Jason Smith works on competitive intelligence and win-loss research at Klue, helping businesses understand buyers, competitors, and the deals they win or lose.
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.
Key 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.
Check first: Ask for audience analytics showing job function, seniority, industry, geography, and engagement for comparable buyer-research content.
Main ideas
The buyers who could teach you the most are the ones you never met · Win-loss interviews are a data asset to query, not a report to file · Buyer expectations now move faster than quarterly research cycles
Jason Smith is known in this material for arguing that companies need to learn from buyers and deals they never see—not just from CRM records or the evaluations their teams joined.
At Klue, he connects competitive intelligence and win-loss research to practical decisions: what to build, how to explain differentiation, and how to help buyers compare options.
His posts are worth following for concrete examples of buyer blindspots, including a six-figure evaluation where the buying team had to build its own vendor-comparison tool, and a proposal to make interview findings useful to teams and their AI systems.
Smith makes buyer research tangible by showing where familiar evidence falls short and what teams can do instead.
He contrasts sellers’ explanations of lost deals with interviews of the buyers who actually said no, whose answers can reveal details such as a confusing interface or a missing integration.
He also writes from the buyer’s seat: in one large evaluation, vendors made differentiation hard to compare, so the buying team built an apples-to-apples artifact.
His recurring point is that teams should help uncover and organize buyer truth continuously, then put it where product, marketing, and sales can use it.
The posts also show a product-building side, including Klue integrations with Claude and Glean; the evidence here does not establish a broader account of Smith’s earlier career or signature books, shows, or other work.
Jason Smith's ideas build on one argument: decisions should come from buyer evidence gathered continuously and from buyers the company never met, not from sellers' recollections or a quarterly report.
Read more
Around that sit his priorities — co-build the buyer's comparison artifact with them, make competitor and buyer data answerable inside the tools teams already use, and judge vision statements by how customers and staff actually behave. His posts are short first-person accounts built on one concrete detail, and he is quick to say when an insight is obvious and still unacted on.
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.
Read more
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.
Smith describes a Klue campaign that sent two "Compete Agents" undercover to a product marketing summit to show attendees what they were missing, and the launch of Blindspots Interviews to reach buyers and deals beyond the pipeline. The team printed more than 40 custom interview packs at midnight before the event.
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.
Read more
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.
The questions he names for the corpus are why a certain deal type keeps going to competitors, what to add on the product side, and which industry issues competitors already address. The detail level he describes from customers includes a UI flow that did not click, an integration that never tied in, and one item the selling team called minor that the buying team called a dealbreaker.
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.
Read more
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.
He lists the four questions a live buyer-truth feed should answer — including why a buyer did not even shortlist the company and what made them leave a competitor — as the replacement for a quarterly readout to executives.
His posts move from describing buyer research as a periodic study to describing it as an ongoing input, with the model-queryable corpus and the plugin integrations as the mechanism.
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.
Read more
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.
The buyer-built artifact mapping their criteria against each vendor's capabilities. Smith says a vendor who co-built it with the buyer would have taken work off the buyer's plate and had a chance to weave in its own differentiation.
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.
Read more
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.
Klue's live Glean integration puts competitive intelligence and win-loss material into Glean Search, Glean Assistant, and anything built in Agent Builder. Klue also became a verified connector in Claude's directory, and Smith says it is the only competitive intelligence and win-loss platform with that verified status from the Anthropic team.
The argument shifts from buyer data as an internal library to buyer data as infrastructure other systems query, with the connector announcements as the concrete step toward that.
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.
Read more
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.
The two framed statements themselves: being the trusted source for companies to understand and improve how they compete, and enabling every department with the market, competitor, and buyer insights they need to win. He measures them against customer delight and staff engagement rather than internal slogans.
A founder's path into the work, told through specifics
Smith's background material is personal rather than analytical.
Read more
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.
