MODERN MARKETING SUMMIT 2026
Where scoring was, what's changed, and why the questions you're asking are exactly the right ones.
Casey Hawkins
Scoring & Strategy
Chris Carolan
Architecture & Buyer View
Value-First Team
Press → or swipe to begin
The previous generation of scoring — and why it hit a ceiling
The old tool made property-based scoring straightforward — "+20 for Finance in the job title, +10 for Branch Manager" — but building dynamic scores around engagement and recency was backwards and difficult. So most scores ended up reflecting fit, not behavior.
Marketing would set "100 points = ready for sales." Then sales would say they're getting bad matches. Marketing bumps it to 150. Rinse, repeat.
Scores lived deep in platform settings, managed by admins. The teams who actually needed to understand and act on scoring — marketing, sales, product — couldn't easily see how scores were built or collaborate on improving them.
The tools were limited. The thinking was linear. And honestly? It still kind of worked — because the buying process was simpler then too.
Two big shifts happened almost simultaneously
The framework that separates strategic scoring from guesswork
"Is this the right person?"
The who — are we talking to the right human?
"Is this the right organization?"
The where — does the organization match our ideal profile?
"Are they actively interested right now?"
The when — are they showing interest right now?
Separating these three dimensions is the foundation of everything that follows.
The right person at the right company showing active interest — that's a fundamentally different signal than any one pillar alone.
Fit and engagement each tell you something useful — but the combination changes the conversation entirely
You know they're the right size, right industry, right role. That's valuable — but it doesn't tell you when.
High fit + no engagement = right company, wrong time
They're clicking, attending, downloading. That's exciting — but are they actually a good match for what you offer?
High engagement + low fit = interested, but not ideal
They match the profile and they're actively showing interest. That's not a score — that's intelligence.
High fit + high engagement = the conversation changes completely
When sales gets a signal that combines fit and timing, it changes what they say, when they say it, and how they prioritize their day. It's the difference between "here's a list" and "here's who to call and why."
Fit tells you who.
Engagement tells you when.
Together they tell you what to do next.
The score alone shouldn't have to carry
all the complexity of your business.
The Value Path
Where someone is
Unified Customer View
Everything you know about them
Everyone uses the same language for where someone is in the relationship
Relationship
History
Engagement
Patterns
Service &
Commerce
Association
Depth
A score of 85 means nothing alone.
A score of 85 with this view means everything.
"The teams that struggle most
are the ones that understand
their market best."
0.8
before architecture
→
38.5
after architecture
48x improvement in score separation
🔥
The Score
Signal intensity
🏢
Value Path
Where they are
👁
Unified View
Everything else
"The score is still a number.
But alongside Value Path language
and Unified Customer View context,
it doesn't have to carry all the
complexity of your business."
Product knowledge feeds the view → the view makes the score meaningful → the score makes the view scannable
WHAT TO TAKE WITH YOU
1. Three pillars are your foundation
2. A shared language changes everything
3. The view makes the score meaningful
4. Your complexity is an asset
Natalie and Melissa are here to continue the conversation.
Casey Hawkins
casey@valuefirstteam.com
Chris Carolan
chris@valuefirstteam.com
valuefirstteam.com