Karl-Johan Lantz writes about B2B sales, focusing on how sellers can help customers make decisions rather than simply present information or track activity in a CRM.
Karl-Johan Lantz is most useful for Swedish B2B sales content on helping customers decide, not tracking activity.
Best for
A Swedish B2B sales training workshop on consultative selling and pipeline reviews.
Not for
A pipeline software vendor campaign claiming its platform fixes stalled deals.
Key takeaways
Buyers research and compare vendors before meetings, so rehearsed presentations add little.
Warm meetings may be verification of a preferred choice, not exploration of options.
CRM stages can advance while the customer remains uncertain and has not moved.
Check first: Confirm workshop delivery experience, live language and format, and audience data beyond LinkedIn followers.
Main ideas
Information is no longer the seller's advantage · Warm meetings are often verification, not exploration · CRM activity is not the same as customer movement
Karl-Johan Lantz writes about B2B sales and the gap between seller activity and a customer’s progress toward a decision.
In the posts here, they return to practical questions for sellers and sales managers: has the customer’s understanding or commitment changed, and what supports that?
Follow their work for clear examples of stalled deals, misleading pipeline signals and sales conversations that repeat information customers already know.
Lantz makes an abstract sales principle concrete by showing it from both sides of the pipeline.
One post describes a customer who has already researched the seller and compared alternatives, so another rehearsed presentation adds little; the seller’s value is instead helping the customer understand the path, risks and commitments involved in change.
Another shows how a prospect with budget and apparent interest may be checking a preferred choice rather than exploring options—and how a seller can keep a dead deal in the forecast by avoiding a direct question.
Two posts apply the same test to CRM and management: a deal can advance through stages while the customer remains uncertain.
The repeated point is to judge progress by what has changed for the customer, not by meetings, activity or stage labels.
Karl-Johan Lantz's posts return to one problem: what is a B2B seller for once buyers have already gathered the information?
Read more
Their argument is that the seller's value has shifted from supplying information to helping customers move toward a decision.
The usual sales measurements — CRM stages, logged activity, booked meetings and forecast optimism — track the seller rather than the customer.
Each post is a short diagnostic essay built around an ordinary selling scene, a clear distinction and a closing question for the reader.
Information is no longer the seller's advantage
Lantz's central argument is that sellers were once valuable because they held information a buyer could not get elsewhere.
Read more
Buyers now search, ask an AI and compare several vendors before lunch, so a rehearsed presentation and prepared answers tell them little.
What they cannot look up, they argue, is the path: how to get from where they are to where they need to be, what has to change, what can go wrong and what the change will demand of them.
An algorithm can present faster than a person; moving someone is still the seller's job.
A seller spends a week scanning the CRM, writing questions, preparing a pitch and rehearsing answers to objections, only to find in the meeting that the customer already has the answers, has compared competitors and has read the same case studies.
Warm meetings are often verification, not exploration
A buyer who makes contact, has budget and asks for a meeting can look like an ideal lead, but Lantz argues that many such buyers have already chosen a favourite.
Read more
They have read, compared, asked an AI and spoken to people who bought something similar; the meeting exists partly to show internal colleagues that alternatives were considered.
A seller who presents and asks exploratory questions learns little, then hears a promise to follow up followed by silence.
The useful questions are different: what does the buyer still need to see, and who else has to agree?
The meeting ends with thanks and a promise to get back in touch, then goes quiet. The seller sends supplementary material and moves the date in the CRM forward a week at a time.
Two posts make one distinction: a deal can move through every stage of the seller's process while the customer remains uncertain — stuck at "that would be good" rather than reaching "we have to do this".
Read more
CRM stages, booked meetings and logged activity measure the seller's process, not the buyer's. High activity feels like progress, which makes it dangerous in Lantz's account: it can keep a dead deal in the forecast for months.
A deal travels through the pipeline for twelve weeks while the seller reports that the buyer is very interested and nothing happens. In another post, a Monday pipeline review looks healthy until a large deal that was about to be signed is suddenly back at square one.
Lantz's priority here is honesty about forecast quality.
Read more
Hope, the post says, is the most expensive thing a seller can hold: it costs nothing to keep and everything to live on.
A pipeline full of hoped-for deals feels better than a smaller one that can be trusted.
