Who Owns the MQL Definition?

“Marketing sends us rubbish leads.” “Sales doesn’t follow up properly.” Both of these statements are usually true at the same time, and they point to the same root cause: nobody sat down and agreed what a marketing-qualified lead actually means for this business. Not informally, not in theory — in writing, with both teams in the room, and with the output documented somewhere everyone can refer to.

The marketing-and-sales tension over lead quality is one of the most persistent problems in B2B commercial teams. It’s rarely caused by bad intent on either side. It’s almost always caused by an unresolved definition that both sides have silently decided to live with.

The default state: an informal, disputed definition

In most B2B companies, the MQL threshold is set by whoever owns the CRM, usually at some point early in the marketing function’s history when no one was paying much attention to it. It might be an email open, a content download, a lead score of 50 or above in a model that no one has reviewed since it was set up. It evolved rather than being designed. Sales accepted it long enough to stop arguing about it. Marketing accepted it because it produces a number worth reporting in the monthly deck.

Neither side actually believes it reflects genuine buying intent. The sales team cherry-picks the leads that look plausible and ignores the rest. Marketing counts everything that crosses the threshold and calls it a qualified lead. The number goes up and down, nobody fully trusts it, and conversations about lead quality happen in frustration rather than as a structured improvement process.

This informal definition is often the underlying cause of the MQL quality problem — when there’s no agreed standard for what qualifies, the easiest path is always to lower the threshold and count more leads. Volume rises, quality drops, and the sales team loses confidence in the handoff.

What a written MQL definition should contain

A useful MQL definition has five components at minimum.

The first is firmographic fit. What company size, industry, and geography actually qualifies? A lead from a 15-person start-up in a sector you don’t serve is not the same signal as a lead from a 400-person business in your core market, even if they both filled in the same form.

The second is role criteria. Who counts? A junior analyst downloading a whitepaper is not the same signal as a VP of Operations attending a product demonstration. The seniority and function of the person engaging matters enormously, and most lead scoring models either ignore it or underweight it.

The third is an intent threshold — what specific behaviour indicates genuine interest rather than casual browsing? A single email open is not intent. A sequence of three or more content engagements across a defined period, including at least one bottom-of-funnel piece, is a much stronger signal. The threshold should be specific enough that a new member of the team could apply it without interpretation.

The fourth is recency. How recent does the qualifying activity need to be? An engagement from eight months ago should not still be triggering MQL status when a sales rep picks up the phone. A recency window — typically 30 to 90 days depending on deal cycle length — ensures that the leads the sales team receives actually reflect current interest.

The fifth is an agreed SLA: what happens after a contact reaches MQL status, and by when? A definition without a follow-up commitment is half a definition. If marketing delivers an MQL and sales has no obligation to act on it within a specific timeframe, the handoff is broken by design.

Why sales and marketing both need to own it

The definition only works if both teams agreed to it and are held accountable to it. If marketing sets it unilaterally, sales won’t trust the output — because they weren’t involved in deciding what counts, they have no reason to treat the resulting list as credible. If sales sets it unilaterally, the threshold will be so high that marketing produces almost nothing that qualifies, the programme stalls, and the relationship between the two teams deteriorates further.

The definition needs to come from a joint session where both sides bring their perspective: marketing brings data on what engagement looks like before a deal closes; sales brings data on what signals actually appear in the conversations that convert. The output gets documented, agreed, and treated as the operating standard until it’s formally reviewed.

This also changes the accountability dynamic. If both teams agreed to the definition, both teams can be held to it. Marketing is accountable for delivering leads that meet the criteria. Sales is accountable for following up within the agreed SLA. Disputes about quality become conversations about the definition rather than accusations about effort.

Reviewing the definition over time

A definition that was accurate eighteen months ago may not be accurate now. The business may have shifted its ideal customer profile. The product may have evolved. The buyer population may have changed — different seniority, different industry mix, different awareness level coming in. What qualifies as meaningful intent in a market where awareness is low is different from what qualifies in a mature market where buyers arrive more educated.

Build a quarterly review into the sales and marketing SLA process. Not to relitigate the definition from scratch each time, but to check whether it still reflects what actually converts. A simple audit — looking at the last quarter’s MQLs, what proportion became SQLs, what proportion closed, and what those deals had in common — is usually enough to identify whether the definition is drifting or holding.

It also helps to distinguish between leads who were captured because they were already in-market and leads who were generated through a demand programme — the two can have very different buying timelines, and the MQL definition should reflect that distinction so that sales sets appropriate follow-up expectations for each type.

Common questions

What should an MQL definition include?

At minimum: firmographic fit criteria (company size, industry, geography), role/seniority criteria, specific intent behaviour thresholds, a recency window for qualifying activity, and an agreed SLA for sales follow-up. The more specific the definition, the more useful it is — vague definitions produce vague pipeline.

How often should the MQL definition be reviewed?

Quarterly review is enough for most businesses. A more thorough annual review is useful if the business has shifted its ICP, changed its product offering, or seen a significant shift in which segments close fastest. The goal isn’t to rewrite the definition constantly — it’s to catch drift before it causes pipeline problems.