Category Archives: Sales

“Always Scrubbing the Pipeline” Means “Never Scrubbing the Pipeline.”

Perhaps you’ve seen this movie:

CEO:  “Wow the quarterly pipeline dropped 20% this week.  What’s going on sales VP?”

Sales VP:  “Well, that’s because we cleaned it up this week.”

CEO:  “That sounds great, but you said that last week.”

VP of Sales: “Well, that’s because we scrubbed it then, too.”

CEO:  “So shouldn’t it have been clean after last week’s cleaning?  Why did it require so much more cleaning that it dropped another 20% this week.”

VP of Sales:  “Well, you know it’s a big job and you can’t clean up the whole pipeline in a week.”

CEO:  “Should I expect it to drop another 20% next week?”

VP of Sales:  “Uh.”

CEO:  “Soon you’re going to say that we don’t have enough to make our numbers.”

VP of Sales:  “Well, I did mean to mention that I’ve been thinking of cutting the forecast because we just don’t have enough opportunities to work on.”

CEO:  “But we started the quarter with 3.2x pipeline coverage, shouldn’t that be enough?”

VP of Sales:  “Normally, yes.  But the pipeline wasn’t really clean.  Some of those opportunities weren’t real opportunities.” [1]

CEO:  “What does ‘clean’ mean?  When does it get clean?  Once clean, how long does it stay clean.”

VP of Sales:  “Well, look our view here is that we should always be scrubbing, so we’re constantly scrubbing the pipeline, always finding new things.”

What’s wrong with this conversation?  A lot. This Sales VP:

  • Has no clear definition of a scrubbed pipeline.
  • Has no process for scrubbing the pipeline.
  • Takes no accountability for the pipeline and its quality.

In my experience, the statement “we always scrub the pipeline” means precisely one thing:  “we never scrub the pipeline.”

Should that matter?  Well, using some quick assumptions [2], the average first-line enterprise sales manager is managing pipeline that cost $50,000 to generate per rep, so if they’re managing 6-8 reps they are managing pipeline that cost the company $300,000 – $400,000.  Sales managers need to manage that pipeline.  The way to manage it is through periodic, disciplined scrubs [3].

Now some managers don’t play the “always scrubbing” card.  Instead, they say “we scrub the pipeline every week on my sales forecast call.”  But once understand what a pipeline scrub looks like and remember the purpose of a forecast call [4], you realize that it’s impossible to do both at once.

How to Properly Scrub the Pipeline

While everyone will want to take their own unique angle on how to approach this, the core of a pipeline scrub is to review all the opportunities (this quarter and out quarters) in every sales rep’s pipeline to ensure that they are classified correctly with respect to:

  • Close date (which determines what quarter pipeline it’s in)
  • Stage (along a series of well defined and verifiable stages)
  • Forecast category (e.g., forecast, commit, upside)
  • Value (following specific rules about how and when to value opportunities)

These rules should be documented in a living document called something like Pipeline Management Rules (PMR) to which managers should refer during the pipeline scrub (e.g., “Jimmy, tell me what’s the rule for picking a close date in the PMR document”).

The other important thing about pipeline scrubs is timing, because pipeline scrubs will affect your sales analytics (e.g., pipeline coverage ratios, pipeline conversion rates, stage- and forecast-category weighted expected values).  Ergo, I picked a few fixed weeks per quarter (weeks 3, 6, and 9) to present scrubbed pipeline and then we typically use the week 3 snapshot for most of our early-quarter pipeline analytics [5].

The goal of the pipeline scrub is to ensure that the entire pipeline is fairly represented with respect to those rules.  By following this disciplined procedure you can ensure that your sales forecasting and analytics are not a castle built on a sand foundation, but an edifice built on bedrock.

Notes

[1] If you haven’t gone insane yet, this one should push you over.  Wait, whose job it is to accept opportunities into the pipeline?  Sales!  Once an opportunity gets into what’s known as either “stage 2” or “sales accepted lead” status, sales doesn’t get to play that card.  This represents a total failure to accept accountability.

[2] 10 this-quarter and 10 out-quarter opportunities per rep * $2,500 mean cost per opportunity = $50,000.

[3]  I am not arguing that you can’t also clean up opportunities along the way, but that needs to be a supplement to, not a substitute for, a proper pipeline scrubbing process.

[4] A forecast call is usually focused on the current quarter and on the opportunities that are expected to close in order to make the forecast.  Thus, low-probability and out-quarter opportunities are easily overlooked.

