Nate Nasralla’s Post

It’s way easier to lose a deal than close a deal. EOQ's coming in hot for a lot of sellers out there, so, try this: → List the ways you’d make sure that deal doesn’t close. → Flip them upside down into their opposites. "Inversion" is a principle from the late Charlie Munger who said: “All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there.” That's pretty good. If you wanted to kill a deal, you’d: 1/ Solve a small problem, not a true priority. 2/ Create fans, but no consensus with key players. 3/ Bore the executive who owns the problem / priority. 4/ Force champions to “wing it” during internal convo’s. 5/ Let all sense of urgency slip. Never script buying actions. If we invert those ideas, you’d: 1/ Frame up a high-cost, high-priority problem. 2/ Build deep consensus on the right way to solve it. 3/ Grab exec-level buy-in by painting a bold future vision. 4/ Co-author a compelling and narrative-style business case. 5/ Create urgency with an action plan ending at desired outcomes. There’s more, of course. Just a list to get us started. With a doodle courtesy of the brilliantly talented Keith Weightman. (Go follow him for some great visuals in your feed. They’ll make you smile every time.) Any other ways you'd make sure to definitely *lose* a deal? Wrong answers only, please.

I ran a webinar introducing Sales Process 2.0 to the world this morning, and this is slightly embarrassing / also pretty hilarious to admit: My Whoop band (tracks my workouts) gave me a "strain score" of 9.8. I was AMPED while showing everyone the data on what sales leaders are doing to ditch the 2003-style Qualify → Demo → Proposal → Negotiate etc... process. And build a more modern go-to-market that wins by finesse, not force. So I average 138bpm during that 30-minute webinar 😂 But in my defense (I'm really not THAT out of shape), the data's not only pretty surprising and encouraging, also: - we had hundreds of people from all around the world - we always kickoff with some Taylor Swift mashups - we do it "crash course style, 70 slides in 30 mins So, when I say I "ran" a webinar today... My Whoop band thinks I *literally ran* a webinar 🏃♂️ Which is kinda fitting, because Sales Process 2.0 is a movement, after all. Join in & catch the replay here: https://lnkd.in/g5Jtcdt5

Just 18% of reps are “deep” sellers. Which means 72% of reps are either “shallow” or “average" sellers. (From LinkedIn Sales Solutions latest data.) That stat gets me fired up, because my most memorable enterprise deals always meant going crazy deep on account research. I say “crazy deep,” because during those sales cycles I was: - Mistaken for an employee a telecom exec just hadn’t met yet - Setup with my own email address on an HR software’s network - Offered a job at a design software because "you already get us” And, let’s just be real: Account research like that is hard work, so not every rep does it. Which is why I’m a big advocate for products that enable sellers to become more thoughtful versions of themselves. (I’m also a critic, since I’m a founder building in sales tech, and I know driving tech adoption is hard, real hard.) So I was pretty stoked to get early access to the latest SaleNav updates behind the scenes (thanks, LinkedIn). Next up? CRM Embedded Experiences, which puts SalesNav inside your CRM. My fav part so far has been Account IQ. Which pulls up account plan inputs like: - Strategic Priorities: what they’re focused on & actively investing in. - Challenges: issues blocking those priorities. - Financials: topline revenue estimates. It’ll keep getting better with time, no doubt, but so far, what I've been seeing is pretty well-aligned to the "job to be done" IMO. I'll share more as I get my hands on more, and check out details here: https://lnkd.in/ghjd-HwB

Should you sell ROI or COI (cost of inaction)? In short, it's both, but here’s what most reps miss: If I hand you a quarter, am I handing you either "heads" or "tails?” Well, it's both. You can’t separate the two from each other. ROI and COI are two sides of the exact same coin too. When you… 1/ Quantify problem metrics to find COI, for example: High support costs [ # tickets (x) time / ticket (x) hourly pay ] ↓ Low NPS Scores from unhappy customers. ↓ Referral pipeline decreasing (You'd use specific customer data here.) Then you… 2/ Flip the *exact same* metrics upside down to find ROI: Support costs drop as ticket volume drops ↓ NPS Scores go up with happy customers ↓ Generate more referral pipeline (And again, you'd use specific customer data here.) → Value is found in the contrast between COI and ROI. If COI grows costlier, and ROI increases, there’s more value. The big difference, though, is that: - ROI = a *maybe* measure that’s far off in future. - COI = a *certain* amount customers are already losing. So your buyers will discount ROI for its level of “believability.” Here's a framework that'll help you find both #'s: https://lnkd.in/grPM-Dvx

