Koka Sexton dot Com

I was in a quarterly review with a CMO last month when she pulled up her pipeline dashboard. “Look at this,” she said, pointing at a bar labeled MQLs. 740 for the quarter. Record number. Then she clicked to the next slide: pipeline generated from those MQLs — $87,000 against a $2.4 million target. The room went quiet.

Nobody wanted to say it, so I did: your MQLs are lying to you. Not because anyone is fudging numbers — because the definition of an MQL hasn’t meaningfully changed since 2008. Someone downloaded a whitepaper. They traded their email for a gated asset. They clicked a link in a nurture sequence. Congratulations, you have an MQL. You also have a college student doing research for a term paper, but the CRM doesn’t know the difference.

The MQL Was Built for a World That Doesn’t Exist Anymore

The MQL framework made sense when content was scarce. When whitepapers required a phone call to request. When downloading something meant you were serious. Today, your prospects consume 17 pieces of content before they ever talk to sales — and they do it across LinkedIn, review sites, peer communities, YouTube, and a dozen other channels your marketing automation can’t see.

What your MAP (Marketing Automation Platform) captures is maybe 15% of their actual buying journey. The other 85% is invisible to you — and that invisible portion is where real intent lives. Someone reading three competitor comparison pages on G2 isn’t filling out your form. Someone whose company just posted a job opening for a role your product replaces isn’t downloading your eBook. But those are the signals that matter.

Intent Signals: The Data That Actually Predicts Revenue

Here’s what intent data looks like in practice, and why it’s fundamentally different from a form fill:

Surge behavior on third-party sites. Bombora and 6sense track content consumption across thousands of B2B publishers. When an account suddenly spikes on topics related to your category — not your brand, your category — that’s intent. It means someone inside that organization is researching a problem you solve. They haven’t heard of you yet. That’s the point.

Technology install signals. BuiltWith and HG Insights can tell you when a company adds or drops tools in your ecosystem. A company installing Drift means they’re investing in conversational marketing. A company dropping Marketo for HubSpot signals a platform migration — and usually, a reevaluation of adjacent tools.

Job change and hiring signals. When a target account hires a VP of Demand Gen, they have budget they haven’t allocated yet. When your champion leaves for another company, that’s not a loss — it’s an expansion opportunity if you catch it within 30 days.

Review site activity. G2 and TrustRadius tell you who’s comparing solutions. Someone reading five negative reviews of your competitor is closer to buying than someone who downloaded your top-of-funnel checklist.

Why Most Teams Get Intent Data Wrong

The first mistake is treating intent like a binary switch — “this account has intent” vs. “this account doesn’t.” Intent lives on a spectrum. An account with one surge topic and 15 employees isn’t the same as an account with sustained surge across four related topics and 800 employees. If your scoring model treats them identically, your SDRs will burn time on the wrong end of the spectrum.

The second mistake is routing intent-based leads the same way you route form fills. Intent signals require a different conversation. “I saw you downloaded our eBook” is a weak opener. “I noticed your team has been researching marketing automation platforms — we help teams making that transition solve the data migration piece” is a conversation starter.

The third mistake — and this is the expensive one — is buying intent data without building the workflow to act on it. Intent data decays. A surge spike that was hot on Tuesday is lukewarm by Friday. If your intent data feeds into a weekly report instead of a real-time routing engine, you’re paying for information you’re too slow to use.

Building an Intent-Led Scoring Model That Actually Converts

I’m going to walk through the model I use with teams moving from MQL-based scoring to intent-based scoring. This isn’t theory — it’s the framework I’ve seen lift pipeline conversion rates by 30-50% within a quarter.

• Tier 1 — Active Research (Route to Sales within 24 hours): Multiple intent surge topics matching your category, sustained over 7+ days, at an account that fits your ICP. Bonus if they visited your pricing page in the same window.
• Tier 2 — Emerging Interest (Route to SDR for personalized outreach): Single intent surge on a related topic within 14 days, at an ICP-fit account. Trigger a human-researched sequence, not an automated drip.
• Tier 3 — Passive Awareness (Feed into nurture with intent-aware content): Historical intent activity outside 14 days, or surge on adjacent topics at accounts on your target list. Don’t hard-sell. Educate toward the problem they’re researching.
• Tier 4 — Silent ICP Fit (Programmatic nurture): No detectable intent, but strong firmographic and technographic fit. These accounts get your best content, not your pitch. Plant seeds, don’t spray.

This model works because it aligns your team’s most expensive resource — human sales time — with the accounts most likely to convert. Your SDRs stop burning hours on Tier 4 accounts and start having conversations where they can actually add value.

What I’d Build Tomorrow If I Were Starting Over

If you’re sitting on a database of MQLs that don’t convert and you’re ready to build something that actually predicts pipeline, here’s the sequence:

Week one: Turn on intent data from 6sense or Bombora. Don’t build automations yet. Just watch the data for seven days. Learn what surge patterns look like at accounts that end up in your pipeline organically. You’re calibrating before you automate. That’s the kind of demand generation strategy that compounds over time.

Week two: Build a simple scoring model with three inputs — ICP fit (firmographics + technographics), intent surge (recency + intensity + topic match), and engagement (your first-party signals — site visits, email clicks, content downloads). Weight intent at 50%, fit at 30%, engagement at 20%.

Week three: Route Tier 1 accounts directly to sales for a 48-hour SLA. Route Tier 2 to SDRs with intent context baked into the task description. Everything else stays in nurture.

Week four: Review what happened. Did Tier 1 accounts convert at a higher rate than your old MQL threshold? Almost certainly yes. Adjust scoring weights based on real outcomes, not assumptions. This is the same philosophy behind moving from leads to advocates — measure what actually produces revenue, not what looks good on a dashboard.

My bet is that within two years, the MQL as a metric will be a footnote in B2B marketing history — replaced by intent scoring models that measure buyer readiness instead of content consumption. The teams that make the shift now will have a two-year head start on everyone still celebrating record MQL quarters that don’t produce revenue. If you’re building automation with real intent signals, you’re already ahead of 90% of the market.

Want to scale smarter with AI-driven marketing systems? Visit Koka Sexton to get started.