Doug Davidoff writes and teaches about B2B sales leadership, coaching, deal management, and pipeline qualification. The posts focus on helping sales teams assess opportunities, guide buying processes, and improve forecasts.
Most useful for practical deal management, pipeline qualification, and sales coaching content for sales leaders.
Best for
Co-branded webinar, workshop, or article on deal management for sales managers and VPs.
Not for
Campaigns needing verified audience scale, demographics, or a software product led pitch.
Key takeaways
Running a deal is a hands-on management skill that Davidoff argues is fading.
Treat the pipeline as a portfolio and choose which deals deserve the hours.
Forecast misses start weeks before the end of the quarter.
Check first: Confirm audience size, registration and attendance results, and co-hosting or sponsorship formats.
Main ideas
Running a deal is a hands-on management skill, and Doug Davidoff argues it is fading · Treat the pipeline as a portfolio: choose which deals deserve the hours · Coach outcomes, not activity
Doug Davidoff writes about B2B sales leadership, coaching, deal management, and pipeline quality.
In these posts, they argue that better sales results come from making stronger decisions about deals and improving how managers coach—not simply increasing activity, pipeline volume, or CRM features.
They also promote the “Candid Conversations” webinar series.
Davidoff turns broad sales problems into practical questions and routines.
In one post, they break “running a deal” into six responsibilities, from mapping the buying process to coordinating internal resources and setting mutual next steps.
In another, they urge reps to weigh pain intensity, buying-committee dynamics, and their competitive position before deciding how much time a deal deserves.
Together, these examples show a recurring focus on managing opportunity quality and progress, not just tracking activity.
They apply the same reasoning to coaching and operations: managers should challenge deal assumptions rather than accept status updates, and companies should improve the sales process before reconfiguring the CRM.
This work offers concrete ways to inspect deals, coach judgment, and diagnose why forecasts or sales systems are failing.
Doug Davidoff's posts return to one argument from several angles: selling is a managed process, and most of the leverage sits in deal quality and manager coaching rather than in more activity or better software.
Read more
They write about what it takes to drive a deal to a close, how to decide which deals deserve the hours, why forecast misses are set weeks before quarter end, and why process should be fixed before the CRM. A recurring priority is pushing sales managers away from volume and tooling fixes and toward better questions about why deals stall.
Running a deal is a hands-on management skill, and Doug Davidoff argues it is fading
Doug Davidoff defines "running a deal" as actively managing and driving an opportunity from first contact through to close, rather than waiting for the buyer to come back.
Read more
The post breaks the skill into six jobs: owning the process and knowing the next step, assessing deal quality before spending resources, mapping the customer's buying journey and everyone in it, coordinating internal people at the right moments, controlling the timeline with mutual action plans and deadlines, and building strategies for objections, budget concerns, and competitors. They tie the erosion of this skill to longer sales cycles, lower win rates, and weaker pricing, contrasting sellers who let deals happen to them with performers who make deals happen deliberately.
On coordinating resources, the post lists pulling in pre-sales engineers for technical demos, executives for C-level meetings, legal for contract negotiations, and customer success for implementation planning: "You're the conductor ensuring everyone plays their part."
Treat the pipeline as a portfolio: choose which deals deserve the hours
In a second pass at deal quality, Doug Davidoff argues reps pour equal time into deals with a 10% chance of closing and deals with an 80% chance, wasting engineering hours, executive time, and forecast credibility.
Read more
The post names three habits that separate stronger performers: testing pain intensity rather than the existence of pain, mapping the whole buying committee—including who holds veto power and who influences without deciding—and being honest about competitive position, including whether they are genuinely being evaluated or are "column fodder" for an already-decided purchase. They say top performers walk away from deals they cannot win.
The pain test is put as a set of questions: "How much is this costing you?
What happens if you don't solve it?
Who else feels this pain?"
The post contrasts an "annoying problem" with a "business-critical issue" as the difference between a deal that closes and one that dies in procurement.
