Keith Finger

They explain stalled deals through status quo bias: buyers fear the risk of change more than they hope for a gain.

• Four reasons prospects choose inaction are the pain isn’t urgent, fear of making a bad decision, decision fatigue, and the belief that the problem can be handled internally.
• The response is to sell change, not features.
• Sales should ask questions that uncover unconsidered needs and establish a clear reason to act now; marketing should quantify the cost of doing nothing, educate beyond product features, and supply proof that de-risks the decision.

Finger writes that nearly 40 percent of lost deals fall to inaction, listing the reasons in buyers’ own language: “It's not that bad,” fear of a bad decision, decision fatigue, and a “we can do it ourselves” mindset.

Read original

They argue this misalignment drains revenue and that a service-level agreement turns the two departments into one revenue team. The agreement has four parts: shared goals and definitions of terms such as ICP, MQL, SQL, and disqualified lead; marketing’s commitment to a target number of MQLs and a quality measure such as conversion to SQL; sales’ commitment to how quickly and persistently it contacts those leads, plus structured feedback on lead quality; and stated consequences when a target is missed.

The SLA structure Finger lays out defines ICP, MQL, SQL, and disqualified lead; sets marketing commitments on lead volume and quality; sets sales commitments on speed, persistence, and feedback; and includes consequences for missed targets. They close by asking which element would have the biggest immediate impact on a reader’s organization.

Read original

They call these symptom fixes.

• In their account, a falling conversion rate usually signals friction across the customer journey, so throwing more leads at a leaky funnel increases waste.
• A new CRM, they say, only lets a company track chaotic activity faster if the underlying process is unclear.
• Finger points to missing problem statements in customer language and missing exit criteria at each funnel stage as common root causes, and argues for diagnosing internal systems and the customer journey before spending on more volume or technology.

Finger writes that a new CRM will “allow you to track chaotic activities faster” and says conversion problems are a symptom of friction, not a lead shortage. Their companion post asks whether more leads may mask the real issues.

Read original · Original 2

They describe modern B2B buying as non-linear, with buyers looping back and re-evaluating criteria; heavily self-educated before a sales call; decided by six to ten stakeholders with different priorities; and driven more by fear of a bad decision than by desire for a gain.

• The practical shift is to map sales activity to the buyer’s actual journey and guide a decision instead of pushing a product.
• Finger says this alignment builds trust faster, shortens sales cycles, and closes more revenue.

Finger contrasts the internal spreadsheet view of Stage 1 Qualification, Stage 2 Discovery, Stage 3 Demo, and Stage 4 Proposal with buyers who loop back and jump stages.

• Their conclusion: “Stop selling the way you want to sell.
• Start selling the way they want to buy.”

Read original

They say discounting erodes perceived value, depletes margins that could fund research, equipment, or team expansion, weakens brand equity, encourages price wars, and attracts customers who switch on price rather than stay for value. Their alternatives are value-based rather than price-based: communicate the unique value proposition and ROI, offer bundled solutions and value-added services such as training or implementation, invest in customer success, use tiered or value-based pricing, and build long-term relationships.

Finger lists five hidden costs of discounting and pairs them with alternatives, including bundled solutions, value-added services, customer success initiatives, tiered pricing, and long-term relationships. They frame the choice as moving from a discounting mentality to a value-driven approach with greater profits.

Read original

In this post, they summarize a Chief Executive Magazine poll of manufacturing CEOs and interpret the numbers for a manufacturing audience.

• The 12-month business-conditions forecast fell to 4.7 out of 10 from 6.8 in January, a low point below the pandemic period; 79 percent expected negative effects from tariffs, with almost half expecting lasting effects; and far fewer manufacturers planned revenue growth, profit growth, capital expenditure, or hiring than at the start of the year.
• Finger closes by asking manufacturers what they are seeing and hearing, turning the data into a comment prompt.

Finger quotes John Payne, CEO of Kinematics, saying that “chaotic and unpredictable application of tariffs” significantly inhibits investment, then asks readers: “Are you a manufacturer or work with them? What are seeing and hearing?”

Read original

They describe a three-person troika meeting with two other members and a Buckhead One chapter meeting built around a “Who am I?” icebreaker game they ran using a Google Forms survey.

• Both posts describe the chapter as growing and name the roles it wants to add.
• The posts show a focus on peer groups and bringing other professionals into Finger’s posts.

