What should a call scoring rubric include? (2026)
A sales call scoring rubric should score what the buyer said, not how the rep sounded: 11 items, each 0 to 2, with what each score sounds like on the call. Each item rests on published research, from 35,000 observed sales calls to a peer-reviewed study of 31,000 salespeople, with every source linked.
The rubric as one table 11 items, with evidence
| Item | Scores 0 | Scores 1 | Scores 2 | The evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The buyer named the problem and what it costs | The rep described the problem; the buyer agreed | The buyer named a problem, but not what it costs them | The buyer said in their own words what the problem costs, or what fixing it is worth | In major sales, needs voiced only as dissatisfaction had "no relationship with success"; needs the buyer stated outright did (Huthwaite, from 35,000 observed calls) |
| 2. Questions stayed on the buyer's business, all the way through | Questions were about setup and logistics, or all asked in the first minutes | Some questions about the buyer's problems and goals, bunched together | Questions about problems and goals came up across the whole call | Calls whose questions were spread across the call and aimed at business problems did best (Gong, vendor data). Score the topic, not the count |
| 3. Listening you can hear | The rep moved to the next question whatever the answer | One follow-up on something the buyer said | The rep followed up on vague answers and summed back what they heard, and the buyer confirmed it | A meta-analysis of 20 years of research found listening drives both relationship and sales results (Itani, Goad and Jaramillo, 2019, peer-reviewed) |
| 4. The call was shaped to this buyer | The same pitch any buyer would get | A few references to the buyer's situation | The rep changed course because of something the buyer said | Across 31,000+ salespeople, adapting to the buyer raised objectively measured performance; a "customer-oriented" attitude alone raised only self-rated performance (Franke and Park, 2006, peer-reviewed) |
| 5. The buyer heard something new | Nothing the buyer didn't already know | A general insight about the market | A specific idea about the buyer's situation that the buyer asked about or pushed back on | Across 700+ major purchases, "educated me with new ideas or perspectives" was the top factor buyers named in the winning seller (RAIN Group) |
| 6. Only what answers a stated need was shown | A tour of features | Some of what was shown tied back to the buyer's needs | Each thing shown was tied to a need the buyer had stated earlier in the call | Showing how the offer meets a need the buyer stated is "the behaviour most closely associated with sales success" (Huthwaite); win rates fell from 26% to 5% as feature talk grew (Gong, vendor data) |
| 7. Who decides, and how | Unknown after the call | Some people or steps named | The buyer described how the decision gets made, who else is involved, and how to reach them | Decision process and the economic buyer are core to MEDDPICC; won deals had twice as many buyer contacts as lost ones (Gong, 1.8 million opportunities, vendor data) |
| 8. Budget or price came up | Not raised | Raised vaguely, or only by the buyer and then dropped | Budget or a price range was discussed plainly | Win rates were 42% when price first came up on call 1, 32% on call 2, 15% on call 3 and 5% when never raised (Gong, 11,331 opportunities). Likely partly because serious buyers raise budget early |
| 9. Alternatives, including doing nothing | Not explored | Competitors named | The buyer's other options, including staying as they are, were discussed, along with why they'd act now | Competition is part of MEDDPICC; early competitor mentions were linked to 49% higher odds of winning (Gong, vendor data, no method stated) |
| 10. Objections were understood before they were answered (N/A if none) | Answered at once with a long explanation | Partly explored before answering | The rep asked a question to understand the objection, then answered it | In 67,149 demo calls, top reps answered objections with a question; average reps launched into a 21.45-second monologue (Gong, vendor data, correlation only) |
| 11. A next step with an owner and a date | None, or "I'll follow up" | A next step, but no date or no owner | A specific action, who does it and when, and the buyer agreed to it | Deals with a next-steps discussion closed at 20%, against 5% without (Gong, 8,382 deals); heavy use of closing techniques "dramatically reduces the chance of success in large sales" (Huthwaite) |
Where the evidence comes from
Peer-reviewed studies and SPIN's observed calls carry the most weight. Gong's figures come from its own customers' recorded calls; they're large but show correlation, not cause, and some don't state a method. Almost no peer-reviewed research studies recorded B2B sales calls directly, so treat the vendor numbers as direction, not law. Every source was read on its own page in November 2026.
Free to copy, change and share, with a link to this page. Suggested citation: Outblox Call Scoring Rubric, November 2026, outblox.com/call-scoring-rubric.