Someone consuming a lot of content may still be an unsuitable customer. A company showing little recorded engagement may arrive with a clear project requirement. If scoring hides that difference, sales can prioritise the busiest record while overlooking a relevant opportunity. Begin with separate fit and behaviour dimensions before combining everything into one high number.
Give fit and engagement different jobs
Fit should describe the relationship between the need, your services and your operating model. Engagement can indicate topics of interest within a particular period. Losing both inside a single total makes the reason for a higher score difficult to explain.
HubSpot's scoring guidance distinguishes fit, engagement and combined scores. This provides a useful conceptual starting point, but the available score types do not automatically determine your business's correct criteria. Derive those from the sales process.
Justify each criterion through a sales decision
Consider business-relevant fields such as the required service, supported territory, project scope or existing systems. Do not score information merely because it is easy to collect. A criterion may be unnecessary if you cannot explain which decision it improves.
Apply the same care to behaviour. Opening a page, requesting a proposal and asking for a further discussion are different signals. Missing tracking is not proof of no interest. Keep unavailable evidence distinct from a negative signal.
Use a decision matrix instead of one unexplained score
This is an example operating framework, not a numerical threshold or automatic sales decision. The team can use both dimensions to discuss an appropriate response.
| Fit | Engagement | Possible next action |
|---|---|---|
| High | High | Verify the need and prioritise a discussion |
| High | Low or unknown | Provide relevant information and considered follow-up |
| Low | High | Route appropriately without equating interest with fit |
| Unknown | High | Clarify missing business information |
| Low | Low | Classify appropriately without unnecessary sales pressure |
Control time and repeated behaviour
An old interaction may not represent current intent. A project returning to consideration differs from a one-off historical content visit. Define how long each criterion remains meaningful and when it needs reassessment.
Imagine someone repeatedly opening a guide to explain it to colleagues. Adding unlimited points for each view could create an impression of purchase readiness. Test whether repeated behaviour should be capped or interpreted differently using actual records rather than assumptions.
Validate the model with explainable examples
Review records sales considered suitable, unsuitable and still unassessed. Is the model's priority understandable? Which criterion causes a falsely high or low assessment? Discuss the underlying signals instead of only the final score.
Compare scoring with human review before treating it as automatic acceptance or rejection. Update criteria when service scope changes. Record the owner, version and reason for each change so the team retains a shared understanding of the score over time.