PI Blog: Sales and Competitive Intelligence
Advice for sales, marketing & product management success
Win Loss Analysis
Double Response Rates for Your Win Loss Analysis Program
by Ken Allred, September 23, 2009
Imagine that you’ve just learned that a prospect has elected to go with the competitions solution instead of yours. Your sales team did everything they could to understand the prospects needs and build the relationship. Your product managers and marketing executives provided excellent support as well as thorough well-thought out responses to all the prospects product-related questions. The demonstration of your solution went exceptionally well. Management was actively following the opportunity, and everyone thought you were going to win. The deal was an important one because of who the prospect was, or the absolute size of the deal, or the industry the prospect was in, or a combination of these things.
Now everyone wants to know why you lost.
Your prospect just selected the competition, and youve been tasked with calling the decision makers to find out exactly what happened and learn everything you can about why they chose the competition.
You spend the next three weeks leaving messages, but they dont call you back, or you catch them live on the phone, but they don’t have time to answer your questions. Now what?
One of the constant challenges that we face in the execution of win loss analysis is maximizing response rates or participation rates. That challenge is even greater in this type of market research because sample is limited and you only have a finite number of competitive wins and losses you can study. If we aren’t able to get them to participate, it is a missed learning opportunity that we cant necessarily duplicate.
The example above is probably one youre familiar with if you are involved with your companys win loss program. The question becomes, How can we increase our response rates?
At Primary Intelligence, we spend a lot of time and resources addressing this very question. There are quite a few things we do to increase participation rates for our customers, but one of the most important practices we have identified is to create and utilize what we call introduction notes. These are notes that introduce why you want to talk to the decision maker and what you are hoping to accomplish. While the content of this note is very important to improving response rates, who this note ultimately comes from can be even more important than the words you use . There are three potential options when it comes to deciding who the introduction note will come from:
- From a key executive (higher the better, with CEO being best)
- From the sales representative responsible for the deal
- From you
To successfully implement this practice, you will need to choose which of these three options will work best for your situation and then create two introduction note templatesone for your wins and one for your losses. If you analyze your no decision deals, you will want a different introduction note for that as well.
The introduction note really helps remove the surprise attack feeling that decision makers can get when you are cold calling them to do a debrief of their purchase decision. Cold calling a decision maker is a lot like the solicitor that knocks on your dooryou open the door expecting someone you know and instead get a complete stranger that wants to wash your windows or aerate your lawn. Surprising a decision maker is a sure way to kill response rates for your win loss analysis program.
There are five key elements to include in the introduction note that you will send on behalf of an executive, the sales representative, or yourself:
- Introduce the executive, the sales rep or yourself at the beginning of the note
- Introduce the purpose of the e-mailto understand how you can improve
- Ask them to be candid and forthcomingwe learn the most from our mistakes
- Identify the amount of time youll need for the interviewbe specific and honest here
- Let them know when you plan on calling to schedule the interview at their convenience
Even though there are a lot of elements you need to include, it is important that you keep your note brief and to the point. For these notes, straightforward information and a simple request will be your most persuasive argument.
Introduction Note from Key Executive
This is your best option for improving participation rates. You can send the e-mail on behalf of the executive, but you will want the executive to understand what youre doing and have him or her sign off on the processas they could get replies from decision makers and they will need to be in a position to respond to those replies. C-level executive sponsorship will do wonders for increasing response rates, with the CEO being the best possible option.
This approach is easiest if you have a direct executive sponsor. You will be sending the e-mail on behalf of the executive you ultimately get to sponsor your efforts. This way, you have complete control over the process and your efforts wont be held up by the executives busy schedule.
When you have an executive sponsor, you will want to emphasize to respondents that they can reach out to the executive if they have any questions or concerns. Make sure your executive is prepared for this situation, as it can really have a positive impact on decision makers when they see your companys commitment to them and improving your solution to meet their needs.
Introduction Note from Responsible Sales Representative
If you cant get an executive sponsor, the next best solution is to involve sales in the win loss analysis process. An important distinction here is that the sales rep responsible for the deal should not be doing the interview with decision makers. Decision makers will filter out information they perceive to be negative if the sales representative is the one doing the interview with them. See my post on sales-derived versus decision maker-derived win loss analysis for more on this topic.
