Cumulative vs Normalized Lead Scoring Strategies | Community
Skip to main content
Shari_Horton
Shari_Horton
Level 2
August 20, 2015
Question

Cumulative vs Normalized Lead Scoring Strategies

  • August 20, 2015
  • 3 replies
  • 3358 views

We have been using a normalized lead scoring system whereby changes in scorable data values initiative the lead to run through the set of scoring campaigns.   It has a lot of pluses, but a major downside is that it creates loads of scoring entries into the activity record making it complicated for someone to easily understand why a lead scored a certain way.  I have been thinking about moving to more of a cumulative model.  Wondering if anyone else has thought through this topic?  Are there pluses and minuses with respect to Sales Insight, Revenue Cycle Analytics, or other items we should consider before changing?

This post is no longer active and is closed to new replies. Need help? Start a new post to ask your question.

3 replies

Josh_Perry1
Josh_Perry1
Level 5
August 20, 2015

I would suggest sticking with normalized lead scoring (which I believe you are referring to diminishing score values based on inactivity and time). If you do not make adjustments based on inactivity, the scores will get really high and become inaccurate in lead prioritization, which is what you are really trying to accomplish.

If you want to eliminate showing all of the scoring entries, you can always filter based on activity in your views.

Another option is to look into predictive lead scoring. Lattice, Leadspace, Mintigo, Fliptop, Infer, SalesPredict, 6sense, are just a few vendors that can help with this. If they do the scoring, you do not have to deal with seeing all of the behavior actions.

Shari_Horton
Shari_HortonAuthor
Level 2
September 2, 2015

No, by normalized, we mean that ever time scorable data values change - it triggers the lead to be completely rescored.  As in it runs through all the scoring campaigns again.  The scoring campaigns are all based on activity within the most recent 30 days. It creates so much clutter in the activity record.

Josh_Hill13
Josh_Hill13
Level 10
August 20, 2015

So you mean that you have a score of 0-100 and that if a lead reaches 100, you don't keep scoring them. But you also lower their score (I hope) based on inactivity, etc as Josh suggests.

Both systems have pluses and minuses. If you already have the normalization working, then just ask people to look at the score and not worry so much how it got there. It's hard to make more of a recommendation without seeing how you implemented the system and why it is putting in so many score changes.

Shari_Horton
Shari_HortonAuthor
Level 2
September 2, 2015

No... It  means that every time scorable data values change - it triggers the lead to be completely rescored.  (e.g.  Visits website, triggers a set of 10 interest campaigns to run).  The scoring campaigns are all based on activity within the most recent 30 days.   Maybe this is not often used.  The system was created by the agency that set up our system, long before I arrived.   Our sales people insist at times on knowing how someone scored up to MQL and the clutter in the activity record from the constant running of these campaigns makes it really hard for someone to answer unless they have loads of time and patience to dig through the weeds.

Shari_Horton
Shari_HortonAuthor
Level 2
November 6, 2015

This gets viewed often, so I thought to circle back and post that we have moved away from the "always recalculating normalizing score" to the cumulative score that caps interest scoring and degrades score for inactivity.  Our sales folks are thrilled.  We think this will have a most positive impact on Sales Insight as well.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement

    Loading footer...