Category Archives: Startups

A Review of Courageous Marketing by Udi Ledergor

How could I not love a marketing book that says — on page one — that “great marketing makes sales easier”?  That’s long been a mantra of mine, the North Star that drove my marketing career, and it served me well for many decades.

Today, I’ll do a review of Courageous Marketing by Udi Ledergor, Chief Evangelist and former CMO for over 6 years at Gong.  Let me preface this by saying I have always been a huge fan of Gong. From the first second I saw Gong, I thought, “this connects the C-suite to ground reality” and used the product at the companies I ran and recommended it to the other startups I worked with.

I always told CEOs this: “Buy Gong, get together as an e-staff, and listen to 3-5 sales calls. When you’re done listening, crawl back out from under the table, and then you can decide what you want to do about it.”  That’s what happens when you get connected to ground truth.  That’s how “cringe” your reality often is compared to your management team’s expectations.

Everyone had onboarding programs, everyone had quarterly update training, everyone had certification, but nobody knew what was actually being said on sales calls. Gong eliminated that problem.  I was fascinated to see more emergent use cases later arise like forecasting based on activity.  I was unsurprised to see the space eventually consolidate around a broader sales platform with Zoominfo buying Chorus, Clari acquiring Wingman, Gong acquiring RightBound, and Outreach acquiring Canopy, among other examples.

Throughout its history I always felt that Gong was one of a very few enterprise software companies that was not only a clear leader in its market, but also had a distinct brand and personality.  Others might include Salesforce and Splunk.

In Courageous Marketing, Udi tells you where that personality came from and how they fought to define and maintain it.  The book is organized as a series of twelve short chapters, each containing a series of related lessons.

  • A Super Bowl Commercial describes the process for getting board approval, executing, and then socially promoting a 2021 Super Bowl commercial they aired regionally.  The commercial was quite good in my opinion — unlikely to win any awards for creativity from advertising groups — but clear, simple, and benefit-oriented messaging told in an interesting way.  It was a gutsy move, and it worked, but it led to a second, not-good commercial in 2022 that Udi later discusses.  Don’t let starting with a chapter on Super Bowl ads turn you off (as it initially did me).  There’s plenty of great, less rarefied stuff coming.

  • The Riskiest Strategy of All, which according to Udi, is playing it safe.  He describes how Gong didn’t play it safe with either its visual identity or with its messaging.  He describes the focus and consensus problems that often result in mediocre, least-common-denominator marketing and punches it home with one of my favorite quotes:  “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees” from GK Chesterton.  One great way to not play it safe is to speak your buyer’s language.  A lot of the corporate veiling drops off when you do that.  And you’ll sound different.

  • Punch Above Your Weight.  I’ve often heard it said that marketing’s job is to “make us look bigger than we are” or, in my case, additionally to “make us not look French” (chez Business Objects).  I think every CMO needs to make their company look bigger (and, if applicable, less French) as well as somewhat further along with its vision.  As Larry Ellison once said, “sometimes I get my verb tenses mixed up,” which is fine on the about-us page, if not the product one.  Udi describes a  technique straight out of pre-stoic Ryan Holiday where you “advertise offline, amplify online,” for example, by buying a half-hour’s worth of the NASDAQ billboard in Times Square and then amplifying it via social media.  He then importantly shares some thoughts on measuring brand investments, including using Gong to do so (e.g., counting references to a podcast appearance in sales calls).

  • You Can’t Own Brand, which echoes one of my favorite David Packard quotes (“marketing is too important to be left to the marketing department”) and one of my favorite Henry Ford quotes (“quality is doing it right when no one is looking”) – or its marketing equivalent from Jeff Bezos, “your brand is what people say about you when you’re not in the room.”  To the extent branding is determined not just by what you say, but by what you do, he outline Gong’s operating principles – not corporate values, mind you – but actionable principles people could follow in their day-to-day work (e.g., create raving fans).  In short, as Udi says, “the takeaway is clear:  marketing can’t succeed if brand-building is a disjointed exercise, separate from the rest of the company.”  He ends the chapter with advice straight out of Seth Godin:  don’t be boring.

