# Jason Smith

Jason Smith works on competitive intelligence and win-loss research at Klue, helping businesses understand buyers, competitors, and the deals they win or lose.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/jason-smith/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/onemoresmith
- Median of last 9 posts: 39 reactions, 3 comments (checked 2026-11-02)
- Topics: artificial-intelligence
- Based on 10 dated posts, latest 2026-10-07

## Summary

Jason Smith is most useful for improving B2B win-loss research and competitive intelligence by learning from unseen buyers and deals.

- Best for: B2B SaaS teams wanting better win-loss interviews, competitive intelligence, and buyer research beyond CRM records.
- Not for: Consumer lifestyle sponsorships, paid broad-audience campaigns, or booked format menus with tracked link clicks.
- Check first: Ask for audience analytics showing job function, seniority, industry, geography, and engagement for comparable buyer-research content.

### Takeaways

- Deals you never saw are a major blindspot beyond CRM records and joined evaluations.
- Win-loss interviews can become an LLM-queryable corpus, not just a filed report.
- A six-figure evaluation had buyers build their own vendor-comparison tool.

## Main ideas

- **The buyers who could teach you the most are the ones you never met**: Smith argues most product marketers build their picture of a market from the deals they personally touched, which structurally excludes the most informative buyers. The person who evaluated a competitor, signed elsewhere, and never appeared in the CRM is exactly the buyer who can explain what was wrong with the pitch, and renewal conversations can happen without the vendor in the room. His stated priority is reaching those buyers rather than mining the pipeline harder. He also notes the idea is obvious once said out loud and that almost nobody acts on it.
- **Win-loss interviews are a data asset to query, not a report to file**: Smith's recurring formulation is that a slipped deal has a seller theory and a CRM field, and neither sat across from the buyer who said no — only the buyer knows why. Each interview adds to a corpus that can be fed to language models and interrogated, so the same body of buyer evidence answers why a type of deal keeps being lost, what the product is missing, and which industry problems competitors already cover. He treats the resulting detail as the payoff: the findings are specific mechanics of a decision, not themes.
- **Buyer expectations now move faster than quarterly research cycles**: Smith argues the businesses closest to their buyer win their category, and that AI has widened the gap: buyer needs shift quickly while teams can ship more, faster. Traditional win-loss and voice-of-buyer work that reaches executives once a quarter cannot keep up with that pace. What he recommends instead is a continuous feed of buyer truth guiding everyday decisions, covering why buyers choose you today, what they like about a new entrant, why they never shortlisted you, and which part of a workflow pushed them off a competitor.
- **Differentiation should be built with the buyer, in the buyer's own terms**: Writing from the position of the person who signs off on a six-figure deal, Smith makes two observations. Vendors who brought a room of specialists, with different people picking up different threads and each other's sentences, stopped feeling like a sales team and started feeling like colleagues and domain experts. And genuine differentiation was hard to find, because every vendor had a slightly different bundle and a different name for the same capability. The buyer's team ended up building its own artifact mapping criteria against vendor capabilities — the moment where the decision actually took shape. His argument is that the vendor who helps build that comparison, using the buyer's specific situation, is well placed to win, and that AI makes these tailored per-deal artifacts practical for product marketers and sellers.
- **Put competitor and buyer intelligence inside the tools teams already use**: A priority visible across the product posts is meeting teams where work happens rather than asking them to visit another system. In this account, competitive intelligence and win-loss evidence should show up in search results, in an assistant's cited answers, and inside agents a team builds, so that sellers get answers on positioning and objections during live deals and product marketers can analyze win-loss patterns without leaving the conversation. The stated longer-term goal is to become the competitor-and-buyer data engine organizations plug into their language models.
- **Vision and mission only count if they show up in customers and staff**: Smith describes two framed statements on the office wall — vision as the destination, mission as the route — and then argues the words are meaningless unless they show up somewhere real. He names two tests: whether customers are delighted with what has been built while their markets, competitors, and buyers keep moving, and whether employees are engaged, with autonomy to choose their own route but still pulling in the same direction.
- **A founder's path into the work, told through specifics**: Smith's background material is personal rather than analytical. He describes being a poor young negotiator — agreeing to a price before understanding the work, then finding it impossible to reopen — and points to a longer conversation about going from reselling clothes as a teenager to launching and selling a first company. This is how he came to the work, not evidence about buyer research; the substance sits in the podcast episode, and views expressed by the host, Nejeed Kassam, are the host's, not Smith's.