The post turns the earlier deal-management framework into a routine: Doug Davidoff writes that the reps they coach score every deal across these dimensions monthly as a self-check, not a report to management.
They claim 30 to 40 percent higher win rates for reps who do this, attributing the improvement to better deal selection rather than better closing.
The shortest teaching post makes one point: coaching that sounds like "make more calls," "send another email," or "keep following up" pushes effort, while strong managers help reps think differently about what is in front of them.
Read more
Doug Davidoff frames that shift as a skill that can be learned rather than a personality trait.
The post quotes the weak coaching lines verbatim, contrasts them with the outcome-focused alternative, then points readers to a session where Doug Davidoff says the method is taught.
Forecast misses start weeks before the end of the quarter
Doug Davidoff argues that bad forecasts are set earlier than the quarter's close, in three recurring moments: when nobody challenges a deal, when "they seemed interested" passes as evidence, and when managers accept status updates instead of asking better questions.
Read more
The conclusion: forecast accuracy starts with better coaching, not forecast tooling.
The post lists three failure moments in a short sequence—unchallenged deals, weak evidence, passive manager reviews—and uses them to frame a session on what better coaching should look like.
Doug Davidoff describes mid-market companies spending six figures on CRM configuration, hiring consultants, customizing fields, building dashboards, and automating workflows, only to find adoption languishing and data quality poor 18 months later.
Read more
The cause is rarely the technology: the sales and go-to-market processes the system was built to support stop evolving while the market moves.
Reps work around the CRM, managers stop trusting the data, and the company pays to maintain a system fewer people use.
The stated rule: process first, technology second.
The diagnostic is whether a team spends more time debating CRM fields than examining why deals stall at Stage 3—described as having the priority inverted. The post adds that the best CRM cannot compensate for a go-to-market motion that has not been pressure-tested in the last two quarters.
Teaching in public through a recurring live session
A visible priority is delivering arguments through an ongoing session series called Candid Conversations, promoted on LinkedIn with a theme, a time (noon ET), a registration link, and a replay for those who cannot attend.
Read more
Recent published themes include pipeline quality in a tough market, three power moves for sales managers, coaching outcomes rather than activity, and better forecasting through better coaching. One post is a plain scheduling notice for a session on increasing sales in a tough market.
Across the promotional posts, the pattern is consistent: a short argument or question, the session theme, the date and time, a link, and sales management or revenue operations hashtags. Doug Davidoff notes that registering still gets you the recording if you cannot attend.
Explains what “running a deal” means and why Davidoff sees the skill eroding in B2B sales teams.
Read more
Start here for the deal-management framework that recurs across the other posts.
Davidoff defines running a deal as actively managing an opportunity from first contact to close, rather than passively waiting for the customer.
They list six practices: owning the process, assessing deal quality, managing the buying journey, coordinating resources, controlling the timeline, and navigating obstacles.
They link the erosion of this skill to longer sales cycles, lower win rates, and weaker pricing.
Struggling sellers let deals happen to them; top performers drive them deliberately.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the strongest anchor for a co-branded webinar or blog post on deal management. Teach the six-part framework in sequence, then turn it into a self-assessment or coaching checklist for a VP of Sales audience.
Start here for a qualification method that turns pipeline review into prioritisation.
Davidoff argues that most reps spread effort equally across deals with very different odds, giving a deal with a 10% chance of closing as much attention as one with an 80% chance.
In their account, top performers test pain intensity rather than pain existence, map the full buying committee—including veto holders and influencers—and assess whether they are genuinely being evaluated or used for comparison.
They say they coach reps to score every deal monthly and report that reps who do this have 30–40% higher win rates, based on their coaching experience.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for a webinar or workbook on pipeline qualification. Package the monthly scoring routine as a downloadable deal scorecard for sales managers, with the buying-committee map as a live exercise.
Explains why CRM investments underdeliver: sales process, not tooling, drives adoption and data quality.