Finger describes a troika with Jeff Armacost and Peter Chatel, and a Buckhead One meeting where they emceed a game that had members guessing each other’s facts. The roles the chapter is seeking include real estate attorneys, executive recruiters, business valuation experts, M&A advisors, and commercial real estate brokers.

Read original · Original 2

Keith Finger argues the biggest competitor is not another vendor but the prospect’s comfortable “good enough” status quo.

• They name reasons buyers choose inaction: pain not urgent, fear of a bad decision, decision fatigue and “we can do it ourselves.”
• They then assign joint sales and marketing work: create unconsidered needs, quantify the cost of doing nothing, educate beyond features, de-risk the decision with social proof and establish a clear “why now.”
• The post shows Finger works at the level of buyer psychology and revenue process, not just tactics.

For brands planning a campaign

A content collaboration could build assets around the cost of inaction, unconsidered needs and de-risking, with sales enablement and marketing pieces designed to move stalled deals rather than add more feature talk.

Finger describes discounting as a trap with hidden costs: eroding perceived value, depleting margins, weakening brand equity, starting price wars and attracting less loyal customers.

• Their alternatives are concrete: communicate value, bundle solutions and services, invest in customer success, use tiered and value-based pricing, and build long-term relationships.
• The argument treats pricing as a revenue strategy issue, not a sales concession.

For brands planning a campaign

A manufacturer-focused campaign could pair pricing education with value-based selling content, using the discounting trap as a hook for sales and marketing alignment around margin protection.

Finger contrasts familiar complaints: sales says leads are unqualified; marketing says follow-up is too slow.

• They propose a service level agreement with shared goals and definitions, marketing commitments on lead volume and quality, sales commitments on speed and feedback, and consequences for missed targets.
• The structure is specific, naming ICP, MQL, SQL, review cadence and escalation.

For brands planning a campaign

For a sales and marketing alignment brief, this is ready-made source material for a co-created SLA template, checklist or workshop that turns blame into measurable commitments.

Finger argues that internal CRM stages can become the problem when sales tries to push buyers through a linear process.

• They point to non-linear journeys, self-education, buying committees of six to ten stakeholders and high risk aversion.
• The practical shift is to map sales activity to the buyer’s journey and guide a decision instead of pushing a product.

For brands planning a campaign

A campaign could use this as the rationale for buyer-journey research, committee-focused content and sales enablement that helps champions create internal consensus.

Finger challenges common fixes like a new website, sales training or a different CRM, calling them symptom treatments.

• Their examples: more leads cannot help if conversion friction leaks momentum; a new CRM only tracks chaotic activity faster if the process lacks clear problem statements and exit criteria.
• They promote diagnosing the customer journey and internal system before buying more volume or software.

For brands planning a campaign

A content collaboration could center on a revenue diagnostic assessment, using the leaky bucket and CRM misdiagnosis as entry points for a practical audit offer.

Finger summarizes a Chief Executive Magazine poll: manufacturer confidence dropped sharply, with tariffs cited; revenue, profit, capex and hiring expectations fell.

• They quote a CEO on chaotic tariff application inhibiting investment and ask manufacturers what they are seeing.
• The post shows Finger can turn survey data into a discussion prompt for manufacturing audiences.

For brands planning a campaign

A campaign could use this as a timely manufacturing sentiment hook for content on pricing, investment and revenue strategy under uncertainty.

They argue that the long-running dispute between sales and marketing — sales calling leads unqualified, marketing saying follow-up is too slow — drains revenue, and that a service-level agreement fixes it.

• The agreement has four parts: shared goals and definitions of terms like ICP, MQL, SQL and disqualified lead; marketing's commitment to a target number of MQLs and a quality measure such as conversion to SQL; sales' commitment to how quickly and persistently it contacts those leads, plus structured feedback on lead quality; and stated consequences when a target is missed.
• Finger calls the result one revenue team rather than two adversarial groups.

Four-part structure with measurable commitments from both sides, ending with a question about which element would help a reader's organisation most.

For brands planning a campaign

A collaboration brief on sales and marketing alignment can build directly on this SLA model: shared definitions, mutual commitments and consequences. The closing question invites comments, so a co-produced post or webinar could reuse the structure and engage the same audience.