Charging $10 to mow lawns with no idea that some properties would take several hours, then being unable to renegotiate because a number had already been agreed.
Answers the basic question of what problem this person works on.
Read more
Open it first to understand the gap between research built from your own pipeline and research built from the buyers who never entered it.
Jason Smith describes agreeing to a marketing stunt without asking many questions: sending two Klue "Compete Agents" undercover to a product marketing summit to show attendees what they were missing.
The argument underneath the joke is the point.
Most product marketers build their picture of a market from the deals they personally touched.
The buyer who could teach them the most evaluated a competitor, signed somewhere else, and never appeared in the CRM at all, so no one on the team ever met them.
Klue launched Blindspots Interviews to reach those buyers.
A detail worth noting: the team printed more than 40 custom interview packs at midnight before the event.
For brands planning a campaign
A SaaS team rebuilding win-loss or competitive intelligence can treat pipeline data as structurally incomplete rather than merely thin. A collaboration could be scoped around reaching non-pipeline buyers, and the printed interview pack is a ready-made example of what a custom research artifact looks like.
Answers how this person thinks about competitive deals.
Read more
It is the clearest example of the buyer-side perspective that runs through the rest of the posts.
Jason Smith describes being the person who signs off on a six-figure deal, and reports two things from the buyer's chair.
First, vendors who brought a room of specialists and let different people pick up different threads stopped feeling like a sales team and started feeling like domain experts the buyer already worked with.
Second, differentiation was genuinely hard to find: every vendor had a slightly different bundle and a slightly different name for the same capability, so the buyer's team built an artifact mapping their criteria against vendor capabilities.
That artifact is the moment of consequence.
A vendor who helped build that comparison with the buyer during the evaluation, using the buyer's specific situation, would have been positioned to win.
For brands planning a campaign
Points to a concrete competitive play: co-build the buyer's comparison artifact instead of handing over a positioning deck. Content, enablement, or a workshop built around "we do the differentiation work with you" matches the argument this post makes, and the buyer-built spreadsheet is a specific, reusable example.
Answers what this person believes should happen to buyer interview data after it is collected.
Read more
Useful if the question is whether win-loss research is a quarterly report or a working data asset.
The opening line is the argument: sellers have a theory about why a deal slipped, the CRM has a field for it, and neither sat across from the buyer who said no.
Only the buyer knows.
Jason Smith says each win-loss interview adds to a corpus that can be plugged into language models and queried for questions that matter, such as why a certain type of deal keeps being lost, what the product needs to add, and which industry problems competitors already address.
Customers, the post says, find that the layer goes deeper than expected: a UI flow that did not click, an integration that never tied in, a detail the selling team called minor and the buying team called a dealbreaker.
For brands planning a campaign
A template for pitching a win-loss program that feeds AI systems rather than sitting in slide decks. If the goal is to build an internal corpus, the three example questions in the post are a usable starting query set, and the deep specifics are the proof that interviews produce detail CRM fields will not.
This is the argument that sits behind almost every other post.
Jason Smith argues that the businesses closest to their buyer will win their category, and that AI has accelerated the gap: buyer needs and expectations change quickly, and teams can ship more, faster.
Traditional win-loss and voice-of-buyer work delivered to executives once a quarter is too slow for that pace.
What is needed, in this account, is a live line into buyer truth answering why buyers choose you today, what they like about an emerging startup in the space, why they did not shortlist you at all, and which part of a workflow pushed them off a competitor.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful framing if a company has to justify ongoing research spend to executives who are used to a quarterly report. The four buyer questions listed make a compact brief for a research program and a direct counter to "we already do win-loss."
Answers what this person is building toward beyond research and commentary.
Read more
It shows the product ambition that explains the emphasis on buyer data elsewhere.
Jason Smith announces that Klue is a verified connector in Claude's directory.
Sellers can get cited answers on positioning, objections, and next steps for live deals; product marketers can analyze win-loss patterns and competitive signals without leaving the conversation.