Ever heard this story from David Foster Wallace? "Two young fish are swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way who says, 'Morning, boys. How’s the water?' The two young fish swim on for a bit, then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes 'What the h*ll is water?' " The point of the story? The most obvious and important realities are often the hardest to see. The obvious-yet-unseen reality in sales? → Sales reps don’t close deals, buyers do. Because this reality’s forgotten — or maybe, never really understood in the first place — it shows up in how most every sales team builds their process, playbook, and day-to-day operating model. In other words, the “water” sellers swim in. Which is actually more like a mixture: A blend of beliefs and behaviors that’ve become normalized over the past two decades, which continues to put sales reps at the center of the sales process. (See? Nothing *sounds* off there, right?) Let's call the "water" we're swimming in “Sales Process 1.0.” Which, quite frankly, is backwards. It starts with the wrong premise and ignores: 1/ Buying decisions are made during internal meetings — not sales meetings. So reps are rarely in the room for moments that create and kills deals. Buyers are, however. 2/ You can remove sellers from the buying process and still get deals done. But remove your buyer from the sales process and you’ve got nothing. 3/ Internal buying behavior is the only true measure of where deals stand. So sales stages focusing on seller activity only capture a fraction of a deal. e.g. Sending a proposal doesn’t tell you anything. (Sales activity.) Did the executive read it? Do they care? (Buying activity.) For a lot of us, this means "Sales Process 1.0" isn't working out so well. Top-of-funnel is rapidly evolving to focus on buying behavior (e.g. the rise of intent data and “signal" based selling)… but the mid-funnel? Same old, same old: Qualify → Demo → Proposal → Negotiate → Closed Sure, we've sprinkled in some call recording. Better demos, objection handling, etc. But it's all still focused on the same premise: Sales reps, in sales meetings. Now, we're in the middle of a massive "sea change." From Sales Process 1.0 → 2.0. On Thursday, we’re introducing Sales Process 2.0. A detailed playbook sharing *exactly* how to dial up sales velocity (in most cases we're tracking up to 10X), with data from teams who already have. It's how to drive more revenue — with less people and pipeline. And it's the product of dedicated, often painful work and late nights alongside more than 330 teams. I genuinely believe it'll change the way you sell, for good. If you're a sales leader, you signup to join for a live breakdown. Plus a pre-release copy of the full playbook before it drops next week: https://lnkd.in/gF6y2fFF

Here are 5 phrases I use to talk pricing, without feeling awkward. I just wrapped up a first disco call, and shared a combo of 1, 2 & 5 here: 1/ “You haven’t asked, but I imagine you’re curious about our pricing.” Proactively bring it up, don't wait or withhold until too late. 2/ "The reason our pricing model is structured this way is so...” Share your pricing model first, specifics second. When your share your model, explain why it’s structured that way. "e.g. the platform fee covers upfront setup, and our per-user cost is lower, so that as you grow, your cost won't rampup as quick." 3/ “How does that price range compare to your expectations?” Change the topic when your prospect's thinking about price, they won't listen to anything else. Better to pause and ask for feedback. Frustration = Reality - Expectations, as they say. 4/ “Some providers charge as little as $X for this. Let me share why we charge more, and why we might be the smarter choice for you.” It's hard to wrap our heads around intangible costs like time, energy, training, opportunity loss etc... so we just hear the $ amount. Label yourself as the more expensive option on paper. Then, name the hidden costs customers don’t alway consider. 5/ “Let’s say our solution was free. Would we be the right fit for you?” Price is a function of value. So if you doubt product fit, going deep on price is pointless. Better to understand what's working / not working first. What else ya got? Any other phrases that are helpful for you?

We're hiring again, and here's the fun part: we'll buy you and your +1 a roundtrip ticket to anywhere in the world — if we hire someone you refer. Seriously, anywhere 🌎 You can even check baggage. (Which I refuse to do, because I much prefer a good double backpack setup on multi-week trips. My wife thinks that + my white socks are hilarious, so she takes pictures.) Looking for a Principal Engineer: → https://lnkd.in/gPMVc6JF We spent a LOT of time writing up the job description, so hopefully it does a good job helping you share what we're about. They'll work alongside with 3 seriously impressive engineers, committing code to prod on week 1, and getting direct feedback from highly-engaged customers. Info on applying in the JD, and we're looking for Denver-area folks or those willing to come to Denver. (We really like building shoulder-to-shoulder.) PS, where in the world would you go?!

