How to tell whether the problem is lead quality or follow-up

Marketing says the leads are good. Sales says they are not. The argument continues because each side is measuring a different thing. Marketing can show that a person completed a high-intent action. Sales can show that the person did not progress. The missing evidence is what happened between those two facts.

Define lead quality before judging it

Lead quality should reflect fit and intent, not whether the person eventually bought. Useful indicators include the relevance of the need, geography, budget or eligibility where appropriate, urgency, source context and whether the contact details work.

A lead can be suitable but not ready. It can also be ready but unsuitable. Treating all non-buyers as poor leads makes the definition circular.

Define good follow-up as progress, not persistence

Good follow-up is not simply a high number of attempts. It is a proportionate sequence that uses the context of the enquiry, answers questions, makes the next step clear and adapts to timing.

A lead contacted six times with the same generic message has received activity, not necessarily useful follow-up.

Run a matched comparison

Take a group of similar enquiries from the same source and period. Separate those that progressed from those that did not. Compare response time, contact method, first-reply content, number and spacing of attempts, agreed next steps, owner changes and CRM completeness.

If similar leads perform differently under different handling conditions, follow-up deserves attention. If outcomes remain weak despite consistent handling, revisit source, targeting or offer.

Use four evidence categories

Fit: Is this a customer the business can and wants to serve? Intent: What action did they take, and what did they ask for? Handling: Was the response timely, relevant and followed through? Outcome: What happened, and how confident are we in the reason?

This shared view gives marketing and sales a more productive conversation. It replaces “your leads” and “your follow-up” with evidence about the same journey.

Do not force a false choice

Many businesses have both issues. A source may generate a mixed-quality cohort while the follow-up process also varies. Fixing one will not make the other disappear.

Lead Leakage helps identify where quality ends and handling begins. The aim is not to allocate blame. It is to prevent the wrong investment: more budget into a leaking process, or more training for a team receiving unsuitable demand.

A practical checklist

• Quality criteria are defined before outcomes are reviewed.
• Comparable leads are grouped by source and period.
• First replies are inspected, not assumed.
• Attempt count is not mistaken for useful follow-up.
• Progressed and non-progressed leads are compared.
• Unknown outcomes are labelled unknown, not poor quality.

What to do next

Start with a small evidence review rather than a large change programme. Choose a recent sample, follow the complete enquiry history and agree the first change that will improve response, follow-up, ownership or visibility. The Lead Leakage Scorecard is the proportionate next step when the problem is visible but the main leakage point is not yet clear.

Sources and further reading

• Salesforce: State of Sales

• McKinsey: From touchpoints to journeys

• Break.Beat: Your Marketing Isn't Broken. Your Inputs Are.

Evidence note: External findings support specific points and should not be treated as universal performance standards. The business’s own enquiry data should determine priorities.