On a broader scale, language defines who we are, what groups we belong to and our culture.   

In Quebec, almost 50 years ago, the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF -  Quebec Board of the French Language) was established to ensure that French would be the primary language in the province of Quebec assuring the rights and identity of the French-speaking majority.

Supposedly first dubbed  ’The Language Police’ by the TV show 60 minutes, the OQLF accepts language complaints filed by Quebec citizens.     Although having no police powers, the OQLF can fine or even shut down an offending business.

Do we need language police in our world of B2B sales & marketing?

The ancient Greeks used the word bárbaros to describe foreigners as ‘those who babble’  (hence the word ‘barbarian’)

Perhaps this is an early example of mis-aligment between sales and marketing.   Could it be that ancient Greek salespeople referred to their marketing colleagues as bárbaros?  

Whatever the case, we continue to face basic issues in B2B sales and marketing.

The core concept of the definition of a sales lead and its workflow is the subject of endless debate and lack of clarity within B2B organizations.

The sales lead is the currency upon which sales and marketing transact their business.     If sales does not agree with marketing on the definition of a sales lead or their role in the lead lifecycle, then marketing’s efforts are futile.     This is akin to doing business between sales and marketing but in different currencies.

The agreement between sales and marketing acts as the catalyst for sales effort.

I propose that it is not the definition of the lead that matters but rather that sales and marketing agree on that definition.    

So here is my definition of a lead that provides any sales and marketing organization with a base to work from: 

The Sales Lead: A defined prospect to be engaged by Sales.  

Implied in this simple definition:

1. A sales lead is defined and agreed upon between sales and marketing and
2. Sales agrees to follow-up on such prospects in a consistent way.    

This approach provides the flexibility that is often needed.    Depending on buying behavior and selling processes, organizations may categorize a lead as an inquiry, an appointment or a qualified lead.   As time moves on, this definition can evolve.

If we can’t get consensus on something as simple and vital as a sales lead, then we should summon the language police.   As B2B organizations we have lost our way and our identity.

Related Blog Posts
An Identity Crisis for the Sales Lead
Sales Leads vs. Appointments
10 Signs that Sales & Marketing are Mis-Aligned

Photo Credit

The irony of course, is that the deliverable for sales is crystal clear – the sale. The contract is signed and the PO received. The heavy lifting from sales is finished and that of accounts receivable begins.

But for marketing, whose key deliverable is often the qualified lead, the picture is confusing: the definition of a sales lead can be all over the map. Is a lead an appointment or a qualified lead (or both)? Is a lead an inquiry, a trade show visitor, a webinar registrant, a downloader of a white paper or a referral?

To some, a lead is defined as an interested responder. To others, a fully qualified BANT lead (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeframe).

A poorly defined lead is one symptom of a crippling disease: sales & marketing mis-aligment (see my post on ten signs that sales and marketing are mis-aligned).

In the simplest possible terms: a lead is a prospect that sales agrees to accept, engage and close. Best-in-class sales & marketing organizations will add richer criteria to the definition, but the willingness of sales to accept a lead from marketing is elegant in its simplicity.

It also takes into account an important distinction: the definition of a lead may vary by the sales rep. For example, a new sales rep with no sales funnel may accept ‘loosely’ defined leads versus a sales rep who has a full funnel who will only accept ‘strictly’ defined, fully-qualified leads.

Unfortunately, the term ‘lead’ is frequently taken out of context by the vendors that sell to B2B marketers. This may artificially enhance the perceived value of the vendor’s solution but adds to the malaise and confusion in the market.

Ask yourself after reading the examples below and apply the simple acceptance rule: can you fathom a field salesperson accepting these ‘leads’?

Data Vendors – A significant number of data vendors continue to merchandise their lists as ‘leads’. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are lists of ‘Accounts and Contacts’.

CRM Vendors – Most CRM solutions have separate buckets for accounts/contacts and leads. Although I agree that leads need a home in the CRM system, the lead bucket seems to be a dumping ground for all flavors of inquiries and marketing responders. A more applicable label would be ‘Prospects’

Marketing Automation Vendors – A popular and vital process in the demand generation process is ‘lead nurture’. I agree that this is an easy to understand term for describing the cultivation of prospects until the prospect is sales-ready. However, these contacts are not leads but are prospects that are not yet ready to speak to sales. At one time, some of these prospect may have spoken to sales and subsequently disqualified. A better term would be ‘Prospect Nurture’.

It is important for marketing to under-promise and over-deliver to sales. It makes sense to ask their vendors to do the same.

Call me a stickler if you want, but until we see greater success in sales and marketing alignment and in particular, lead definitions, we need to be a lot more careful in the way that we throw around a pivotal term like ‘lead’.