## Work to read

- [Why the deals you never saw are the biggest blindspot](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_ive-learned-not-to-ask-too-many-questions-activity-7509292023372333056-rTmr)
- [What a six-figure evaluation looks like from the buyer's seat](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_a-few-times-a-year-im-the-edm-the-person-activity-7493365720353857536-sUPT)
- [Turning win-loss interviews into an LLM-queryable corpus](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_your-sellers-have-a-theory-about-why-that-activity-7498440260905910273-Y3ee)
- [Why continuous buyer truth beats quarterly win-loss reporting](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_the-businesses-that-are-closest-to-their-activity-7500606808923844608-8_k8)
- [Klue as a verified connector inside Claude](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_klue-is-now-a-verified-connector-in-claudes-activity-7496234612222767106-rxcX)
- [What the vision and mission are supposed to mean day to day](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_two-frames-hang-on-our-office-wall-ive-activity-7493018412835594241-3UrD)
- [Podcast conversation on the path into this work](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/onemoresmith_younger-me-was-a-terrible-negotiator-i-activity-7499133804603703296-35dn)

## Brand relationships

- **Klue** (employment)
- **Anthropic** (mention)
- **Glean** (mention)

## Partnerships

The material reviewed contains no partnership or sponsorship offer for Jason Smith: no rate card, format menu, media kit, availability window, or inquiry route appears in these posts. What the posts do show is commercial and product work tied to Klue, where Jason Smith works on competitive intelligence and win-loss research, plus announcements of Klue integrations with other software. The Claude connector post and the Glean post describe Klue's own product partnerships, not personal sponsorship slots a brand could book, and a partner name in a product announcement is not evidence of payment. Nothing here documents whether Jason Smith accepts sponsorships at all, so the honest position is that no offer is documented in the reviewed material rather than that none exists. A brand wanting to work with Jason Smith should treat this as a research gap and ask directly.

## Alternatives

- Trevor Evans: Choose Trevor Evans when the brand wants a working operator rather than a platform voice. The post attributed to this account describes a win-loss function assembled from several sources at once: interviews and surveys, deal close flows in Salesforce, call recordings where no interview was secured, and competitive intelligence used to brief sellers with competitor-specific themes and trap questions. It also claims ownership of product messaging, voice-of-customer research, and pricing and packaging, and cites the figure that 96 percent of win-loss programs rely on multiple data sources. That is useful if the brief is 'show us how to wire this into our own stack and who owns each piece' rather than 'explain why buyers leave'. An earlier post describes taking global responsibility for competitive intelligence and win-loss analytics programs and moving out of sales operations, which gives a sense of the career path into this work.
- Solomon Thimothy: Choose Solomon Thimothy when the problem is invisibility during research, before a buyer ever contacts a vendor. The material describes B2B buyers seeing an answer in Google, asking ChatGPT or Gemini, and comparing options without visiting a single vendor site, which leaves traffic reports showing fewer sessions while telling you nothing about whether the buyer has stopped considering you. The worked example is a manufacturer selling five-figure industrial equipment that appeared in one of five major AI engines and, after making product information machine-readable, publishing content that answers engineer questions, and building credible third-party references, appeared in four of five. The same post announces a book, How to Get Buyers to Chase You, which suggests a longer-form treatment of the topic than a short post can carry.
- Rob Levey: Choose Rob Levey when the campaign starts upstream of buyer interviews and the real problem is pipeline hygiene. The post reports won deals averaging 165 days and closed lost deals averaging 223, and makes the case that a deal hanging around costs review time, forecasting time, and repeated check-ins on opportunities nobody expects to win. It then describes a change in which reps disqualified earlier and properly, still completing full discovery and building buyer relationships, and moved those opportunities into community-based nurturing rather than a marketing newsletter with a check-in six months later, cutting the average lost cycle. A second post names the CRM version of the same problem, the habit of adding another field to answer every question, which piles admin onto reps.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/