Lantz recalls knowing roughly when a deal died and which question should have been asked, but not asking it — not because the question was hard to think of, but because they did not want to hear the answer.
The proposed check is simple: ask the avoided question before moving the date again.
Rather than asking the buyer whether the deal is still alive, the seller keeps it in the forecast and shifts the expected date forward one week at a time.
A thirty-year seller arguing against their own former advantage
The posts present a self-reported change of position.
Read more
Lantz writes that they prospered for thirty years by mastering information-based selling — being the person a customer had to meet because the information could not be found elsewhere — and that this was the whole of their value.
They also connect that experience to the follow-up loop: for thirty years, they left deals in place because they did not ask the question.
The argument against the information advantage comes from inside the practice it criticises.
Lantz says customers once wanted to meet them because they could not get the information anywhere else, and that this was their entire worth.
The posts are undated, so buyers assessing this shift should ask when it took place. The two pipeline posts repeat the movement-versus-activity distinction without adding new cases.
Start here to understand the central distinction between supplying information and helping a customer move toward a decision.
Read more
The concrete meeting scenario shows why a sales conversation can feel redundant even when the seller is well prepared.
Lantz describes a sales meeting where the customer has already researched the seller, compared competitors, and read the case studies.
The seller’s rehearsed questions and presentation add little.
The useful work, Lantz argues, is helping the customer understand the path from their current situation to a decision: what must change, what could go wrong, and what the change requires.
For brands planning a campaign
For a consultative-selling workshop, use this as a discussion opener: ask participants to replace a product presentation with a map of the customer’s change, risks, and required commitments.
Read this for a specific account of how apparently positive buying signals can mislead a seller.
Read more
It connects customer behavior to the uncomfortable follow-up question the seller chooses not to ask.
A prospect has budget, asks for a meeting, listens, and promises to follow up—but may only be verifying a preferred choice or documenting that alternatives were considered.
Lantz then examines the seller’s response: keeping a deal in the forecast by postponing its date instead of asking the question that might reveal it is dead.
The post makes avoidance, not lack of sales activity, the problem to examine.
For brands planning a campaign
A workshop can use the scenario for role-play: identify what the seller needs to learn, write a direct question that could disconfirm the opportunity, and decide how the answer should change the forecast.
Start here for a practical way to question pipeline progress.
Read more
The twelve-week example makes the difference between sales-process movement and a change in the customer’s decision visible.
Lantz contrasts a deal moving through CRM stages over twelve weeks with a customer who has not moved from uncertainty toward a decision.
Meetings, logged activity, and a booked next step can make the seller’s process look healthy without showing customer progress.
The key check is whether the customer has actually moved, not whether the seller has updated the system.
For brands planning a campaign
For a sales-management session, ask teams to review a stalled opportunity and name evidence of changed customer understanding or commitment—not just stage changes, meetings, or activity.
Read this alongside the post about CRM stage movement.
Read more
This version grounds the argument in a manager’s weekly pipeline review and shows the risk of trusting activity and probability figures without checking what has changed for the customer.
This post opens with a Monday pipeline review: many meetings, deals advanced to negotiation, and high CRM probabilities, yet deals take longer, disappear, or return to the beginning. Lantz explains why activity feels like progress—and why that can be dangerous: a full calendar and completed CRM fields do not prove that customers are closer to a decision.
For brands planning a campaign
For a workshop with sales leaders, use the Monday review as a diagnostic exercise: choose one forecast deal and ask when the customer last changed position, what evidence supports that claim, and whether the forecast should change.
In a post about meeting preparation, Karl-Johan Lantz describes a seller who scans the CRM, writes questions, rehearses the pitch and prepares rebuttals, then finds in the meeting that the customer already has the answers, has compared competitors and has read the same case studies.
Read more
The information advantage that once filled a seller's calendar is gone, they write, because customers search, ask an AI and compare several vendors before lunch.
What the customer cannot look up is the path: how to get from where they are today to where they need to be, what has to change, what can go wrong, and what it will demand of them.
Presenting is no longer the job; moving someone is.
Preparation audit: list the intended presentation content, mark what the buyer could find by searching or asking an AI, and rewrite the remainder as path questions about change, risk and internal agreement.
