Audit lead source quality before allocating budget

<context>
I want to know which lead sources are actually producing ICP-fit pipeline — not just volume. Before allocating next quarter's marketing budget, I need to know whether the leads from LinkedIn, webinar, paid search, content, or events match our ICP once enriched with real company and contact data.

My lead source data:
- Lead list: [PASTE NAME, EMAIL, COMPANY, LEAD SOURCE — one per line, or "export from CRM"]
- ICP criteria: [COMPANY SIZE / INDUSTRY / FUNCTION / SENIORITY]
- What we sell: [PRODUCT / SOLUTION]
- Date range: [e.g. "last 90 days" / "Q2 2026"]
- Slack channel: [CHANNEL NAME OR "skip"]
</context>

<task>
1. For each lead, use Lusha to enrich with verified data:
   - Current verified title and seniority
   - Company: headcount, industry, HQ, funding stage
   - ICP grade: A (strong fit) / B (partial fit) / C (outside ICP)
   - Whether the contact is still at the company

2. Group leads by source and calculate per-source metrics:
   - Total leads
   - Grade A leads (%)
   - Grade B leads (%)
   - Grade C / invalid leads (%)
   - Average company size for Grade A leads
   - Most common titles for Grade A leads
   - ICP fit rate = (Grade A + Grade B) / total

3. Rank sources by ICP fit rate — not total lead volume:
   - Highest ICP fit rate source
   - Lowest ICP fit rate source
   - Any source producing mostly Grade C leads (consider pausing)

4. Build the lead source quality report:
   ## Lead source quality — [Date range]
   Source · Total leads · Grade A% · Grade B% · Grade C% · ICP fit rate · Verdict

   ## Top sources — concentrate budget here
   Highest ICP fit rate with Grade A profile

   ## Underperforming sources — review or pause
   ICP fit rate below 40% — what Grade C leads look like

   ## ICP profile of Grade A leads
   Most common company size, industry, title, function across all Grade A leads

   ## Budget recommendation
   Specific directional shift: which sources deserve more, which deserve less or pause

5. Post summary to Slack if specified.
</task>

<constraints>
- Rank by ICP fit rate, not lead volume.
- Budget recommendation must be specific: which source, directional shift, why.
- Grade C includes contacts who have left the company — invalid regardless of ICP fit.
- Sources with fewer than 5 leads: flag as insufficient sample, don't rank.
</constraints>

The situation: A RevOps manager runs this before Q3 budget allocation. Q2 leads from 5 sources — LinkedIn Ads, webinar, paid search, content download, and outbound events.

Lead source quality — Q2 2026

Top sources — concentrate budget here

Events · ICP fit rate 75%

Grade A profile: VP of Sales / RevOps, 200–600 employees, B2B SaaS, US-based. Average company size 410 employees — almost identical to the target ICP.

Events are the smallest volume source but the highest quality. The Grade A leads from events are arriving with the right title, right company size, and right industry. The Grade C leads are mostly vendor contacts and attendees in non-ICP industries — expected at mixed events.

Budget recommendation: Increase event sponsorship budget for events that attract RevOps/Sales decision-makers at 200–600 employee SaaS companies. Pull back from broad industry events.

LinkedIn Ads · ICP fit rate 66%

Grade A profile: VP/Director of Revenue Operations and Sales Operations, 250–700 employees, SaaS. Strong seniority match.

LinkedIn Ads is delivering at good ICP fit rates and reasonable volume. The 34% Grade C rate is largely due to inbound from targets in non-SaaS industries — likely a targeting refinement issue.

Budget recommendation: Maintain spend, refine targeting to exclude non-SaaS industries. Test audience exclusion lists for competitor company employees.

Underperforming sources — review or pause

Content download · ICP fit rate 34%

Grade C profile: 66% of leads are outside ICP — primarily individual contributors at sub-50 employee companies, wrong function (marketing, product), and 18% are contacts who have left the company.

The content is attracting practitioners, not buyers. The asset itself may be generating awareness but not ICP-fit pipeline intent.

Recommendation: Pause paid promotion of current content. Review the asset-audience fit before running another paid content campaign. Consider gating behind a function qualifier.

Paid search · ICP fit rate 28%

Grade C profile: 72% of leads are outside ICP — titles include “SDR,” “BDR,” “Marketing Coordinator.” High volume, very low quality. The keywords driving these leads are likely too broad.

Recommendation: Pause or significantly reduce paid search spend until keyword targeting is refined to decision-maker-level intent queries.

ICP profile of Grade A leads (all sources combined)

Most common company size: 250–600 employees Most common industry: B2B SaaS (61%), FinTech (19%) Most common titles: VP Revenue Operations (28%), VP of Sales (24%), Head of Sales Operations (18%) Most common geography: US (74%), UK (12%)

Budget recommendation

Increase: Events — highest fit rate, best Grade A profile match Maintain: LinkedIn Ads — good fit rate, refine targeting Reduce: Webinar — below 60% fit rate, review format and targeting Pause: Content download and paid search — ICP fit rates below 35%, volume without quality

Illustrative example — fictional data used. Run with your own lead source list to see live results.