Improving Revenue Performance in Early-Stage Sales: Priorities and Common Mistakes from Experience

·Apr 15, 2026 07:12 AM·

Hey RevGenius folks 👋 Wanted to get some honest perspectives from this group. Let’s say you join a company where:

The product has strong global potential
There’s decent inbound interest
But the sales process, follow-ups, and overall execution are not structured well yet

In your opinion: 1- What are the first 2–3 things you would fix or prioritize to improve revenue performance? 2- And what’s one mistake you see companies repeatedly make in this stage? Not looking for textbook answers, more interested in how you actually think through this based on your experience. Curious to learn from you all...

11 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Marina R.
·
·
Hey Khalid J.! My instinct would be to fix the parts of the funnel where revenue is most likely getting lost before trying to do more. So the first 2–3 things I’d prioritize: 1. Clear qualification + routing logic If there’s decent inbound, I’d make sure the team is not treating all leads the same. I’d define what a high-value lead actually looks like, then build a simple scoring / prioritization model so the best opportunities get fast attention. And make sure everyone knows who the ICP is! 2. Tighter follow-up ownership and SLAs A lot of revenue gets lost not because of demand, but because no one is clearly accountable for speed-to-action, next steps, and persistence. I’d make ownership really explicit across handoffs and follow-up. 3. Basic funnel visibility before more experimentation I’d want a simple view of where things are breaking: response time, meeting booked rate, conversion by source/segment, and drop-off points. Not a perfect dashboard , just enough to see where execution is weak. One mistake I see a lot at this stage is trying to fix the problem by generating more top-of-funnel before the operating system is working. If inbound is already there, the biggest opportunity is usually better prioritization, cleaner execution, and stronger follow-through. I’ve seen this firsthand in a recent role where the biggest unlock wasn’t “more leads,” it was building better lead scoring, routing, and handoff discipline so the team could focus faster on the opportunities most likely to convert.
Khalid J.
·
·
Thanks Marina R. This is incredibly well put, really appreciate you breaking it down so clearly 🙌 The point about fixing leakage before adding more top-of-funnel hits hard. I’ve seen the same, more leads just amplify existing inefficiencies if the system isn’t tight. Also love the emphasis on ownership + SLAs. Speed and clarity there often make a bigger difference than any new tool or campaign.
🙌1
Khalid J.
·
·
Curious to hear how others think about this
At what point do you shift from fixing execution to scaling demand?
And what’s been your biggest “leakage” moment in the funnel?
Would love more perspectives from the group
Gabriela R.
·
·
Hey Khalid J. Three things I'd prioritize in that order: 1. Define what a qualified lead looks like. Inbound without an ICP filter is just noise. Before fixing follow-up cadence, you need agreement on who you're actually chasing. 2. Rebuild pipeline stages around buyer actions, not seller activity. "In discussion" tells you nothing. Anchor each stage to something the buyer did — confirmed a problem, brought in a second stakeholder. Now your forecast means something. 3. Build the AE→CS handoff before you think you need it. Companies at this stage always defer it. Then a customer churns because CS had zero context. The mistake I see most: trying to fix everything at once and ending up with a half-built process nobody follows. Pick the highest-friction stage, nail that first. I built a system for exactly this — ICP scorecard, pipeline stage map, outbound framework, handoff doc, revenue rhythm: https://revopsbygabi.gumroad.com/l/GTM-OS-Templates
Richard H.
·
(edited)·
Honestly, the first place I would look is at my team. Can we train them better, and if so, how soon. Yeah, we need a process, yeah we need workflows, etc. Ultimately it comes down to execution. You can go fix all the other stuff first if you want, but if the team is lacking skills, then all you're doing is accelerating the suck into your pipeline. You don't need much to contact people. You can fix the process in parallel to the training.
Khalid J.
·
·
Gabriela R. This is really sharp, especially the point about defining ICP early and anchoring stages to buyer actions. That’s where a lot of pipelines lose signal. Curious, how do you usually identify the highest-friction stage early on? Is it mostly conversion data or more based on where deals tend to stall? Also agree on AE → CS handoff being underrated.
Khalid J.
·
·
Richard H. Love the focus on execution here, it’s easy to over-index on process and forget that it’s only as good as the people running it. The idea of improving skills alongside process makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what are the first 1–2 capabilities you usually prioritize training on in a setup like this?
Gabriela R.
·
(edited)·
Khalid J. conversion rates first, then stall patterns to explain why — both together tell a cleaner story than either alone. The highest-friction stage usually shows up when you overlay stage-to-stage conversion with average time-in-stage. Low conversion + long dwell = your bottleneck. Nine times out of ten, it's either a qualification problem that got kicked down the funnel, or a stage with no real exit criteria, so deals just... sit there. In my experience, it tends to live between demo and proposal. Deals that probably shouldn't have gotten that far, and nobody wants to be the one to call it.
Richard H.
·
·
Khalid J., sorry for the delayed reply. It's all about conversation skills. It's teaching people how to earn the right to ask questions, know which questions to ask, and when to ask them. I prioritize
1.
Understanding the psychology of how humans even make decisions. We are all comparison shoppers who commoditize everything.
2.
Heavy active listening
3.
Conversational Control which is about using 1 and 2 to guide the conversation in a human to human approach without making people sound like robots and maintain their own authenticity.
Khalid J.
·
·
HI Richard H. I like your approach, thanks for sharing this.
👍1
Khalid J.
·
·
Gabriela R. thank you for your response, yes i am not 100% agree with your perspective because we have decided and documented our exit criteria from each stage, so that is not a biggest issue that we are facing right now.

