Article

From Static To Dynamic: Data You Can Actually Use

The Dynamic Data Difference

Dynamic B2B Data

B2B Sales and Marketing teams, in particular, absolutely love buyer data – they depend on it to do their jobs!


Unfortunately, most companies are failing to use it to its potential. The goal is usually to use buyer data to determine who might want their product, but a company’s data is often such a mess that they only experience the bare minimum their buyer data has to offer. But, they understand how valuable it is in such a competitive environment, so much so that companies spend thousands, even millions of dollars accumulating data from various third-party data vendors – trying to get more and more insights to the right buyer faster and better than their competitors.


Unfortunately, accessing all of the data necessary for highly precise or personalized outreach could require contracts with 10+ different data vendors – and all that siloed data isn’t even blended or ready to use. Worst of all – it’s not even up to date.


After spending a fortune on a myriad of disparate, static buyer data from various vendors, sales & marketing teams can finally start the process of Account-Based Marketing (ABM). They’ll populate their CRM and MAP systems with their own first-party data and the third-party data they’ve purchased, then search through these static databases looking for the leads they like.


They’ll use the fields in their CRMs and MAPs to understand each lead’s in-market qualifications and create highly targeted campaigns, and then ultimately use their contact data to reach out to them via phone, email or LinkedIn.


How do they identify the best leads to pursue? They compare each lead to their Ideal Customer Profile (ICP), which is developed through analyzing historic first-party data. Where did they win? Where did they lose? Which of these potential buyers are most likely to buy their products? Just check the data, right? Unfortunately, most of the time, “checking the data” is not that simple. 


As great as having all that data is, there’s an immense amount of problems and inefficiencies we face in making that data actionable. The core issue here is that all of this vendor data comes in siloed and un-blended. Unifying data from a variety of sources is an extremely cumbersome and overly time-consuming process when done manually. Not to mention it’s prone to human-error.


Even after it’s unified, you’ll encounter countless blank cells, duplicate records, and conflicting data that mucks it all up. One data source says the company’s revenue is $300M, the other says that same company’s revenue is $1.3B. How do we resolve this and determine which is the correct answer? How do we decide which source to trust? Historically – a whole lot of manual work. 


But hey, there’s always a margin of error, and having the wrong information for a single field for a single person or company won’t make a huge difference, right? So often we hear the story of a salesperson investing countless hours and resources in pursuit of the perfect lead.


They saw that Bob, the VP of Sales with company “X” showed high intent and engagement. Bob was the perfect person to talk to, and that salesperson reached out to him countless times over the span of 6 months via his business email logged in their CRM, trying to get a meeting. Well, it took 6 months of work, but that salesperson eventually found out that Bob changed jobs a year ago, is no longer in sales, and has a completely new email address. All that time should’ve been spent pursuing a lead that actually had a chance.


This happens all too often because people change jobs constantly – obviously their company and job titles are dynamic. Unfortunately, the databases accessed through most vendors are not at all dynamic. By the time you’ve blended all of your static data together into something usable, much of it will already be out-of-date.


This is a major issue with vendor data – how to get value from, update and identify instances of outdated, stagnant data in our systems. Our CRMs and MAPs don’t send us a notification when someone changes jobs because why would they? They’re just showing you the data you put in a year ago. In fact, people change jobs so often that by the time you’ve manually updated all of your buyer data in your CRM and MAP, some of that employment data will have already changed and be outdated.


The problem is that databases from most vendors are static. They reveal the data at that specific moment in time, then expect us to manually amend it with new data constantly. This is a serious point of pain for sales and marketers. Beyond outdated buyer data, sales and marketing generally work off of different siloed data without a single source of truth.


Marketing might send a lead to sales, only for sales to see in their system that the lead doesn’t seem to match their ICP and put it on the backburner, not realizing that the marketing team’s data shows a strong match to their ICP. How do we fix such detrimental misalignment? 


These issues highlight the need for a dynamic single source of truth for sales & marketing to operate from. Achieving such a feat will require an AI-driven system for resolving buyer identities across numerous static databases and aggregating all of that data to build robust buyer profiles that automatically update as the source data changes.


With Leadspace, your sales and marketing teams can easily access dynamic buyer data that stays up-to-date all on its own.

Latest Articles
Data Quality breaks fast when CRM records decay. See how third-party data and better hygiene reduce GTM risk.

Article

Why CRM data decays faster than you think

Your CRM starts losing value the day a record enters the system.


People change jobs. Teams rename roles. Companies shift ownership. Email addresses expire. Phone numbers route somewhere else. What looked usable last quarter now creates friction across sales, marketing, and RevOps.


That is why data quality is not a cleanup project. It is an operating requirement.


If you treat CRM hygiene as a quarterly task, you let decay spread into routing, scoring, segmentation, and reporting. If you rely on stale records and weak third-party data, you make every GTM motion harder to trust.


For teams running modern revenue systems, positions decay is a GTM risk. A contact record with the wrong title, business unit, or reporting line does more than bounce an email. It distorts who you target, how you prioritize accounts, and where you send sellers next.

Fix duplicate management in Salesforce lead-to-account matching with stronger identity resolution and data hygiene.

Article

Lead-to-account matching in Salesforce: what breaks and how to fix it

If you run inbound lead management in Salesforce, lead-to-account matching shapes more than routing. It decides whether the right account owner sees the lead, whether scoring reflects the full relationship, and whether your team acts on one buyer or a fragmented set of records.


That is why duplicate management and data deduplication sit at the center of lead-to-account matching. When matching fails, inbound speed drops, account context disappears, and revenue teams lose trust in Salesforce.


You feel the problem fast. A form fill lands. Salesforce creates a lead. The lead does not match the right account. Sales gets a net-new name with no account history. Marketing sees weak attribution. RevOps inherits more cleanup work.


This is not a Salesforce setting problem alone. It is an identity resolution and data hygiene problem that shows up inside Salesforce first.

Buying group identification with Custom Audiences and Third-Party Data helps you map stakeholders before deals stall.

Article

Buying group identification: how to map stakeholders before the deal stalls

Your pipeline does not stall because one lead goes quiet. It stalls because your team misses the full buying group.


That gap shows up early. You target one contact, score one response, and route one record. Meanwhile, the real decision sits across finance, IT, operations, procurement, and line-of-business leaders.


If you still treat leads as the GTM unit of execution, you lose visibility when deals gain complexity. Buying teams framed as GTM unit of execution give you a better model. You see who shapes the decision, who blocks it, and who needs proof before the deal moves.


That matters because B2B purchases now involve larger groups and more friction. 6sense reports that B2B buying groups average 10+ members. Forrester reports that 73% of purchases involve three or more departments. If you do not map the group early, your team reacts late.


For MOFU teams, the goal is not more names in a list. The goal is reliable buying group identification that links people, roles, accounts, and signals in time for action. That is where Custom Audiences and Third-Party Data start to matter.