Xavier S.

Good point. We are working on the "accelerator" aspect now through teardown offers. I think it has a lot of potential, but we haven't had time to really refine the concept and execute it yet. I think we have a differentiator that addresses the "generic" aspect (verticals + embedded teams for complex environments), but we may need to drill down even further. Thanks for reframing that way; that's extremely useful to me right now.

Nice. Thanks for the homework 😉

Nice, I will play around with that idea tonight, thanks!

I think I get it, but the fundamental difference here is we don't have repeatable deal mechanics (yet). Our pipeline (if you can call it that) emerges from one-off signals (overwhelmed engineer, delivery org that's on fire, mid-project pivots, etc). So "Sales Process" and "Deal Management" for us are less about standard stages, and more about improvising in ambiguity. That said, I agree ICP + Sales Approach foundation applies broadly, and we're refining those.

Thank you for sharing this! We're doing some of that type of internal playbook thinking, but we don't follow a traditional cycle, so for us, it's more about selling trust by surfacing high context insights. Some parts of the system resonate, but others not so much. We're also not really ready to productize our motions until we've figured out what works through experimentation.

Tim G. not familiar with those frameworks, but I love the value prop you've found. I can definitely think of some plays that would work in our industry too; thank you!

Thank you both. That's really the kind of insights I'm trying to uncover. Juan P. That's a damn good question. I think we've tested it enough to tell that both the targeting and the framing aren't working out. I love the idea of aligning with fractional leaders. That's a great angle. Nicholas P. I think that's also a valid point. Sometimes they trust their own team, but that trust is misplaced, and it's difficult to point that out with no context. Sometimes, they are working with another vendor, and it's kind of the same problem. There needs to be a wedge we can exploit to at least get a foot in the door and demonstrate trustworthiness. Some of the insights I've uncovered with chatGPT have centered around the fact that our ICP may not know how to buy embedded execution, so we have to educate and not merely perform lead gen; also, the realization that classic outbound may have a bit of value for our model, but probably not a lot. We need a GTM that is more event-led, teardown-driven, or network activated. There's a bunch more too. I'll work on compiling a list of the things that resonated most with me.

Thank you Nicholas P., and yes, I'll definitely shoot you a DM, but I also want to keep the main convo in this thread to keep it open in case anyone else would like to weigh in. Here's a bit of context: We're a software consultancy that embeds into client engineering teams to execute complex work (digital transformations, legacy replatforms, greenfield projects, delivery rescue, etc). We don't sell fixed-scope project or staff aug, which are the traditional models in our space. Our model is flexible, high-trust, and a lot more flexible than what procurement usually expects (i.e. we work on Time & Materials basis, with Statements of Objectives, and embedded teams). Our clients love us once we're in, but it's super hard to get in. The traditional sales cycles are getting us absolutely nowhere, so traditional sales staff we've hired hasn't been to deliver any results, and I don't really blame them for it. I'm starting to think we need some kind of unicorn.