Joseph McGrail

His claim is that features-and-benefits descriptions and pitch decks that worked through referrals, investors, and existing relationships routinely fail to earn the same response from strangers.

• Paying a vendor only per meeting, opportunity, or revenue changes who carries the execution cost, he argues, but does none of the validation work.
• The fix is iteration against real cold audiences, which he says has taken him three to seven rounds to get right.

The batting-cage analogy: a first-time batter is better off learning to hold the bat, stand, and swing before stepping into a cage someone else pays for, because someone else paying for the pitches does not teach you how to hit or explain why you connected.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

He splits go-to-market into four connected parts: marketing and sales strategy (value proposition, company positioning, sales messaging); lead generation strategy (which channels and the budget, people, and time they require); content strategy (what a prospect finds when they research the company); and lead generation tactics and execution (prospect lists, outreach tests, follow-up timing, response handling, tracking).

• Each answers a different question, so separating them shows which part needs attention — you may be reaching the wrong people, communicating an unclear value proposition, giving interested prospects too little evidence, or executing inconsistently.
• The companion argument is that a slow pipeline sends companies shopping for a tool, an agency, a salesperson, or a trade show appearance before anyone asks what makes that the right investment right now.
• Early revenue from referrals, investors, and existing relationships hides messaging weakness, because trust rather than the message is carrying the conversation.

The question he applies to any new spend — what have we learned that makes this the right next move? — and the example of a cybersecurity company that overlooked information security buyers for more than a year and a half because of assumptions about who the buyer was.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

McGrail argues the standard rules of thumb — 3x pipeline to quota, 4x pipeline, and similar — are outdated as forecasting tools, because every company converts differently and neither figure says anything about what happens before something becomes an opportunity.

• The replacement is to measure the whole process through seven points: lead to engagement, engagement to contact, contact to meeting, meeting to opportunity, opportunity to closed-won, closed-won to revenue, and closed-lost with reasons.
• Once those rates are known, he says, the CRM can model future revenue and answer practical questions: how many qualified prospects are needed to support a target, where conversion is breaking down, which salespeople are strongest at each stage, and what a five percent improvement at one stage does financially.
• He adds a second complaint: contacts bought through paid search, events, content, and outbound often get one or two attempts, fail to convert immediately, and effectively disappear into the CRM.

A company closing 40% of qualified opportunities does not need the same pipeline coverage as one closing 10%, so a single multiple misleads either way.

Read original

Used differently, email becomes an intelligence and education layer: which prospects engage repeatedly, which accounts visit the website, who salespeople should spend their time on, and which accounts should be multi-threaded across stakeholders. He sets conditions on that use — start with verified data but run it through independent validation rather than trusting a provider's label, treat opens as a possible sign of interest while filtering obvious bot activity and security scans, then combine credible engagement with website activity, repeat behavior, role relevance, and account-level patterns.

The end state he describes is a CRM configured to surface those behavioral signals so sales development can decide who to approach, what to say, and how to move the relationship forward.

Read original

What does: whether qualified prospects visit the site, whether they stay or leave, which pages they visit in what sequence, whether they move from problem to solution, whether they look for proof in case studies, comparisons, or customer results, whether they download assets and come back, whether more people from the same company appear, and whether they explore implementation, integrations, security, or pricing. The data tells you what happened; judgment is still needed on why.

The five-step loop he uses to turn the data into decisions: where are we today, what have we observed, what does the evidence suggest, what do we recommend changing, and what will we measure next to see whether the change worked.

Read original · Original 2

He lays out three paths: hire someone with industry relationships, which opens doors but leaves the company unable to win strangers once those relationships are exhausted; find a scrappy salesperson who builds a repeatable approach; or do the harder work of validating who actually buys, what matters to them, and which messaging connects product value to a business problem they recognize. His closing question is whether a company has validated its playbook beyond its own network or is simply paying someone to repeat its assumptions.