[5] Implying of course that sales perform the scrubs during weeks 2, 5, and 8 so the resulted can be presented on Monday morning of weeks 3, 6, and 9.

How to Walk From a Deal

Like it or not, once in a while it’s appropriate for a vendor to walk away from a prospective deal.  Why might you want to do that?

  • You think your product is a poor fit with the customer’s needs.
  • You believe there is insufficient budget to achieve success on the project.
  • You feel like the deal is wired for another vendor, i.e., you think you are column fodder in the evaluation process.
  • You (and all your fellow reps) are fully booked with other more qualified opportunities.

One day I should probably write a post on how to make the critical stay vs. walk decision.  But today, I want to focus on something downstream of that — I want to focus on how to successfully walk from a deal once you’ve decided that it’s necessary to do so.

A good walk-away process should pass three tests in the mind of the customer.

  1. The customer should feel like they were treated respectfully.
  2. In the future, the customer should remain interested in buying from both you individually and your company, should circumstances be different.  (Ideally, they will be more interested in buying from you because you walked.)
  3. The customer should feel like the decision was not unilateral.

Given these three tests, here a few ways NOT to walk away from an opportunity.

  • Calling five minutes before a meeting to say you’re too busy to work on the opportunity because you don’t think it’s qualified anyway.
  • Leaving a voicemail in the middle of the night saying that you’ve decided to stop pursuing the opportunity.
  • Telling the customer their problem is too simple and/or their people are not sufficiently sophisticated to use your software.
  • Emailing to say that they are running a rigged process in which you can no longer, in good conscience, compete.

And there are lots more.  In short, there are a lot of WRONG ways to walk from an opportunity.  The right way involves doing the following things:

  • Bring it up quickly.  Once you realize there’s good reason to walk, you immediately get in touch with the customer.
  • Get the key contact on the phone and saying you’re considering dropping out and would welcome the chance to explain why.
  • Have a meeting or call to discuss the reasons you believe you should no longer participate in the sales cycle.
  • Ask for their feedback on those reasons.
  • Unless you hear otherwise in their feedback, thank them for their time.
  • Check back in later (e.g., in a few months) to ask how things turned out.

Amazingly, a lot of salespeople are afraid to walk away correctly.  So they procrastinate and then, suddenly, at the 11th hour, burst out saying “we’re not coming.”  This leaves a terrible impression on the customer and denies them the chance to correct potential misunderstandings in the logic that led to the walk-away decision.

My company has won deals by walking away in the right fashion.  To be clear, I am not advocating bluffing; when you say you’re walking you need to be prepared to do so.  But I have seen cases where the walk-away attempt revealed either a misunderstanding of the problem or the fact that no other vendor was willing to tell the customer what they didn’t want to hear.

I’ve seen cases where we get invited back six to eighteen months later and then win the deal.

I’ve also seen cases where the rep mangles the walk-away process, the customer goes ballistic and I, as CEO, need to jump in, eat a large piece of humble pie, figure out what’s going on, and assign a new rep to the deal.  We’ve won a few of these as well.

A fair number of salespeople like to brag about walking from deals, yet relatively few are mindful in how they do it.  Those who are mindful, and who follow the rules and steps above, will sell more in both the short- and long-term than those who are not.

Quota Over-assignment and Culture

Here’s a great slide from the CFO Summit at Zuora’s 2017 annual flagship Subscribed event.

underassign

Since they talk about this as under-assignment, since people aren’t great at flipping fractions in their head, and since I think of this more intuitively as over-assignment, I’m going to invert this and turn it into a pie chart.

quota over

So, here you can  see that 22% of companies have 0-11% over-assignment of quota, 44% have 11-25% over-assignment, 23% have 25-43%, 5% have 43-100% over-assignment, and 7% have more than 100% over-assignment of quota.

Since this is a pretty broad distribution — and since this has a real impact on culture, I thought examine this on two different angles:  the amount of total cushion and where that cushion lives.

The 0-11% crowd either has a very predictable business model or likes to live dangerously.  Since there’s not that much cushion to go around, it’s not that interesting to discuss who has it.  I hope these companies have adequately modeled sales turnover and its effects on quota capacity.