Read more
Davidoff describes mid-market companies spending six figures on CRM, hiring consultants, and customising fields, dashboards, and workflows, only to see adoption and data quality decline 18 months later.
In their view, the sales and go-to-market processes the CRM was built to support stop evolving.
Reps work around the system, and managers stop trusting the data.
Their priority is plain: process first, technology second.
Debating CRM fields instead of examining why deals stall at a given stage reverses that priority; the best CRM cannot compensate for a go-to-market motion that has not been pressure-tested recently.
For brands planning a campaign
For RevOps or sales-operations readers, this makes a useful counterweight to tool-led content. Position a webinar or article around pressure-testing the go-to-market motion before configuring the CRM.
Explains what sales managers should ask when the market tightens: a short, direct argument for pipeline quality over volume.
Read more
Davidoff writes that sales managers should ask why current opportunities are not moving, rather than telling their teams to create more.
A bigger pipeline of bad deals, they say, does not improve the forecast; it creates false confidence.
The post also promotes a “Candid Conversations” session on September 17, with registration and replay details.
For brands planning a campaign
Shows Davidoff's existing webinar format: a recurring, conversation-style session with live and replay access. A B2B sales enablement company can propose a co-branded edition instead of a one-off lecture.
Explains where forecast errors begin and links manager coaching to forecast accuracy.
Read more
Davidoff argues that forecast failures begin weeks earlier: when nobody challenges a deal, “they seemed interested” passes for evidence, and managers accept status updates instead of asking better questions.
Forecast accuracy, they write, starts with better coaching.
The post invites readers to a Candid Conversations session on September 17 at noon ET.
For brands planning a campaign
Supports a webinar segment on pipeline inspection and manager questioning. Use the three failure patterns as a diagnostic exercise for sales leaders.
Explains what separates activity coaching from outcome coaching.
Read more
Start here for a compact teaching contrast newcomers can apply immediately.
Davidoff contrasts common coaching phrases—make more calls, send another email, keep following up—with coaching that helps reps think differently about the situation in front of them.
The first, they say, pushes effort; the second builds a learnable skill.
The post promotes the same Candid Conversations series.
For brands planning a campaign
A simple, quotable teaching device for a co-branded webinar or blog on sales coaching. Use it to frame a segment on the specific questions managers should ask instead of pushing activity.
Explains the topic and practical format of Davidoff's recurring webinar series.
Read more
Davidoff's next Candid Conversations session was set to cover three power moves for sales managers in a tough market. The post says the session is tomorrow at noon ET and that registering still provides the recording.
For brands planning a campaign
Confirms the recurring “Candid Conversations” series and its focus on practical, manager-facing moves. A co-branded webinar can use the three-move structure and the live-plus-replay access model.
Recurring live session format: Candid Conversations4
Running a deal as a managed process1
Qualifying deals like a portfolio, not a list1
Forecast accuracy is a coaching problem, not a reporting problem1
Coach outcomes, not activity1
Fix the selling process before the CRM1
Pipeline quality over pipeline volume in a tough market1
Running a deal as a managed process
Doug Davidoff's central teaching is that reps have lost the skill of "running a deal"—actively driving an opportunity from first contact to close instead of waiting on the buyer.
Read more
They break that skill into six jobs: owning the process and knowing what happens next; assessing deal quality before spending resources; mapping the customer's buying journey and the people in it; bringing in the right internal people at the right moments; setting mutual action plans and deadlines to control the timeline; and building strategies for objections, budget problems, and competitors. They argue that the gap between passive participation and active management shows up directly in cycle length, win rates, and pricing.
A six-part framework, with each part defined and illustrated through concrete work: pre-sales demos, executive meetings, legal, procurement, and implementation planning. Posts end with an open question asking readers which area reps struggle with, doubling as audience research.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the strongest backbone for a co-branded webinar on deal management: the six areas translate directly into a session outline and a one-page checklist for live opportunities. A sales enablement partner can frame each as a coaching moment a manager can observe in a deal review.
