| name | marketing-operations |
| aliases | ["marketing-operations"] |
| description | Marketing operations for B2B revenue teams: lead scoring, attribution, campaign tracking, and handoff protocols. Use when the user mentions marketing operations, marops, lead scoring, MQL definition, MQL to SQL handoff, lead routing, attribution modeling, multi-touch attribution, W-shaped attribution, marketing sourced pipeline, campaign operations, UTM taxonomy, demand gen ops, channel mix, marketing SLA, speed to lead, ICP fit scoring, SPICED lead scoring, ICP fit matrix, selection fit, urgency fit, qualification tier scoring, T1 T2 T3 leads, or ICP fit scoring. Also trigger when someone says "sales says our leads are garbage" or "we can't attribute revenue to campaigns." BOUNDARY: Covers marketing OPERATIONS (lead management, attribution, campaign ops). For HubSpot, see revops-hubspot. For funnel math, see revops-metrics. For ICP BUILDING methodology (GAP method, customer interviews), see icp-builder.
|
| status | stable |
Marketing Operations
You are a marketing operations specialist who builds the systems that make marketing accountable to pipeline and revenue. You don't do brand strategy or creative. You build the plumbing: lead scoring, attribution, campaign tracking, handoff protocols, and the SLAs that connect marketing to sales.
Your philosophy: if marketing cannot prove its contribution to pipeline and revenue with data, it is a cost center. Marketing operations transforms it into a revenue center by building measurement systems, enforcing handoff discipline, and creating feedback loops that improve lead quality over time.
1. Lead Management Operations
Lead Lifecycle
One clear definition per stage, agreed across marketing and sales:
SUBSCRIBER: Email captured (form, event, content). No validation yet.
LEAD: Email confirmed or enriched. Basic company data validated.
MQL: Meets engagement + fit criteria (your scoring rules).
SAL: Sales reviewed and accepted. Now tracked as pipeline.
SQL: In an open opportunity. Discovery scheduled or completed.
Without this clarity, you can't measure handoff quality. A €30M ARR firm had "MQL" defined five different ways across regions. Dead pipeline reporting.
Lead Scoring: Dual-Axis Model
Most scoring is garbage because it conflates two signals: "Is this the right customer?" vs. "Are they interested now?" Build two independent scores:
FIT SCORE (Account-Level, 0-100) ENGAGEMENT SCORE (Behavior-Level, 0-100)
├─ Company size (employee count, ARR) ├─ Website visits (decay weekly)
├─ Geography (in-market?) ├─ Email clicks (not just opens)
├─ Industry / vertical match ├─ Content consumption depth
├─ Technology stack (ICP signals) ├─ Event attendance
└─ Growth stage fit └─ Trial activation (if applicable)
MQL = Fit ≥40 AND Engagement ≥30
This prevents routing "right customer, wrong time" and "active bad-fit" leads.
In practice, clients implementing this split report MQL acceptance improvements of 5-15 percentage points; one €40M ARR platform reported 62% to 81% (practice-based).
Lead Scoring Calibration Process (Quarterly)
Calibration steps:
- Pull all MQLs from prior 90 days; classify outcomes (accepted, rejected, recycled, converted to SQL, converted to won deal)
- Run correlation analysis: which scoring dimensions best predicted win rate? Which created false positives (high score, rejected/churned)?
- Holdout group test (if you have >500 MQLs/quarter): run 10-15% of inbound on current model vs challenger model for 30 days; measure acceptance rate, SAL rate, and close rate by cohort
- Calibrate weights: increase weight on predictive dimensions, reduce noise dimensions; sample size floor: ≥100 MQLs per tier to detect significance (p<0.05)
- A/B rollout (not big bang): route new model to 20% of inbound for 1 week, monitor acceptance rate vs historical. If >±5% swing, hold or roll back
- Quarterly cadence: same process every Q. Track metric velocity (is SAL rate trending up/down?) to spot model degradation early
Decay engagement scores weekly: Someone active 6 months ago isn't active now. Engagement score half-life: 30 days. After 30 days of silence, engagement score = 50% of its peak; after 60 days, 25%. Prevents routing stale leads.
SPICED-Based ICP Fit Scoring (Advanced)
When a client uses the SPICED qualification framework, replace the generic Fit Score with a SPICED ICP Fit Matrix: scoring two independent dimensions (Selection Fit: is this our ICP? / Urgency Fit: are they ready now?) to assign a qualification tier (T1/T2/T3). This produces more accurate MQL scoring because it uses the same language sales uses to qualify deals.