For brands planning a campaign
A consultative-selling workshop can use this as its framing: shift the session from presenting to guiding the customer's path.
Have participants list what they planned to present in their next meeting, mark what the buyer could find without them, and turn the rest into path questions.
The post's closing question — are you going in to tell them something they already know, or to help them get somewhere they have not reached on their own — works as the opening.
Lantz describes the buyer who looks ideal: inbound, funded, asking for a meeting.
Read more
The seller prepares well, asks good questions and presents sharply; the buyer listens, nods, thanks them and says they will get back — then silence.
They came to verify, not explore.
They had already read, compared, asked an AI and talked to peers who bought something similar, and already had a favourite; a second or third conversation was needed to show internal diligence.
The post also names the follow-up loop: the seller sends supplementary material and moves the CRM date forward a week at a time so the deal stays in the forecast, even when the seller knows it is dead and knows which question should have been asked.
Meeting-intent check: before preparing, decide whether the buyer is exploring options or verifying a decision, and prepare questions for that purpose — for a verifying buyer, what colleagues need to see and who else has to agree.
For brands planning a campaign
Train reps to qualify what a meeting is actually for before they prepare it.
Build a short script that separates a buyer exploring from a buyer verifying, and agree what evidence would move each.
Verification-stage buyers need internal-ammunition questions, not a broader pitch, and the workshop should rehearse those questions against a real opportunity.
Two posts make the same distinction from different angles: activity and customer movement are not the same thing.
Read more
A CRM can show a deal moving from qualification to negotiation, from interested to hot, with meetings booked and activity logged, while the customer has not moved from uncertainty to a decision — from "that would be good" to "we have to do this".
Lantz describes deals drifting through the pipeline for twelve weeks and sellers reporting that they are well positioned, and a Monday pipeline review where everything looks healthy until deals that were about to be signed are back at square one.
High activity is not the same as movement, and it feels like progress, which is what makes it dangerous.
Customer-movement test: require one observable customer-side action per open deal since the previous review, and treat seller-side activity alone as insufficient evidence of progress.
The two posts repeat the distinction rather than adding new cases, and neither reports a deal where the seller changed course as a result.
For brands planning a campaign
Run a pipeline review that asks what the customer has done, not what the seller has logged.
For each open deal, require one observable customer action since the last meeting — a decision, a document, an internal approval — and park deals with only seller-side activity.
This gives the workshop a concrete way to separate forecast confidence from CRM stage labels.
The most expensive thing a seller can hold, Lantz writes, is hope: it costs nothing to keep and everything to live on.
Read more
A pipeline full of deals the seller hopes for feels better than a half-empty one they can trust. They describe knowing roughly when a deal died and which question should have been asked, but not asking it — not because the question was hard to think of, but because the seller did not want to hear the answer.
Avoided-question review: each rep picks one stalled deal, names the question they have not asked, and asks it before an agreed date.
For brands planning a campaign
Give the session a forecast-integrity exercise: each participant names one deal and the question they are avoiding, then asks it before a set follow-up. Pair it with a coaching question managers can use — what would you need to hear to take this deal out of the forecast? — so asking the avoided question becomes routine rather than a one-off act of courage.
Each opens with an ordinary selling scene, narrows to one distinction — information versus path, verification versus exploration, activity versus movement, hope versus a trustworthy pipeline — and closes with a question aimed at the reader, such as whether the seller is going into the next meeting to tell the customer something they already know or to help them get somewhere they have not reached alone.
No dates accompany the posts, so the recurrence of the same themes cannot be placed on a timeline or shown to develop in a particular direction.
For brands planning a campaign
The structure travels into a workshop: open with a scene from the participants' own week, introduce one distinction, close with a question for the group. The closing questions can serve as discussion prompts or between-session reflection tasks.
Karl-Johan Lantz's four posts discuss CRM systems, AI tools, and sales meetings as general practices, without naming any brand, sponsor, client, business relationship, or company they work for, partner with, or represent.
Read more
They state no ownership, employment, sponsorship, or client engagement, so no relationship items are listed.
Karl-Johan Lantz writes short posts about the B2B seller’s role after the buyer has done the research.
Read more
A good entry point is the meeting-preparation post: the seller rehearses a pitch, then finds the customer already has the answers, has compared competitors and has read the same case studies.