In order to get sales support, you will likely have to overcome some natural anxiety that the sales representative will have with you contacting the people they were selling to. You will want to reinforce that this process is to identify areas for improvementto help them sell moreand not a witch hunt. Dont be too hard on your sales repsimagine how you would feel if someone said they were going to come in and analyze how you were doing your job. Its natural for them to feel some discomfort, but once they see the results of your efforts and how you intend to leverage those results, this discomfort and anxiety should fade away.
You will want to send the e-mail on behalf of the sales representative so that you can control the process, although we have quite a few customers that have their sales representatives send the introduction notes directly. A sales representative introduction note differs in a few ways from an executive introduction note. You will want to add the following elements to your sales introduction notes:
- Reinforce that you are not trying to re-engage the sales process (applies to losses and no decisions)
- Make the request for a debrief a personal request on behalf of the sales repleverage the relationship the sales person has with them
Introduction Note From You
If you are utilizing this method it means that you werent able to get executive sponsorship or sales support in your efforts to review why you are winning and losing. Dont worry, you can overcome this lack of sponsorship and sales support by pressing forward and gathering actionable data that you can share with both executives and sales. Utilize the data to accomplish your objectives, but dont be selfish with it. Share the data with everyone you think could benefit from it, including the CEO (trust me, these guys are ALWAYS interested in why you are winning and losing), product management, product marketing, sales support, sales management, marketing, and sales representatives. In our experience, it only takes sharing a couple of reviewed opportunities (especially losses) before both executives and sales will recognize the value of the intelligence and get on board with the program. However, this cant happen if you arent sharing the dataIve seen too many cases where this valuable intelligence isnt shared across the organization.
The most important thing to remember about introduction notes that are coming from you is that you are letting the decision maker know why you want to talk to them and removing that surprise element. Practicing this will improve your response rates, but your real goal is to upgrade your program to the executive-level introduction notes or the sales representative introduction notes.
Sample Introduction Note Templates
Over the years, Primary Intelligence has created many of the three types of introduction notes I described above. We have spent a lot of time and effort in creating notes that will elicit the kind of response we need to be successful. If you would like a template for one of these introduction note types, send me an e-mail with the template you are interested in and Ill send you a sample of what were currently using to help move you along with this best practice.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
- Fredrick Difelice (December 29th, 2009 at 8:23 pm)
To marketplace in terms of quality rather than price, and in order to specialise accordingly, you need to observe the ...
More on Product Management Metrics
by Ken Allred, September 8, 2009
This post continues our ongoing discussion about product management metrics. To catch up on the discussion thus far, youll want to review Saeeds post on product managements mandate and my post on two examples of key product management metrics. The lively conversation about product management metrics got me thinking about good metrics and bad metrics and how to tell the difference.
There are four key aspects we should use to evaluate a potential metric:
- Do product managers have influence on the factor being measured (Do they have enough control over the factor to significantly affect it)?
- Is the metric a predictor of success?
- Is the metric actionable?
- Can you tie compensation to the metric?
The four criteria above can help you evaluate any metric you may be considering and give you an idea of their potential effectiveness. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as a bad metric, and there is a very real risk to your strategic objectives if you measure the wrong thing. A bad metric will cause you to focus on the wrong thingsyou may be successful in that metric, but you will ultimately miss the mark. However, a good metric that meets the criteria above can be a powerful motivator and an incredible tool.
There has been a lot of debate that if a person doesn’t have complete control of the thing being measured they shouldn’t be held accountable for itor it shouldn’t be a metric used to monitor their success. While I agree that the more control a person has over the thing being measured the better, my experience has taught me that if the person can exert significant influence on the thing being measured, even if they don’t have complete control, it can still be a fantastic metric if the other three factors can also be met (actionable, predictor and compensation tied to it).
After the influence test, the next important test of a metric is to ask yourself if performing well in this metric will lead to success 100 percent of the timeis the metric a predictor of success? If you can perform well in a given metric, but still fail at your strategic objective, then you need a better metric.
The third key test of a metric is to ask yourself if you can determine specific actions to take based on the metricis the metric itself actionable? Can you look at a metric at any given point in time and see specific actions you can take to improve in that metric? If you can’t, the metric isn’t actionable and you need a better metric.
And the last test, and one of my favorites, is whether or not you can tie compensation, or a portion of compensation to the metric. This isn’t absolutely a requirementthe other three tests are the most important when it comes to identifying good metricsbut if you can tie compensation to the metric, “you’ll be cooking with gas” as a buddy of mine likes to say.