Marina R.
·
·
Hey Khalid J.! My instinct would be to fix the parts of the funnel where revenue is most likely getting lost before trying to do more. So the first 2–3 things I’d prioritize: 1. Clear qualification + routing logic If there’s decent inbound, I’d make sure the team is not treating all leads the same. I’d define what a high-value lead actually looks like, then build a simple scoring / prioritization model so the best opportunities get fast attention. And make sure everyone knows who the ICP is! 2. Tighter follow-up ownership and SLAs A lot of revenue gets lost not because of demand, but because no one is clearly accountable for speed-to-action, next steps, and persistence. I’d make ownership really explicit across handoffs and follow-up. 3. Basic funnel visibility before more experimentation I’d want a simple view of where things are breaking: response time, meeting booked rate, conversion by source/segment, and drop-off points. Not a perfect dashboard , just enough to see where execution is weak. One mistake I see a lot at this stage is trying to fix the problem by generating more top-of-funnel before the operating system is working. If inbound is already there, the biggest opportunity is usually better prioritization, cleaner execution, and stronger follow-through. I’ve seen this firsthand in a recent role where the biggest unlock wasn’t “more leads,” it was building better lead scoring, routing, and handoff discipline so the team could focus faster on the opportunities most likely to convert.
Khalid J.
·
·
Thanks Marina R. This is incredibly well put, really appreciate you breaking it down so clearly 🙌 The point about fixing leakage before adding more top-of-funnel hits hard. I’ve seen the same, more leads just amplify existing inefficiencies if the system isn’t tight. Also love the emphasis on ownership + SLAs. Speed and clarity there often make a bigger difference than any new tool or campaign.
🙌1
Khalid J.
·
·
Curious to hear how others think about this
At what point do you shift from fixing execution to scaling demand?
And what’s been your biggest “leakage” moment in the funnel?
Would love more perspectives from the group
Gabriela R.
·
·
Hey Khalid J. Three things I'd prioritize in that order: 1. Define what a qualified lead looks like. Inbound without an ICP filter is just noise. Before fixing follow-up cadence, you need agreement on who you're actually chasing. 2. Rebuild pipeline stages around buyer actions, not seller activity. "In discussion" tells you nothing. Anchor each stage to something the buyer did — confirmed a problem, brought in a second stakeholder. Now your forecast means something. 3. Build the AE→CS handoff before you think you need it. Companies at this stage always defer it. Then a customer churns because CS had zero context. The mistake I see most: trying to fix everything at once and ending up with a half-built process nobody follows. Pick the highest-friction stage, nail that first. I built a system for exactly this — ICP scorecard, pipeline stage map, outbound framework, handoff doc, revenue rhythm: https://revopsbygabi.gumroad.com/l/GTM-OS-Templates
Richard H.
·
(edited)·
Honestly, the first place I would look is at my team. Can we train them better, and if so, how soon. Yeah, we need a process, yeah we need workflows, etc. Ultimately it comes down to execution. You can go fix all the other stuff first if you want, but if the team is lacking skills, then all you're doing is accelerating the suck into your pipeline. You don't need much to contact people. You can fix the process in parallel to the training.
Khalid J.
·
·
Gabriela R. This is really sharp, especially the point about defining ICP early and anchoring stages to buyer actions. That’s where a lot of pipelines lose signal. Curious, how do you usually identify the highest-friction stage early on? Is it mostly conversion data or more based on where deals tend to stall? Also agree on AE → CS handoff being underrated.
Khalid J.
·
·
Richard H. Love the focus on execution here, it’s easy to over-index on process and forget that it’s only as good as the people running it. The idea of improving skills alongside process makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what are the first 1–2 capabilities you usually prioritize training on in a setup like this?
Gabriela R.
·
(edited)·
Khalid J. conversion rates first, then stall patterns to explain why — both together tell a cleaner story than either alone. The highest-friction stage usually shows up when you overlay stage-to-stage conversion with average time-in-stage. Low conversion + long dwell = your bottleneck. Nine times out of ten, it's either a qualification problem that got kicked down the funnel, or a stage with no real exit criteria, so deals just... sit there. In my experience, it tends to live between demo and proposal. Deals that probably shouldn't have gotten that far, and nobody wants to be the one to call it.
Richard H.
·
·
Khalid J., sorry for the delayed reply. It's all about conversation skills. It's teaching people how to earn the right to ask questions, know which questions to ask, and when to ask them. I prioritize
1.
Understanding the psychology of how humans even make decisions. We are all comparison shoppers who commoditize everything.
2.
Heavy active listening
3.
Conversational Control which is about using 1 and 2 to guide the conversation in a human to human approach without making people sound like robots and maintain their own authenticity.
Khalid J.
·
·
HI Richard H. I like your approach, thanks for sharing this.
👍1
Khalid J.
·
·
Gabriela R. thank you for your response, yes i am not 100% agree with your perspective because we have decided and documented our exit criteria from each stage, so that is not a biggest issue that we are facing right now.