The argument recurs in different forms: buyers arrive to verify rather than explore; CRM stages and logged activity track the seller, not the customer; hope keeps dead deals in the forecast.
Read several posts together and the format becomes clear: an ordinary scene from a sales week, one distinction and a closing question.
The test they return to is whether the customer has moved from “that would be good” to “we have to do this”, rather than whether the seller’s process has advanced.
Follow the tags below for recurring subjects, or use the comparisons to see how writers on CRM tooling, systems integration and the same diagnostic format handle related ground.
Karlsson draws on hands-on B2B sales and CRM experience to examine deals that stall even when the seller follows the process.
Read more
In one post, a four-vendor competition is lost after the approach was agreed, the kickoff planned and the contract sent.
The example makes the point Lantz returns to: activity is not outcome.
The team did everything well, but the decision was not theirs to make.
Karlsson writes about the CRM product they work with—Insight Engine at Membrain—and the sales tasks it supports, such as finding companies, decision-makers and contact details, and drafting meeting summaries. They focus on sellers’ judgement, asking what the buyer has actually decided.
Kløvning works in the same Scandinavian B2B systems territory and uses a similar teaching format: a concrete everyday situation, such as entering the same customer details in several systems, followed by one distinction, a short list of options and a closing question.
Read more
Both write for people who run sales or CRM operations, not a general audience.
Kløvning covers the technical plumbing behind sales operations: no-code, low-code and full-code integrations between CRM and finance systems, as well as third-party dependency risk after a major outage took down several global applications. By contrast, Lantz writes about selling behaviour and buyer decisions, not system design.
Nielsen is the closest match on method rather than subject.
Read more
One post opens with a vivid scene—a person in a hoodie stopped in reception while someone in a suit walks straight into a meeting room—then turns it into a principle, gives numbered practical steps and closes with a question. Lantz uses the same structure in every post reviewed here.
Nielsen writes about cybersecurity and digital sovereignty, including national measurement data such as the 798 water utility domains tested for email authentication, and publishes a regular newsletter. Lantz focuses on B2B selling.
Placement decision: Karl-Johan Lantz’s posts make them a possible fit for a Swedish-language B2B sales audience interested in consultative selling, pipeline discipline, and helping customers reach decisions.
Read more
The four posts are in Swedish and address sellers and sales leaders.
The LinkedIn profile lists 2,719 followers as of 2026-10-09, but does not establish their employers, occupations, seniority, industries, locations, ages, or genders.
Before booking, request recent follower demographics or an audience survey covering country, seniority, industry, and function, along with recent engagement and reach figures for posts on consultative selling and pipeline reviews.
For a workshop on consultative selling and pipeline reviews, ask for evidence that the audience includes or can reach B2B sales decision-makers, not just individual sellers.
LinkedIn followers
2,719
LinkedIn account metadata for the account that published the reviewed posts · 2026-10-09
A Swedish B2B sales training company is assembling a half-day workshop for account managers on consultative selling and wants a practitioner who will reframe what the session is for.
Read more
Lantz fits the content and method.
The four posts build a coherent teaching position: the seller's information advantage is gone because buyers search, ask an AI and compare vendors before the meeting, so the seller's job is to help the customer move from where they are to a decision; buyers who arrive with a budget and a meeting request may be verifying a shortlist rather than exploring, which changes what the meeting should do; CRM stage movement and a full calendar do not show that a customer has moved; and the most expensive thing in a pipeline is hope kept alive by a question the seller avoids asking.
That is consultative selling argued from the seller's own week rather than from a framework slide.
The method translates directly into a workshop: every post opens with an ordinary selling scene, narrows to one distinction and closes with a question for the reader.
A session could be built around four such scenes, with participants' own deals substituted for theirs.
Fit is strong for the content, exercises and closing questions.
Before contracting, check whether they have delivered workshops, talks or training sessions, confirm the language and format for a live session, and ask for audience data beyond the 2,719 LinkedIn followers as of 9 October 2026.
The posts are Swedish-language text posts and provide no demographics, engagement or reach figures, or data showing whether the audience includes sales decision-makers rather than individual sellers.
Treat this as a strong content fit pending those checks and a scoping conversation.
