sample win-loss analysis
Executive Summary
The objective of this report is to present the results of the Win-Loss survey information
collected by Cerado Inc. Survey information was collected from the sales force for 294
deals.
Highlights of the survey:
Last quarter, the following deals were reported as “deferred.”
Ambrosta
Kansa Gold
London Health and Life
Assurance
Bobbins, Davis, Nunn, and
Roberts
Mauston Chemical
Krystan
Barber
Traverse Cityl
None of these customers appeared in this quarter’s survey. This is not
surprising, however, since a different set of sales reps were interviewed. A
follow-up should be done to determine if any of these “deferred” deals from last
quarter closed.
This quarter, fifteen deals were reported as “deferred” – if they are truly
deferred, extra effort should be made to bring them to completion early in the
quarter. Otherwise, they should be noted as losses in the future or removed
from the pipeline.
There was a balance of sales across a number of industries this quarter.
Industries with the most activity included Healthcare, Global Logistics, Consumer
Goods, Active Components, and Pharmaceuticals.
The buyers came mostly from the technical ranks (72% from IT), with 17%
coming from the executive suite.
In contrast to the above finding, most of the people who
signed
for the projects
were Executives (65%), with only 22% coming from IT.
It is not known if the initial contact was to the executive, or the technical buyer.
If the initial contact was to the executive, who then redirected the rep to the
technical contact, then the process seems to be working. However, if the initial
contact and relationship was built with the technical buyer, and then the rep had
to work “upstream” to get to the executive with signing authority, sales cycles
might be able to be shortened by “selling higher” at the outset.
Again, Auric Co. was the largest competitor, listed as the primary competitor in
19% of the reported deals. In addition, they were the secondary competitor in
12% of the deals. Auric was
3X
more likely to be listed as the primary
competitor above any other. When Auric Co. was listed as a primary competitor,
Besco was most commonly listed as the second competitor in the account. Auric
Co. also benefited in at least five deals by gaining referrals from their partners,
and from exploiting customer references. This mirrors information gained in the
previous quarter from a separate set of reps. Developing better relationships
with influencers (e.g. partners, analysts, or customer references) is strongly
suggested to counter this.
Auric won a majority of the reported deals where they were the primary
competitor (22 deals out of 40). Your organization won 16 of these 40 deals,
with 2 deals being deferred. Would recommend developing case studies around
the deals where you beat Auric Co. (i.e. Auric was listed as first, second, or third
competitor) to aid in future sales.
After Auric, the next primary competitors were Ixtal, Besco, HAL, and
newMarketing, each listed as the primary competitor in only 5%-9% of deals.
The “other” category of competitor showed three competitive deals against
exCommerce, two of which were wins. The rest of the “other” competitors were
one-offs or in-house development.
“None” (or a variant) showed up as the “primary competitor” in fifteen deals.
One of these cases was a prospecting opportunity; the others (all wins excepting
two deferrals) were upsells or other situations where the relationship was such
that no competition was introduced. This is good.
Healthcare/Life Sciences appears to be an increasingly important segment. In
addition to the deals that were explicitly labeled “Healthcare,” a number of
additional deals were in Pharmaceuticals.
This quarter showed a good balance across product lines. Again, the WorkHorse
solution was the product involved in most deals, and was included in 31% of the
opportunities as the primary product. The Connexxtions product was second,
listed as the primary product in 18% of the deals.
Seven products in the product portfolio were not listed as the primary product in
any
of the listed deals.
Summary graphs of the survey responses follow, as well as details on customer
feedback and detailed feedback from the sales force.
QUESTION: Did we win or lose?
2
5
6
Deal slipped out of quarter
Lose Win
QUESTION: Who did we compete against?
0 1 1 4 6 6 Other Baan Lawson Microsoft / Great Plains Oracle SAP
QUESTION: What product(s) were included in the deal?
0 2 0 2 4 2 7 Other E-Commerce CRM Supply Chain Planning Manufacturing Financials HR
QUESTION: Who did we partner with on this deal?
0 2 1 3 0 7 Other IBM Global Services EDS KPMG Accenture No PartnerQUESTION: What criteria did the prospect use in this selection?
3 1 6 5 2 3 5 3 4 1 2 4 Other Integration Capabilities References Price Vision Ease of Use Successful Implementations ROI Features Financial Stability of Vendor Size of Vendor Technical Fit
Customer: Marian Webster Company: Circuit Warehouse
Sales Rep: Tom Adamson Industry: Retail
Region: Southern Europe
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer's Role: IT
Business Problem: Looking at upgrading existing solution. Current system was reaching end of life.
ROI Driver: Had to do it.
Chosen Solution: Other, Please Specify TEI Commerce
Why they chose the
winning solution: Had an existing relationship with TEI Commerce. Although they were looking, TEI was 'VERY aggressive' in retaining the business.