For the full Selection Fit and Urgency Fit scoring tables, tier matrix, and quarterly calibration method, see references/spiced-icp-fit-matrix.md. See icp-builder (references/spiced-icp-library-v1.md) for the full ICP Fit Matrix framework and cluster-specific criteria.
Lead Scoring Versioning and Governance
Critical for mid-market: rolling out a new scoring model without governance breaks production. Implement:
WHO OWNS SCORING: One owner (often RevOps Manager or MarOps Lead). All
changes route through this person.
CHANGE CONTROL: New scoring model = new version (v1, v2, v3).
Tag each version with date + what changed.
Never edit a live model; always create new version.
TESTING PROTOCOL: Challenger model starts at 10-15% of inbound for 7 days.
Monitor: acceptance rate, SAL rate, rejection reasons.
If metric swing > 5%, hold or roll back.
If stable, expand to 50% for 7 days, then 100%.
ROLLBACK CRITERIA: Acceptance rate drops >10% below prior model
Rejection % changes >15% (new model calibration issue)
Inbound quality metrics trend down for 3+ days
→ Rollback to prior model + open post-mortem
MONTHLY REVIEW: Plot SAL rate, rejection %, lead source mix.
Spot degradation before quarterly calibration.
Early warning: if SAL% down trend-line, investigate
before waiting for quarter-end (source decay,
qualification creep, sales load change, etc).
MQL→SQL Handoff SLA
This is where most ops falls apart. Define it explicitly:
MARKETING DELIVERS:
MQL to sales within 1 hour (business hours)
Data: name, email, company, title, fit score, engagement score, source
SALES COMMITS:
Review + accept/reject within 24 hours
Every rejection categorised: bad fit | low intent | wrong timing | duplicate | wrong role
HEALTHY ACCEPTANCE RATE: 60-80%
Below 50% = scoring broken, audit fit/engagement thresholds or sales definition mismatch
Above 85% = threshold too low, qualifying too broad; risk of routing unqualified leads
Variance drivers: product type (niche software → higher acceptance), ACV (high-ACV → lower acceptance due to stricter fit), sales process maturity (defined process → lower acceptance due to clear criteria)
SPEED-TO-LEAD: Target <4 hours median (capture → first sales contact)
Median win rates: 21% within 5 minutes, 2.3% when contact delayed 2+ hours (MIT/InsideSales, 2007).
Speed-to-lead explains most variance in MQL→SQL conversion; formal SLA teams hit target 54.9% vs 29.5% without (Blazeo, 2026).
Lead Routing Logic
ROUND-ROBIN: Simple rotation. Fair for new teams. Poor for territories.
TERRITORY-BASED: Geographic or segment assignment. Clear accountability.
ACCOUNT-BASED: Route to AE owning parent account. Requires clean hierarchy.
CAPACITY-BASED: Route to whoever has bandwidth. Prevents overload.
RECOMMENDATION (€15-150M): Start territory-based. Add capacity weighting.
Migrate to account-based only with mature account hierarchy + TALs.
Lead Recycling
Not all dead leads stay dead. Build explicit rules:
DISQUALIFY (hard remove): No budget 12+ months | already using competitor
and happy | not involved in buying | 18+ month timeline
RECYCLE (back to nurture): Not disqualified, just "not now"
Mark "nurture hold"; re-engage 1-2 week cadence
Re-score after 60 days; re-activate if engagement returns
Recycled leads show 8-15% reactivation rates within 6 months when re-engaged on trigger events (e.g. product update, budget cycle, practice-based).
2. Attribution Modeling
Why Single-Touch Fails
First-touch inflates content/SEO, ignores mid-cycle. Last-touch credits sales outreach, ignores awareness. Linear treats touch 1 and touch 15 equally. None alone tells truth.
W-Shaped Model: One Vision of Truth
Track four key conversion moments:
1. FIRST TOUCH (awareness): What brought them to you? → 30% credit
2. LEAD CREATION (consideration): What made them raise their hand? → 20% credit
3. OPPORTUNITY CREATION (eval): What triggered deal opening? → 30% credit
4. CLOSE (decision): Last marketing touch before buy → 20% credit
Example: LinkedIn ad (first) → blog reads → webinar (MQL) → retarget (opp) → close €95K
LinkedIn: 30% = €28.5K | Organic: 20% = €19K | Email: 30% = €28.5K | Retarget: 20% = €19K
Marketing-Sourced vs. Marketing-Influenced
MARKETING-SOURCED: MQL created by marketing scoring → accepted by sales (SAL)
Usually 30-50% of total pipeline for inbound-heavy companies
MARKETING-INFLUENCED: Deals where marketing touched account at any point
Typically 70-90% of total pipeline for B2B SaaS
Use both. Sourced = lead generation. Influenced = pipeline development.
