I left out CRM integration from Score My Lead and it turned out to be the right call
When I started building Score My Lead, the obvious move was to wire it into HubSpot or Salesforce first, since that is what most scoring tools do.
Skipped it. Partly because building a single integration well takes real time, and partly because I was not sure yet which CRM most people using this would actually have.
Turns out leaving it out was the actual feature. Anyone can use the tool regardless of what they run underneath it, no setup, no data permissions to approve, no account to migrate. Score a lead, get a number, decide what to do with it in whatever system you already use.
Still think a CRM integration comes eventually. For now, the tool being standalone is exactly why people seem to actually open it instead of putting it off for later.
PromptEditor
Markdown Sidebar for AI Prompts
Comments (20)
Welcome to the community, Salil 🙋🏻♂️ I am not very sure what the "Score My Lead" is actually doing yet, but I will look it up here on SaaS Hive to read more.
thanks a lot Sergey. If I have to tell plainly, when anyone wants to check if their prospect (customer acquired through their website) is worth following up in short period or needs more education about that business or how that solves the customer's problem. Based on a few questions or signals, this tool scores the priority of the customer. If it's high then we need to focus on them by sparing more time or by providing more resources.
Hope I am able to communicate a fair idea of this. Happy to assist further too :)
Welcome Salil! Great example of why it's better not to rush into building features before you know your customer actually needs them. Sounds like Score My Lead could be a big help for businesses with busy pipelines. Are you reaching out to those businesses directly? Curious how you're finding your audience.
Hello Olga, thanks. I am building my authority around educating the value of Score my lead and there is no push strategy to bring in customers. Right now, I am entirely focused on providing value through my content so the audience could land on this through direct searches with their problem statements on both search engines and AI models. Being into this field, I know this is a big pain for the sales professionals in b2b.
Salil, the part that stands out is deciding not to build the CRM integration before you knew which CRM people actually had. That is a harder call than it sounds, since the pressure to look feature complete on day one is real. Standalone tools also travel better through word of mouth, since nobody has to check with anyone else before trying it. Curious whether you saw the same pattern in how fast people finished their first score versus tools that make you set something up first.
So Stacy, So this is something I have been paying attention to but do not have a clean before and after on yet, still too early to say for sure. What I keep noticing anecdotally is people finish scoring their first lead in the same visit, no gap between landing on the page and getting a number out. Whether that is because there is nothing to set up first, or just because the form itself is short, I cannot fully separate those 2 things right now.
Coming to the actual point though, the pressure to look feature complete on day 1 is real, you are right about that. I would rather put out something narrow that people actually finish than something broad that looks impressive and gets abandoned halfway through setup.
Salil, that is a sharp call. The moment a tool asks for CRM permissions before someone has even tried it once, a lot of people quietly close the tab. Once you do add integrations later, would you keep the standalone version around for people who just want the number without connecting anything?
yes, that is the plan. The standalone version stays even once integrations get added, since the whole reason it works right now is that nobody has to ask anyone for permission before trying it.
The moment a CRM connection becomes a requirement instead of an option, you lose exactly the thing that makes people actually complete the first score. Integrations would be on top as an option for people who want that, while the version that just gives you a number and gets out of the way stays exactly as it is.
Salil, the part that stuck with me is that you are keeping the standalone version even after integrations get added, since the moment someone has to ask permission before trying it, you lose the reason it works. I am working through the same principle right now with FounderFlow, we are onboarding founders one at a time instead of a generic self serve launch, so trust gets earned before we ask for more. You have given me a genuinely sharp read on product tradeoffs through this whole thread. I would like to return that. Would you be open to taking a look at FounderFlow and telling me honestly where it falls short?
That is basically the same principle in a different shape, trust before scale. The moment onboarding turns into a form nobody wants to fill out first, you lose the exact thing that made someone want to try it slowly with you in the first place.
Yes, happy to take a look at FounderFlow. I will actually use it rather than just skim the landing page, that is the only way an honest read is worth anything anyway.
↳ Replying to Salil Attri
just tried founderflow and would say that the onboarding flow is quite clear and found no blockers and even the classification of workflow with emails is close to accurate. Not very sure, if it's with me , the top priority card for scheduling focus after clicking on "Schedule strategic work" CTA on the overview dashboard led me to a 404 page. Apart from that, I didn't find any other obvious gaps. Good work here, wish you success with this, cheers.
Interesting tradeoff. I would treat the missing integration as a measurable product hypothesis: track time to first score and completion rate, then ask “Which CRM do you use?” only after the result. That preserves the zero-friction experience while building evidence for which integration, if any, deserves priority. Are you already capturing first-score completion, or is the signal still mainly anecdotal?
So right now it is still mainly anecdotal, I do not have first-score completion tracked as an actual number yet. That is a real gap in how I am validating this.
The way you framed it is better than what I had in my head, treating the missing integration as a testable hypothesis instead of just a permanent design choice. Asking which CRM only after the result, instead of gating access with it upfront, keeps the exact thing I care about protecting while still getting the data that actually matters.
Going to add that flow. Time to first score plus completion rate as the baseline, then the CRM question after, exactly like you laid out. Appreciate you spelling out the actual mechanism instead of just the opinion.
Thank you
↳ Replying to Salil Attri
Glad it was useful. I’d keep the post-result question optional and very lightweight—ask which CRM they use and whether an integration would materially change how often they use the tool.
That helps distinguish “this CRM is common” from “this integration would actually affect adoption.” Even with a small sample, the answers should show which users are worth interviewing before you build anything.
I’d be interested to hear what pattern emerges once you have the first data.
↳ Replying to Artem Frolov
sure thing Artem, thanks again for adding your valuable inputs. I will keep you posted as I get some initial set of data with an optional CRM question. This surely means a lot and helps :)
↳ Replying to Salil Attri
You’re welcome, Salil. I’m curious to see whether the most commonly used CRM and the integration that would actually change product usage turn out to be the same-those may be two very different signals. Looking forward to seeing what the first data shows.
↳ Replying to Artem Frolov
Hi Artem, I have integrated a quick question of choosing the CRM right after one saves a lead. Will share an update after I get some data on commonly used CRMs and if that affects the product usage in any case. Thanks
Salil, thank you for actually using it instead of just skimming the landing page, that 404 on the Schedule strategic work CTA is a real find and I would rather you hit it than a paying customer. Passing that straight to the team to fix. Everything else lining up clean on a first real run, especially the email classification being close to accurate, means a lot coming from someone who spent this whole thread being precise about tradeoffs. If you are open to it, I would love to have you as one of the first 30 founding members, bugs and all, since you already gave it a more honest test than most people do.
sure Stacy, would love to be a part of your founding group and look forward to adding my inputs that could be helpful for your product growth
Salil, glad to have you. The bug is already passed along, you finding it before a paying customer did is exactly the kind of test I was hoping for. I will keep you posted once it is fixed and would love to hear anything else you notice as you keep using it.
Sign in to comment or upvote.