His own account of building a sales playbook as an individual at Yodle, which he says the B2B marketing team then scaled across the company; and his observation that Anthropic still hires experienced sales and go-to-market people, which he reads as evidence the function is not being automated away.

Read original

He sorts activity into three buckets: work that generates revenue, work that directly influences revenue, and work that does neither.

• The third bucket is not condemned outright, but the trouble starts when it quietly consumes most of the calendar while the first two get pushed aside.
• Sales exposes the gap, because a founder can stay extremely busy and still create too few conversations, opportunities, and customers.

He suggests using a slow sales week — he writes about the week before Labor Day — to question the entire sales process, look at where time is actually going, and adjust before the next busy quarter.

Read original

This post lays out the frame that the other posts sit inside.

Joseph McGrail argues that "we need more leads" describes a wish, not a problem, and that startups jump into tactics before making the decisions that should guide them.

• The post splits go-to-market into four connected parts: marketing and sales strategy (value proposition, company positioning, sales messaging), lead generation strategy (which channels and what budget, people, and time they need), content strategy (what a prospect finds when they research the company), and lead generation tactics and execution (lists, outreach tests, follow-up timing, response handling, tracking).
• The stated point is that each part answers a different question, so separating them shows which one needs work before more money goes out the door.
• The post also says perfect answers are not required up front, only a clear set of assumptions to test.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful as the spine of a co-authored article or webinar: map a consulting firm's conversion-ratio measurement onto these four parts so CRM data is shown as the feedback loop that tests each part, not a separate reporting chore.

The post contrasts a CRM used as a record of the past with one that models what comes next, and calls common pipeline multiples such as 3x pipeline to quota outdated unless they are built from a company's own conversion data.

• A company closing 40% of qualified opportunities does not need the same coverage as one closing 10%, and neither figure says anything about what happens before an opportunity exists.
• The recommended replacement is to measure the whole process through seven conversion points: lead to engagement, engagement to contact, contact to meeting, meeting to opportunity, opportunity to closed-won, closed-won to revenue, and closed-lost reasons.
• Once those are known, the post says, a team can size how many qualified prospects it needs, find where conversion breaks down, see which salespeople are strongest at which stage, and model the financial effect of a 5% improvement at one stage.
• It adds that many paid-for contacts get one or two attempts and then effectively disappear.

For brands planning a campaign

Direct material for the proposed co-authored article or webinar on conversion-ratio forecasting; the seven ratios give the firm a ready-made structure, and the closed-lost-reason step is an easy place to invite a guest perspective.

Joseph McGrail accepts that a sequence sent to strangers will not automatically fill a calendar, but argues that judging email by meetings booked misses its larger use as an intelligence and education layer.

• The post lists what that layer can show: which prospects engage repeatedly, which accounts visit the website, who salespeople should spend time on, and which accounts deserve multi-threading across stakeholders.
• It names the operational requirements: start with verified data but run it through independent validation rather than trusting a provider's label, treat opens as a possible interest signal while filtering bot activity and security scans, then combine credible engagement with website activity, repeat behavior, role relevance, and account-level patterns.
• The end state is a CRM configured to surface behavioral signals that guide the next human sales step.

For brands planning a campaign

Pairs naturally with the conversion-ratio post for a webinar on email as an intelligence and prioritization layer; the filtering and verification steps are specific enough to demo live.

The post separates product-market fit, meaning the product meets a real need and customers keep paying, from commercial market validation, meaning the messaging connects the product's value to a business problem prospects recognize and will act on, including with cold targeted audiences outside the network.

• The argument against vendors who charge only per meeting, opportunity, or revenue is that the arrangement changes who carries the execution cost but does not do the validation work.
• The baseball analogy carries the point: a first-time batter benefits from learning to hold the bat, stand, and swing before stepping into a cage someone else pays for, because someone else paying for pitches does not teach you to hit or explain why you connected.
• Joseph McGrail says that in 25 years across B2B sales it often takes three to seven iterations to find a message that consistently connects with a targeted cold audience.