In my experience running Primary Intelligence, we have implemented, monitored and then discarded so many different metrics for every role in the organization that it would be difficult to list them all. The one thing I’ve learned from this exercise is that internal metrics (activity-based), while interesting, will never measure up to external metrics (results-based)the metrics that directly measure, without ambiguity, our progress towards our strategic objectives. In the case of product management, we have already defined the strategic objective as “optimizing the business at a product, product line, or product portfolio level over the product lifecycle.”
In my previous post, I recommended two potential metrics we could use to measure our effectiveness as product managers:
- Product performance versus customer problems
- Product performance versus competitors’ product performance
I’m still inclined to use these two metrics because I believe they meet the four tests described above, they’re results-based metrics, and they have significant impact on the three drivers of revenue:
| Revenue Drivers | Product Performance |
|---|---|
| A prospect’s likelihood of purchasing our product | The probability that a customer buys our product directly correlates with how well they perceive our product will solve their problems |
| A customer’s likelihood of renewing, or purchasing more of our product | The probability that a customer renews with us directly correlates with how well our product actually solves their problems |
| A customer’s likelihood of recommending our product to a friend | The probability that a customer recommends us directly correlates with how well our product solves their problems |
I also believe that these two metrics are relatively easy to monitor using product management activities that are already (or should be) part of our process: talking to customers and evaluators.
This is the approach that I am using to set these metrics up for our own organization:
- Identify the key problems/business needs that our product solves for our customers
- Identify the product features that solve, or help solve, a specific customer problem (repeat for each key problem)
- Ask the customer to rate our performance in those features (talking to customers)
- Ask the customer to rate our performance and our competitors’ performance in those features (talking to evaluators)
- Track these metrics over time (probably quarterly)
The first step is probably the most important, as we have to make sure that we’re solving the right problems for our customers the problems they’re willing to pay for. For each key problem we want to solve for our customers, we need to identify the major features, or feature categories that help solve this problem for our customer.
For example, one of the key problem categories that we solve for our customers is their need for actionable, real-time competitive intelligence. Now that I’ve identified this problem, I have to examine our product for the key features that help solve this problem. The partial list that I came up with looked like this:
- Real-time competitor SWOT analysis
- Role-based CI dashboards
- Reporting capabilities
- Competitor pricing analysis
Once I have the key features identified, I am ready to measure the performance of our product in solving this specific problem for our customers. I do this through two types of interviewing:
- Talking to customers through customer satisfaction interviews or impromptu customer interviews
- Talking to evaluators in recent competitive wins and lossesour win loss analysis program
Performing this analysis can lead me to create a flow chart based on our performance scores that looks something like the following:

Additionally, I can create a similar flow chart to compare our performance versus each of our primary competitors’ product performance that would look something like the following:

Let’s ask the tough questions about these two metrics now:
Do we as product managers have enough control or influence over these two areas we will be measuring? I think we do. Do others affect these metrics? Absolutelybut I don’t think that should be used as an argument against these metrics because our mandate as product managers is to build products that solve problems customers are willing to pay for. Sales, marketing and support all play important parts in this, but product managers really are the foundation. If we have the foundation right, we can help fix sales, marketing and support problems that may be negatively affecting our metrics.
Will these metrics predict our success in optimizing our products over the product life-cycle? I think they will. The better we are at solving problems customers will pay for, the higher these metrics will be and the more likely we will be to meet our strategic product management objectives.
Can I look at these metrics and immediately identify specific actions to take to improve them? I think we can. The great thing about these metrics is they immediately identify both risks and opportunities that we can act on.
Can we tie compensation to these metrics? As the CEO, I can tell you that these are exactly the type of metrics I would want to tie compensation to.
The key to implementing these metrics is making sure that I am carefully aligning my product managers to focus on the most important thing they can do to impact our businessanalyzing and improving how well we are solving our customers’ problems.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
- Sue Massey (September 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am)
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I'm looking ...
Understanding Where Win Loss Analysis Will Help
by Ken Allred, August 26, 2009
95% of Product Management Activities can be Improved with Win Loss Analysis
This past week, my family and I spent some time on Lake Powell with some good friends on a houseboat. If you have never had an opportunity to experience Lake Powell, I highly recommend it: Except for a storm the last night (which claimed 13 boats, but fortunately no lives), the weather was fantastic for us.

