The handover to sales: where leads get lost
Between “marketing has delivered” and “sales has taken over” there is an unguarded gap in most companies. More enquiries disappear there than anywhere else — and because they never became a case, it shows up in no report.
In short
- The handover needs a written definition that both sides sign — otherwise it does not hold.
- Response time decides more than the quality of the approach: call back days later and you are talking to someone who has long since carried on looking.
- Every rejected lead needs a named route back. Without it, it disappears and marketing never learns why.
- One metric is enough to steer by: the share of handed-over leads that were actually contacted — and how fast.
You can automate lead capture, acknowledgement, scoring, assignment. And enquiries still evaporate — because at one point no system is responsible, only an agreement that was never made.
That point is the handover. It is not a technical question but an agreement between two functions with different measures of success.
The definition both sides have to sign
At the core of the problem sits a different idea of when someone is "ready". Marketing measures interest; sales measures willingness to talk. Those are not the same thing.
A workable definition answers four questions — in writing, dated, confirmed by both sides:
| Question | Example of a workable answer |
|---|---|
| Who counts as ready to hand over? | fits the audience, has a stated need, is authorised to decide or names the person who is |
| What gets passed along? | the need in their own words, source, prior touchpoints, preferred call-back window |
| How fast is the response? | first contact within one working day, documented |
| What happens on rejection? | a reason from a fixed set of five, returned to marketing within two days |
Three handover models
Model 1 – Direct assignment
Every qualified lead goes immediately to a named person, with a deadline. Simple, fast, no intermediate step.
Fits: manageable volume, clear responsibilities, short sales cycles.
Weakness: when someone is away the lead sits, unless there is a cover rule.
Model 2 – Shared queue with self-assignment
All qualified leads land in one list; people take what they will work on. After a set time without being taken, a lead is assigned automatically.
Fits: several people with similar remits.
Weakness: without the automatic assignment after a deadline, the awkward leads sit there. That deadline is not optional.
Model 3 – Qualifying call first
One person holds a short first conversation with every enquiry and passes on only what fits.
Fits: high volume with variable quality, an offering that needs explaining.
Weakness: needs an additional person and adds a step to the response time.
Worth knowing
For inbound enquiries, response time is the factor that most strongly decides the close — more clearly than the quality of the pitch or the offer itself.
The reason is simple: someone making an enquiry is, as a rule, enquiring in several places. Whoever calls back first has the conversation with a person who has no basis for comparison yet. Call three days later and you are arguing against a quote already on the table. A mediocre call-back after an hour beats an excellent one after three days.
What happens to rejected leads
Between 40 and 70 per cent of handed-over leads get rejected — that is normal and not a sign of poor work. What matters is what happens next.
Five fixed rejection reasons are enough. More and nobody fills them in:
- Wrong audience. Does not fit at all. Feedback to marketing, no further contact.
- No current need. Back to marketing, follow up in three to six months.
- Unreachable. After three documented attempts, back to marketing for a different approach.
- Budget does not fit. Back to marketing, added to general communication.
- Chose a competitor. The single most valuable piece of feedback: which one, and why.
The essential point: four of the five reasons lead back to marketing, not to the bin. A contact with no need in August may be the best lead of the quarter in March.
The most common argument between the two functions runs: "the leads are bad" against "nobody follows up". Both sides are usually partly right, and nobody can prove it — because the handover is not documented.
One single metric ends that discussion: the share of handed-over leads with a documented first contact, and the time until it happened. Below 80 per cent, the handover is the problem. Above it, with a low close rate, the definition is. That one number settles in a single meeting what otherwise recurs every quarter.
What can be automated — and what cannot
| Step | Automatable | Stays with the human |
|---|---|---|
| Checking the basic details | yes | – |
| Rule-based assignment | yes | – |
| Reminder on deadline | yes | – |
| Escalation when not taken | yes | – |
| Return with a reason | the form | the judgement |
| Judging seriousness | – | yes |
| First contact | – | yes |
The top four rows are set up in a day and fix most of the problem. The bottom three stay human — not on principle, but because an automatic judgement of seriousness without sufficient history is simply guessing.
Help me put our marketing-to-sales handover in writing. Our situation: - People in sales: [number] - Enquiries per month: [number] - Typical sales cycle: [duration] - How leads are handed over today: [description] - What regularly goes wrong today: [bullet points] Tasks: 1. Draft a definition of "ready to hand over" that both sides can sign. It must contain verifiable conditions, not statements of intent. 2. Set out which details get passed along – as brief as possible, as complete as necessary. 3. Recommend one of the three handover models for our situation (direct assignment / shared queue with self-assignment / qualifying call first) and justify it. 4. Define five rejection reasons and, for each, what happens to the contact afterwards. 5. Name the one metric that shows us monthly whether the handover is working. Write the result as an agreement on at most one page.
In closing
The handover is not a tooling problem. It is the point where two functions with different measures of success meet — and no software helps there while the agreement is missing.
One page, signed by both sides, with four answers: who is ready, what gets passed along, how fast the response is, what happens on rejection. After that, automating is worth it — before it, you are automating an ambiguity.
Common questions
When should marketing hand a lead to sales?
When three verifiable conditions are met: the contact fits the defined audience, has stated a need in their own words, and is authorised to decide or names the person who is. Interest alone — a download, say — is not enough, because marketing thereby measures interest while sales needs willingness to talk.
How fast must a lead be responded to?
Within one working day, ideally within a few hours. For inbound enquiries, response time decides the close more strongly than the quality of the approach — whoever calls back first speaks to someone who has no comparison quotes yet.
What happens to leads sales rejects?
They go back to marketing with one of five fixed reasons: wrong audience, no current need, unreachable, budget does not fit, chose a competitor. Four of those five lead to further nurturing — a follow-up in three to six months, for instance — rather than to deleting the contact.
How many leads normally get rejected?
Between 40 and 70 per cent is normal and no sign of poor work. It only becomes critical when rejections are not given a reason — marketing then cannot learn from them and keeps producing the same enquiries.
Which metric shows whether the handover works?
The share of handed-over leads with a documented first contact, together with the time until it happened. Below 80 per cent the problem lies in the handover. Above it, with a persistently low close rate, the definition of "ready to hand over" is drawn too widely.
Marketing that sets itself up
The Studio Engine beta is live. Claim your spot and help shape it from the start.
Join the beta →