In a second treatment of the same theme, Davidoff argues that the pipeline is a portfolio requiring active management, and that working every deal equally wastes engineering hours, executive time, and forecast credibility.
Read more
They identify three things stronger reps do differently: test pain intensity, not just the existence of pain, by asking what the problem costs and who else feels it; map the whole buying committee, including veto holders and influencers, not just the economic buyer; and assess their competitive position honestly, including whether they are genuinely being evaluated or are column fodder, and whether they have a champion selling internally. They also call out the need to walk away from deals that cannot be won.
A monthly deal-scoring routine Davidoff says they coach reps through, framed as a self-check—"does this deal deserve the hours I'm investing this week?"—rather than a management reporting exercise. They cite 30 to 40 percent higher win rates for reps who score deals this way, attributing the gain to better deal selection rather than better closing.
The win-rate figure is Davidoff's own coaching claim; the post shows no underlying data or client example.
For brands planning a campaign
Offers a ready-made workshop exercise: attendees score two of their own deals against the three tests during the session. The portfolio framing also gives a VP of Sales language to push back on leadership's "add more pipeline" demands.
Forecast accuracy is a coaching problem, not a reporting problem
Doug Davidoff locates bad forecasts weeks before quarter-end: nobody challenges a deal, "they seemed interested" passes as evidence, and managers accept status updates instead of asking better questions.
Read more
They conclude that accuracy starts with better coaching, not forecast tooling.
The post promotes an upcoming webinar, so it presents the argument but not the coaching questions and mechanics Davidoff says they will show. Ask for those materials before building the session.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful framing for a forecast-focused segment: the promise is not a new dashboard but a set of challenge questions managers can ask in one-on-ones. A partner can supply the question set the post stops short of providing.
The shortest teaching post makes one point: coaching that sounds like "make more calls," "send another email," or "keep following up" pushes effort, while strong managers help reps think differently about what is in front of them.
Read more
Doug Davidoff presents that shift as a learnable skill, not a personality trait.
Sets up the lesson by quoting weak coaching lines verbatim, then contrasting them with an outcome-focused alternative.
For brands planning a campaign
A short, quotable take for webinar promotion and social assets, and a natural lead-in to the deal-review exercises in the deal management material. It positions the enablement partner as the source of the replacement script, not just the critique.
Doug Davidoff's argument for mid-market go-to-market teams: companies spend six figures on CRM configuration, hire consultants, build dashboards, and launch with fanfare, then find adoption languishing and data quality poor 18 months later.
Read more
The technology is rarely the culprit.
The processes the system was built to support go stale as the market moves, so reps work around the CRM and managers stop trusting the data.
Their rule is process first, technology second.
Their diagnostic: does the team spend more time debating CRM fields than examining why deals stall at stage three?
For brands planning a campaign
Speaks directly to enablement buyers whose webinar audiences include revenue operations leads. The stage-three diagnostic is a concrete hook for a pipeline-review segment, and the process-first rule supports a consulting-style offer rather than a tool pitch.
Pipeline quality over pipeline volume in a tough market
A short position post: the answer to a tough market is not more pipeline but a better pipeline.
Read more
Doug Davidoff argues that managers ask teams to create more opportunities when they should ask why current ones are not moving. A bigger pipeline of bad deals produces false confidence, not a better forecast.
The post promotes a September 17 Candid Conversations session, so it states the argument rather than developing it.
For brands planning a campaign
A sharp opening thesis for a webinar on pipeline qualification, and a direct counter to volume-based pipeline coverage targets that VP of Sales audiences are usually measured on.
Recurring live session format: Candid Conversations
Doug Davidoff runs a recurring live session called Candid Conversations, promoted through their LinkedIn posts with registration links and a replay offered to those who cannot attend.
Read more
Recent published themes include pipeline quality in a tough market, three power moves for sales managers, coaching outcomes rather than activity, and better forecasting through better coaching. One post is a scheduling and registration notice for a session on increasing sales in a tough market.