  • Should You Build a Category?  This chapter alone is worth the price of the book because Udi provides reasoned pushback on the Play Bigger argument that to win in Silicon Valley you must to create and dominate a category — which itself is arguably a reskinned version of Geoffrey Moore who said to create a tornado and then emerge from it as the gorilla.  (Moore mixed metaphors, but we love him nevertheless.)  In addition to the category creation challenges Udi mentions, my problem with this is that as Silicon Valley matures, more and more categories have already been created — so life is not as simple as homesteading an unoccupied piece of the market as it was in the 1990s to 2000s. Today, I tell people: if you want to create a category, go sell some software. (Which means we need to talk about how you’re going to do that, which quickly takes us back to marketing strategy.) Udi’s viewpoint is not miles away.  Though he does observe that in certain situations, classical category creation remains relevant, and Gong’s situation was one of them with Revenue Intelligence.  He outlines who they hired to do this, how long it took (3 years), the approach they used (market the category, not the product), and how they measured it.

  • Would You Pay For Your Content?  This is a delightful essay on content marketing.  It introduces the 95/5 rule of B2B marketing (95% of buyers are not in-market) and ergo the need to find those few in market while nurturing the rest, and producing content that works for both audiences to avoid “pitch slapping” the vast majority who are not currently in-market.  He provides a nice differentiation between product marketing and content marketing.  He wraps up with a case study on Gong Labs, which I always thought of as a great, data-driven content factory, much in the same way I think of Peter Walker’s content today at Carta.  The difference is that Gong sells to sales and can express a totally different personality in presentation.  One early headline was, “Secret #1 – Shut The F*ck Up” in a piece that analyzed talk/listen ratios on successful sales calls.

  • Creating Events Magic is a topic about which I need no convincing.  I am a huge fan of well-executed events, both large and small.  Especially now, in the post-Covid but still somewhat WFH-heavy world, people like to get out and talk to each other.  This chapter is an excerpt/rewrite of a book Udi published in 2015, The 50 Secrets of Trade Show Success.  It’s quite tactical, but it’s good.  Tradeshows are all about tactics.

  • When Things Go Wrong discusses how to handle things when some of your bold experiments backfire, like the example he presents where – and this is somewhat unbelievable – they tried to leverage the murder of George Floyd by making donations to the NAACP in return for G2 reviews.  While there may be no statues of committees in parks, no committee in a zillion years would have approved this campaign.  He discusses the fast, direct approach he took to dig out from this mistake.  Then he discusses the second, unsuccessful Super Bowl commercial.  There are a few good lessons here, but IMHO he misses the biggest one:  make sure your CEO understands that you’re taking risks and once in a while they’re going to blow up on you.  Put differently:  if you want fewer mistakes, I can take smaller risks, but that might also reduce sales.  Get some buy-in on your chosen risk profile before the shit hits the fan.  You might need it. 

  • Chart Your Own Path is a chapter on career that encourages you to carve out roles that fit your strengths, work at startups that have already achieved product-market fit (PMF), and to pick the right company at which to work.  The right company not only has established PMF, but has a CEO whose vision for marketing aligns with yours and your styles work well together.  We all know a perfectly good marketer who suffered because they joined a company that didn’t pass one or more of these tests.