Otherwise, it becomes one of those four letter words.

Your thoughts?

Photo Credit: Ash-rly

The day long event featured provocative presentations and success stories on innovative approaches for sales to better meet the advanced needs of buyers and lower the cost of lead generation and selling.

Geoffrey James, blogger of the Sales Machine, proved his mettle as the ‘Blogging Machine’ by publishing a ‘running update’ of the conference. Check out this unbelievable recap of the Sales 2.0 Conference.

In the afternoon, I sat at the blogging table (distinguished by having its own power supply) with Ardath Albee who authored these two posts on the conference: here and here.

By the end of the day, the bar was open and David Thompson, co-founder/CEO Genius was doing stand-up Sales 2.0 comedy (read David’s post on the success of this Conference series).

As we were packing up, Ardath and I reflected on the challenges that attendees will face in implementing many of the compelling ideas.

It’s with this in mind, that I thought I would share a perspective on making the most from this thought-provoking conference:

Make sure the basics are covered – Sales & marketing alignment continues to be a thorn in the side of Sales 2.0. Ensure that sales and marketing agree on target marketing, messaging, lead definitions, SLAs, key metrics and demand generation workflow.

Fit to Strategy – How do these tools and practices fit to your organization’s strategy? Increase sales conversion? Lower costs? Given that many of the Sales 2.0 tools are SaaS based and easy to deploy, there are few obstacles to get up & running. Fit to strategy will be the one of key considerations.

The best ideas can be mapped on a grid with High Impact on one axis and Ease of Deployment on another. This will help prioritize what might be a lengthy list and plan for a rollout of your ideas over a longer term.

Customer Insight – It all starts with the customer and now the customer is in the driver’s seat. Without customer insight, we substitute our personal opinion as a proxy for that of the customer leading to inappropriate conclusions and costly mistakes.

Culture – This may be the most substantial obstacle. With this economy, many organizations may be unwilling to experiment or innovate or do anything that will take away from lead generation and closing deals.

Or perhaps senior management will not buy into Sales 2.0 and refrain from providing the top down momentum to drive Sales 2.0 realignment.

Scott Santucci, Senior Analyst Forrester and speaker at Sales 2.0 San Francisco, wrote this recent post on the significant issues that sales leaders face in instituting change. As a follow-up to the Sales 2.0 Conference, don’t forget to register for Scott’s complimentary teleconference “Are you Mounting a Value-Selling Engine on a Product Selling Chassis?”

The best of success to you in rolling out your Sales 2.0 initiatives!

Photo Credits: Robert Lesser

Top Photo: Chicago skyline from Millennium Park
Middle Photo: Dave Fitzgerald, VP Sales, Brainshark & Dan Demko, President, SBTV.com
Bottom Photo: Kevin Hooper, VP, Technology Solutions Group, Hewlett-Packard Company

As a provider of lead generation services, we are afforded a unique position at the intersection point between sales and marketing to observe many of these ‘canaries’.

Today, I have tallied our top ten signs that sales and marketing are mis-aligned:

1) Wrestling in the Office – Sales and marketing settle their differences like cro-magnon men (see photo).

2) Rental Lists as Leads – Marketing refers to accounts and contacts on rental lists as ‘leads’. Any marketer who indiscriminately parrots this term from list vendors should be sent back to B2B marketing school.

3) Inquiries as Leads – Marketing categorizes an inquiry as a ‘lead’. A responder is just that: someone who is interested in your offer and may not be evaluating solutions.

4) Multiple Definitions for a Lead – Marketing and sales can’t agree on a single definition of a qualified, sales-ready lead.

5) Recycling Marketing Messaging for Sales – Dragging-and-dropping a message from a marketing brochure or website does not satisfy the needs of inside and outside sales for precise, distinct and succinct messaging.

6) No commitment from Sales on Lead Handling – Once marketing hands off a lead to sales there is no agreed upon course of action for lead engagement, lead reporting or lead recycling.

7) Fuzzy Sales Lead Feedback – The reports from sales are full of emotion but not facts. Leads are tossed aside with little detailed feedback as to why the lead did not meet the lead criteria.

8 ) A Qualified Prospect Calls Back – A lead who is expecting a call from sales, never receives contact. The lead re-contacts your organization to find out when someone will call.

9) Leads Generated by Marketing are Not Factored into Quota – Sales does not count on marketing-sourced leads to achieve their quota.

10) Marketing is Measured on Inquiries or Responses – Marketing is measured on activity metrics, rather than results metrics.

What signs do you see that cause you concern about sales and marketing alignment? What would you add to the list?