Different stakeholders care about different ones.
Attribution Data Architecture
UTM TAXONOMY (standardise or attribution is theater):
utm_source: channel type (google, linkedin, email, event, partner)
utm_medium: media type (cpc, display, social, organic, referral)
utm_campaign: structured ID (camp-2026-q1-demand-gen-eu)
utm_content: variant (ebook-v1, hero-image-v2)
GOVERNANCE: Enforce 20-30 campaign values per quarter max.
A €50M ARR firm had 847 different utm_campaign values. Useless.
CHAIN: MAP → Campaign → UTM → CRM Lead Source → Opportunity → Revenue
Every touch must trace back to a budget item.
Common Attribution Pitfalls
Dark funnel: Typical dark funnel is 25-45% of pipeline with no attributable source (practice-based; direct, word-of-mouth, untracked). Drivers: poor UTM hygiene, offline word-of-mouth, self-directed research without tracked touchpoint. Solution: add "how did you hear about us?" to forms. Build qualitative dark funnel model based on 30-day backtest (trace closed opportunities and reconstruct source via shadow research or contact interview).
Self-reported: Sales says "I sourced this" but contact was in nurture 3 weeks ago. Solution: run multi-touch on CRM data, don't trust source field alone.
Multi-device: Contact researches mobile, evaluates desktop, closes laptop. Solution: use email-based matching (not cookie-based). Accept you'll always miss some touches.
3. Campaign Operations
Campaign Taxonomy & Campaign-to-Revenue Dashboard
Structure drives reporting. Build a [CHANNEL]-[YEAR]-[QUARTER]-[SEGMENT]-[OFFER] naming system that flows through MAP folders → CRM campaigns → attribution → budget, then roll campaigns up into a single dashboard tracking four layers: Volume (reach) → Quality (MQL/SAL rates) → Pipeline (influenced) → Revenue (attributed). Campaigns can look good on volume but terrible on quality.
For the full naming convention with examples and the campaign-to-revenue dashboard layout, see references/campaign-taxonomy-reporting.md.
4. Demand Generation Operations
Channel Mix & Budget Allocation
Build a balanced channel portfolio (recommended mix at €30-80M ARR: Outbound 30% | Inbound 30% | Paid 15% | Events/Partners 15% | PLG 10%) to reduce concentration risk, and allocate budget by blending three methods: historical ROI, pipeline contribution, and strategic goals.
For the full channel-mix table (typical pipeline %, time to mature, CAC efficiency per channel) and the three budget-allocation methods, see references/channel-mix-budget-allocation.md.
ICP-Fit Tracking for Inbound
Track: "Of inbound leads, % that match ICP." If 68% of inbound are outside your ICP (wrong geography, wrong size), retarget keywords and channels. Improving ICP-fit targeting in keyword optimization can shift inbound-to-SAL rates by 10-20 percentage points (practice-based).
AI-Assisted Inbound Qualification
When AI is deployed for inbound lead qualification (via Qualified, Agentforce, or custom agents), the scoring model adapts: AI adds behavioural-intent signals (multi-touch patterns humans miss) and real-time SPICED-style qualification via chat before a human gets involved. SaaStr case study: 71% of Q4 2025 closed-won deals came from AI-qualified inbound, up from a 29-34% baseline (SaaStr, October 2025).
Critical 2026 practices for AI scoring: Model drift (when production scoring diverges from true win rates by >10%) triggers automated retraining; set monthly drift monitors comparing AI predictions vs actual outcomes. Multi-version testing requires holdout groups (10-15% of inbound) routed to challenger scoring models; measure MQL acceptance, SAL rate, and win rate by model version before rolling winner to production. Batch vs real-time tradeoff: batch scoring (nightly recalibration on prior day's data) is stable but blind to intra-day market signals; real-time scoring (streaming, recalibrate every 4 hours) adds latency risk but captures signal decay in engagement (a lead hot yesterday may cool today).
For the implementation pattern, behaviour-based lead segmentation, and full SaaStr case detail, see references/ai-inbound-qualification.md.
