CRM

Redesign of CRM Architecture for Alignment with Professional B2B Standards (HubSpot-like)
Dear GHL Development Team, I am writing as a partner with significant business experience and a vertical focus in the B2B sales sector. Our community of professionals and agencies agrees that, while GHL is an exceptional platform, its current CRM implementation represents a critical bottleneck for managing complex and professional sales processes. The current structure seems more geared towards mass acquisition and is not optimized for the Consultative Selling typical of B2B. 💡 The Need: HubSpot-aligned CRM Architecture for Professional Selling To transform the GHL CRM into a truly professional and high-performing tool for B2B, we strongly recommend adopting a data and management architecture similar to that offered by industry-leading platforms such as HubSpot. 🎯 Key Proposed Improvements: Simplified and Interconnected Data Management (Contact ↔ Company ↔ Opportunity): Contact (Lead/Person): The individual. Company: The legal entity. Opportunity (Deal/Affair): The object of the sale. Fast and Bi-directional Association: The ability to quickly create and associate a Contact with a Company and simultaneously with one or more Opportunities (and vice-versa), with a clear and immediate view of all relationships. Benefit: Allows B2B sales teams to track the complex decision-making journey within a company (multiple stakeholders). Complete Data Customization (Custom Fields): Mass Customization: All data fields (Contact, Company, and Opportunity) must be fully customizable (Custom Fields) and not constrained by predefined lists, to adapt to any market vertical (e.g., company size, industry sector, estimated budget). Benefit: Transforms the CRM into a flexible system, capable of modeling data exactly as required by each company's unique sales process. Optimization of View and Speed of Use: The User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) must be optimized for speed and clarity. Information entry, modification, and consultation must be frictionless, allowing the salesperson to dedicate more time to selling and less to data entry.
11
·
Enhancement
Confusing Field Mapping Between “Account,” “Location,” and Business Profile
I’ve noticed an inconsistency between the custom field names used in automations and those defined in the “Business Profile,” which creates confusion during workflow setup. For example, within a workflow, selecting Account → Address Line 1 inserts the value {{location.address}}. However, this value corresponds to a field labeled “Street Address” in the Business Profile. This mismatch in naming conventions applies across multiple fields. Additionally, it is unclear why selecting Account fields results in values prefixed with {{location...}}. The term “location” appears to refer to the Business Profile, but this relationship is not explicitly explained. This adds another layer of confusion, as users must mentally map “Account” fields in automations to “location” variables and then to differently named fields in the Business Profile. Because of these inconsistencies, it becomes difficult to understand what data is actually being referenced when building workflows. This often leads to unnecessary trial and error to verify outputs, which slows down the process and makes it harder to confidently select the correct fields from the start. Improving naming consistency across the platform—or clearly documenting and aligning how “Account,” “location,” and Business Profile fields relate to each other—would significantly improve usability and reduce the need for repeated testing.
0
·
Enhancement
Load More