The 11-25% crowd strikes me as reasonable.  In my experience, most enterprise software companies run in the 20% range, so they assign 120 units of quota at the salesrep level for an operating plan that requires 100 units of sales.  Then the question is who has the cushion?  Let’s look at three companies.

cushion

In company 1, the CEO and VP of Sales are both tied to the same number (i.e., the CEO has no cushion if the VP of Sales misses) and the VP of Sales takes all of the cushion, giving the sales managers none.  In company 2, the CEO takes the entire 20% cushion for him/herself, leaving none for either the VP of Sales or the sales managers.  In company 3, the cushion is shared with the CEO and VP of Sales each taking a slice, leaving nearly half for the sales managers.

While many might be drawn to company 3, personally, I think the best answer is yet another scenario where the CEO and VP of Sales are both tied to 100, the sales managers to 110, and the aggregate salesrep quota to 120.  Unless the CEO has multiple quota-carrying direct reports, it’s hard to give the VP of Sales a higher quota than him/herself, so they should tie themselves together and share the 10% cushion from the sales managers who in turn have ~10% cushion relative to their teams.

I think this level of cushion works well if you’re building it atop a productivity model that assumes a normal degree of sales turnover (and ramp resets) and are thus using over-assignment simply to handle non-attainment, and not also sales turnover.  If you are using over-assignment to handle both, then a higher level of cushion may be needed, which is probably why 22% of companies have 25-43% over-assignment in their sales model.

The shock is the 12% that together have more than 43% over-assignment.  Let’s ponder for a minute what that might look like in an example with 60% over-assignment.

company4

So think about this for a minute.  The VP of Sales can be at 83% of quota, the sales managers on average can be at 71% of quota, and the salesreps can be at 63% of their quota — and the CEO will still be on plan.  The only people hitting their number, making their on-target earnings (OTE), and drinking champagne at the end of the quarter are the CEO and CFO.  (And they better drink it in a closet.)

That’s why I believe cushion isn’t just a math problem.  It’s a cultural issue.  Do you want a “let them eat cake” or a “we’re all in this together” culture.  The answer to that question should help determine how much cushion you have and where it lives.

Using Pipeline Conversion Rates as Triangulation Forecasts

In this post we’ll examine how we to use pipeline conversion rates as early indicators of your business performance.

I call such indicators triangulation forecasts because they help the CEO and CFO get data points, in addition to the official VP of Sales forecast, that help triangulate where the company is going to land.  Here are some additional triangulation forecasts you can use.

  • Salesrep-level forecast (aggregate of every salesperson’s forecast)
  • Manager-level forecast (aggregate of the every sales manager’s forecast)
  • Stage-weighted expected value of the pipeline, which takes each opportunity and multiplies it by a stage- and ideally time-specific weight (e.g., week 6 stage 4 conversion rate)
  • Forecast-category-weighted expected value of the pipeline, which does the same thing relying on forecast category rather than stage (e.g., week 7 upside category conversion rate)

With these triangulation forecasts you can, as the old Russian proverb goes, trust but verify what the VP of sales is telling you.  (A good VP of sales uses them as part of making his/her forecast as well.)

Before looking at pipeline conversion rates, let me remind you that pipeline analysis is a castle built on a quicksand foundation if your pipeline is not built up from:

  • A consistent, documented, enforced set of rules for how opportunities are entered into the pipeline including, e.g., stage definitions and valuation rules.
  • A consistent, documented, enforced process for how that pipeline is periodically scrubbed to ensure its cleanliness. [1]

Once you have such a pipeline, the first thing you should do is to analyze how much of it you convert each quarter.

w3 tq

This helps you not only determine your ideal pipeline coverage ratio (the inverse of the conversion rate, or about 4.0x in this case), but also helps you get a triangulation forecast on the current quarter.  If we’re in 4Q17 and we had $25,000K in new ARR pipeline at week 3, then using our trailing seven quarter (T7Q) average conversion rate of 25%, we can forecast landing at $6,305K in new ARR.

Some folks use different conversion rates for forecasting — e.g., those in seasonal businesses with a lot of history might use the average of the last three year’s fourth-quarter conversion rate.  A company that brought in a new sales VP five quarters ago might use an average conversion rate, but only from the five quarters in her era.

This technique isn’t restricted to this quarter’s pipeline.  One great way to get sales focus on cleaning next quarter’s pipeline is to do the same analysis on next-quarter pipeline conversion as well.

w3 nq

This analysis suggests we’re teed up to do $6,818K in 1Q18, useful to know as an early indicator at week 3 of 4Q17 (i.e., mid/late October).

