How to do B2B account scoring

The following blog is an overview of account scoring. It goes over the basic steps in creating a scoring scheme as well as the various functions of an ICP (Ideal Client Profile). It also distinguishes account scoring from ABM (Account-Based Marketing) and assesses how lead scoring and account scoring deal with different B2B clients.

Catch our previous piece on lead scoring models explained here!

‍

What is account scoring, and how is it different from account based marketing?

You might have heard that account scoring is somewhat analogous to ABM (Account-Based Marketing). This isn’t far from the truth. Think of account scoring more as a means to improving ABM. In that sense, they are consubstantial. ABM is a broader approach to marketing that targets key accounts or accounts that are most likely to convert and generate the most revenue. This is based on using an ICP (Ideal Client Profiles) which states the attributes of those target accounts. ABM also deals with compartmentalizing those key accounts, designing the method of engagement, and collaborating with other departments.

Meanwhile, account scoring is a method of ranking and sorting your target accounts based on a scoring scheme. Just like in ABM, account scoring uses an ICP as a filter to identify your target accounts. By scoring your target accounts you can better ascertain the value of organizations, on which you can expend your limited resources on. Account scoring is comprehensive with its scoring schemes by prioritizing unique attributes of target accounts.

Steps to create account scoring:

‍1) Ideal Client Profile: Your ICP in account scoring has two functions. The first is to use your ICP to make target accounts or rather filter out a range of target accounts before scoring them. The second function of ICP acts like an explicit scoring model as in lead scoring. This means using your ICP as a benchmark while scoring organizational traits, like the size of the company, ACV, location, etc. This becomes an inevitable part of your scoring scheme.

2) Creating a Scoring Scheme: A scoring scheme is nothing but the basis of assigning a score to a target account. As mentioned in the previous step, your ICP has the role of designing your explicit scoring. With that sorted, you can establish some implicit scoring criteria. Such as rewarding points based on email engagement, content download, and web analytics. For example, an organization visiting a review page could earn 3 points, while traffic generated through PPC could earn 7 points. The value of certain touch points and engagements can be determined by using a revenue attribution tool.

3) Customisation: A scoring scheme is never linear. All elements within a scheme might not apply to every organization. Different organizations and stakeholders might have different uses for your services and different valuations for their touch points. Hence, it is important to measure the relative impact of the scoring scheme on your target accounts. It is also crucial to revise your ICP, rearrange their permutations, create several ICPs, and compare them.

Account scoring vs lead scoring

One could argue that both these scoring methods are somewhat similar. Both their scoring models have an implicit and explicit element to them. So, is it just a matter of what they’re called? The most important distinction here is that account scoring deals with organizations while lead scoring deals with individual leads.

Account scoring views a client as an organization with several decision makers involved. While lead scoring is better suited for dealing with a single decision maker. This is why lead scoring is the better choice for clients with a lower ACV, this implies a low level of decision making involved, with only one or few decision makers. And because of its individualistic nature, lead scoring has a stronger emphasis on engagement.

Account scoring on the other hand is better suited for high ACV organizations with more decision makers. This necessitates the need to create key accounts for an organization rather than scrutinizing an individual lead. It also works better with ABM and account-based engagements. The use of ICP has more prominence in organizations and takes the number of stakeholders and ACV into account.

‍