Here's a minute-by-minute breakdown on how I structure exec meetings. (Which I learned the hard way, by screwing up one too many chances to build some serious deal momentum.) → Minutes :00 - :05 → Deliver a "Non-Obvious" Insight Execs decide if you’re more or less interesting than other stuff on their mind in the first minutes of your meeting. Grab mindshare quick with a 'non-obvious' take on a topic they care about, by filling in the blanks: "Most people believe _______, but actually, we've found ________." ^make it specific to their org → Minutes :05 - :10 → Adapt to Their Quirks Every exec is a little odd, in their own way. They develop a style over time. For example, I’ve done deals with Fortune 500 execs who: - Cut me off, constantly. He wasn’t rude, he was excited. So I learned to speak in short, fast sentences to let him jump in. - Refused to look at slides. She sat with her back to the screen and asked me to shut it down. To just have a convo, sans visuals. - Objected to everything. Especially what he agreed with. He was an intellectual and wanted to explore the boundaries of others’ opinions. → Minutes :10 - :20 → Confirm or Correct Your Narrative At this point, you’re deep enough to uncover what they think. What will they: - Confirm. What’s resonating in your POV? - Correct. What do they disagree with? Either is productive. Create space to get their take on your narrative. → Minutes :20 - :25 → Frame Up the Decision Path At this point, the exec's thinking: - Will this develop or distract from my goals? - Is it important enough I’d replace another project with this? - If so, who do I delegate to? Figure out if they believe (1) the cost of the problem you solve and (2) the payoff you can unlock is (3) greater than the cost / upside of other projects. → Minutes :25 - :30 → Confirm Owners & Outcomes The most likely outcome is an internal referral. Which is pure gold. The key is to make sure you have a specific name to work with: - Bad: “We’ll need to make sure you pass our infosec.” - Good: “Jon Clark is VP of InfoSec. Have him send our evaluation form.” ^a little primer on the topic I'm breaking down during pclub's masterclass coming up this month. Me + Kyle Asay + 👩🏻🏫 Krysten Conner + Kevin "KD" Dorsey + Chris Orlob. For a STACKED 90 minutes. I even decided to go by "Knate" for the day to fit in with all the "K/Ch" names. See you there? ⤵ https://lnkd.in/gWRMht86

This took 18 *months* to write (seriously). Here's why I built it for you: The early 2000's sales process is still how ~90% of teams manage deals: Qualify → Demo → Proposal → Negotiate → Close We'll call it "Sales Process 1.0." The issue here is the steps you take to sell a product, aren't the same steps your prospects take to buy it. Which means 90% of companies have built their entire sales-led GTM around their sellers' activity — not internal buying activities. Which, at first, doesn't sound bad. But we're missing the entire point of a sales process: → Influencing the buying process. That's what creates revenue. Sure, there are other benefits (forecasting, repeatability, etc…), but they're all secondary to actually generating revenue — and you'll get them if you build around buyers first, not sellers. So to the extent you can (re)define and attach specific buying behaviors to each stage in your process, the more you & your customers will win. Over the next few weeks, we're releasing a full "Sales Process 2.0" playbook. - Sales Process 1.0 = sales reps, in sales meetings ↓ - Sales Process 2.0 = buyers, in internal meetings where decisions are made ⤴ Today's a little sample: The 1-Sheet Sales Process, complete with: - Specific buying behaviors mapped to each stage - Simplified exit criteria to guide deal progression - 3 to 4 how-to frameworks + guides per stage You can download it all, here: https://lnkd.in/gfE7H-fy And it'll cost you $0. (I'm so sorry Kyle Asay.)

"We gotta pull that deal forward, let's get a business case together." ^ lol If that's your approach to a "business case," it was likely: - Built way too late in the deal to drive new momentum - One-way, without any real customer buy-in - Filled with assumptions vs. customer data (And therefore, never read.) Instead, this process starts at *Stage 1* and builds from there. Check out the difference when you follow these 3 steps: 1/ End your very first discovery call with a first draft. You won't have 100% of the inputs you need. But don’t wait — Get a problem statement, sharp headline, and target outcomes down on paper, fast. Then link to it in a simple and light follow-up email. (Keep your email < 5 lines, and expand in a shared doc.) It's not a "business case" at this stage either; that language is too formal and high-commitment for where the customer's at. 2/ Write your first drafts using your buyer's words. Skip the marketing speak inside your sales decks/case studies. You'll start with a more collaborative feel by writing in their own voice. Plus you'll create that feeling, "OMG, finally, someone who gets me." 3/ Tailor your next discovery questions based on the gaps. Are there numbers in your problem statement, for example? (Fluint data shows deals close at 3X the rate when numbers are present.) If not, what question should you ask in your next call to develop the message? Fill in the blanks, show it to the next set of contacts, and repeat 🔁 This is what you're seeing: 1/ Fluint wrote a first draft with the buyer's own words. 2/ It compared that draft to closed-won data on what a “good" case is. 3/ Based on the gaps, it's suggesting disco questions for the next convo. ⤴ the next convo feeds Fluint more data, to fill in the gaps, and repeat.