For brands planning a campaign

Strong debate-format material: the per-outcome pricing critique invites a counterpoint contributor, and the three-to-seven iteration range gives a concrete, quotable claim to build a session around.

Assuming targeting and the ideal customer profile are correct, the post asks whether the messaging connects product value to a problem prospects care enough about to act on, and argues that impressions, click-through rates, opens, views, and engagement do not answer that.

• What does: whether qualified prospects visit the site, whether they stay or leave, which pages they visit and in what sequence, whether they move from problem to solution, whether they look for proof in case studies, comparisons, or customer results, whether they download assets and return, whether more people from the same company appear, and whether they explore implementation, integrations, security, or pricing.
• It then gives a five-step working loop for turning that data into decisions: where are we today, what have we observed, what does the evidence suggest, what do we recommend changing, and what will we measure next.

For brands planning a campaign

Works as a practical checklist inside a co-authored piece; the five-step loop is a light framework a consulting firm can brand and reuse with clients, which makes the collaboration more than a one-off post.

The comparison is a storefront where people walk in all day and nobody buys: you would not form opinions, you would watch what visitors did, how long they stayed, and what happened before they left, and consider whether the products or the customers are wrong.

• Assuming the right people and a valuable product, the post says too many startups rely on a features-and-benefits description as the commercial message and never validate it.
• It names three elements to test and iterate: the value proposition (what business problem the product solves and why anyone should care), the sales messaging (how the value is communicated to specific roles and industries so the relevance is obvious), and company positioning (how the market understands where the company fits against the alternatives).
• It adds that a pitch deck built for a warm network has never, in the author's 25 years, worked on targeted strangers straight away.

For brands planning a campaign

The three elements give a consulting firm a compact workshop or audit offer; the storefront framing is plain enough for a general audience and pairs with the positioning work most firms already sell.

The post describes companies trying to buy their way out of a slow pipeline with another tool, an agency, a salesperson, or a trade show, and asks what makes any of those the right investment for that business right now.

• Early revenue from referrals, investors, and existing relationships hides the problem, in this account, because trust carries the conversation that the messaging has not yet learned to earn with strangers.
• The recommendation is to put assumptions in front of the market and see who engages, what they respond to, what objections arise, and whether conversations move forward.
• Joseph McGrail names two problems the business is being built around: companies struggle to decide which sales and marketing activities deserve priority based on business impact and the speed of that impact, and they mistake product-market fit for proof they can consistently win new customers.

For brands planning a campaign

Use as the positioning or founder-story piece in any collaboration; the two named problems are effectively a ready-made agenda for a joint webinar or interview format.

The post opens on what it calls a lack of respect for the sales function, citing job ads that offer around $20 an hour plus commission on meetings booked at companies that have never worked out how to sell to a targeted stranger, and notes that Anthropic is still hiring experienced sales and go-to-market people.

• It lays out three paths young companies take: hiring someone with industry relationships, which opens doors but risks running out once those relationships are exhausted; finding a scrappy salesperson to build the approach, which the post says happened when Joseph McGrail developed a playbook as an individual at Yodle and the B2B marketing team scaled it across the company; or doing the harder work of validating who buys, what matters to them, and which message connects the product to their problem.
• The closing question is whether a company has validated its playbook beyond its network or is paying someone to repeat its assumptions.
• A cybersecurity example shows the cost of not checking: information security buyers went unaddressed for more than a year and a half because of assumptions about who the buyer was.

For brands planning a campaign

Gives a talent and hiring angle for thought leadership, and the validated-playbook question is a natural hook for a co-authored piece aimed at founders deciding whether to hire sales help or do validation work first.

Written in a slow sales week, the post suggests using quiet stretches to examine how much work is done simply because it is expected.

• Founders' problem is not motivation, in this account, but that work multiplies easily while not all of it contributes equally to growth.
• The post sorts activity into three buckets: activity that generates revenue, activity that directly influences revenue, and activity that does neither.
• The third bucket is not inherently bad, but the trouble starts when it quietly consumes most of the time while the first two are pushed aside.
• Sales exposes the gap, because a person can stay extremely busy and still create too few conversations, opportunities, and customers.