The post states that Klue is the only competitive intelligence and win-loss platform with that verified status from the Anthropic team, and names a larger goal: Klue becoming the compete and buyer data engine every organization plugs into its language models.
It closes by inviting customers to try the MCP.
For brands planning a campaign
Pairs the research argument with a product roadmap. A partner or integrator could take "buyer data as fuel for company AI" as the shared theme, and the live-deal use cases in the post are concrete enough to anchor a joint demo or webinar.
Short and light, but it is the clearest statement of how the work is framed internally.
Two framed statements hang on the office wall: vision, to be the trusted source for companies to understand and improve how they compete in their market, and mission, to enable every department with the market, competitor, and buyer insights they need to win. Jason Smith treats the vision as the destination and the mission as the route, then argues words on a wall only matter if they show up in two places: whether customers are delighted as their markets and buyers shift, and whether employees are engaged with autonomy but pulling in the same direction.
For brands planning a campaign
Context rather than a campaign hook. It is useful if a brief needs a short, attributable statement of what this person is trying to advance, and it names customers and employees as the two tests applied to that ambition.
Answers where this person came from before the current role.
Read more
Worth opening if a newcomer wants background rather than product argument.
A short post promoting a podcast episode with Nejeed Kassam.
Jason Smith says younger self was a terrible negotiator, recalling charging $10 to mow lawns with no sense that some properties would take several hours, and being unable to renegotiate after agreeing to a number.
The episode covers the wider entrepreneurial journey, from reselling clothes as a teenager to launching and selling a first company.
The post itself is a pointer, not the substance.
For brands planning a campaign
Relevant only when a campaign wants a voice with founder-side experience of building and selling a company. Treat the post as a signpost to the episode rather than as evidence about the ideas themselves.
Making competitive intelligence available inside the tools teams already use3
Win-loss interviews as the only route to why a deal was lost2
Buyer blindspots live outside the pipeline2
Buyer needs now move faster than quarterly research2
Company vision and mission tested against customers and staff2
Sitting in the buyer's seat during a competitive evaluation1
Founder background and negotiation, told through personal stories1
Win-loss interviews as the only route to why a deal was lost
Jason Smith's recurring argument is that a slipped deal has two bad explanations and one good one.
Read more
Sellers carry a theory, the CRM has a field for it, and neither sat across from the buyer who said no — only the buyer knows.
Win-loss interviews build a corpus of that buyer truth that can be queried with language models to answer questions like why a specific deal type keeps going to competitors, what the product is missing, and which industry issues competitors already cover.
The detail level he describes is specific rather than thematic: the UI flow that did not click, the integration that never tied in, the one item a team called minor that the buyer's team called a dealbreaker.
Frames win-loss as a continuing input rather than a reporting exercise, and names the questions the accumulated corpus should answer.
For brands planning a campaign
A practical starting point for a win-loss program. Use the three questions he names as a first-pass interview guide, and expect close readings of individual losses rather than aggregate scores.
Smith describes a persistent gap in how product marketers build their view of a market: most of it comes from deals they touched.
Read more
The buyer who would teach the most is often one the team never met — someone who evaluated a competitor, signed elsewhere, and never appeared in the CRM, or a renewal conversation that happened without them.
In one post he ties this to the launch of Blindspots Interviews, which the team framed as helping product marketers learn from deals and buyers beyond the pipeline.
He is candid that the insight is obvious once stated and that almost nobody acts on it.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for teams that feel they already understand their buyer. The blindspot framing gives a sales-adjacent audience a concrete reason to fund buyer research, and the specific examples can be adapted into an internal pitch.
Buyer needs now move faster than quarterly research
A second recurring argument is about cadence.
Read more
Smith notes that buyer needs and expectations change quickly, partly because AI has sped up how fast teams ship, while win-loss and voice-of-buyer work has traditionally reached executives once a quarter.
That rhythm is now too slow.