The six days of absolute peacefulness (that is, before the 50 mph winds and 6- to 7- foot waves caused by the storm) allowed me to do some in-depth reflection on the impact that a win loss analysis program can really have on an organization. Recently, Pragmatic Marketing updated their product management and product marketing Framework and moved Win Loss Analysis next to what they have identified as the cornerstone of the framework: Market Problems.
As I studied the framework, I realized that win loss analysis can have a meaningful impact on nearly all of the key strategic and tactical responsibilities that product managers and marketers have. In fact, with Pragmatic Marketings permission, I have identified all of the areas that I have seen win loss analysis have an impact on over the past decadethese areas are the ones shaded in blue in the following graphic:
Thats right: in my experience, win loss analysis can have a positive influence on nearly 95 percent of a product manager/marketers responsibilities. That surprised even me.
Over the course of the next few weeks, I will take each of the activities that I have identified where win loss analysis can have an impact and illustrate some best practices and real world examples of how this mission critical function can help you more effectively fulfill the key strategic and tactical activities that are necessary for the successful management and marketing of your products.
We will be working our way through the strategic activities first before moving through the tactical activities. For each activity, we will discuss the following:
- Specific questions and language to use to maximize results
- Best practices for ensuring success
- Real world examples where win loss has helped
- How to leverage the data gathered
- What benefits you can expect
- Potential obstacles and how to overcome them
This discussion should help to improve the results you are seeing from your current win loss program, shore up any gaps, identify additional opportunities to leverage your current investment, and help you realize an even greater return on your program.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
Decision Maker-derived vs. Sales-derived Win Loss Analysis
by Ken Allred, August 11, 2009
Which Methodology is Best for Product Managers?
Recently, respected product managers have been discussing the value of win loss reports as they relate to product strategy and technology roadmaps. In an interesting blog post on Product Management Insights, Michael Shrivathsan argues Why Win/Loss Reports Shouldnt Drive Your Product Roadmap. In his article, Shrivathsan outlines why doing win loss reports with your sales team might be unreliable, including the fact that there might be hidden bias in the sales teams perceptions. He cites a humorous tweet from Mike Boudreaux, a fellow Product Management twitterer, to illustrate his point: Typical win/loss analysis from sales force: majority of losses due to product and price. Majority of wins due to relationship.
As I read this article, I could understand Shrivathsans argument, but only if you define and develop your win loss program in a narrow and short-sighted way. By operationalizing your win loss in the way described, or by abandoning win loss analysis altogether, youll be missing out on perhaps the most important intelligence you need to validate your product strategies and roadmaps.
To begin, an important distinction needs to be made concerning the win loss analysis methodology being discussed in Shrivathsans post. From his comments, we can infer that the win loss analysis methodology being utilized is to have the responsible sales representatives identify the reasons they won or lost a deal and report this information back to product management and other interested parties. I define this as a sales-derived win loss analysis methodology.
This is a common conception of win loss analysis. Based on our experience at Primary Intelligence, we know that approximately 1/3 of companies indicate that they perform win loss analysis; however, we have found that only about 50% of those companies that say they have a win loss program implement what we define as a decision maker-derived win loss analysis methodology as opposed to a sales-derived one.
The distinction between these two very different types of win loss programs is very important. In fact, to fully illustrate this point I went to our own win loss program and grabbed a recent real-world example. This is an analysis of a recent competitive win, but the principal holds true for losses as well (if there is interest, I can show a real-world loss example at a later date).
Lets compare the results between a sales-derived win review and a decision maker-derived win review.
Selection Reasons
When our sales representative was asked why we won the opportunity, his response was:
The reason we won the deal is because I was tenacious and kept working on the deal and building relationships until I got in front of the right person. I then built my relationship with that person so that we had a great relationship. It was good that we had technology, but the primary reason they selected us was because of the relationship I was able to build with the decision maker.
Does this sound familiar? This response sounds similar to the kind that Shrivathsan laments in his blog post. However, lets compare our sales representatives response to the decision makers response on why they selected Primary Intelligence:
There were a number of reasons. One is their extensive experience in this business. [PIs sales rep] and [PIs account consultant]s personalities were a compelling factor, as were the quality of the work and the technology. We really liked the dashboard. Were just now starting to tap into the power of the technology. Primary Intelligence also gave us the ability of integrating the win loss data into Salesforce.com, our CRM system. The others could not do that. Those would be the primary selection reasons.