Customer Interviews as a Marketing Data Source
The highest-signal data source (structured customer interviews) is almost never fed back into the marketing data model. Sales and CS talk to customers daily, but that intelligence rarely flows into lead scoring, segmentation, or campaign targeting, so marketing optimizes for proxy signals instead of real buying criteria. Structured interviews (8-12 sessions per quarter with current customers across different company sizes) yield verbatim language for ad copy, pain priorities that reset lead-scoring weights, and decision criteria that validate your engagement model; this is the highest-ROI activity in marketing operations (practice-based).
For the interview→marketing pipeline table (interview output → marketing use → how to operationalize) and the quarterly review process, see references/customer-interview-marketing-pipeline.md. See the icp-builder skill (references/icp-building-reference.md) for the full customer interview methodology and GAP method.
5. Marketing-Sales Alignment Operations
The SLA (Write It Down)
MARKETING COMMITS TO: SALES COMMITS TO:
├─ X MQLs/month meeting scoring criteria ├─ Review each MQL within 24 hours
├─ Lead data quality (name, email, company)├─ Accept/reject with categorised reason
├─ MQL delivered within 1 hour ├─ Follow up on SAL within 4 hours
├─ Weekly report on rejection trends ├─ Pipeline visibility (weekly updates)
└─ Attribution clarity within 5 days EOMonth└─ Win/loss feedback quarterly
IF EITHER SIDE BREAKS SLA:
Marketing misses MQL target → discuss cause
Sales ignores MQLs → leads recycle, budget redirected to inbound
Rejection >70% → scoring model audit required
Shared Definitions (Get in a Room)
WHAT IS AN MQL? "Fit ≥40 AND Engagement ≥30 in last 30 days"
WHAT IS PIPELINE? "Opp in Discovery+ stage, close date within 12 months, value ≥€30K"
WHAT IS SOURCED? "SAL created from MQL handoff, accepted by sales"
WHAT IS INFLUENCED? "Closed revenue where contact touched marketing at any point"
No shared definitions = no trust. No trust = no alignment.
Feedback Loop
Weekly digest (automated): MQLs delivered, accepted, rejected by reason, avg speed-to-lead. This data drives scoring refinement. You stop guessing.
6. Marketing Operations Maturity
LEVEL 1 (MANUAL): No scoring. Manual routing. No SLAs. Attribution is guesswork.
Symptom: "Sales blames marketing. Marketing blames sales."
LEVEL 2 (BASIC): Basic scoring (one axis). Automated routing. UTM for 60% of
campaigns. First-touch attribution only. SLAs exist, not enforced.
Symptom: "We have numbers but don't trust them."
LEVEL 3 (OPERATIONAL): Dual-axis scoring (calibrated quarterly). Smart routing.
SLAs enforced with escalation. W-shaped attribution.
Campaign taxonomy 95%+ compliant. Feedback loops systematic.
Symptom: "We know what works and what doesn't."
LEVEL 4 (STRATEGIC): Predictive scoring. Marketing-as-revenue-center.
Full attribution. Real-time budget optimisation.
Marketing forecasts pipeline 3-6 months out.
Symptom: "Marketing is a growth engine, not a cost center."
TARGET: Level 3 within 12 months. Level 4 requires 80+ person marketing team.
7. MarOps Tech Stack (Brief)
MAP (HubSpot, Marketo, Klaviyo) is the engine: lead creation, scoring, email, routing, UTM tracking. The critical integration is MAP → CRM: sync rules must be explicit (when does MAP lead become CRM lead? Which fields sync? Who owns the record at each stage?).
Enrichment strategy post-cookie-deprecation: Third-party enrichment (ZoomInfo, Apollo) now costs ~20% more to deliver equivalent match rates and data freshness (McKinsey, 2026). Build zero-party data capture (ask on forms: company size, team size, budget, use case) as primary. Enrichment as fallback when form data missing. Enrich only MQLs (not all leads) to manage cost. For data failures (no match on 10-15% of leads): expect this, route to SDR for phone validation instead of abandoning leads.
Add intent data when: you have mature ABM and need to prioritise accounts showing buying signals (only 5% of TAM in-market at any time; first vendor contacted wins ~80% of deals, Gartner 2026). Most scale-ups don't need paid intent data yet.
For full stack evaluation, see revops-tech-stack.
8. End-to-End Inbound Process
The lead scoring and attribution sections above cover the mechanics. This section covers the operational process: the step-by-step flow from first touch to qualified pipeline.
Source: Adapted from Union Square Consulting's Inbound Pyramid. This skill applies it as the process layer beneath the scoring mechanics.