When to choose a specialist
A pipeline-management software vendor wants a sponsored content series and a webinar positioning its platform as the remedy for stalled deals, with the creator carrying the vendor's message to sales leaders.
Read more
On topic overlap alone, this looks plausible—but as specified, it is a poor fit.
Lantz's posts diagnose stalled pipelines as a seller-behaviour and customer-decision problem, not a tooling problem: the pipeline looks healthy while the customer has not moved from uncertainty to a decision, and the proposed fix is a harder question asked earlier, not a better system of record.
The CRM appears as the place where seller-side movement gets logged and mistaken for progress.
A campaign built on "the platform fixes your pipeline" would contradict the creator's own argument; the vendor would need to accept a message about the seller's questions, not the software.
There is also a commercial gap: the posts contain no sponsor disclosure, media kit, rate, format description or stated inquiry route.
Ask directly about paid formats and terms before scoping a series; the lack of a documented offer is not proof that they decline paid work.
Nor can the posts support a lead-generation promise: they provide no audience demographics, engagement or reach data, only a follower count.
This is not a blanket no.
A vendor willing to sponsor content about qualification and forecast discipline, with terms agreed in writing and no lead-volume guarantee, could pursue a different campaign, which would need separate assessment.
A worked campaign example
Worked campaign angle for the Swedish B2B sales training company's half-day workshop for account managers on consultative selling: a three-hour workshop titled "Movement is not progress", built from the four checks in the posts. Run it in Swedish if the participants work in Swedish, and confirm live-delivery experience with Lantz first.
00:00-00:15 Framing.
Open with Lantz's own closing question: are you going into the next meeting to tell the customer something they already know, or to help them get somewhere they have not reached alone.
Ask each participant to write down what they prepared for their last meeting and put it aside for the first exercise.
00:15-00:45 Preparation audit.
Participants list what they intended to present in their next meeting, mark each item as something the buyer could find by searching, asking an AI, or calling a peer, and rewrite the remainder as questions about the path - what has to change, what can go wrong, what it will demand of the buyer's organisation.
Output: a rewritten meeting plan with the commodity content removed.
00:45-01:15 Meeting-intent check.
For each of their next three meetings, participants classify the buyer as exploring or verifying.
Verifying buyers get three internal-ammunition questions written on the spot: who else has to agree, what those people need to see, what would make this a no.
01:15-01:30 Break.
01:30-02:15 Customer-movement test.
In pairs, participants take one live deal and list all seller-side activity since the last meeting.
They then name one observable customer action - a decision, a document produced, an internal approval.
Deals with seller-side activity only go into a "not yet" column.
Run this as a simulated Monday pipeline review so managers see what their own forecast meeting would look like under the same test.
02:15-02:45 Avoided-question review.
Each participant names one stalled deal and the question they have been avoiding, then commits to asking it before a dated follow-up.
Managers get the coaching question to use afterwards: what would you need to hear to take this deal out of the forecast?
02:45-03:00 Close. Each participant writes the single question they will ask this week and books a peer check-in to report the answer.
Materials: a one-page worksheet carrying the four checks, and a two-column pipeline sheet headed "seller activity" and "customer action since last meeting".
Success measure: every participant leaves with one dated question attached to a real deal, and the training company repeats the customer-movement test at 30 days to see whether the deals concerned moved, died or were re-qualified.
Open items before booking: confirm Lantz's workshop or speaking track record, agree the working language, and agree commercial terms directly, since no format, rate or inquiry route appears in the posts.
Whether the four posts reflect Lantz's current views cannot be checked from the posts, because they carry no dated progression, no reported deal outcomes and no long-form or video sources.
Karlsson is the better choice if the training company wants the half-day to start with how a seller runs a deal inside a CRM rather than with the customer conversation.
Read more
Their two posts offer a workshop two usable scenes that Lantz’s material does not cover.
The first is a product launch inside Membrain, where the practical problems include finding companies of the right size and industry, identifying decision-makers such as the CEO, CRO or sales manager, pulling direct numbers and email addresses in one click, turning rough meeting notes into a summary, and getting guidance on the next step in the sales process.
The second is a four-vendor race where the team judged its approach best, planned the kick-off and sent the contract, then lost the deal because the decision did not rest with the people in the room.