For brands planning a campaign

A light, shareable piece to open a collaboration with rather than a technical one; the three buckets can also be used as a self-assessment exercise in a workshop or newsletter series.

Product-market fit, in his framing, is evidence that customers want the product, use it, and keep paying for it.

• Commercial market validation is whether the messaging connects the product's value to a business problem that cold, targeted strangers recognize and care enough about to act on.
• He argues that features-and-benefits descriptions and pitch decks that worked through referrals, investors, and existing relationships routinely fail to earn the same response from strangers, and that the fix is iteration against real cold audiences rather than more activity.
• He states that in his 25 years of B2B sales work it often takes three to seven iterations to find what consistently connects.

Iteration against cold, targeted audiences: run messaging past prospects outside the network, observe who engages and what objections appear, and revise until the message earns a response on its own. The storefront and baseball-batting analogies are used to make the same point: watching what visitors actually do, and learning to swing before paying for pitches, both beat guessing.

For brands planning a campaign

The clearest shared ground with the brief.

• A co-authored article or webinar on testing sales messaging against cold audiences would let McGrail supply the validation framework and the iteration counts while the consulting firm supplies client context.
• The strongest angle is the contrast between product-market fit and commercial validation, because it directly challenges the common assumption that a working product proves the message travels.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

In place of a single multiple, it lays out a chain of conversion measurements covering the whole process, end to end, and argues that once those rates are known the CRM can model future revenue and answer practical questions: how many qualified prospects are needed to support a target, where conversion is breaking down, which salespeople are strongest at each stage, and what a five percent improvement at one stage does financially. A secondary argument is that contacts acquired through paid search, events, content, and outbound are often abandoned after one or two attempts and could be worked harder.

Seven measurements named in the post: lead to engagement, engagement to contact, contact to meeting, meeting to opportunity, opportunity to closed-won, closed-won to revenue, and closed-lost with reasons.

For brands planning a campaign

Directly matches the brief's interest in CRM-driven pipeline measurement. A co-authored piece or webinar on conversion-ratio forecasting would give the firm a concrete, teachable measurement model, with McGrail's critique of arbitrary pipeline multiples as the opening argument and the closed-lost analysis as the section most likely to prompt questions.

Examples: Source 1

In his framing, a sequence sent to strangers is not mainly a calendar-filling tool; it is a way to learn which prospects engage repeatedly, which accounts visit the website, who deserves sales time, and which accounts should be contacted across several stakeholders.

• He sets conditions on that use: verify data independently rather than trusting a provider's label, filter obvious bot activity, security scans, and automated opens, then combine credible engagement with website activity, repeat behavior, role relevance, and account-level patterns.
• The endpoint is a CRM configured to surface behavioral signals that guide the next human sales action.

For brands planning a campaign

A second natural co-authored topic, and a good webinar segment alongside the measurement material. The practical hook is the list of signal-quality checks (data verification, bot and scan filtering) because it turns a familiar claim that email is not dead into something a sales operations audience can apply the same week.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

He separates go-to-market into marketing and sales strategy (value proposition, company positioning, sales messaging), lead generation strategy (channels and the people, budget, and time they require), content strategy, and lead generation tactics and execution, and argues each answers a different question, so lumping them together hides the real fault.

• A companion argument is that companies try to buy their way out of sales problems with a new tool, agency, salesperson, or trade show appearance before establishing who is most likely to buy, what gives them a reason to engage, and where the process breaks down.
• Referrals, investors, and existing relationships can mask a messaging weakness because trust, not the message, carries the conversation.

Four-part go-to-market breakdown (strategy, lead generation, content, tactics/execution) and a first question he applies to any new spend: what have we learned that makes this the right next move?

