Many companies build forecasts using MQL conversion rates as a foundation.
Whether it’s:
“We generate 1,000 MQLs monthly at 3% conversion = 30 deals,”
or
“We need 30 deals, so we’ll need 1,000 MQLs,”
it all hinges on one big assumption:
That MQLs correlate with revenue.
But most leadership teams have never tested that.
When we started working with a client recently, the CEO handed us a detailed revenue forecast broken down by MQLs, SQLs, Opportunities, and Closed/Won deals.
The forecast was aggressive.
There were no major product upgrades coming, no new distribution channels planned and building a brand takes months.
So I asked: How did you arrive at this forecast?
The answer?
“We worked backward from the number of deals we need, using historical conversion rates.”
Then I asked: Is there any correlation between MQLs and Closed/Won deals?
Blank faces.
The answer was no.
One analysis every CEO should ask for:
Run a correlation between MQL volume and closed deals (accounting for sales cycle timing).
If there’s no relationship, your “leading indicators” aren’t indicators at all.
A weak correlation means:
• Your marketing is optimized for vanity metrics
• Your sales forecasts are unreliable
• You’re measuring activity, not outcomes
• Your strategic assumptions may be flawed
Before your next board meeting where MQL growth is presented as progress, ask:
“Have we shown these metrics correlate with our won deals?”
If the answer is no, you’re flying blind with expensive instrumentation that doesn’t work.
The companies winning in 2025 won’t be the ones with the best dashboards.
They’ll be the ones doing what actually matters.
Recent Comments