Examples: Source 1

Their alternatives are to communicate value and ROI, offer bundled solutions and services such as training or implementation instead of price cuts, invest in customer success, use tiered or value-based pricing, and build long-term relationships.

Cost-by-cost breakdown of the damage, followed by a matching list of alternatives.

For brands planning a campaign

The framing suits a manufacturing audience weighing pricing and value messaging. The paired structure — five hidden costs against five alternatives — translates neatly into a co-authored checklist, webinar outline or downloadable pricing worksheet.

Examples: Source 1

They explain the pattern through status quo bias, fear of making a bad decision, decision fatigue and the belief that the problem can be handled internally. Their response splits the work: sales uses discovery questions to surface unconsidered needs and establish a clear reason to act now, while marketing supplies content that quantifies the cost of doing nothing, educates on market trends and builds proof that de-risks the decision.

Reframes the competitor, then assigns specific moves to sales and marketing.

For brands planning a campaign

Gives a sales and marketing collaboration a shared enemy. A joint piece on beating inaction or a co-hosted session on quantifying the cost of delay could support a campaign to align sales and marketing, giving both departments a role in the same asset.

Examples: Source 1

In their account, a falling conversion rate usually signals friction across the customer journey; throwing more leads at a leaky funnel increases waste; and a new CRM only tracks chaotic activity faster if the process itself is unclear. They identify missing problem statements in customer language and missing exit criteria at each funnel stage as common root causes, and claim a focused assessment of internal systems and the customer journey can return ten times its cost.

Names the common misdiagnosis and its underlying cause, then points to a longer article and a diagnosis offer.

The linked article, "The Hidden Leaks Draining Your Revenue," isn't available in the posts here; only the post promoting it and a short companion post about leads are. Before using the ten-times claim, ask for the supporting evidence.

For brands planning a campaign

This diagnosis-led offer suits agencies and consultants selling revenue assessment work. A collaboration could use the misdiagnosis trap as the hook and the full article as the longer asset, with the short companion post as a teaser.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They describe modern B2B buying as non-linear, with buyers looping back and re-evaluating; heavily self-educated before a sales call; decided by six to ten stakeholders with different priorities; and driven more by fear of a bad decision than by desire for a gain. Aligning sales activity with that journey, Finger says, shortens cycles and closes more revenue.

Contrasts the internal stage model with observed buyer behaviour, then draws a process conclusion.

For brands planning a campaign

A content collaboration on buyer-journey mapping fits, particularly for an agency selling sales enablement or demand generation. The stakeholder and risk-aversion points give a manufacturing-facing campaign concrete angles for addressing committee decisions.

Examples: Source 1

They close by asking manufacturers what they are seeing.

Statistic-led summary based on a third-party poll, not Finger's own framework, with a closing question to open discussion.

For brands planning a campaign

Shows Finger can host industry data and turn it into discussion, rather than only publishing their own frameworks.

• A brand with survey or benchmark data could use the same format — headline figures, an interpretation and an invitation to comment.
• Ask for updated figures before using them in a current campaign.

Examples: Source 1

Both posts describe the chapter as growing and name the roles it wants to add, including real estate attorneys, executive recruiters, business valuation experts, M&A advisors, and commercial real estate brokers. Both also name fellow members.

First-person report from the room, with a specific recruitment ask listing the roles being sought.

This is membership-community activity, not a commercial content format. The posts show participation and a willingness to name collaborators, not paid partnerships.

For brands planning a campaign

Shows an active Atlanta professional network and a habit of bringing others into their content. A regional brand or professional-services sponsor could fit the audience, but the format is community reporting, not product collaboration; a campaign would need to invite participation rather than read as advertising.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts present this as a professional networking affiliation.

View example

View example

Both explain an operational gap rather than a product feature.

Posts follow a specific product launch, showing step by step how the author's own company built quote-to-cash and usage metering. Finger focuses on frameworks and buyer behaviour—the service-level agreement, the discounting trap, status quo bias—and draws on survey data and peer-networking activity rather than one company's release.

Read original · Original 2

Coats walks through cohort-based returns analysis using named reports and a VLOOKUP; Finger lays out the four sections of a sales–marketing SLA and a matching set of alternatives to discounting. Both build their arguments from concrete cases rather than abstractions.