At most companies the $6,305K prediction for 4Q17 new ARR will be pretty accurate.  However, a strange thing happens at some companies:  while you end up closing around $6,300K in new ARR, a fairly large chunk of the closed deals can’t be found in the week 3 pipeline.  While some sales managers view this as normal, better ones view this as a sign of potentially large problem.  To understand the extent to which this is happening, you need perform this analysis:

cq pipe

In this example, you can see a pretty disturbing fact — while the company “converted” the week 3 ARR pipeline at the average rate, more than half of the opportunities that closed during the quarter (30 out of 56) were not present in the week 3 pipeline [2].  Of those, 5 were created after week 3 and closed during the quarter, which is presumably good.  However, 25 were pulled in from next quarter, or the quarter after that, which suggests that close dates are being sandbagged in the system.

Notes

[1] I am not a big believer in the some sales managers “always be scrubbing” philosophy for two reasons:  “always scrubbing” all too often translates to “never scrubbing” and “always scrubbing” can also translate to “randomly scrubbing” which makes it very hard to do analytics.  I believe sales should formally scrub the pipeline prior to weeks 3, 6, and 9.  This gives them enough time to clean up after the end of a quarter and provides three solid anchor points on which we can do analytics.

[2] Technically the first category, “closed already by week 3” won’t appear in the week 3 pipeline so there is an argument, particularly in companies where week 1-2 sales are highly volatile, to do the analysis on a to-go basis.

Using Time-Based Close Rates to Align Marketing Budgets with Sales Targets

This post builds on my prior post, Win Rates, Close Rates, and Milestone vs. Flow Analysis.  In it, I will take the ideas in that post, expand on them a bit, and then apply them to difficult problem of ensuring you have enough marketing demand generation budget to hit your sales targets.

Let’s pretend it’s 4Q17 and that we need to model 2018 sales based solely on marketing-generated SALs (sales accepted leads).  To do that, we need to decompose our close rate over time because knowing we eventually close 40% of SALs is less useful than knowing the typical timing in how they close over time.

decompose closed

In a perfect world, we’d have 6-8 cohorts, not two.  The goal is to produce the last line, the average of the in-quarter, first-quarter, second-quarter, and so on close rates for a SAL.

Using these time-based average close rates, we can build a waterfall that takes historical, forecast (for the current quarter), and planned 2018 SALs and converts them into deals.

waterfall

This analysis suggests that with the currently planned SALs you can support an ARR number of $16.35M.  If sales needs more than that, you either need to assume an improvement in close rates or an increase in SAL generation.

Once you’ve established the required number of SALs, you can then back into a total demand-generation budget by knowing your cost/SAL, and then building out a marketing mix of programs (each with their own cost/SAL) that generates the requisite SALs at the targeted overall cost.

Win Rates, Close Rates and Milestone vs. Flow Analysis

Hey, what’s your win rate?

It’s another seemingly simple question.  But, like most SaaS metrics, when you dig deeper you find it’s not.  In this post we’ll take a look at how to calculate win rates and use win rates to introduce the broader concept of milestone vs. flow analysis that applies to conversion rates across the entire sales funnel.

Let’s start with some assumptions.  Once an opportunity is accepted by sales (known as a sales-accepted opportunity, or SAL), it eventually will end up in one of three terminal states:

  • Won
  • Lost
  • Other (derailed, no decision)

Some people don’t like “other” and insist that opportunities should be exclusively either won or lost and that other is an unnecessary form of lost which should be tracked with a lost reason code as opposed to its own state.  I prefer to keep other, and call it derailed, because a competitive loss is conceptually different from a project cancellation, major delay, loss of sponsor, or a company acquisition that halts the project.  Whether you want to call it other, no decision, or derailed, I think having a third terminal state is warranted from first principles.  However, it can make things complicated.

For example, you’ll need to calculate win rates two ways:

  • Win rate, narrow = wins / (wins + losses)
  • Win rate, broad = wins / (wins + losses + derails)

Your narrow win rate tells you how good you are at beating the competition.  Your broad rates tells you how good you are at closing deals (that come to a terminal state).

Narrow win rate alone can be misleading.  If I told you a company had a 66% win rate, you might be tempted to say “time to add more salespeople and scale this thing up.”  If I told you they got the 66% win rate by derailing 94 out of every 100 opportunities it generated, won 4, and lost the other 2, then you’d say “not so fast.”  This, of course, would show up in the broad win rate of 4%.