For brands planning a campaign

Useful as the diagnostic spine of a co-authored resource. It lets the firm present a structured way for a prospect to locate their own problem before recommending any service, which fits thought-leadership positioning better than a service-led pitch.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The third bucket is not condemned, but the post argues it quietly consumes the calendar while the first two get pushed aside, and that sales exposes the gap because a founder can stay busy without creating conversations, opportunities, or customers. It recommends using a slow week to question the whole sales process and reallocate time before the busy quarter arrives.

Three-bucket activity audit applied to a founder's own calendar, paired with the go-to-market breakdown described above.

For brands planning a campaign

Good material for a lighter-format co-authored piece or newsletter collaboration aimed at founders, since it is self-assessment rather than vendor selection. It also gives the firm a way to reach founder-led sales teams who are not yet shopping for consulting.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

He separates three paths companies take: hire someone with industry relationships, which produces quick wins but leaves the company unable to win strangers once the relationships are exhausted; find a scrappy salesperson to build a repeatable approach; or do the harder work of validating who buys, what matters to them, and which messaging connects product value to a recognized business problem.

• His own account of building a playbook at Yodle, which he says the marketing team then scaled across the company, is offered as the second path in practice.
• He also describes working with a cybersecurity company that overlooked information security buyers for over a year and a half because of assumptions about who the buyer was, and notes that Anthropic hires experienced sales and go-to-market people as evidence that the function is not being automated away.

For brands planning a campaign

A distinctive angle for a consulting firm's audience because it addresses talent and hiring decisions, not just messaging. A co-authored piece on the risks of hiring a salesperson before the playbook is validated would use McGrail's own Yodle story and the overlooked-buyer example as the narrative, and would position the firm's validation work as the step that makes a hire pay off.

Examples: Source 1

Analogies carry real weight: a batting cage with someone else paying for pitches stands in for outsourcing sales execution, and a storefront full of visitors who leave without buying stands in for a startup whose messaging misses.

• Client examples are anonymized except where McGrail names Yodle as an employer where he built a sales playbook.
• The tone is direct, including blunt assessments of common practice such as arbitrary pipeline multiples and low-paid sales roles, but the structure of each post is explanatory rather than promotional.

Numbered frameworks, extended analogy, anonymized client anecdote, then a closing question or restated test that the reader can apply.

For brands planning a campaign

Any co-authored asset should keep this shape. A numbered framework plus a concrete analogy plus one worked client example will read as authentic to his existing audience; a slide-deck or abstract-strategy format will not.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

Their dates are not included, so no chronological account of how McGrail's arguments developed or shifted can be built from this material, and the page should not imply one.

• No videos, audio, transcripts, conference talks, articles, or interviews were supplied, so claims about his speaking or long-form writing rest on the posts alone.
• Client stories are anonymized except for the Yodle reference, and nothing beyond the posts verifies employers, credentials, or current engagement terms.

The three-to-seven iteration figure and the twenty-five-year tenure are his own stated experience, not independently measured benchmarks, and should be presented as his account.

For brands planning a campaign

Before any co-authored asset is commissioned, confirm availability, format preferences, and willingness to appear alongside the firm. The supplied posts also show no documented sponsorship or paid-partnership formats, so a proposal should not assume an existing commercial offer.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5 · Source 6 · Source 7 · Source 8 · Source 9

The post describes past work at Yodle and does not say whether the relationship continues.

View example

The post does not describe any employment, client, or commercial tie to the company.

View example

Both use CRM data and measurable stages rather than general brand claims, and both turn their argument into a repeatable workflow.

Bennett's examples sit closer to customer marketing, reference and advocacy programs, G2 reviews, event attribution, and a specific Salesforce or HubSpot operator workflow.

• McGrail starts earlier, with message validation against cold prospects, the split of go-to-market into four decisions, and conversion-ratio forecasting across the entire sales process.
• Bennett shows a concrete implementation; McGrail teaches the diagnostic logic underneath it.

Read original · Original 2

Both use diagnostic questions, assign each channel a job, and work backward from a revenue or funding goal. Both rely on client examples to show the cost of activity without a defined role.