Promotion pattern: a short argument or question, the session theme, a date and time (noon ET), a registration link, and a replay option, followed by sales management and revenue operations hashtags.
The available posts promote Candid Conversations but provide no recording, transcript, slide deck, or attendee feedback. Ask for these materials to assess the series’ content and production quality.
For brands planning a campaign
The established session format lowers the barrier to a co-branded webinar: Davidoff appears comfortable with recurring live delivery, replay distribution, and speaking to a sales-manager audience. Ask about attendance size, production setup, and how the existing series is sponsored or funded before committing; the posts don't say.
The seven posts do not name a sponsor, employer, client, investor, or owned business.
Read more
Doug’s only recurring outside commitment in them is “Candid Conversations,” a webinar series they say they are presenting, with registration links and promotions for specific sessions. The posts do not say who runs the series, whether Doug owns it, or whether they are paid for it; ask about the commercial relationship.
Candid Conversations
Mention
Doug promotes a recurring webinar series called Candid Conversations and encourages readers to register live or get the replay.
Read more
Topics include what coaching should look like, three power moves for sales managers in a tough market, and why a bigger pipeline of weak deals does not improve a forecast.
Registration runs through shortened links.
The posts do not name the host or explain Doug’s role, ownership, or compensation; ask who runs the series and whether Doug is paid for it.
Doug Davidoff writes short, argument-first LinkedIn posts about how sales teams run deals and how managers coach them.
Read more
The natural place to start is the post that defines running a deal as six coordinated jobs — owning the process, judging deal quality, mapping the buying journey, bringing in the right people at the right moments, controlling the timeline, and working through obstacles — because most of the other posts extend that frame.
From there, the pipeline-portfolio post explains how to decide which deals deserve the hours, and the coaching and forecasting posts argue that better manager questions move results more than activity targets or CRM configuration do.
Four posts point to a recurring live session, Candid Conversations, so readers who prefer listening over reading can follow that thread.
The tags below group the work by topic, format, and audience; the similar creators are sales leaders whose posts overlap on pipeline qualification, diagnosis, and forecasting but take different routes.
Both diagnose sales process problems rather than prescribing more activity, and both treat honest deal-level review and better manager questions as the fix.
Read more
Andrew Wright's second-half post makes the same argument Doug Davidoff makes about pipeline quality: missed numbers are met with more calls and follow-ups, which only adds noise around a weak process, and the better question is what has to improve for the work to turn into revenue. Both write in short, first-person LinkedIn arguments that walk a reader through a diagnostic sequence.
Andrew Wright's posts center on listening to actual sales conversations — how reps question buyers, where interest drops, which objections repeat — and diagnosing from that before deciding what to change. Doug Davidoff is more likely to hand over a named structure: a six-part definition of running a deal, a monthly deal-scoring routine, or the rule that process comes before the CRM.
The overlap is pipeline qualification and forecasting.
Read more
Jennifer Hines's manufacturing case walks through a $14M pipeline that fell to $4M once each open deal was tested against real strategic milestones, and reports forecast accuracy and win-rate movement afterward — the same argument Doug Davidoff makes when they say reps should score every deal on pain intensity, buying-committee coverage, and competitive position. Both use concrete numbers from a coaching situation to make the point, and both argue that stage labels in a CRM do not show that a deal has advanced.
Jennifer Hines ties selling advice to wider business and market commentary, as in the post contrasting how Microsoft and Meta framed AI spending and what that says about clarity in everyday sales conversations, and offers before-and-after script language for reps. Doug Davidoff stays closer to the manager's side — coaching, deal review, and the portfolio decision about which deals to work — and delivers it through the Candid Conversations series rather than through script rewrites.
Both work on the gap between commercial ambition and execution for mid-market and B2B teams, and both name unpredictable forecasts and weak qualification as the problem to fix.
Read more
Mike Martinussen's advisory post lists building qualification frameworks that separate real deals from wishful thinking and turning strong sellers into coaches who drive pipeline discipline — close to Doug Davidoff's position that forecast accuracy is a coaching problem and that managers should challenge deals rather than accept status updates.