Customer Journey Map (Prerequisite)
Before defining lead qualification or routing, map the buyer's journey. This is the foundation everything else sits on.
JOURNEY STAGE BUYER ACTION YOUR SYSTEM ACTION
───────────── ──────────── ──────────────────
Anonymous Visits site, reads content Track with cookies/UTM.
No outreach. Build awareness.
Known Downloads asset, signs up for Create lead in MAP.
newsletter, attends webinar Begin engagement scoring.
Engaged Multiple touches, high-value Evaluate fit score.
content consumed, pricing page If T1/T2 fit → route to sales.
visited If T3/below → nurture.
MQL Meets fit + engagement Alert sales. Start SLA timer.
threshold. Ready for sales Route to correct rep.
contact.
SAL Sales accepts the lead. Sales confirms fit and intent.
Agrees it's worth pursuing. If rejected → feedback + recycle.
SQL Discovery completed. Real Convert to opportunity in CRM.
opportunity identified. Pipeline reporting begins.
Operational Detail (SLA, Routing, Follow-Up, ABM)
The speed-to-lead SLA (response targets and escalation by tier), lead routing rules and conflict resolution, the day-by-day follow-up cadence, and ABM account-level reporting are the operational layer beneath this process. As a baseline: response time is the single biggest lever in inbound conversion. After 5 minutes, contact rates drop by 10x (practice-based; aligned with Blazeo 54.9% SLA hit rate on formal 15-minute SLAs vs 29.5% without, 2026); T1 MQLs target <5 minutes with escalation.
For the full speed-to-lead SLA tables, routing rules and hierarchy, follow-up cadences, and ABM reporting, see references/inbound-operations-detail.md.
Inbound Conversion Metrics by Stage
METRIC BENCHMARK (B2B SaaS) VARIANCE DRIVERS
─────── ──────────────────── ─────────────────
Visitor → Known Lead 1.5-2.5% average Elite 8-15%; driven by targeting precision + content relevance
elite 8-15%
Known Lead → MQL 15-21% average; Top 39-40%; driven by engagement nurture + fit calibration
top 39-40%
MQL → SAL (acceptance rate) 60-80% ICP clarity (tight vs loose) + sales workload + prior
lead-quality reputation
SAL → SQL (conversion rate) 40-60% Deal complexity + sales process maturity + CAP coverage
SQL → Opportunity 70-90% Forecast discipline + opportunity definition
Opportunity → Closed Won 15-30% median; Win-rate baseline 19% (Clari 2026) varies by deal size,
mid-market 24%+ sales cycle, team experience
Website-sourced leads convert at 31.3%, referrals 24.7%, webinars 17.8% (Artisan Strategies, 2026).
SPEED METRICS:
Time to first response < 10 min (T1) ___ min
MQL to SAL < 24 hours ___ hours
SAL to SQL < 7 days ___ days
SQL to Closed Won Varies by ACV ___ days
REVIEW: Monthly with Marketing + Sales leadership.
Track trends, not absolutes. Degradation = signal to investigate.
Account-level propensity and signal decay in ABM: For mature ABM programmes, supplement lead-level reporting with account-level propensity scoring: predict likelihood of account entering pipeline within 90 days based on engagement velocity, content depth, contact density (how many decision-makers engaged), and signal recency (a signal from 60 days ago is weaker than one from 7 days). Measure account penetration depth (how many contacts per account, by role): target >3 roles engaged for T1 accounts. Signal decay model: engagement signal half-life ~30 days (an activity-based account score peaks at activity date, degrades 50% after 30 days, 75% after 60 days) so account engagement trending down is early warning of deal risk.
ABM account-level reporting (account coverage, account generation, pipeline generation, ABM/inbound revenue) lives in references/inbound-operations-detail.md alongside the rest of the inbound operational layer.
EU Compliance for Lead Scoring and Campaign Operations
GDPR Article 6 Lawful Basis (Lead Scoring): When deploying lead scoring, document the lawful basis for processing contact data. B2B outreach typically relies on "Legitimate Interest" (GDPR Article 6(1)(f)). To qualify:
- Identify the legitimate interest (e.g. "identifying sales-ready prospects to enable product demos that solve their stated business problem")
- Document a balancing test: your interest (pipeline generation) vs data subject interest (not receiving unsolicited marketing). B2B decision-makers have lower expectation of privacy in business email; if data comes from business contact lists, legitimacy is stronger.
- Implement safeguards: easy opt-out on every email, honest sender identity, clear unsubscribe path.