This brings up the important question of timing.  Both these win rate calculations ignore deals that push out of a quarter.  So another degenerate case is a situation where you win 4, lose 2, derail 4, and push 90 opportunities.  In this case, narrow win rate = 66% and broad win rate = 40%.  Neither is shining a light on the problem (which, if it happens continuously, I call a rolling hairball problem.)

The issue here is thus far we’ve been performing what I call a milestone analysis.  In effect, we put observers by the side of the road at various milestones (created, won, lost, derailed) and ask them to count the number opportunities that pass by each quarter.  The issue, especially with companies that have long sales cycles, is that you have no idea of progression.  You don’t know if the opportunities that passed “win” this quarter came from the opportunities that passed “created” this quarter, or if they came from last quarter, the quarter before that, or even earlier.

Milestone analysis has two key advantages

  • It’s easy — you just need to count opportunities passing milestones
  • It’s instant — you don’t have to wait to see how things play out to generate answers

The big disadvantage is it can be misleading, because the opportunities hitting a terminal state this quarter were generated in many different time periods.  For a company with an average 9 month sales cycle, the opportunities hitting a terminal state in quarter N, were generated primarily in quarter N-3, but with some coming in quarters N-2 and N-1 and some coming in quarters N-4 and N-5.  Across that period very little was constant, for example, marketing programs and messages changed.  So a marketing effectiveness analysis would be very difficult when approached this way.

For those sorts of questions, I think it’s far better to do a cohort-based analysis, which I call a flow analysis.  Instead of looking at all the opportunities that hit a terminal state in a given time period, you go back in time, grab a cohort of opportunities (e.g., all those generated in 4Q16) and then see how they play out over time.  You go with the flow.

For marketing programs effectiveness, this is the only way to do it.  Instead of a time-based cohort, you’d take a programs-based cohort (e.g., all the opportunities generated by marketing program X), see how they play out, and then compare various programs in terms of effectiveness.

The big downside of flow analysis is you end up analyzing ancient history.  For example, if you have a 9 month average sales cycle with a wide distribution around the mean, you may need to wait 15-18 months before the vast majority of the opportunities hit a terminal state.  If you analyze too early, too many opportunities are still open.  But if you put off analysis then you may get important information, but too late.

You can compress the time window by analyzing programs effectiveness not to sales outcomes but to important steps along the funnel.  That way you could compare two programs on the basis of their ability to generate MQLs or SALs, but you still wouldn’t know whether and at what relative rate they generate actual customers.  So you could end up doubling down on a program that generates a lot of interest, but not a lot of deals.

Back to our original topic, the same concept comes up in analyzing win rates.  Regardless of which win rate you’re calculating, at most companies you’re calculating it on a milestone basis.  I find milestone-based win rates more volatile and less accurate that a flow-based SAL-to-close rate.  For example, if I were building a marketing funnel to determine how many deals I need to hit next year’s number, I’d want to use a SAL-to-close rate, not a win rate, to do so.  Why?  SAL-to-close rates:

  • Are less volatile because they’re damped by using long periods of time.
  • Are more accurate because they actually tracking what you care about — if I get 100 opportunities, how many close within a given time period.
  • Automatically factor in derails and slips (the former are ignored in the narrow win rate and the latter ignored in both the narrow and broad win rates).

Let’s look at an example.  Here’s a chart that tracks 20 opportunities, 10 generated in 1Q17 and 10 generated in 2Q17, through their entire lifetime to a terminal stage.

oppty tracking

In reality things are a lot more complicated than this picture because you have opportunities still being generated in 3Q17 through 4Q18 and you’ll have opportunities that are still in play generated in numerous quarters before 1Q17.  But to keep things simple, let’s just analyze this little slice of the world.  Let’s do a milestone-based win/loss analysis.

win-loss

First, you can see the milestone-based win/loss rates bounce around a lot.  Here it’s due in part due to law of small numbers, but I do see similar volatility in real life — in my experience win rates bounce within a fairly broad zone — so I think it’s a real issue.  Regardless of that, what’s indisputable is that in this example, this is how things will look to the milestone-based win/loss analyzer.  Not a very clear picture — and a lot to panic about in 4Q17.