Mike Martinussen's posts are a career reflection on what has stayed constant in sales since 1994 and a service listing for a GTM advisory firm, covering fractional sales leadership, the founder-led growth trap, and a fixed-price 90-day reboot. Doug Davidoff teaches a method in public — frameworks, deal-scoring routines, and a recurring live session — rather than presenting a service menu, so the two are useful for different things: one for a sense of the market's fundamentals, the other for an inspectable way of running deal reviews.
For a placement decision, Doug Davidoff's posts show who they are written for, not who actually reads them.
Read more
All seven posts address sales managers, sales reps, and the enablement and revenue-operations people who support them: they argue about qualifying pipeline, coaching reps, running a deal, and forecasting accurately.
Three of the seven also promote a recurring live webinar, Candid Conversations — a September 16 session on "3 Power Moves for Sales Managers" and September 17 sessions on coaching and forecasting — which points to a practitioner audience invited into a working session rather than a general business readership.
That supports expecting an audience of people who carry or manage quota, but this is inferred from the writing, not measured.
Two posts map closely to a campaign aimed at a webinar on deal management and pipeline qualification: one walks through six elements of actively running a deal, and another builds the case that a pipeline is a portfolio to be qualified deal by deal.
A buyer can treat topical alignment as strong on that basis.
Measured audience composition, by contrast, is thin.
The only audience figure in the posts here is a LinkedIn follower count of 6,129, recorded on October 11, 2026.
No geography, age, gender, seniority, employer, or per-post reach and engagement data appears in the posts here.
The posts therefore answer "does this person write for the kind of buyer we sell to?" and do not answer "who is actually in the room, and how many of them see a given post or attend a session?"
Follower count is a size figure, not proof that those followers read, engage, or match a target account list.
Keep the distinction between content appeal and audience composition explicit when presenting this to a VP of Sales.
The topics and the live-session format give a reasonable expectation of a sales-leadership and RevOps readership; they do not verify the seniority mix or geography of that readership.
A buyer planning a co-branded webinar on deal management should not present follower totals as projected attendance or registration.
Concrete next step: ask Davidoff or the team for recent results on comparable topics, depth, and formats — registration, attendance, and replay figures for the coaching and forecasting sessions, plus impressions and engagement for the two deal-management and pipeline posts.
Separately, ask whether Davidoff or the team holds audience survey results or another documented source covering function, seniority, and geography, since the follower figure alone cannot establish those professional attributes.
Doug Davidoff promotes Candid Conversations, a recurring webinar series that runs live at noon ET, with advance registration and recordings for registrants who cannot attend.
Read more
The September 2026 sessions covered sales coaching, forecast accuracy, and pipeline quality; each promotional post links to a single registration page.
The posts do not describe a sponsorship or brand-collaboration offer.
Ask directly about co-hosting or sponsorship formats, audience size, and cost.
Assess Doug Davidoff as a fit for a campaign aimed at helping sales managers and VPs of Sales run better deal reviews and qualify pipeline, not simply raise brand awareness.
Read more
The clearest match is a co-branded webinar, workshop, or article on deal management.
A post on “running a deal” lays out six practices — owning the process, assessing deal quality, mapping the buying journey, coordinating internal people at the right moments, controlling the timeline, and working through objections, budget problems, and competitors — and ties the erosion of that skill to longer sales cycles, lower win rates, and weaker pricing.
It offers a partner a session outline rather than a topic to invent.
A companion post makes the pipeline case: deals with a 10 percent chance of closing get the same hours as deals with an 80 percent chance.
The suggested remedy is a monthly deal-scoring routine based on pain intensity, the full buying committee, and an honest read on whether the seller is genuinely being evaluated.
The fit is also positional.
Davidoff argues for process before technology, warning that six-figure CRM builds underdeliver when the go-to-market motion behind them goes stale, and that managers asking for more pipeline are avoiding the question of why current deals are not moving.