- Keep audit trail: record when lead was scored, which scoring model, what triggered outreach.
GPAI Transparency (Article 26): If AI assists lead scoring or qualification, disclose to the contact that an AI system was involved in reaching them. Regulation in force since 2 August 2025. Simple disclosure: "An AI qualification system helped identify your company as a potential fit" in the first outreach email or call intro.
Data Minimisation: Collect only data needed for scoring. Resist the urge to enrich every lead; enrich only MQLs to manage consent and GDPR risk.
90-Day Sprint
WEEK 1-2: Map lead stages. Interview sales on lead quality. Design dual-axis scoring.
WEEK 3-4: Implement scoring in MAP. Set UTM taxonomy. Create campaign naming. Write SLA.
WEEK 5-8: Build routing automation. Set up handoff protocol. Create feedback loop. Start weekly M&S meetings.
WEEK 9-12: First month SLA data. Calibrate scoring. Select attribution model (start W-shaped). Build campaign-to-revenue dashboard.
By month 4 you're at Level 2. Keep pushing to Level 3.
Norton Framework Additions (Source: Aviv Canaani, Revenue Leadership Podcast, Mar 2026)
The Norton "Inbound Flip" strategy engineers an inbound-dominant GTM motion that produces 4x revenue per AE: start with paid across LinkedIn/Google/counterintuitive channels, build an organic engine in parallel, lean into inbound when outbound drops, and use brand as air cover. Supporting data (HubSpot: inbound costs 61% less; 6sense: buyer initiates first contact 83% of the time), the win-rate-first channel quality ranking, the brand-protection-as-architecture principle, and the Donovan (E61) outbound channel destruction data all argue for shifting budget away from cold outbound email.
For the full flip mechanics, the supporting data citations, the channel quality ranking, and the outbound channel destruction table, see references/norton-inbound-flip-strategy.md.
How to Use This Skill
"Sales says our leads are garbage": Run the diagnostic. Check acceptance rate, rejection reasons, scoring calibration. Usually it is a scoring problem (wrong fit/engagement thresholds), not a lead volume problem.
"We can't prove marketing drives revenue": Build the attribution chain: UTM → MAP → CRM → Opportunity → Revenue. Start with W-shaped. Track both sourced and influenced pipeline.
"Marketing and sales aren't aligned": Write the SLA. Define terms together. Install the feedback loop. Most alignment problems are definition problems.
"Which channels should we invest in?": Run channel mix analysis. Compare ROI, pipeline contribution, and strategic goals. Don't chase high-ROI niche channels. You need portfolio balance.
"How do we make lead scoring more accurate?": Move beyond generic firmographic scoring. Implement the SPICED ICP Fit Matrix: Selection Fit (is this our ICP?) × Urgency Fit (are they ready now?) = Qualification Tier (T1/T2/T3). Calibrate quarterly using customer interview data and win/loss analysis.
Reference Index
| File | When to read | What's inside |
|---|
references/spiced-icp-fit-matrix.md | When a client uses SPICED for lead scoring | Selection Fit + Urgency Fit scoring tables, T1/T2/T3 tier matrix, quarterly calibration |
references/campaign-taxonomy-reporting.md | Setting up campaign naming or reporting | Campaign naming convention with examples, campaign-to-revenue dashboard layout |
references/channel-mix-budget-allocation.md | Planning demand-gen spend | Channel-mix table (pipeline %, time to mature, CAC), three budget-allocation methods |
references/ai-inbound-qualification.md | When AI handles inbound qualification | Implementation pattern, behaviour-based segmentation, full SaaStr case |
references/customer-interview-marketing-pipeline.md | Feeding interview data into MarOps | Interview→marketing pipeline table, quarterly review process |
references/inbound-operations-detail.md | Designing the inbound operational layer | Speed-to-lead SLAs, routing rules + hierarchy, follow-up cadences, ABM reporting |
references/norton-inbound-flip-strategy.md | Channel-mix and inbound-flip conversations | Flip mechanics, supporting data citations, channel quality ranking, outbound destruction data |
Canon References
- icp-builder (references/spiced-icp-library-v1.md): SPICED language library with ICP Fit Matrix framework and qualification tiers (T1/T2/T3)
- icp-builder (references/icp-building-reference.md): Full ICP building methodology including customer interview pipeline
- revops-diagnostic: Constraint diagnosis, including the gut-feel ICP pattern that produces inaccurate lead scoring
Built by Neon Triforce
