SLA Between Marketing and Sales: How to Write One That Sticks

Most sales-marketing SLAs get signed, filed in a shared document, and ignored within 60 days. The meetings where they were drafted felt productive. The execution never matched the intention. Six months later, leads are still sitting in queues, feedback loops are still broken, and the document is collecting digital dust.

The failure is in how these SLAs are written. Most are aspirational: "we commit to collaboration and mutual respect." Aspirational commitments cannot be measured. Unmeasured commitments do not change behavior.

An SLA that works functions as an operational contract: specific, measurable, enforceable, and tied to consequences that matter.

---

What Belongs in a Real SLA

A functioning SLA has obligations on both sides. The most common mistake is making it a one-way document where marketing commits to lead volume and sales commits to nothing. That is not an SLA. That is a demand letter.

Marketing's Obligations

Volume commitment: Marketing commits to delivering a minimum number of MQLs per week or month, segmented by tier if your scoring system supports it. For example: Tier 1 MQLs with a score of 80 or above, Tier 2 with a score of 60 to 79.

The number must be realistic based on current channel performance. An SLA built on unreachable targets breaks within 90 days.

Quality threshold: MQL volume alone is not enough. Quality must be defined with measurable markers:

• Minimum lead score before handoff
• Required fields populated: email, company, role at minimum
• Source restrictions if specific channels have proven low-conversion

Lead data completeness: Every MQL passed to sales should have complete contact information, the source recorded, relevant behavioral history (pages visited, content downloaded, emails opened), and no obvious data errors. Marketing owns this before handoff.

Intent signal alerts: If a lead spikes activity, for example by visiting the pricing page and opening three emails in 48 hours, marketing should surface that signal to the relevant rep immediately. Alert mechanisms should be specified in the SLA, not left to discretion.

Sales' Obligations

First-contact SLA: This is the most critical commitment in the document. Specify the maximum time between MQL status and first contact attempt. Reasonable benchmarks based on B2B data:

• Tier 1 MQLs (highest score): 2 to 4 business hours
• Tier 2 MQLs: same business day
• Inbound demo requests regardless of score: within 1 hour

Minimum follow-up attempts: If no response after first contact, the SLA should specify how many total attempts are required before a lead is returned to marketing or closed as unresponsive. A standard range is 5 to 8 touches across multiple channels over 10 to 15 business days.

Rejection documentation: Before any lead is rejected, sales must document a reason using the agreed taxonomy. The rejection tag is what allows marketing to iterate. An undocumented rejection is a contract breach.

Lead data hygiene: Sales is responsible for updating lead records with notes, the outcome of each contact attempt, and any new information gathered. Stale records in the CRM mean marketing cannot learn from them.

---

Making the SLA Enforceable

A document no one reads does not govern behavior.

Tie it to visible metrics

The SLA's commitments should map directly to a shared dashboard both teams see weekly. Include:

• For marketing: MQLs delivered versus committed, average lead score at handoff, data completeness rate
• For sales: first-contact time (median and 95th percentile), rejection rate, rejection documentation rate, follow-up sequence completion rate

When these numbers are visible to both teams in real time, SLA drift is caught in days, not quarters.

Define the escalation path

Write the consequences of a breach directly into the document:

• First breach in a period: flagged in weekly review, no formal action
• Repeated breach (two consecutive periods): reviewed in a leadership meeting between VP of Sales and VP of Marketing
• Systemic breach (three or more periods): formal process review, potential renegotiation of terms

Without a defined escalation path, breach becomes normalized.

Review and renegotiation cadence

SLAs should be reviewed quarterly. Market conditions change. Headcount changes. Product positioning changes. An SLA that was accurate at inception becomes wrong within a year if it is never revisited. Build in a mandatory quarterly review where both sides propose adjustments, with the requirement that any change is data-supported.

Get sign-off at the right level

The SLA should be signed by the VP or Director of both Sales and Marketing. Not just the ops team that drafted it. Peer-level accountability between functions only works when leadership has explicitly committed. If either VP will not sign it, you do not yet have alignment. You have a document.

---

How to Draft Your First SLA

Step 1: Pull three months of current performance data before the drafting session. MQLs delivered per week, average lead score at handoff, median first-contact time, rejection rate. These numbers become the baseline for realistic commitments.

Step 2: Set volume commitments at current baseline plus a realistic growth target of 10 to 15 percent. Stretch targets belong in OKRs, not SLAs.

Step 3: Define quality numerically. Minimum score for handoff, required fields, and any source exclusions based on historical conversion data.

Step 4: Agree on first-contact time SLAs by lead tier. Document the specific hours, not vague language like "promptly" or "same day."

Step 5: Build the shared dashboard before finalizing the document. If you cannot measure a commitment, do not include it.

Step 6: Get VP-level sign-off from both functions. Schedule the first quarterly review before the SLA is distributed to the team.

---

Common Failure Modes

The fantasy volume problem: Marketing commits to 200 MQLs per month when current performance is 120. The SLA breaks immediately. Volume commitments must reflect current reality plus a realistic growth increment.

The unmeasured quality problem: The SLA says "marketing will deliver quality leads" without defining what quality means quantitatively. Sales and marketing will always disagree on what "quality" means in the abstract. It must be a number.

The invisible SLA problem: The document exists but is not connected to any reporting system. No one is tracking first-contact time or rejection documentation rate. If you cannot measure it, do not commit to it.

The one-way accountability problem: Only marketing has enumerated obligations and sales has vague language like "will work leads diligently." This gives the SLA no power over sales behavior. Equal and specific commitments on both sides are non-negotiable.

The set-and-forget problem: SLA signed in January, not revisited until December planning. Everything has changed: headcount, ICP, product, channels. Quarterly reviews are not optional.

---

An SLA that sticks is specific, bilateral, measured, and escalation-mapped. Marketing commits to volume, quality, and completeness. Sales commits to response time, follow-up depth, and rejection documentation. Both sides see the same dashboard. Leadership signs it. It gets reviewed quarterly. When those conditions are in place, the SLA stops being a document and starts being the operating system for your revenue pipeline.