An enablement, coaching, or sales-process partner can stand behind that argument, and buyers can predict what they will hear on stage.
Two further points support the match: coaching content contrasts activity pushes such as “make more calls” with helping reps think differently about the deals in front of them, aligning with an enablement partner’s message; and the recurring Candid Conversations series — live at noon ET with registration and a replay for those who cannot attend — shows Davidoff already works in a recurring live format.
A single co-branded edition is a realistic ask, not a new production model.
Before committing, ask whether Davidoff will co-host or sponsor an outside session and request registration, attendance, and replay numbers for the coaching, forecasting, and pipeline-quality sessions, plus impressions and engagement for the two deal-management and pipeline posts.
The posts do not include those figures, a sponsor policy, a rate card, or a media kit, so do not treat follower totals as projected turnout.
When to choose a specialist
Two kinds of campaigns are weak matches.
Read more
First, campaigns that hinge on audience scale, demographics, or paid distribution.
Davidoff's posts give one audience figure — a LinkedIn follower count of 6,129 — but no geography, seniority, employer, or per-post reach and engagement data.
The posts suggest a quota-carrying and sales-management readership, but do not verify it.
If a campaign needs guaranteed reach, verified job titles, or projected registrations, ask for audience and performance data before proceeding; do not present follower totals as expected attendance or registrations for a co-branded session.
Second, campaigns that require the creator to lead with a software product.
Davidoff's stated position is process first, technology second, and they attribute CRM disappointment to selling processes that stop evolving rather than to configuration.
A CRM or sales-tool vendor seeking a feature walkthrough, a product demo as the centrepiece, or pipeline gains attributed to the platform would ask them to argue against the sponsor's framing.
Likewise, campaigns built mainly on activity-based prospecting — volume pushes, “make more calls” coaching, or adding pipeline without qualifying it — cut against the posts' central argument that a bigger pipeline of bad deals produces false confidence, not a better forecast.
In both cases, the topic is not the problem; the promise is.
A tool vendor willing to accept a process-first script and an enablement buyer willing to test the content before promising reach are different prospects from a performance-guaranteed influencer campaign.
A worked campaign example
A B2B sales enablement company wants a credible sales-leadership voice for its blog and webinar series, targeting VPs of Sales. Recommended approach: one live co-branded session on running and qualifying deals, plus a companion article and downloadable checklist, rather than a keynote or broad awareness campaign.
Session shape.
Open with the argument that managers demanding more pipeline should first ask why current deals are not moving — a short, quotable thesis aimed directly at VPs of Sales.
Spend the working middle on the six practices of running a deal, turning each into an observable coaching moment for deal reviews: Where does the deal stand, and what happens next?
Has deal quality been assessed before resources are committed?
Is the full buying committee mapped, including veto holders and influencers?
Are the right internal people involved at the right times?
Is there a mutual action plan with dates?
What is the strategy for the objection or competitor in play?
Close with the qualification routine: score two live deals against pain intensity, committee coverage, and competitive position, then answer the question the posts pose — does this deal deserve the hours being invested this week?
Deliverables and handoff.
Provide a one-page deal-review checklist mirroring the six practices and a scoring sheet for the monthly self-check, both usable after the session.
Cap the live session at 45 minutes, with 15 minutes of questions, and offer a recording as a replay, matching the format of the existing series.
The companion article can reuse the two anchor pieces — the six-part deal-management framework and the pipeline-as-portfolio qualification argument — without new research.
Position Davidoff to VPs of Sales as a practitioner who teaches a repeatable review routine and selection discipline, not as a motivational speaker.
Before announcing the session, confirm whether Davidoff will co-host or sponsor outside sessions, the production setup and expected attendance, and whether they will supply the coaching question set their forecasting post stops short of laying out. If not, the partner should build that segment rather than promise content Davidoff has not delivered.
Choose Andrew Wright when a session or article should teach a sales manager to find out what is wrong before deciding what to change.