What he recommends instead is a continual source of buyer truth guiding decisions: why buyers choose you today, what they like about an emerging startup in the space, why they did not even shortlist you, and what part of a workflow made them leave a competitor.
For brands planning a campaign
Supports shifting a win-loss program from a periodic study to an ongoing feed. A brand could use this framing to justify continuous interview intake tied to decision-makers who execute, not just report readers.
Sitting in the buyer's seat during a competitive evaluation
In one detailed post Smith writes from the position of the person who signs off on a six-figure deal.
Read more
Two observations stand out.
First, the vendors who showed up with a room of experts, 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.
Second, 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 their criteria against vendor capabilities.
Smith argues the vendor who helped build that artifact with the buyer, using the buyer's specific situation, would have been well placed to win, and that AI now makes it feasible for product marketers and sellers to produce these tailored comparison artifacts per deal.
Written as a first-person account of being the economic decision maker, then turned into a recommendation about co-building evaluation artifacts with buyers.
For brands planning a campaign
Directly relevant to competitive positioning. The recommendation is to help buyers build their own comparison rather than hand them a generic battlecard, which is a concrete tactic a competitive intelligence team can test on live deals.
Making competitive intelligence available inside the tools teams already use
Several posts describe Klue work aimed at meeting teams inside existing AI and search tools.
Read more
One covers a live integration with Glean, where competitive intelligence and win-loss material appear in Glean Search, in Glean Assistant with citations, and in agents built with Agent Builder.
Another announces that Klue became a verified connector in Claude's directory, letting sellers get cited answers on positioning, objections, and next steps inside live deals, and letting product marketers analyze win-loss patterns and update content without leaving the conversation.
The stated longer-term goal is for Klue to become the compete-and-buyer data engine organizations plug into their language models.
For brands planning a campaign
Shows how this person's competitive intelligence thinking connects to distribution inside AI assistants. For a brand evaluating the same space, these posts are evidence of product direction and of the argument that buyer data should be queryable where work already happens.
Company vision and mission tested against customers and staff
Smith describes two framed statements on the office wall: a vision of being the trusted source for companies to understand and improve how they compete, and a mission of enabling every department with the market, competitor, and buyer insights they need to win.
Read more
He treats the words as meaningless unless they show up somewhere real, and names two places they should: whether customers are delighted with what has been built while their markets, competitors, and buyers keep shifting, and whether people are engaged, with autonomy to choose their own route but still pulling in the same direction. Lighter posts about team time together, including a hike after a day in the office, sit alongside this as culture material rather than buyer research.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for a brand that wants to understand how this person talks about company-building and management, or for shaping a partnership message around shared direction rather than a specific product capability.
Founder background and negotiation, told through personal stories
One post looks back on being a poor negotiator: charging ten dollars to mow lawns without accounting for how long some properties took, then finding it hard to renegotiate because a number had already been agreed.
Read more
The same post points to a longer podcast conversation covering a path from reselling clothes as a teenager to launching and selling a first company. This is background material about how Smith came to the work, not buyer research or competitive intelligence content.
For brands planning a campaign
Relevant when a brand wants a personal, founder-journey angle. It should not be treated as evidence of expertise in win-loss or competitive intelligence; the substantive material sits in the buyer and competitor posts.
The published material is short first-person narrative posts built around one concrete detail, whether that is a number, a decision, or a scene.
Read more
Product news is usually announced plainly, with a short list of where the capability shows up and what it unlocks.
Event work is described from the inside, including the preparation and the framing idea behind it.
Personal reflection and company culture appear in the same voice as the product posts.
Nothing in the reviewed corpus is long-form analysis; the arguments arrive as compact posts rather than extended essays or transcripts.
For brands planning a campaign
Sets expectations for a collaboration. A brand working with this person should expect tight, first-person posts anchored in a single specific observation rather than long explainers or heavy data pieces.
