PROBLEM: Difficulty reporting due to violation of HubSpot Lifecycle Stage Best Practice.
Occasionally, clients face this problem. Here's how we recommend they 'fix' it.
As with anything else, some listen ... some don't.
THE GOAL
If we agree that the goal of any CRM is to help manage the customer relationship by increasing alignment between marketing and sales, then we can have a dialog around that overarching goal. If not, then we've already relegated our CRM to nothing more than an expensive digital rolodex.
[- stop reading now -]
The Lead Thief
HUBSPOT CRM
As you know, the built-in HubSpot Marketing Lifecycle Stages are setup as a ratchet system which means HubSpot contacts are intended to move forward in Lifecycle Stage and NEVER backwards. Ever.
In fact, when even attempting to perform a Lifecycle Stage violation in HubSpot we are presented with a warning. And, workflows won't perform such violations without both a warning AND an explicit command to explicitly clear the Lifecycle Stage Contact Property before setting it 'back in time' -- aka: destroying the existing data.
HUBSPOT MARKETING
Matching an organization's sales pipeline workflow process with HubSpot's forward-moving Lifecycle Stage behavior guarantees continuity in the CRM (to the extent possible). This 'never move backwards' Lifecycle Stage behavior also allows for some interesting advanced automation using Predictive Lead Scoring and Workflows as more and more lead intelligence is gathered over time.
- see Predictive Lead Scoring criteria
Question:
So, how do we deal with the 'so-called SQLs that aren't really SQLs' problem?
Answer:
We fix the misalignment between marketing and sales instead of breaking the CRM to match thereby creating a 2nd un-fixable problem (data destruction).
INCREASING ALIGNMENT
Here's how.
-1- Align Marketing and Sales goals and KPI's so that Prospects, Subscribers or Leads only become MQLs after meeting agreed-upon criteria.
-2- Align Marketing and Sales goals and KPI's so that MQLs only become SQLs after meeting agreed-upon criteria.
-3- Employ the use of exclusive SQL Lead Statuses (used only by the Sales Team).
Examples:
- SQL - Bad SQL (i.e., should've never even been an SQL)
- SQL - Bad MQL (i.e., should've never even been an MQL)
Notice, even the names of these examples reek of misalignment between marketing and sales and are prime examples of why agreed-upon criteria must be defined when promoting MQLs to SQLs.
Contact records in these lead statuses are excellent candidates for discussion during the regular alignment meetings (aka: scrub meetings) between the Marketing and Sales Managers. Similar systems put in place allow both managers to easily track volume and accountability on their teams . That is, 'how many are occuring' and 'who is triggering these statuses' which can yield valuable feedback used to further align marketing and sales.
- Feedback -
Use of 'SQL - Bad SQL' is a potential indication of weak SQL criteria.
Use of 'SQL - Bad MQL' is a potential indication of weak MQL criteria.
Excessive use of either is a potential indication of a personnel issue.
And finally,
-4- Agree that an SQL remains an SQL until they either become an Opportunity, a Customer, or they die in the CRM (i.e., become unqualified, or become a candidate for opt-out or deletion).
The biggest complaint we've heard about the one-way Lifecycle Stage ratchet system typically comes from guys who have a tendency to wanna work the newer Leads (NOT SQLs) while leaving perfectly good SQLs to die on the vine.
Considering the costs of lead acquisition, qualification, management, nurturing, etc, choosing to work new Leads at the expense of existing SQLs is tantamount to stealing money from the company by wasting resources. No different than taking reams of copy paper home by the box, only MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. (facepalm)
Fortunately, we can restrict and/or track theft behavior in the CRM. How each company decides to deal with thieves is up to them. Here, we cut off their ... wait for it ...
ACCESS!
(get your mind out the gutter) haha