Hampton's posts are broader marketing strategy for companies and nonprofits, covering SEO, paid media, email, social, and web conversion.

• McGrail stays in B2B sales and go-to-market: commercial message validation, CRM conversion ratios, cold email, and sales hiring.
• Hampton is more likely to ask what each channel is for; McGrail is more likely to ask whether the message works on strangers and where the sales process breaks.

Read original · Original 2

Both write about misaligned ideal-customer definitions, the gap between existing customers and pipeline prospects, and the need to score fit against actual evidence instead of title or company size. Both connect those decisions to CRM data and cross-functional alignment.

Scheifler's examples centre on leadership-team alignment and a customer and prospect scoring exercise, with a recent post on how AI exposes cracks in go-to-market.

• McGrail's material centres on the sales message itself, conversion ratios, outbound email as an intelligence layer, and founder time allocation.
• Scheifler frames the fix as a shared score across sales, marketing, and customer success; McGrail frames it as message validation and a measured sales process.

Read original · Original 2

Bennett's posts show a concrete operator workflow: export G2 review data with reviewer titles, previous tools replaced, and outcomes; match the previous software or competitor against active Stage 2 or higher enterprise opportunities; extract the workflow friction that caused the switch; and post a short peer-proof note on the Salesforce opportunity.

• A second post gives an event-measurement framework: match attendee contacts back to parent accounts, measure open pipeline influenced rather than direct attribution, check whether stage progression or deal velocity changed in the 30 days after the event, and review self-reported attribution on closed-won calls.
• A firm that wants an applied campaign on mid-funnel proof, customer advocacy, or event ROI should choose Bennett.

The tradeoff is scope.

• Bennett's material does not lay out the seven-ratio chain from lead to engagement through closed-won to revenue, and it does not make the same email-as-intelligence-layer argument that Joseph McGrail makes.
• A collaboration with Bennett would likely be narrower to customer and field marketing operations, with the firm supplying any broader sales-process framework.
• Bennett's examples also rely on named CRM fields, AI-assisted workflows, and specific tools, which may be more technical than a general B2B sales and marketing audience needs.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Hampton's posts diagnose the difference between a collection of tactics and a marketing strategy: who the company is trying to reach, what problem it solves for them, how it gets attention, what happens after engagement, and how activity turns into revenue.

• A second post applies the same logic to nonprofit marketing, arguing that inconsistent monthly budgets make organizations disappear between campaigns and that consistent investment lets SEO, social, email, paid media, website, and PR each do a defined job.
• A firm that wants a piece or webinar on channel roles, budget consistency, or working backward from a revenue goal should choose Hampton.

The tradeoff is that Hampton's posts do not provide a sales-stage conversion-ratio model or operational detail on email engagement as a buying signal.

• The same buyer task asks for conversion-ratio forecasting and email as an intelligence layer, so a collaboration with Hampton would need to shift toward marketing planning and channel strategy.
• For a B2B audience specifically focused on CRM-driven pipeline measurement, McGrail's material is the closer match; Hampton is better when the firm wants broader marketing-strategy teaching and can supply the measurement-specific examples itself.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Scheifler's posts describe bringing the CEO, head of sales, head of marketing, and customer success into one conversation, reviewing best customers and prospects against the same score, and putting that score into the CRM.

• The teaching example is direct: if best customers score 50 while pipeline prospects score 10 or minus 5, the problem is not closing technique but account fit.
• A second post adds that AI does not break go-to-market; it exposes cracks.
• A firm that wants a workshop on cross-functional alignment, qualification scoring, or using one customer score across sales, marketing, and success should choose Scheifler.

The tradeoff is that Scheifler's material does not deliver the conversion-ratio chain or the email-as-intelligence-layer argument that anchors the accepted brief.

• A co-authored piece with Scheifler would be more about qualification and cross-functional alignment than forecasting from CRM conversion data.
• If the firm's promise is specifically conversion-ratio forecasting and email intelligence, Scheifler is better treated as a complement or a preceding diagnostic step, not a direct substitute for McGrail.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2