  • Lay The Foundation For Greatness emphasizes the importance of having a high-level marketing strategy that is aligned with company goals so people can understand not only the details of your plan but the underlying logic behind it.  Understanding both is key to driving commitment. He also emphasizes an idea that I heard almost verbatim from one of my bosses when I was a CMO:  wear two hats.  Or, as it was put to me:  “you have two jobs – one is to run the marketing department and the other is to help me run the company.”  The natural consequence is that you must build a strong team beneath you, so that you have time for your second job.  Too many CMOs fail because they never get beyond the day job, and that is usually a result of a weak team or insufficient resources.  If your CEO tells you, “you have two jobs,” then make sure they’ve given you the resources to do them both.  One of my rare disagreements with Udi is at the end of this chapter where he advocates for executives taking positions on social and global issues.  I think that’s a slippery slope and a mistake and, as Udi foretells, I’ll be someone who respectfully disagrees with him on that viewpoint.  My quip on the general issue of enterprise software companies taking official positions on social and global issues is: “Sir, this is an Arby’s.”

  • Building a Courageous Team shares Udi’s views on teamwork, including his take on when to hire for potential over experience, sequencing how you build a marketing team as a company scales, and the culture that drives great teamwork.  He shares three of their operating principles:  foster of a culture of healthy risk-taking (a central thesis of the book), stay involved without micromanaging (easier said than done), and keep it simple.  I’ll take his third principle one step further:  I think it’s marketing’s job to impose simplicity on a complex and chaotic world.

  • You’re Half of a Two-Headed Dragon recognizes that reality that sales and marketing are partners in revenue generation.  My favorite metaphors are “we’re running a three-legged race” and, more colorfully, “the CRO and CMO are lashed together as a human battering ram.”  If Udi likes dragons, so be it. He repeats his belief that marketing exists to make sales easier (amen) and shares five principles of sales and marketing alignment.

The book ends, fittingly, with a list of tips from CMOs on how to do more courageous marketing.

While you shouldn’t judge a marketing book by its cover, you can judge it by its marketing. And Udi has done an impressive job here. The back cover quotes come from a high-firepower list including Daniel Pink, Robert Cialdini, Nir Eyal, Neil Patel, Carilu Deitrich, and Kyle Lacy.  The forward is written by Sam Jacobs of Pavilion.  The interior quotes include Trisha Gellman CMO at Box, Dave Gerhardt from CMO at Drift and founder of Exit 5, Dave Kellogg (I served as an advance reviewer and provided a quote), Jon Miller cofounder of Marketo and Engagio, Andrew Davies CMO of Paddle, and Anthony Kennada former Gainsight CMO and founder of Goldenhour. 

The book was published in April to some great coverage. I’ve recently noticed Udi doing some double-dip marketing on social media. Those posts provided me with enough energy to complete my long-overdue review.

Courageous Marketing is a quick and uplifting read.  I’d knock it off on an upcoming airplane trip to get your marketing juices flowing. It could also be the perfect stocking stuffer for the marketer in your life.

The Era of Haves and Have-Nots

Below I’m cross-posting an article I wrote for the launch of Topline Media, the media spin-out from Pavilion, a popular community for go-to-market (GTM) leaders. This article was originally published by Topline on 10/9/25.

Since this was written for the launch of a new publication, I made it somewhat more sensationalist than usual. It’s also shorter and tighter, without the usual deep-drives and asides.

The reception was not without controversy, in part because I touched the third rail by mentioning 996. Some hastily took that to mean, “some VC is telling portfolio companies to grind 996.” That I’m not a VC and never told everyone to blindly grind 996 seemed beside the point.

What I said was: if you’re in a winner-take-all market, then you need to win. Grinding 996 might be a part of that. But the point isn’t to work hard, it’s to win. You can grind yourself to death at a strategically doomed company and it won’t change much. (I’ve tried that. AMA.)

Here’s the article. Thanks to Sam Jacobs and Asad Zaman for inviting me to write it:

AI has created an era of haves and have-nots.  AI-native companies with spectacular growth rates are grabbing all the attention, talent and money.  Is this insanity?  How long will it last?  If you’re not among the ranks of the AI-native high flyers, how do you avoid becoming seen as a zombie, a living-dead SaaS company with uninteresting growth, little profit, and no future?  