Let’s look at what a flow-based cohort analysis produces.

cohort1

In this case, we analyze the cohort of opportunities generated in the year-ago quarter.  Since we only generate opportunities in two quarters, 1Q17 and 2Q17, we only have two cohorts to analyze, and we get only two sets of numbers.  The thin blue box shows in opportunity tracking chart shows the data summarized in the 1Q18 column and the thin orange box shows the data for the 2Q18 column.  Both boxes depict how 3 opportunities in each cohort are still open at the end of the analysis period (imagine you did the 1Q18 analysis in 1Q18) and haven’t come to final resolution.  The cohorts both produce a 50% narrow win rate, a 43% vs. 29% broad win rate, and a 30% vs. 20% close rate.  How good are these numbers?

Well, in our example, we have the luxury of finding the true rates by letting the six open opportunities close out over time.  By doing a flow-based analysis in 4Q18 of the 1H17 cohort, we can see that our true narrow win rate is 57%, our true broad win rate is 40%, and our close rate is also 40% (which, once everything has arrived at a terminal state, is definitionally identical to the broad win rate).

cohort7

Hopefully this post has helped you think about your funnel differently by introducing the concept of milestone- vs. flow-based analysis and by demonstrating how the same business situation results in a very different rates depending on both the choice of win rate and analysis type.

Please note that the math in this example backed me into a 40% close rate which is about double what I believe is the benchmark in enterprise software — I think 20 to 25% is a more normal range. 

 

Just Effing Demo

I remember one time reading a win/loss report that went something like this.

“We were interested in buying Host and it made our short list.  When we invited you in for a demo with our team and the CFO, things went wrong.  After 20 minutes, your sales team was still talking about the product so the CFO left the meeting and didn’t want to evaluate your solution anymore.”

Huh?  What!  We spend a few hundred dollars to get a lead, maybe a few thousand to get it converted to a sales opportunity, we give it to our sales team and then they ‘show up and throw up’ on a prospect, talking for so long that the key decision maker leaves?

Yes, salespeople love to talk, but this can’t happen.  I remember another time a prospect called me.

“Look, I’ve been using EPM systems for 25 years.  I’ve used Hyperion, Essbase, TM1, and BPC.  I’ve been in FP&A my entire career.  I have an MBA from Columbia.  I am fully capable of determining my own needs and don’t want to play Twenty Questions with some 20-something SDR and then play it again with some sales consultant before I can get a live demo of your software.  Can we make that happen or not?”

Ouch.  In this case, our well defined and valued sales process (which required “qualification” and then “discovery”) was getting in the way of what the eminently qualified prospect wanted.

In today’s world, prospects both have and want more control over the sales process than ever before.  Yes, we might want to understand your requirements so we can put proper emphasis on different parts of the demonstration, but when a prospect — who clearly knows both what they’re doing and what they want — asks us for a demo, what should we do?  One thing:

Just effing demo  —  and then ask about requirements along the way

Look, I’m not trying to undo all the wisdom of learning how to do deep discovery and give customized demos, espoused by world-class sales trainers like Barry Rhein or in books like Just F*ing Demo (from whose title I derived the title of this post [1]).  These are all great ideas.  They should be your standard procedure.

But you need to remember to be flexible.  I always say don’t be a slave to metrics.  Don’t be a slave to process, either.

Here’s what I’ve learned from these situations:

Avoid triple-qualifying prospects with an SDR, then a rep, then an SC. Make SDR qualification quick and light.  Combine rep and SC qualification/discovery whenever possible. Don’t make the prospect jump through hoops just to get things started.

Intelligently adapt your process. If the prospect says they’re an expert, wants to judge for themselves, and just wants a quick look at your standard demo, don’t try to force a deep discovery call so you can customize – even if that’s your standard process.  Recognize that you’re in a non-standard situation, and just show up and do what they want.

Set expectations appropriately. There is a difference between a “Product Overview” and “Demonstration.”  If you think the right meeting is 30 minutes of slides to frame things and then a 30-minute demo, tell the prospect that, get their feedback, and if everyone agrees, then write “Product Overview” (not “Demonstration”) on the agenda.

Don’t make them wait. If you say the presentation is a one-hour demo, you should be demoing software within the first 5-7 minutes.  While brief personnel introductions are fine, anything else you do up-front should tee-up the demo.  This is not the time to talk about your corporate values, venture investors, or where the founder went to school.  Do that later, if indeed at all.

# # #

[1] A great book, by the way.  My favorite quote:  “in short, I stopped trying to deliver the perfect demo for my product and starting trying to deliver the perfect demo for my audience.”