Hassan M.

This is what worries me about AI SDRs. They can exacerbate the exact problem AEs and managers already complain about with human SDRs: unqualified meetings. Wrong title, wrong person, sometimes even the wrong department. Now you haven’t created efficiency, you’ve just muddied the pipeline. When they get it right, it’s amazing. But when I have to scrutinize every AI-booked meeting because I’m unsure whether it’s actually qualified, I start questioning how much time we saved in the first place. At some point, I’d rather know a human did the work and put a real prospect on my calendar.

Not a problem man, happy to have helped. Connected with you on LI, Ganesh A.

Ganesh A. 1. Legal and Finance on both sides tend to be the biggest stakeholders and the ones that introduce the most complexity. 2. The most common objections revolve around implementation. Clients want a clear understanding of what onboarding looks like, how the project will be executed, and what resources they'll need to commit once the agreement is signed. 3. Yes. We've had multiple Finance teams become involved throughout the buying process. In one case, the client ultimately chose another solution because their procurement and approval process required fewer internal steps. 4. My biggest takeaway has been aligning all stakeholders immediately after the initial solution call. That way, when it's time to bring in Legal, Finance, Procurement, or other decision-makers, they already have the necessary context. In enterprise sales, a significant amount of time is spent getting each stakeholder up to speed across all the moving pieces of the deal, so creating that alignment early helps keep momentum throughout the process.

Did both for you, Omar G.. All the best with the launch.

Sana C. Apologies for the late reply. Not specifically. Curious, when you mention Claude, are you using it as the orchestration layer between teams, or more as a reasoning layer inside existing workflows?

Sana C. The workflow that permanently earned a place in mine isn't a tool, it's mapping the revenue handoffs before buying another tool. Every company says they have a lead generation problem until you map Marketing → SDR → AE → CS. More often than not, the leak isn't at the top of funnel. It's sitting between teams where ownership becomes fuzzy. That's saved me far more money than adding another platform.

jahangir.​danish One question I'd ask is whether the bottleneck is execution or ownership. Fractional sales leaders can absolutely build pipeline and process, but someone eventually needs to own the commercial system across marketing, sales and customer success. Before hiring, I'd map where revenue is actually getting stuck. If pipeline is healthy but deals stall, that's a different hire than if positioning isn't landing or handoffs are breaking. I'd solve for the constraint before deciding on the org chart.

This would be quite valuable Jared R., please let me know if you plan on bringing this to your friends in Toronto!

Jean T. , Gino C. , Alexander J. I completely agree that ICP is foundational. One thing I've been thinking about is that AI hasn't just made outbound easier, it's made it much harder to earn attention. Once the ICP is defined, the next challenge becomes giving that audience a reason to care. Personalization is quickly becoming table stakes because everyone has access to similar tools. The teams that seem to be breaking through combine a narrow ICP with a differentiated point of view that actually matters to that audience. AI can scale relevance, but it can't create it.