First, it’s important to understand the external environment.  While the world may seem insane, it’s not.  We are at the start of a major disruptive cycle on the order of client/server computing or the Internet.  Such cycles come maybe every 20 years in my experience, just long enough for us to have forgotten what they feel like.  

These technology disruptions create opportunities to build enormously valuable companies that will lead their markets for a generation.  This is the system at work.  It’s chaotic.  It’s inefficient.  It feels crazy when you’re in it.  But always remember that from the wreckage of Webvan, Pets.com, and a hundred other dot-coms, sprung Amazon, Google, and Salesforce.  Nobody said creative destruction came without casualties.  

These cycles reflect the nature of venture capital.  While fixer-upper private equity (PE) has always been about driving modest growth with ever-increasing EBITDA margins, venture capital (VC) has always been a hits business.  I remember nearly a decade ago reading the prospectus of a top-tier fund which said that the internal rate of return (IRR) of their previous fund was 36%, but that dropped to 12% with the top two investments omitted.  Most of what makes VC a great investment, worth the 10-12 year illiquidity, comes from a handful of fund-returning companies.  While consistent base hits are the PE business model, the VC model is not just about home runs, but grand slams.

Viewed in this light, today’s ARR multiples seem much less insane.  After all, if a company is going to be worth $20B at exit, it doesn’t matter much if you bought at a valuation of $50M or $80M.  This is what drives the valuation insensitivity and fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) that we see today in AI.  Moreover, if you remember that in greenfield platform markets, first place ends up worth 10-100x second place, and second 10-100x third, you should be willing to pay almost anything to get into the leader.  And if you’re currently in second place, you should be willing to spend almost anything to get into first.  Second prize really is a set of steak knives.

While some will question the durability of high-growth AI revenue, to many investors it’s surprisingly unimportant.  Yes, a lot of the $100M in revenues (that a company hit in 18 months) may not recur, but 70% of something is worth a lot more than 100% of nothing.  Thus, we are seeing a surprising lack of interest in traditional SaaS metrics and the very notion of ARR — particularly the recurring part — is starting to lose meaning.  Increasingly, companies are just talking about revenue or product revenue because today’s pricing models (e.g., consumption, outcomes) no longer align to subscriptions and traditional SaaS metrics.  

While we can’t help wondering how long this will last, that’s the wrong question. It will last until it doesn’t.  Shorting bubbles is a dangerous business because the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.  Eventually, some trigger will start an unwind cycle. And once again, we will learn that this time wasn’t different from all the times before.

If you’re an AI-native growth company, the strategy is simple:  win.  Take no prisoners.  Grind 996.  Grow faster than your competitors, blunt all attempts to overtake you.  In the words of Larry Ellison, it’s not enough that you win, all others must lose.  Hire people who are so aggressive they make you uncomfortable.  Think:  “you want me on the wall, you need me on that wall.”

But what if you’re not?  Per Jason Lemkin et al., you probably can’t raise new money.  Even T2D3 (triple, triple, double, double, double) — a growth trajectory that takes you from $0 to $100M in seven to nine years — is no longer interesting to 80% of VCs.  Instead of T2D3, we hear of Q2T3 (quadruple, quadruple, triple, triple, triple).  We now measure time to $100M in ARR in months, not years.  And, by the way, do it with a tiny team, driving ARR/head of $1M+.

That the bar has been raised so high is a mixed blessing because now there’s no kidding yourself.  There’s no pitching a cloud story while still selling on-premises.  The bluff factor has been eliminated.  If you want to raise money at an AI valuation, then you don’t just need an AI story, you need an AI growth rate to match it.  Clear and simple, but far from easy.

If 80% of VCs aren’t interested in talking to you, how might you win over the other 20%?

Hunkering down is not good enough.  Particularly if hunker means something like 10% growth and 5% EBITDA at $30M in ARR.  Financially, that business might be worth 10-20x FCF, so $15M to $30M.  That’s not bad if you’re bootstrapped and you’re a founder who owns 100% of the company.  But, even then, that works only if there is confidence that the $1.5M in annual EBITDA will continue.  That is, that you won’t be disrupted by AI natives who vibe code your replacement app over the weekend.  However, if the same business raised $50M in VC then it’s effectively worthless, because the entire business is worth less than preference stack.

