Hi @AndreaWeir,
This is a known functionality of the tool that is designed to work that way. This is in an effort to keep your data up to date and reflect the accurate stats for your contacts in a certain life cycle.
If you are seeing that it is inteferring with your data, I would recommend setting this information in a custom contact property to ensure that it is available for reporting purposes.
Thank you,
Jenny
 | Did my post help answer your query? Help the Community by marking it as a solution |
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 -]
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
HubSpot, like many other CRMs, is not one-size-fits-all. In fact, HubSpot, to a greater extent than say Salesforce, has extreme limitations when it comes to its CRM. In other words, there are scenarios the HubSpot CRM simply wasn't built to accomodate. De-evolution (or reversal) of the Lifecycle Stage is just one such scenario.
In our experience, the best solution is an accountable team aligned around uniform objectives. In our world, we don't separate sales and marketing -- because one cannot truely scale and remain competitive without the other. At least not in an evolving 21st centry buyer-centric sales environment.
>>"When a potential sale is lost ... Should the contact be therefore a SQL?"
Yes. In our world. But only because the definition of an SQL that we use internally -- i.e., a lead with the capacity and willingness to pay for our product &/or services, and who has expressed interest in US after reviewing our offerings -- i.e., emailed us, or scheduled a meeting with us.
- Notice how our SQL definition doesn't say whether or not ... they're new, have a deal in progress, been connected with, etc.
- Notice how that definition doesn't say 'ready to buy'. (an important distinction in my mind)
- Notice also how it doesn't include people who subscribe to some blog, who've downloaded some ebook, or who've completed some contact form. These tactical tools are not true indicators of sales readiness, but are mear micro-conversions along the way to sales readiness.
Think of it like this ...
Last year we spent close to ~$150 per client acquisition. The bulk of those costs came from QUALIFYING LEADS. So, for argument's sake, let's say we opted to do away with the lead qualification process and Lifecycle Stages, and simply just meet with everyone who had a question. Since we use to do things this way in 'the old days' (2012) we have excellent data around how well it works by comparison ... it doesn't.
Why? Because we're in the service business and our most valuable resource (time) is finite.
The decision to build a sales funnel to pre-qualify leads dramatically reduced the NUMBER of leads that crosses our desk, but it also dramatically increased the CONVERSION RATE for the remaining leads. Some would call these the 'Glengarry Glenn Ross' leads. (from the movie) 
Something else it did was INCREASE THE VALUE OF EACH LEAD! (shutup) Nope. Seriously. Think about it. If we're pre-qualifying leads -- (our model) -- that means we're effectively turning away people who may have otherwise turned into buyers with just a little 'convincing', cajoling, or whateverthehell -- (long story for another time, but not our model).
Point?
Once we qualify a lead internally as an SQL, they NEVER become unqualified unless / until they explicitly express disinterest or die in the CRM through attrition. (aka: list decay)
Why? Because we continue to provide value to them even if they're not our client -- via follow-up emails, via this forum, via free calls, etc.. In other words, we don't stop the sales process for SQLs simply because they're not ready to buy TODAY. If we did that we'd be out of business in less than a year.
This model works for us because our target buyers evolve in both their careers and in their HubSpot expertise over time. They realize that marketing is only getting harder and more complex, so they will eventually need help navigating the evolving HubSpot terrain. On more than a few occasions this has translated into month's old SQLs re-engaging us even after moving to other companies.
Always happy to help. Reach out anytime if we can be of assistance with HubSpot.
Best,
Frank
Remote B2B Digital Marketing Manager
MFrankJohnson.com | Connect on LinkedIn
Find posts quickly ... accept this solution now.
>>"... a reverted lead ... cluttering up the SQL stage of our funnel ..."
Wow. Interesting perspective.
Certainly a valid concern if one defines SQLs as only those who are 'ready to buy'. (as mentioned above, "not our model")
Much of the difficulty we encounter with Lifecycle Stage as an indicator of sales readiness is that many clients mistakenly view this property in isolation. We don't view it that way.
Lifecycle Stage alone mearly indicates WHERE a contact or company is in our marketing/sales funnel. Not their STATUS as a lead.
We always consider the Lead Status (with customizations) when viewing a contact in Lead, MQL, or SQL stage.
- see What is the difference between Lifecycle Stage and Lead Status?
(see image)
When combined with Lifecycle Stage, Lead Status can be used to trigger very specific behavior. An example customization we build for clients includes a custom Lead Status ('Re-Engage Later') and custom Deal and Contact properties -- e.g., Closed Lost Reason, Re-engage, and Re-Engage Date.
In our build, we use the Closed Lost Deal stage to trigger auto-creation of follow-up tasks when a Deal is closed lost with a Reason of 'Re-Engage Later'.
- see How to copy HubSpot Deal Properties to Contacts & Companies ...
Finally, we routinely use HubSpot best practices combined with cloud-based integration tools like Zapier and Automate.io to push HubSpot further than its default capabilities. That being said, we also recognize there are many scenarios the HubSpot CRM simply wasn't built to accomodate.
Always happy to help. Reach out anytime if we can be of assistance with HubSpot.
Best,
Frank