For account managers who prospect inside a CRM and must sell to a group they cannot see, those scenes teach more per hour than Lantz’s four checks do.
The tradeoff is that the visible material is organised around a specific commercial platform, so a training session built on it inherits the vendor’s framing of the problem.
The first post focuses on Karlsson’s eight years in CRM sales and the launch of Insight Engine; the proposed fix is a tool that supplies leads, contacts and next-step guidance.
A training company running a neutral consultative-selling workshop would need to strip out the product interest and keep only the diagnosis, or accept a session that points participants towards software.
The second post is closer to Lantz’s ground, but its lesson is about internal decision rights and resilience after a loss, not questioning technique.
Before booking, ask for examples of workshop formats, teaching methods and dated training delivery.
Kløvning is the better choice if the same account-manager audience needs the systems layer beneath the sales process, a layer Lantz treats only as the place where seller-side activity gets logged.
Read more
The first post walks through a duplicated-record problem in plain steps: a customer is created in the CRM, the name, address and organisation number are copied into the finance system, more fields are entered when the deal is won, and a status has to be written back to the CRM when the invoice is sent or paid.
It then distinguishes no-code, low-code and full-code integrations, with a rule of thumb for each and a warning that full code is not automatically better.
The second post reads a Cloudflare outage across ChatGPT, Claude, Spotify and X as a lesson in third-party dependency, calling for mapped risks, backups, crisis protocols and rehearsed contingency plans.
For a workshop that must explain why pipeline activity and customer progress diverge, and what to do about the systems causing the duplication, this is the closer material.
The tradeoff is the topic: the half-day becomes a session on integration choices and continuity risk, not consultative selling.
That is a different promise to the training company’s buyer and probably calls for a different participant list, with more operations and IT staff than account managers.
Neither post shows a customer conversation, a deal review or a coaching question, and neither dates or describes a workshop.
Kløvning would therefore contribute content to one module, not replace a practitioner who can run exercises on questioning and qualification.
The material is written from the implementation side, in Norwegian and English.
Before booking, ask whether Kløvning can deliver in Swedish and what live-teaching format they offer.
Nielsen is the better choice if the training company wants account managers to see how easily an outsider can reach a customer’s systems, something field sellers encounter every week.
Read more
Nielsen’s first post recounts entering a client’s building through the main door, being nodded past reception, sitting down in an empty meeting room and plugging a network cable into the wall.
The point: a receptionist’s friendliness should never be the only access control.
The post distinguishes penetration testing, red teaming and security mystery shopping, then closes with three checks a company can run itself.
The second post presents a measured survey: 663 of 798 Danish water-utility domains do not tell recipients to reject mail sent in their name, only 4% of municipal domains do, and 266 domains showed neither SPF, DMARC nor a DKIM key at the names checked.
If the buyer’s real concern is that the sales team visits sites and handles customer data, that evidence lands harder than another questioning framework.
The tradeoff is that the promised subject disappears: a half-day built on Nielsen teaches security awareness, not consultative selling, and account managers leave without the requested qualification and meeting-intent exercises.
Nielsen’s material is Denmark-specific, built on external scans and a free domain check, and the posts carry a newsletter call to action; the commercial framing would need to be separated from the teaching content.
The water-utility figures are Lantz’s own published counts, not an independent study.
Cite them as Lantz’s findings, and ask for details of the workshop delivery, format and rate before booking.
This page draws on the full text of four Swedish-language LinkedIn posts by Karl-Johan Lantz on B2B selling, buyer behaviour and pipeline reporting, together with one publicly visible LinkedIn follower count of 2,719 recorded on 9 October 2026.
The material reviewed carried no individual publication dates for the posts, so the page presents recurring positions rather than a dated progression of Lantz's views.
No video, audio transcript, long-form article, case study or reported deal outcome was available, and the posts contain no sponsor disclosure, content format, rate, inquiry route or audience demographics.
The accepted sections on ideas, notable posts, brands and businesses, similar creators and campaign fit were used as the basis for this summary; nothing here adds claims beyond those posts.
Known gaps include any documented record of workshop, training or speaking delivery, and any engagement or reach figures beyond the follower count.
These are limits of the material reviewed, not statements about what Lantz does or does not do elsewhere.