The clearest relationship in the reviewed material is Jason Smith's own company: he posts as an insider at Klue, referring to "our marketing team," "our office wall," and "the Klue Crew," and announcing Klue product news in the first person.
Read more
Beyond that, the reviewed posts document two Klue product integrations — with Anthropic's Claude and with Glean — which are company-level technology relationships he announced rather than personal endorsements or paid placements. No sponsorship, affiliate, client, or investment relationship appears in the material, and no sponsorship disclosure text is present, so nothing here should be read as evidence of paid promotional work.
Klue
Employment
Smith writes as a Klue insider, describing "our marketing team," the "Klue Crew" trip after a day in "our office," and the vision and mission framed on the company's office wall.
Read more
He announces Klue product news and integrations in the first person, which is consistent with working at the company; the posts do not state a job title.
Smith announced that Klue became a verified connector in Claude's directory, calling it the only competitive intelligence and win-loss platform to earn that status from Anthropic.
Read more
The relationship is between Klue and Anthropic as a product integration; the post does not describe a personal commercial arrangement.
Smith announced that Klue's integration with Glean went live, bringing competitive intel and win-loss material into Glean Search, Glean Assistant, and agents built in Agent Builder.
Read more
This is a Klue product partnership he publicised, not a personal sponsorship.
Jason Smith writes short, first-person posts about how B2B buyers actually decide and how companies can learn from the deals they never saw.
Read more
His central argument repeats in different forms: a lost deal leaves behind a seller's theory and a CRM field, and neither one sat across from the buyer who said no.
Around that sit practical points — interview buyers who chose someone else, keep the buyer evidence coming instead of waiting for a quarterly readout, help buyers build the comparison that decides the deal, and put competitor and buyer intelligence inside the tools teams already use.
Readers new to the work can start with the post written from the buyer's side of a six-figure evaluation, then the posts on win-loss interviews and buyer blindspots, and finish with the integration announcements to see where he thinks this is heading.
One post is personal background about a first business and podcast conversation; it shows how he came to the work rather than what he thinks about buyer research.
Win-loss researchBuyer researchCompetitive intelligenceAI in B2B buyingWin-loss interviewsBuyer blindspotsProduct marketingLinkedIn postsShort first-person postsProduct announcementsProduct marketersCompetitive intelligence teamsB2B sales teams
Trevor Evans
Evans writes from inside a product marketing team about running win-loss and competitive intelligence programs, naming the same set of practices Smith argues for: interviews and surveys, seller feedback captured through CRM close flows, recorded calls, and a competitive intelligence platform used to brief the field on deal themes and trap questions.
Read more
Both treat buyer evidence as an input that should shape messaging, pricing, and product decisions rather than sit in a report.
Evans describes how one buyer-side team staffs and tools its own program across several data sources, while Smith writes mostly from the vendor seat about product direction and from the buyer seat in a single competitive evaluation. Evans also covers pricing and packaging ownership; Smith's posts stay closer to why deals are won and lost.
Thimothy makes the same underlying case Smith does: buyers decide who to consider long before they contact anyone, and AI tools are now part of that early research.
Read more
Both write for B2B marketers about the gap between a strong reputation and being visible at the moment a buyer looks.
Thimothy's material is aimed at manufacturers and smaller firms and focuses on getting found by AI answer engines — readable product information, answers to buyer questions, credible third-party sources — and he has written a book on that subject. Smith focuses on buyer interviews and competitive intelligence inside a software platform, and on making that evidence queryable rather than on visibility tactics.
Levey shares Smith's seller-side framing of pipeline problems: deals that hang around cost more, data quality in the CRM shapes outcomes, and sales and marketing alignment changes results.
Read more
Both point to AI as a way to clean up or work through the mess rather than as a novelty.
Levey writes from sales and revenue operations about pipeline hygiene, early disqualification, and CRM field clutter, using short checklists and a named symptom for the problem. Smith approaches the same terrain from buyer evidence — what buyers say after the decision — and from the competitive intelligence platform that collects it.
