In the last few years there has been a wealth of research telling us that sales cycles in IT are lengthening. This is due to various factors including the growth in numbers of the buying group, increasing caution in CFOs relating to IT investment, and a laser focus on ROI.
For Midsize and Enterprise organisations this can mean anything from 9 -18 months.
Yet, vendors’ approach to marketing through lead & demand gen remains pretty static; most budgets are still planned on a quarterly basis and in the majority of cases are attached to a pretty immovable pipeline goal.
Even the worst mathematicians among us must realise something doesn’t add up here.
This misalignment leads to vendor functions working to different timelines, different goals and ultimately mis-managed expectations and possibly missed opportunities.
There is an increasing feeling among marketers that much of the demand generation activities they undertake are not fit for purpose; as a result more and more attention is being given to lower-bottom of funnel leads to ensure there is a higher likelihood of conversion to pipe. It keeps Sales happy and increases the chances of some real ROI being attributed back to marketing.
But as we know the lower down the funnel you go, the thinner it gets. Quality becomes the watchword and frankly there just isn’t enough of those opportunities to go around, unless you are prepared to spend ludicrous amounts of your budget on securing the odd appointment (which could well end up leading to nothing anyway).
However there is an area that marketers do have more control over and by making some fundamental changes can start to fix the system.
Lead Scoring & Qualification
When is a qualified lead truly qualified? It’s not so easy these days to pin down what constitutes ‘intent’ and to what level that equates to in the buying journey.
Many of the scoring models used are the same ones that have been in place for years, and as a result are no longer fit for purpose. For instance, a high score based on traditional metrics may overlook passive interest or misinterpret exploratory behaviours.
So it’s more important than ever to ensure there are key elements included in your scoring methods:
Start with Sales.
Revisit your sales process and ICPs with the Sales team. This helps redefine your addressable market and align scoring to real opportunities—TALs, upsell potential, and new logo targets.
Separate intent from engagement.
Not all actions are equal. Downloading a whitepaper ≠ buying intent. Prioritise signals that show true buying behaviour over generic engagement.
Think dynamic, not static.
Lead qualification should evolve. A contact’s score should reflect cumulative interactions, changing business context, and where they are in the journey—not just a point-in-time snapshot.
Add research-led context.
Use third-party insights to understand how different personas behave, who influences the decision, and what touchpoints matter most along the way.
Incorporate predictive intelligence.
Use AI tools to identify where accounts might be in the buying cycle—even if they haven’t actively raised their hand yet.
Score in context.
A high-scoring lead may still be a poor fit if the industry is under pressure, budgets are frozen, or timing is off. Layer in contextual signals to avoid chasing dead ends.
Blend multiple inputs—not just sales gut feel.
Move away from sales-only scoring. Combine behavioural, contextual, and predictive inputs for a more accurate view.
Marketers must adapt their lead scoring strategies to reflect the realities of a dynamic market. By asking not just “how engaged is this lead?” but “why is this lead engaged?” and “what does their engagement mean for conversion?” they can better identify when a lead is truly qualified. In doing so, they will not only improve their demand generation outcomes but also build stronger, more enduring relationships with their prospects.