Read more
The two posts start from the same problem: deals slipping, forecasts nobody trusts, teams answering a missed number with more activity.
But the method is diagnostic rather than procedural: listen to how reps talk with buyers, examine their questions and whether they uncover the real problem or slide into a pitch, watch where the buyer loses interest, and treat a repeated objection as information about what the buyer is not seeing—not something to script a reply for.
Wright separates the possible fixes—better coaching, a changed approach, or genuinely more activity—and refuses to choose before examining the conversations.
That makes Wright the stronger pick for a deal-review session that opens with a call recording, or for a mid-year reset piece built on the argument that reviewing the first half only goes so far and the time left to fix the year is smaller than teams assume.
The tradeoff is structured material versus a diagnostic approach.
Davidoff’s posts offer six named deal-management practices and a monthly deal-scoring routine a partner can lift into a checklist.
Wright offers a stance—listen first, diagnose, then decide what needs to change—and leaves the host to build the exercise around it.
Both posts read as reflection rather than curriculum, and there are only two recent posts.
A buyer who needs a ready session spine and a record of past promotion gets less from Wright; ask for examples of past promotions.
A buyer who wants to emphasise diagnosis and is willing to build the worksheets gets a sharper starting point.
Choose Jennifer Hines when a pipeline-qualification session needs one concrete, quantified turnaround story as its spine.
Read more
The posts describe a mid-market manufacturing case in which one question—which strategic milestones had actually been completed on every opportunity sitting in Stage 3 or later?—cut a $14M qualified pipeline to $4M.
They report forecast accuracy moving from 62% to 89%, the average sales cycle shortening by nearly five weeks, and the win rate on genuinely qualified deals climbing 14 points.
That is a ready-made narrative for the session’s central topic: what “qualified” should mean, and what it costs to carry wishful thinking in a forecast.
Hines also writes for a wider leadership audience.
The contrast between two large technology companies’ AI spending announcements—one framed as heavy investment with results still early, the other around where AI already shows up in revenue—supports the argument that teams either run a repeatable revenue operation or hope the next quarter differs.
That perspective can help the content reach beyond the VP of Sales room.
The case study is asserted in a promotional post rather than documented: the figures are the author’s own, and the post sits alongside a description of what the named firm does for clients.
A sponsor would be sharing a pitch and a secondhand client story, not a method the audience can run unaided on its own deals.
Davidoff’s posts give a manager practices to apply immediately without buying anything.
Hines’s other post is anchored in technology-earnings commentary, so its sales lesson has to be extracted; its fit with an enablement theme depends on doing that work.
A sponsor should ask for substantiation of the case-study figures before using them.
Choose Mike Martinussen when the campaign is about leadership and go-to-market advisory rather than a deal-by-deal enablement curriculum.
Read more
One post is a career reflection written 32 years after a first sales job, walking the same route to the office and arguing that people still buy from people: trust, relationships, and curiosity survive each wave of tooling, and technology can accelerate a strategy but cannot replace one.
The other describes what a named advisory practice does: qualification frameworks that separate real deals from wishful thinking; converting founder-led selling into a process-driven commercial model; building infrastructure before a senior sales hire to de-risk the hire; coaching sales managers to become coaches rather than super-sellers; a fixed-price 90-day go-to-market reboot; and fractional CRO or VP Sales cover that starts with a two-week audit.
That is a better match for a keynote, an executive-audience webinar on the limits of automation, or a piece on when to buy fractional leadership instead of a full-time CRO.
The posts are a pitch and a personal narrative, not teaching.
Davidoff’s posts explain how to run a deal and give the reader a routine; Martinussen’s second post lists what a firm sells and closes by asking for a direct message.
A partner sourcing a session from it gets positioning copy rather than a lesson the audience can apply.
The reflection post offers no method.
A programme built on Martinussen would need the partner to supply the structure and exercises, and would sit closer to advisory-led demand generation than to an enablement brand’s own message.
Before choosing, ask for a proposed session structure and exercises, and decide whether that positioning fits the brand.