So how do you create value?  One word:  growth.  Growth is what takes you from an EBITDA-based multiple to a revenue-based multiple.  Mathematically, a point of growth is worth about 2.3x a point of profit.  One way or another you have to figure out growth. 

But how?

  1. Make growth at positive FCF the top financial goal.  Note that this is not a strategy, but a constraint.
  2. Build an AI story. Do an inside round, raise debt, or even cut traditional R&D if you need to, but you have to find money to build an AI product and story.  If you get it right, it will not only enable current sales but increase your value at exit.
  3. Be relentless in sales model optimization.  You are fighting for your corporate life.  This isn’t about arguing with the board about how much to invest in growth.  You are highly constrained, but let those constraints drive creativity.  Do market research.  Do win/loss analysis.  Get good at listening. Figure out what you can do to improve sales productivity.  Often, that will be doubling down on a key segment.  Or stopping in an unproductive segment.  Or changing key assumptions in your sales model (e.g., SC to AE ratio, AE hiring/cost profile) that might have been heretical to consider in the past.
  4. Consolidate the space.  Investors who have “no money” for operational experiments often do have money for new strategies.  If you’re competing with the usual suspects in every deal and everyone is struggling, then consolidate the space.  It should increase both win rates and prices.  
  5. Fresh eyes.  You might think you’ve tried everything already over the past few years.  But have you?  And if you tried something and it didn’t work, was that because it was a bad idea or because you didn’t execute it well?  Beware false knowledge that blinds you to solutions.  Or bring in fresh eyes to challenge your assumptions.  Yes, it’s not going to be easy, and yes you’ve tried a lot already, but you need to look at things with fresh eyes to find fresh solutions.

In a world of haves and have-nots, you want to be a have. And the key to doing that, no matter how many times you’ve tried before, is to figure out growth.

The Startup Board’s Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath is a well known oath of ethics taken by physicians. It requires them to swear, among other things, to do no harm in dealing with patients. While chatting with a VC the other day, it occurred to me that we should have a similar concept for startup boards.

Unfortunately, I think “do no harm” actually sets too high a bar.

To help startups succeed, boards need to challenge leadership teams, ask hard questions, and get them to consider new ideas and approaches. While I think boards should refrain from giving directive feedback, there is always the chance that a hard question leads the company down a path that ultimately proves unproductive. For example, if a board member asks if a company to consider a PLG motion for a new product, that could lead to the company launching a new sales motion that ultimately fails.

This example, by the way, shows both why boards should not give directive feedback (i.e., “do a PLG motion”) and why founders should not listen to them when they do. Think: yes, we’ll consider that, but only try it if we think it’s a good idea. Throwing a bone to board members by agreeing to try ideas you don’t believe in is a losing strategy. If they fail, you are more likely to get scorn for poor execution than credit for the openness in having tried. When results are the only thing that matter, only place your bets on things you think will deliver results. (And yes, the possibility that you threw good execution at a bad idea seems conveniently never to be in consideration.)

If “do no harm” sets too high a bar, then what oath might we use? After talking to my friend, I think I found a great alternative: do no demotivation. “I don’t want executive teams leaving board meetings feeling demotivated,” he said. And he was absolutely correct.

How do we want people to feel at the end of a board meeting?

  • We want the board to feel like they attended a well-run meeting, had a chance to help the company, and understand the plan to address current challenges going forward
  • We want the management team to feel like the board is knowledgeable, helpful, and supportive
  • And we want the management team to feel energized to go execute the plan

That’s it. If you get those three things, you had a successful board meeting. And demotivation is nowhere on that list. Demotivation doesn’t help anyone.