For a B2B SaaS brief on win-loss research and competitive intelligence, Jason Smith’s audience is a plausible topical fit, but the supplied evidence does not verify who is in that audience.
Read more
The posts speak directly to product marketers, competitive-intelligence teams, and sellers: they discuss buyer blindspots beyond the CRM, win-loss interviews, buyer truth, and Klue integrations.
That shows the content is aimed at the buyer’s world; it is not measured audience composition.
The packet records about 16,000 LinkedIn followers, but it does not include audience demographics, job titles, seniority, industry, company size, or engagement data.
No video-performance summary is included, so format-level audience performance cannot be compared.
Before treating this audience as qualified for a win-loss/CI campaign, ask for recent audience survey results or platform analytics showing the function, seniority, industry, and geography of people engaging with comparable buyer-research content, plus recent results for comparable topics and formats.
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.
Read more
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.
Brief one: a B2B SaaS company wants to improve win-loss research and competitive intelligence, including reaching buyers who never entered the pipeline.
Read more
This is the strongest documented fit in the material.
Jason Smith's posts return repeatedly to exactly that problem: sellers have a theory about a lost deal, the CRM has a field for it, and neither sat across from the buyer who said no.
They describe win-loss interviews as a growing corpus that can be queried for why deal types are lost, what the product is missing, and which industry problems competitors already cover.
They also name the specific texture that makes interviews worth running: the UI flow that did not click, the integration that never tied in, the item the selling team called minor and the buying team called a dealbreaker.
Beyond argument, there are usable artifacts in the material.
The Blindspots Interviews launch is a working example of reaching buyers outside the CRM, including the detail that more than 40 custom interview packs were printed before the event.
From the buyer's chair, they describe an evaluation where every vendor looked similar until the buyer's team built its own criteria-to-capability map, and argue the vendor who helped build that map with the buyer would have been well placed to win.
Any of those can anchor a real campaign.
Two constraints matter.
First, the content is closely tied to Klue, where Jason Smith works on competitive intelligence and win-loss.
A brand in the same category should treat a collaboration as co-marketing or a named practitioner viewpoint, not as an independent endorsement.
Second, the audience section records about 16,000 LinkedIn followers but no breakdown of job titles, seniority, industry, or company size, so the campaign cannot assume the follower base is made of win-loss buyers.
The fit is topical and practical; the audience proof is an open question for the brand to ask about directly.
When to choose a specialist
Brief two: an outdoor apparel brand wants a paid lifestyle sponsorship aimed at a broad consumer audience, with tracked link clicks and a defined format menu the creator can book.
Read more
The evidence does not support this.
The reviewed posts are B2B software material about competitive intelligence, buyer research, and Klue product integrations.
Two posts are lighter culture material, a team hike and two framed vision and mission statements, but neither is consumer lifestyle content with a trackable offer.
No rate card, format menu, media kit, availability window, or inquiry route appears anywhere in the material, and no disclosed sponsorship example is present, so there is no documented commercial slot to book.
The audience record gives a follower count but no consumer demographics, geography, or engagement data, which is the central number a consumer brand would need.
The format evidence is also narrow: short first-person LinkedIn posts.
A referenced podcast episode and an event video are mentioned but their content was not supplied, so there is no basis for judging long-form or video performance.
This is not a claim that Jason Smith never accepts sponsorships; it is a statement that nothing in the reviewed material documents one.
A consumer brand should treat the commercial question as an unverified gap and ask directly before assuming a booking is possible.
A worked campaign example
Campaign angle: a Blindspot Audit series for a B2B SaaS win-loss program.
The problem to dramatize is the deal the team never saw.
The format is three short co-produced interview features, each built around one buyer drawn from outside the existing pipeline: a lost deal, a buyer who chose a competitor, and a renewal that happened without the team in the room.
Jason Smith introduces each one with a single specific observation from the interview rather than a summary of the program.
