How Do You Fix Misaligned Scoring Between Marketing and Sales?
If marketing calls it “hot” but sales calls it “junk,” you don’t have a scoring problem—you have an alignment problem. Fixing misaligned lead scoring means co-defining what “good” looks like, validating it with real pipeline data, and governing changes together so every score tells the same story across the funnel.
You fix misaligned scoring between marketing and sales by co-owning the definition of a qualified lead, rebuilding scoring rules from that shared definition, and validating the model against historical opportunity and win data. Start by agreeing on ideal customer profile criteria and buying signals, then map those into a transparent scoring framework that sales trusts. Run the new model and the old one in parallel, compare MQL→SQL→win rates by score band, and only roll out changes once both teams see that high scores consistently convert. Finally, lock in a governance cadence so any future tweaks are data-driven and signed off by both functions.
Signs Your Scoring Is Out of Sync
A Practical Playbook to Realign Scoring with Sales
Use this sequence to turn scoring from a marketing-only project into a joint GTM instrument everyone trusts.
Diagnose → Define → Design → Validate → Roll Out → Govern
- Diagnose where expectations differ. Run workshops with SDRs, AEs, and marketing to capture how they define a “good” lead today. Review actual won deals, fast-moving opps, and chronic no-decisions to identify patterns that do or don’t match current scoring.
- Co-define ICP and qualification criteria. Agree on firmographic, technographic, and role-level attributes that define fit, plus behavioral signals that show buying intent. Document explicit inclusion and exclusion rules (e.g., industries, segments, deal size, geos) and capture them in a lead management or SLAs document.
- Design a shared scoring framework. Split scoring into Fit (who they are) and Engagement (what they do). Decide which behaviors merit high intent points (e.g., pricing pages, product tours, bottom-of-funnel content) and which are light engagement. Align score ranges and MQL/SAL thresholds together.
- Validate with historical data. Back-test the proposed model against prior cohorts: apply the new scoring to past leads and compare MQL→SQL, SQL→opportunity, and win rates by band. Adjust weights until higher bands correlate with better outcomes, not just more activity.
- Roll out with clear SLAs and feedback loops. Switch routing and MQL triggers to the new model, but be explicit about what sales commits to (speed-to-lead, touch patterns) and how marketing will refine scoring based on real outcomes. Establish a short weekly standup during the first 4–6 weeks after launch.
- Govern and improve scoring as a product. Treat scoring like a living product with an owner, backlog, and roadmap. Schedule quarterly reviews to examine performance by score band, and route all change requests through a shared intake and approval process.
Scoring Alignment Maturity Matrix
| Capability | From (Ad Hoc) | To (Operationalized) | Owner | Primary KPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICP & Qualification | Implicit, varies by rep | Documented ICP and disqualifiers co-owned by marketing and sales | Sales Leadership & Marketing | SQL conversion, win rate |
| Scoring Framework | Single score based on engagement only | Fit + Engagement model with clear bands and thresholds | RevOps / Marketing Ops | MQL→SQL conversion by band |
| Routing & SLAs | Generic routing; no agreed follow-up expectations | Score-based routing with documented SLAs and touch patterns | SDR Leadership / Sales Ops | Speed-to-lead, SLA attainment |
| Analytics & Back-Testing | Static reports on MQL volume only | Regular analysis of funnel conversion and velocity by score band | RevOps / Analytics | Pipeline from MQLs, revenue per MQL |
| Feedback Loops | Anecdotal complaints about “bad leads” | Structured win/loss feedback and lead disposition data feeding model updates | Sales Managers & Marketing | MQL acceptance rate, recycled rate |
| Governance & Change Control | Untracked tweaks in MAP/CRM | Formal change process with testing, documentation, and approvals | RevOps / GTM Council | Stability of score-performance correlation |
Client Snapshot: From “Marketing Leads Are Junk” to Shared Confidence
A SaaS company generated a steady stream of MQLs, but sales closed only a small fraction. SDRs routinely skipped scored leads and worked self-sourced lists instead. Marketing claimed they were hitting volume goals; sales argued that scoring rewarded content consumption over real buying intent.
Together, we analyzed a year of historical opp data, grouped by score band, and quickly saw that many “high-scoring” leads never had budget or authority. We rebuilt the model around a shared ICP, added strong points for decision-makers at target accounts doing buying-journey actions, and reduced points for low-intent signals like generic newsletter opens.
After rollout, MQL volume dropped but MQL→SQL conversion and pipeline per MQL rose significantly. Sales regained trust in scored leads, SDRs prioritized the right accounts, and both teams started using the same numbers to decide where to focus campaigns and outreach.
When scoring is built with sales instead of for sales, it turns into a powerful shared control panel for lead management, capacity planning, and budget allocation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Fixing Misaligned Scoring
Make Scoring a Shared Language for Revenue Teams
We’ll help you align marketing and sales on ICP, rebuild your scoring model around real buying signals, and put governance in place so your scores stay trusted as your GTM evolves.
Run ABM Smarter Define your Strategy