Coats works on Amazon seller operations—return rates, returns mitigation and the January holiday-return distortion—for e-commerce sellers managing a marketplace. Finger focuses on B2B revenue processes, pricing decisions and buyer psychology for sales, marketing and manufacturing audiences.

Read original · Original 2

Both reach that conclusion by examining cohort behaviour inside a real business and telling the story with numbers.

Mahajan writes for consumer and e-commerce sellers, often about Indian price sensitivity, drawing on pricing experiments in a cafe and a jewellery shop. Finger writes for B2B and manufacturing sellers facing long sales cycles, six-to-ten-person buying committees and internal process debt.

Read original · Original 2

Her two posts trace that failure end to end.

• In the first, a new consumption model has been priced, configured, enabled and announced, yet a rep still quotes the retired model because the applicable discounting rules sat in enablement, an approval sat unopened in someone's inbox, and the document came from an old template.
• Her conclusion: the product shipped, but the pricing strategy did not.
• Her fix is a playbook written once in plain language that prices the deal against the real catalogue, shows which approvals will trigger before submission, and routes the deal and sends it for signature in the same conversation.
• The second post describes metering and billing usage against the commercial terms locked at close, so ramps, tiers, discounts, commits and credits are not re-created in a second system where they can drift.
• If the agency wants a joint piece for RevOps, pricing and finance readers—or an argument that alignment failures are often system failures rather than attitude failures—Kung is closer to the mechanism than Finger.

Both posts are written around one company's product and read as launch announcements, so a brand would need to supply neutral framing and its own data.

• They do not explain how sales and marketing should agree to work together: there is no manufacturing framing, sales-versus-marketing argument, service-level agreement structure or worksheet a manufacturer could use in a session.
• Instead, the posts already contain a four-part agreement, shared definitions and stated consequences—the more directly reusable asset for a manufacturer's sales-and-marketing agreement.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

His two posts form a numbered hack series on Amazon returns.

• The first explains why the platform's monthly return rate misleads in January, works through a numerical example of holiday returns distorting the reported figure, then gives the exact steps to fix it: pull the All Orders report and the FBA and FBM returns reports, match order IDs across them to find the purchase month, and rebuild the rate by cohort.
• A client result shows December at 6.6% by cohort against 4.6% reported, and January at 2.6% against 22% reported.
• The second turns the same discipline into a mitigation sequence: check return rates in Business Reports and Voice of the Customer, flag products above roughly 3-4% for investigation, determine root cause from return reasons and reviews, including positive ones, then act on product pages, manufacturing or packaging, and customer service.
• For Amazon sellers and e-commerce operators, that is more actionable than a discussion of departmental friction.

The audience is marketplace sellers and e-commerce operations teams, not manufacturing revenue leaders, and neither post addresses sales and marketing alignment or manufacturing.

• The value is narrow and operational: the posts teach readers how to measure returns correctly and reduce them.
• A collaboration would need to bring in the buyer-side or cross-department argument from elsewhere.
• The sample covers just two posts from a recurring numbered series; one mentions a software product and explicitly notes that it is not a paid promotion.
• Ask whether paid formats are available.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Both posts follow the same shape: a person with a problem, a question that reframes it, a look at the numbers, and a change.

• The first is about a handmade jewellery seller whose sales were rising but who had to spend more on ads to keep them rising.
• A cohort check showed almost no second purchase, so the fix was retention work such as a newsletter and handwritten notes on repeat orders, which produced steadier growth and less ad pressure.
• The second is about a cafe whose sales were flat and whose owner was about to discount heavily.
• The numbers showed that ordinary tea and snacks were popular but mispriced, while fancy coffees rarely sold.
• Lowering the tea price and raising the coffee price brought in more walk-in and online orders and grew overall sales.
• If the brand wants to tell a story about price sensitivity or retention versus acquisition, this format travels further with a non-specialist reader than a framework post.

Both items are short anecdotes built on numbers the reader never sees, with no method, template or working resource a manufacturer could use.

• One generalises from a single cafe to price sensitivity among Indian buyers, a claim the post asserts rather than demonstrates.
• The framing is retail, e-commerce and small-business growth, with no B2B context, manufacturing buyers, sales-and-marketing alignment or service-level agreement material.
• The brand would need to bring the analytical substance and structured exercise; the posts supply storytelling, not a framework.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2