of us end up with a score of 100 based on your scale.  How does sales make a determine as to who to contact based on the score they have today when both scores are equal?


So while there are some MAPs that have this type of scoring there is a downside to doing it this way because someone who has been around longer should have a higher score, but without a measure of recency of the value, you cannot tell which has a higher value to a sales rep today.  What I would recommend with your scoring is to look at scoring points based on volume ranges and recency to effectively measure those website visits.  For example, > 20 visits in the last month,  > 20 visits in the last 3 months, >20 visits in the last 6 months.


In your model, someone who read one blog post in the last month would get the same score as someone who read 19 blog posts in a month. I think that's a problem.


These seem like two separate topics—point scores that correlate to each event, and recency of engagement—that we’re conflating into one. I don't know why assigning a lead score for each event (not 20 of the same event) precludes the use of recency rules.


Additionally, chunking out events by quantity needlessly uses additional attributes. For professional-tier Hubspot subscribers, I believe we get 100 attributes total for lead-scoring, right? Setting up additional attributes for different quantities of the same event isn't an efficient use of attributes or the user's time.


Totally agrees. The interface to build/view the scoring model and way of scoring multiple occurences of an action is weak and is lagging behind competition. Hard to believe such a serious automation player has such a limited scoring platform that is poorly adapted to any minimally complex scoring scenarios.