The Alignment Illusion between Marketing and Sales Teams

“Awareness without accountability is just noise,” he added.

That perspective raises a larger question. If marketing and sales are working toward the same business outcome, why do they so often operate as though they are measured on different definitions of success?

The Illusion of Alignment: When Teams Celebrate Different Wins

Alignment is often assessed through activity. 

• Are teams meeting regularly? 
• Are reports shared? 
• Are targets visible across departments? 

But activity can create a false sense of progress. “The tell is simple: they’re celebrating different wins and calling it alignment,” says Kevin Virsolvy. 

Marketing celebrates pipeline sourced. Sales celebrates the pipeline being closed. On paper, both appear successful. Yet when those metrics fail to connect to the same customer journey, the organisation begins optimising for two different outcomes simultaneously.

Virsolvy believes the real test of alignment emerges when things go wrong. “The real signal isn’t a blown SLA or a clunky handoff. It’s what happens the moment a deal falls through. Marketing blames the nurture. Sales blames the lead quality. Both wave their data. Neither changes a thing.”

The major problem is ownership. 

Too often, teams are accountable only for the stages they directly influence, creating a system where success is localised but failure is shared. As Virsolvy puts it, “Real alignment isn’t a joint QBR or a #sales-marketing Slack channel. It’s shared accountability for every touchpoint, not just the ones you’re measured on.”

The Definition Gap: Why “Good Leads” Mean Different Things to Different Teams

One of the most common sources of tension between sales and marketing is the debate around lead quality.

But according to Virsolvy, the disagreement usually starts much earlier. “In enough pipeline reviews, you notice the fight is rarely about volume. It’s about definition — and that definition is almost never agreed on before the campaign launches.”

Marketing and sales often evaluate the same prospect through entirely different frameworks.

Marketing typically focuses on behavioural signals:

• Content engagement
• Event attendance
• Website activity
• Lead-scoring thresholds

Sales, meanwhile, focuses on commercial readiness:

• Budget
• Timeline
• Buying urgency
• Business need

Virsolvy explains the resulting friction succinctly: “Marketing qualifies on behaviour. Sales qualifies on intent: budget, timeline, a real problem that needs solving now. Both are legitimate signals, and neither is the whole picture on its own.”

The consequence is predictable. A lead that satisfies every marketing threshold can still be rejected by sales as premature.

Marketing passes over a lead that hits every scoring threshold. Sales looks at it and says, ‘This isn’t ready.’ Marketing says, ‘It hits every threshold.’ Two teams are measuring the same person against completely different standards. 

The solution is less about technology and more about agreement. Virsolvy argues that organisations need to define what “good” looks like before campaigns launch and not after pipeline reviews expose the gap.

What Revenue Accountability Teaches Marketers That Dashboards Can’t

Few experiences reshape a marketer’s perspective more dramatically than carrying a revenue target. Virsolvy speaks from experience. “Go spend time in sales before you become a marketer,” a mentor once advised him. He followed that advice, spending two years in sales before moving into marketing leadership.

The lesson stayed with him.

“When you’ve felt the pressure of a closing deadline, you stop thinking about campaigns and start thinking about outcomes.”

That distinction matters because modern marketing often operates through layers of abstraction. Teams track impressions, engagement, pipeline contribution, and attribution models. Those metrics are useful, but they can also create distance from the actual business result.

Virsolvy warns that separating marketing metrics from business metrics has become increasingly dangerous. “When marketing metrics live in a separate column from business metrics, it’s a signal that marketing has quietly accepted a smaller seat at the table,” he adds.

MQLs, engagement rates are useful signals, but they are not the same as outcomes the business actually cares about. Conflating them gives everyone permission to feel productive, while the real accountability question goes unanswered.

The implications extend beyond reporting. When marketing focuses exclusively on activity metrics:

• Performance can look strong while revenue stalls.
• Teams optimise for visibility instead of outcomes.
• Leadership struggles to connect spending with growth.

Over time, credibility erodes. 

“Marketing that can’t prove its impact on revenue doesn’t lose credibility overnight,” Virsolvy notes. “It loses it slowly, one QBR at a time.” The strongest marketing organisations increasingly measure success through the same lens as the rest of the business: growth, retention, and commercial impact.

The Closest Teams to Customers Usually See the Truth First

In large organisations, strategic decisions often flow from headquarters outward. Yet some of the most valuable market intelligence moves in the opposite direction.

Field marketers and sales teams frequently identify shifts in customer sentiment long before they appear in reports. “When you’re in-market running events, sitting alongside sales, having real conversations with customers face to face, you pick up signals that never make it into a campaign report,” says Virsolvy.

These insights rarely show up in dashboards.

Customers reveal concerns over coffee that never appear in surveys. Sales teams encounter objections that don’t fit neatly into CRM fields. Regional audiences respond differently to messaging despite sharing similar demographic characteristics.

Virsolvy argues that many organisations underestimate how much context gets lost between local markets and corporate planning. “A global message that resonates in one market can fall completely flat in another, and field feels that disconnect long before the data does.”

The strongest organisations create mechanisms for these observations to influence strategy rather than treating them as anecdotal feedback. As he explains, “The strongest programmes I’ve been part of treated field insight as a strategic input. Not an afterthought.”

Alignment Begins When Ownership Becomes Shared

The marketing-sales disconnect persists because most organisations continue treating alignment as a coordination challenge rather than an accountability challenge. Meetings, dashboards, and planning sessions improve visibility. But visibility alone does not create shared outcomes.

Kevin Virsolvy believes the solution starts with recognising that alignment is not a communication exercise but a commercial one. 

“Both sides can communicate perfectly and still pull in opposite directions, because they’re not playing the same game. Different metrics breed different priorities. Misalignment is just the inevitable output,” he added.

Ultimately, the organisations that close the gap are not the ones with the most meetings or the most sophisticated dashboards. They are the ones who create a shared definition of success and hold both teams accountable for achieving it. 

When revenue becomes the common goal, alignment stops being a process to manage and starts becoming a natural outcome of how the business operates.

ALSO READ: The CMO’s Role in the Age of AI Agents