  • It doesn’t improve the odds of executing the plan successfully
  • It definitionally doesn’t make anyone feel good
  • It does make the e-staff start to question the CEO and each other
  • It does make people wonder why they’re grinding so hard
  • It does make the team feel unappreciated and potentially vulnerable

So I’d propose Do No Demotivation as the Hippocratic Oath for startup boards.

I’ll finish this post by listing some common ways that boards demotivate executive teams (and feel free to put more examples of your own in the comments):

  • Expressing surprise over things they should have known.
  • Asking trap questions: “do you think our sales productivity is substandard or very substandard?”
  • Placing blame: “clearly, since our CAC payback is so long, we have an inefficient sales organization.” (Maybe we do. Or maybe we have a hard-to-sell product. Or weak gross margins. Or something else. The high CPP is a fact. The reason for it is not always a bad sales team.)
  • Cherry-picking: taking top decile benchmarks, or public comps, or even just top quartile numbers but across 4 different metrics. It’s like comparing your child to the best mathematician, athlete, musician, and writer in the school. (It’s quite rare when one person is all those things.) Or, my favorite: benchmarking without regard for situation. Yes, our CAC ratio is high, but 75% of our deals are dogfights against a price-slashing competitor. And yes, I know what “sell value” means, thanks.
  • Expressing anger in pretty much any form. While I’ve seen some howlers, fights in board meetings are not OK. They demotivate everyone. And they take focus off the top busness priorities.
  • Ratholing, failing to take things to an offline meeting or working group. OK, I do this one from time to time. (“But I promise it will be quick.”)
  • Making easy things hard. When in doubt, if a topic is not strategic, just do things the standard way at the good-enough level.
  • Expressing negative or hopeless sentiments: “at this course and speed, I’m not sure we’re creating any value.” As opposed to: “we need a new plan that creates value and that means we need to find a way to accelerate growth.”

So before you attend your next board meeting remind yourself to do no demotivation. It’s the new Hippocratic Oath of startup boards.

Slides from Balderton Webinar on Aligning Product and GTM Using Customer Value Metrics

Today Dan Teodosiu, Thor Mitchell, and I hosted a Balderton webinar entitled Aligning Product and Go-To-Market (GTM) Using Customer Value Metrics. We are all executives in residence (EIRs) at Balderton — Dan covers technology, Thor covers product, and I cover go-to-market — and, in a display of cross-functional walking-the-talk, we came together to present this session on alignment.

The session was based on an article Dan and I wrote, by the same title, which was published on the Balderton site last month and about which I wrote here. The purpose of this post is to share the slides from that webinar which are available here and embedded below.

Thank you to everyone who attended the session and who asked questions in advance or in the chat. I’m sorry that we didn’t have the time to answer each question, but if you drop one into the comments below, I’ll do my best to answer it here and/or ask Dan or Thor to weigh in as well. I’m not aware if Balderton is going to make a video of the session available, but if they do I’ll revise this post and put a link here.

Whence Will Come Tomorrow’s Sellers?

To the extent that most sellers today started their careers as SDRs and to the extent that there is a strong trend to replace SDRs with AI agents (e.g., Piper from Qualified), I have a simple question: whence will come tomorrow’s sellers? [1]

It’s not news that this is a trend across all entry-level work, though I just found a new paper on the topic by three people at Stanford who examined ADP payroll data as the basis for their analysis: Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence. And another one that analyzes resume and job posting data: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change: Evidence from U.S. Résumé and Job Posting Data.

But in today’s post, we’re not going to look globally at the topic — no matter how interesting it is — but instead look specifically at just one question: if all the SDRs are AI agents, then where are we going to get sellers from?

I should also explain that I have a dog in the fight. My son Brian just graduated from NYU and started this summer as an SDR at Ramp. (If you’re a US-based company with 150+ employees and interested in spend management, please let me know and I can connect you.) I recommended that he take the job because it’s an amazing company, they have built an excellent sales machine (and the early-career learning on how to do things right is invaluable), and he definitely has both the raw material and the mettle to be successful in technology sales. But as I made the recommendation, I couldn’t help but wonder if he’d be in the final cohort of human SDRs.

