Loading
Every lead is worth the same amount of attention only if you know nothing about any of them. Scoring is how a team of three works a list of three hundred. It is also where opaque models do the most damage, because a ranking nobody can explain is a ranking nobody trusts.
Ranking leads by the criteria you wrote — firmographics, behaviour, source, fit — so the queue is ordered by something defensible.
Ranking comes from criteria you define and can inspect, not a black-box model. Scores are recalculated as the underlying facts change, and the contributing factors are shown alongside the number so a rep can disagree with it intelligently.
A lead scores highly on company size and sector fit but low on engagement. Both contributions are shown next to the score, so the rep can see it is a good-fit account that has not yet done anything — which calls for a different approach than a small company reading the pricing page daily.
It does not score with a black-box model, so it will not surface a pattern nobody thought to encode. That is the trade: less discovery, and a ranking your team will actually trust and use rather than override.
Because scoring reads the shared record, an existing customer's support history and payment behaviour can inform how a new enquiry from them is ranked.
No. It uses the criteria you set, and shows which ones contributed. A score you cannot explain is one your team will quietly ignore.
Yes — what makes a good renewal lead is not what makes a good new-business lead.
As the underlying facts change, not on a nightly batch. A lead that visited pricing this morning is ranked on that today.
Fourteen days, every module, no card. Or half an hour with someone who will run it on your own records and tell you where it does not help.