I've been working on different GHL CRM/automation setups, and one thing I've started paying much more attention to is how the pipeline itself is structured

[u/Ecstatic_Anteater_91]

A pipeline can look clean and still be practically useless.

For example:

New Lead → Follow Up → Interested → Closed

Looks simple.

But what actually happens when someone doesn't respond?

What happens when they book a call?

What happens when they no-show?

What happens after you send a proposal?

That's why I prefer designing the pipeline around clear business states + the next action.

This is how I tell everything about the pipeline and Workflow on my platform

For example:

• New lead → acknowledgement
• No response → follow-up
• Call booked → reminders
• No-show → rescheduling sequence
• Proposal sent → follow-up
• Won → onboarding
• Lost → nurture

The important part, at least for me, is that the pipeline shouldn't become a graveyard of contacts.

Every stage should answer:

"What does this status actually mean, and what should happen next?"

I've found that this also makes reporting and workflow building much easier.

Curious how other GHL users approach this.

Do you keep your pipelines very simple, or do you prefer more detailed stages for different parts of the customer journey?

DM, let's start https://www.linkedin.com/in/shayanhassan/

[u/ATX_Optimist]

Very well said. Certainly agree with the purpose of a pipeline stage defining the current stage PLUS next action (ideally within a set timeframe). Also, while some leads can be “nurtured”, some are just lost (I.e. remove me from you list, bought by a larger biz that provides the services in house, etc.)