My question actually has two parts, so let’s take them one at a time: (i) an assumption that SDRs will be replaced with AI agents, and (ii) the realization that doing so would seriously interrupt the sales career development pipeline.

Will All SDRs Be Agents?

I think the answer here is no, though I do think a good number of them will be. One easy division is inbound vs. outbound. Inbound SDRs primarily qualify and route people with intent (“hand raisers”) to sellers for a discovery and qualification meeting. Input: MQLs. Output: stage-1 opportunities. Outbound SDRs focus on some set of target accounts and work them via outreach sequences in order to get them to take a meeting. Input: contacts. Output: stage-1 opportunities. While they might also receive MQLs from their target accounts, they start higher in the funnel and are more responsible for developing interest in a meeting than someone who downloaded an asset, like it, and wants to speak to a seller.

I believe inbound SDRs provide less value than outbound SDRs and their job is more automatable. Ergo, I think inbound SDRs will be quickly replaced by AI or superannuated by targeted, hybrid inbound/outbound models (i.e., my job is to get into Citibank and I’ll take all the names, leads, and MQLs we have and leverage them to get meetings within the account).

I think outbound SDRs are here to stay. And Ramp, for what it’s worth, seems to agree. I know they’ve onboarded another cohort since Brian’s and they seem to believe that their SDR model works quite well for them. So if the old career path was inbound-SDR into outbound-SDR, I think the new one will start with a hybrid. You’re just an SDR and your job is to get meetings within some target. Sometimes you’ll have a lot of inbound interest to work with, sometimes you won’t.

The first-principles argument here is simple. When automated outreach sequences are table-stakes that every firm can easily do, the only way to break through the AI-generated and AI-automated noise will be via some combination of people/execution, message, and air support [2]. That’s why we’ll still need SDRs — and good ones — in the future.

Where Will We Find Tomorrow’s Sellers?

Since I believe there will be SDRs in the future, I think we’ll find our future sellers there. But in case that’s wrong, let’s examine where we might find them additionally or instead. I’m old enough to remember life before SDRs. So where did we find salesreps back then and where might we find them in the future?

  • Junior sales roles. You’d work your up from smaller companies to bigger ones and from managing smaller accounts to bigger ones. This should still work.
  • Sales training programs. Some companies were famous for their sales training programs, like Xerox or IBM. I’d differentiate those who emphasized entry-level sales training from those who hired sellers with some experience and who emphasized sales onboarding in a particular message or methodology (e.g., Salesforce, PTC). In the future, large companies who find themselves with a talent gap may need to create such programs, substituting Darwinian survival in the SDR ranks for a formal, and presumably demanding, training program. Once established, these companies will be targets for everyone else’s recruiting.
  • Sales consultants. A difficult path but those who survive the transition are often your best sellers. Everytime I hear an SC complain about salesrep compensation, I say the same thing: “quotas are available.” Go grab one and see how you do. (Or don’t and stop complaining,)
  • Customer success. I think this is an under-developed career path and hopefully, as CS gets more business-oriented and account-management-focused, that customer success will be more of a stepping stone into sales. Think: I developed my prospecting muscle as an SDR, I developed my closing and account management muscles as a CSM, and now I’m ready to be a salesrep.

As the SDR ranks shrink due to the pressure brought by AI, companies will have to be more creative about where they find their salespeople. Some will certainly walk up the SDR path. Others, the junior sales path. Some, the top sales training path. But I don’t believe there will be a shortage of sellers in the future. Just a shortage of good ones, as there is today.

# # #

Notes

[1] Turns out that while both “whence” and “from whence” can be considered correct, technically standalone whence is still better in my humble opinion because whence means “from where” so “from whence” is, well, redundant.

[2] In the form of marketing, awareness, reputation, brand, etc.