Sales: Templates
Four working templates: the ideal customer profile, the prospect brief, the proposal review gate and the win-loss record.
Markdown. No sign-up, no email.
1. Ideal customer profile#
Reviewed quarterly. Everything downstream inherits it, including the scoring model.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Sector | [Specific. "Enterprise" is not a sector] |
| Size range | [And why this range and not a wider one] |
| Geography | |
| The problem we solve | [In their language, not ours] |
| Observable signals | [What is visible from outside suggesting they have it now: hiring, stack, published initiatives] |
| Decision maker | [Role] |
| Also involved | [Who blocks, who feels the pain, who signs] |
| Typical deal size | |
| Anti-profile | [Who we do not sell to, and why. The row that saves the most time and the one usually left blank] |
2. Prospect brief#
Generated before any conversation. Known and inferred are visually separate, because a briefing of confident guesses produces a first meeting where the seller explains the prospect's business to the prospect and gets it wrong.
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Company, known | [Size, sector, structure. Verifiable] |
| Stack, known | [What is observable] |
| Likely problems, inferred | [With the basis for each inference stated] |
| Decision makers, known | [Names and roles] |
| Their priorities, inferred | [From public statements, hiring, filings] |
| Our angle | [Which of our capabilities matches which of their problems] |
| Questions to ask | [The most useful part. What we do not know and need to] |
| Reference we might use | [Checked against what was actually delivered] |
3. Proposal review gate#
Completed by a person who can say no, before the proposal leaves.
| Check | Answer |
|---|---|
| Can we deliver this with the people we have? | [Confirmed by whom, on what date] |
| Is it costed, or is the number plausible-looking? | [Who priced it] |
| What does it commit us to? | [Every date, capability and outcome it promises] |
| Anything promised that has not been agreed internally? | [If yes, it does not go] |
| Reference claims verified? | [Against delivery records, not memory] |
| Non-standard terms? | [To Legal before sending] |
| Discount inside the band? | [If not, CFO] |
| Approved to send by |
A generated proposal is fluent, and fluency is the risk. It will promise a capability we do not have because that sentence is common in proposals.
4. Win-loss record#
One per closed deal, won or lost. Completed from the prospect's answer, not our theory.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Opportunity | |
| Outcome | [Won / Lost / No decision] |
| Score at qualification | [Feeds calibration] |
| Cycle length | [First contact to close] |
| Why, in their words | [Ask them. The internal explanation is usually wrong and always flattering] |
| Reason category | [Price / scope mismatch / timing / no decision / trust / competitor] |
| What would have changed it | |
| Upstream implication | [Scope mismatch means fix proposals. No decision means the case for change was never made] |
"Lost to nobody" is the most common outcome in enterprise selling and the most instructive: the prospect did not choose someone else, they chose to keep doing what they were doing.
Using these together#
The charter sets out what sales owns, the SOPs say when each is produced, the KPIs define what the win-loss record feeds, and the workflows name who receives each output. A prospect brief that does not separate known from inferred is the one that will embarrass someone in a meeting.