We can see from the decision makers comments that our sales reps relationship with the decision maker (along with our account consultant) absolutely had an impact on the decision. However, if thats all the information we had, we would be missing valuable intelligence on how this customer actually arrived at their purchase decision.
More importantly, our product management team could be led to believe that the integration with our customers SFA tools we have been investing in may not be a high priority for our customers and we could begin to question our product strategy.
Competitor Weaknesses
An important element of every win loss program is gaining a better understanding of your competitors products. Lets take a look at the competitive intelligence gaps we had in the different win loss analysis methodologies.
Our sales representative was asked why our primary competitor lost the deal. His response was:
They werent pleased with the depth of the information [our competitor] showed in their samples. The decision maker was really looking for a strategic partner and they didnt feel they could get that from [our competitor].
And the decision makers response to why they didnt select our competitor:
Primarily it was the quality of their work. I found the quality of the work was not very good and the questions were not followed up on. The deliverable was fairly weak and looked very unprofessional.
Our sales representative did a pretty good job describing the situation, but the decision makers response is a lot clearer when it comes to trying to understand our competitors weaknesses. The decision maker identifies three distinct weaknesses, while our sales rep identified only two weaknessesone that was confirmed by the decision maker and one that wasnt.
Valued Solution Features
Now lets dig a little deeper and focus on the solution features to see if we can identify additional gaps between sales-derived and decision maker-derived win loss programs. We asked our sales representative what features of the evaluated solutions were valued the most by the decision maker:
Quality of interviewing, because we do a much better job than [PIs competitor] and really uncover the things that affect the outcome of purchase decisions.
Quality of interviewing is definitely an important feature of our solution, but was it really the feature that the decision maker valued most? In our win loss interview, we asked the customer to rate the quality of several product criteria for both PIs solution and the solutions offered by the competition:
We can see here that while our sales rep was partially correct in that we did perform well in the quality of interviewing decision criterion, the decision maker indicated that the quality of deliverable and tools and dashboards were what they valued most. The customer commented:
Primary Intelligences deliverable is very balanced between quantitative and qualitative information. The executive summary thats produced saves me a lot of time and effort and I get a lot of value from the analytics we get like the competitive advantage scores and predictive analytics. And the value of delivering everything that is produced through the dashboard is really important.
If our current product strategy is to invest in specific technology features and we were to see several sales-derived win reviews like this one, we might begin to question our current plans. Seeing enough reviews like this might even cause us to halt development and redirect those resources to other projects. You can see how it would be easy to make some very costly mistakes if you are ONLY reviewing sales-derived win loss data.
Conclusion
The following table clearly illustrates the large differences between the two methodologies we have been discussing:
| Sales-derived | Decision Maker-derived | |
|---|---|---|
| Selection Reasons | Relationship | Relationship Experience Quality of deliverable Tools & dashboards SF.com integration |
| Competitor Weaknesses | Depth of information | Depth of information Quality of deliverable Weak/unprofessional |
| Valued Solution Features | Quality of interviews | Quality of deliverable Tools & dashboards Executive summary Advantage scores Predictive analytics |
If you, or your organization, currently defines win loss analysis as a debrief from the responsible sales representative, I hope these examples can help shine some light on the big, risky gaps that are inherent in performing post-decision analysis via the sales representative.
To be perfectly fair, Shrivathsan does make a brief mention of including decision makers in win loss analysis, saying, theyre often much more open & honest to a product manager with whom they have no relationship, than a sales rep who worked with them for a period of time. As he alludes to, and as we have found in our own experience, these same principals weve been discussing will apply if you are having your sales representatives interview decision makers, so its important to have a third party of some sort perform the analysis (Ill be posting on this subject in more depth at a later point).
I have to agree with Shrivathsans assessment that you shouldnt allow sales rep-derived win loss reports to drive or affect your product roadmaps?but only if you are performing sales-derived win loss analysis. Even in our organization, where we specialize in helping companies implement win loss programs, if our product managers relied on win loss reports from sales reps alone to drive product strategy, we could quickly get ourselves into trouble. Fortunately, we have learned to incorporate a superior source of informationcustomers and prospectsthat provide us with data we need to make a roadmap we can trust and that will ultimately allow us to serve our customers needs more effectively.