The interview guide comes straight from the material: why are we losing these types of deals, what do we need to add on the product side, and which industry issues are competitors already covering that we are not.
The series then does the harder thing the buyer-side post argues for.
The brand's own team builds a criteria-to-capability map with the next buyer during a live session, publishes the redacted template, and shows where the buyer's criteria did not match the vendor's standard pitch.
That is the worked artifact, and it gives the brand something to hand to a prospective buyer instead of a positioning deck.
The last piece is a short internal brief for product marketers: how to run a blindspot interview, how many to run before patterns appear, and where to store the corpus so it can be queried later.
Distribution is LinkedIn posts from both the creator and the brand, plus a gated worksheet.
Measurement should track interviews booked with non-pipeline buyers, the number of teams that complete the map, and whether sales uses the artifact in live evaluations.
Follower count is not the metric.
The tradeoff to state plainly: this angle depends on the brand being willing to publish a comparison artifact that may show its own gaps, which is less flattering than a standard battlecard campaign and is the reason the angle is credible.
If the brand cannot accept that, a simpler alternative is a single recorded conversation about why quarterly win-loss reporting is too slow, but it will do less to change how the team actually researches buyers.
Choose Trevor Evans when the brand wants a working operator rather than a platform voice.
Read more
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.
The two posts explain how a win-loss program is built from tools; they do not show a buyer's own reasoning the way Jason Smith's material does.
Jason Smith writes from the buyer's chair, describing an evaluation where every vendor looked similar until the buying team built its own criteria-to-capability map, and argues the vendor who helps build that map wins.
Trevor Evans offers the operating structure around win-loss, not that inside-the-decision view.
The sample is also thin, two posts, so consistency of output is hard to judge, and nothing in the supplied material documents audience size or commercial availability.
Treat availability as an open question to ask directly.
Choose Solomon Thimothy when the problem is invisibility during research, before a buyer ever contacts a vendor.
Read more
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.
This covers the front of the decision, not the end of it.
Jason Smith's material is about buyers who already evaluated and went elsewhere: the interview guide, the growing corpus you can query, the integration that never tied in.
Solomon Thimothy's posts diagnose where research now happens and how to be present in it, but they do not supply interview mechanics or a method for learning what lost buyers said.
Both posts are short, and no audience breakdown, format menu, or commercial terms are documented, so a brand weighing reach or booking a specific format still has to ask.
Whether the book's contents match the posts cannot be judged from the supplied material.
Choose Rob Levey when the campaign starts upstream of buyer interviews and the real problem is pipeline hygiene.
Read more
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.
This is process and CRM hygiene, not buyer voice.
It tells you which deals to stop counting and how to keep the CRM from bloating; it does not tell you what the buyer who chose a competitor actually said, which is the core of the win-loss brief.
Jason Smith's material supplies that missing layer: only the buyer knows why, and every interview adds to a corpus you can query.
Rob Levey's posts also lean on single examples from one sales organization, and the supplied material documents no audience data or commercial terms, so availability and reach both remain unverified.
This page draws on nine full LinkedIn posts from the account traced to Jason Smith, covering buyer blindspots, win-loss interviews, continuous buyer research, a six-figure evaluation from the buyer's side, Klue's Glean and Claude integrations, company vision and mission, an entrepreneurial-journey conversation, and a team outing.
Most posts are undated in the reviewed records, so no change-over-time pattern is claimed; where timestamps appear they fall in 2026, and the account's 16,052 LinkedIn followers were observed on 8 October 2026.
The referenced podcast episode and event video were not supplied.
No audience demographics, engagement data, rate card, or documented sponsorship example appears in the reviewed material.
The posts do not identify a job title, and this material does not establish earlier career details or signature books, shows, or businesses.
Recent engagement
Across their last 9 LinkedIn posts, the median post got 39 reactions and 3 comments. Checked 2026-11-02.