In my next post I will write about how you can get a tremendous amount of value from sales-derived win loss reports and how to appropriately use them.
Note: If youve never had the opportunity to review a decision maker-derived win loss report I would like to change that now and extend an offer to do a couple win loss reviews for freeno expectation or obligation on your part. Contact me if youre interested in taking me up on this offer.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.
Real-world Application of Win Loss Analysis Intelligence
by Ken Allred, August 7, 2009
Running a company means you are constantly evaluating how to make improvements for your customers, your employees, and your partners. With that kind of focus, you end up having a constant stream of new ideas, some great, some good, and some that need some work. The challenge then becomes sifting through all these ideas and implementing the ones that will have the most impactmaking sure that the very best ideas dont get left behind.
A case in point: a few months ago, after speaking with our sales team, I had been thinking about our sales process. At the time, I thought, I need to make sure that we get our Account Consultants involved early in the sales process.
Our Account Consultants are the folks that work hand-in-hand with our customers to implement and run their win loss analysis programs. When it comes to win loss analysis, these are the experts that are deep in the trenches, evaluating purchase decisions with our customers and helping them solve their business problems every day. I realized that if we had our Account Consultants involved earlier, we would potentially be doing a better job in helping customers evaluate how our solutions can help them achieve their goals.
As with my other ideas, this change to the sales process went on my list. Unfortunately, that is where it has remained. Then this morning, as I was reviewing a review we did on one of our recent losses to a competitor, I see a response to the question, What were the primary reasons you did not select Primary Intelligence? The decision maker commented:
The only thing I would say about Primary Intelligence was that in the initial part of the sales cycle I was talking with more of a client executive, someone who was more of a relationship manager. I understand that model. I understand why you have it. It’s not a bad model. But with [PIs competitor] I was speaking directly with the partner who was going to actually execute the work. There was no middleman. We were nose to nose on the discussions, and I felt that the sales cycle with [PIs competitor] moved a little more quickly because there was no middle salesman. That was really the one slightly negative thing that I had toward Primary Intelligence. I definitely would have preferred to speak with the person who would be working directly with me on the project during the sales process.
Ugh. Yeah, I had that sick feeling in my stomach. If I had only acted on the idea to improve the sales process earlier I would have positioned us better and given us a much better opportunity at this customers business.
I am pleased to report that I officially checked this idea off my list after a couple of conversations with our Director of Operations and our VP of Sales. They are in the process of formalizing the change to our sales process so that our customers will be working directly with our experts right from the beginning. Our customers will have full and immediate access to both their sales contact and our subject matter expertstheir Account Consultants.
The point here is that even after doing this for the past decade, we still consistently find important, even critical, intelligence on how to better meet the needs of our customers through our own win loss program. If it wasnt for our win loss program, I am fairly certain that this idea to improve our sales process would still be on my list and we would continue to miss opportunities.
About the Author: Ken Allred, Founder and CEO of Primary Intelligence, is a thought leader in SaaS-based sales intelligence, analytics and sales enablement solutions. He is committed to the optimization of sales, marketing and product management teams through the implementation of advanced Sales 2.0 intelligence solutions.


This is a lot like shooting for the corner pocket in pool, only to have your ball bounce around the table and unexpectedly go in the side-pocket. Youre pleased with the result, but the result occurred more from luck than skill. The opportunity for this customer was hugethey could create buyer personas for the newly identified buyers and train the sales force on how to effectively target these two additional buyer types.
So how do these things help a sales representative? The best sales people in an organization are going to have a pretty solid understanding of this information already, but the other 80% of the sales force can get a tremendous amount of value from buyer personas built with your win loss data. A well written and researched buyer persona can undoubtedly help a sales person in both their prospecting efforts and with the deals theyre actively pursuing. Specifically, this information can:
In order to create a customer-driven product development process, we must be consistently listening to our market to identify and validate the key customer problems that our solution will solve and measure how well our solution is solving those problems.
This process allows me to understand the big picture for our target markets, and analyzing the way each customer communicates their problems gives me fantastic insight into areas that we can/should be focusing on to better meet the needs of our customers. It is comments like the following that help me frame the newly identified customer problem of improving a current win loss analysis program:

Adele - You make a great point - When I was writing this I neglected to consider their impact on ...
Great post Ken. I'd add one additional point about how buyer personas help Sales. As you say, there are the ...