Competitor 1: Us
Competitor 2 : N/A
Professionalism: 4
Technical Capabilities: 4
Price: 5 Standards of note:
not asked
Selection Criteria 1: Price
Selection Criteria 2: Other, Please Specify Conversion impact from existing system
Selection Criteria 3: N/A
Product 1: Supply Chain
Product 2: N/A
Product 3: N/A
System Integrator: Things We Did Well:
None noted by customer
Things We Could Do Better:
None noted by customer
[If a loss]What could we have done to win the deal:
Customer: Marian Webster Company: Circuit Warehouse
Sales Rep: Tom Adamson Industry: Retail
Region: Southern Europe
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Ok to share info? Customer openly shared information
Quote:
n/a
Do they need a Rep to call? No
Other Comments:
NOTE: Since this customer already had TEI Commerce in house, this may have been a case where we were 'column fodder,' or perhaps were being used as a negotiating counterpoint against TEI Commerce.
Customer: Daniel Wilson Company: SRL Americas
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Consumer Goods
Region: US-Southeast
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer's Role: eBusiness Coordinator
Business Problem: Reduction of overall costs is primary area.
ROI Driver: Believes he'll find benefit in reduced costs. Looking to consolidate down to a single vendor. Had been working with our competitor Besco, as well as Plexsoft, and others, and wanted to bring everything together.
Chosen Solution: Ours
Why they chose the winning solution:
Didn't want to lose any quality of service. He believed our solution could reduce his overall costs.
Competitor 1: Besco
Competitor 2 : Auric
Professionalism: 4
Technical Capabilities: 4
Price: 4 Standards of note:
UBC
Selection Criteria 1: Price
Selection Criteria 2: Other, Please Specify Ability to consolidate down to one vendor
Selection Criteria 3: References
Product 1: Financials
Product 2: HR
Product 3: N/A
System Integrator: Customer will perform work themselves
Things We Did Well:
Worked well with his people. Took the ball, and followed through. Did what we said we would do.
Things We Could Do Better:
Nothing in particular.
[If a loss]What could we have done to win the deal:
Customer: Daniel Wilson Company: SRL Americas
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Consumer Goods
Region: US-Southeast
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Ok to share info? Customer openly shared information
Quote:
n/a
Do they need a Rep to call? No
Other Comments:
Customer: Josh Hall Company: Eltrada
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Automotive
Region: US-Southeast
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer's Role: IT
Business Problem: A solution was already inhouse, and Josh inherited it when he arrived.
ROI Driver: In process of moving over to a new ERP, and was looking for a better solution that worked with it.
Chosen Solution: In house development
Why they chose the winning solution:
Mandate from the parent organization. Primary drivers seemed to be cost and experience with their existing solution. Integration with ERP.
Competitor 1: Us
Competitor 2 : Auric
Professionalism: 5
Technical Capabilities: 5
Price: 4 Standards of note:
All of customers are using 802.12
Selection Criteria 1: Other, Please Specify Pressure from corporate
Selection Criteria 2: Price
Selection Criteria 3: N/A
Product 1: HR
Product 2: Financials
Product 3: N/A
System Integrator: Customer will perform work themselves
Things We Did Well:
Thought we were very quick to respond to questions and concerns, if we didn't know the answer, got a tech. Thought the software itself was very robust, and would be very useful had they chosen it.
Things We Could Do Better:
None.
[If a loss]What could we have done to win the deal:
Probably not. Josh did like the solution and the offer, but the decision was frowned upon by the powers that be overseas. They weren't excited about an external party having access to ERP.
Customer: Josh Hall Company: Eltrada
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Automotive
Region: US-Southeast
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Ok to share info? Customer openly shared information
Quote:
n/a
Do they need a Rep to call? No
Other Comments:
Customer: Marie Guenther Company: Stellar
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Construction
Region: US-Central
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer's Role: IT
Business Problem: A solution has been a part of the organization for a while. Recently engagement was for additional professional services work. Decision was to go directly to our organization to source this; the customer didn't look at alternatives.
ROI Driver: n/a
Chosen Solution: Ours
Why they chose the winning solution:
Needed the work done, and we were already there.
Competitor 1: N/A
Competitor 2 : N/A
Professionalism: 5
Technical Capabilities: 5
Price: 3 Standards of note:
none
Selection Criteria 1: Other, Please Specify Existing relationship with us
Selection Criteria 2: N/A
Selection Criteria 3: N/A
Product 1: HR
Product 2: N/A
Product 3: N/A
System Integrator: Other, Please Specify Us
Things We Did Well:
Most recent services were onsite upgrades from old version to current version of HR module. Consultant was someone who 'explained everything, and worked very well with operations.' According to the customer, the consultant 'did a lot more than what was contracted.' He added, 'we were very pleased.'
Things We Could Do Better:
Nothing noted.
Customer: Marie Guenther Company: Stellar
Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Construction
Region: US-Central
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Ok to share info? Customer openly shared information
Quote:
'We were very pleased. They did much more than was contracted for.' THIS IS _APPROVED_ by the customer, and the customer would be an excellent reference.
Do they need a Rep to call? Yes
Other Comments:
Overall, very, very pleased. The consultant recommended fixing some configuration settings that weren't exactly _broken_, but not 'efficient.' The consultant asked if the customer wanted those fixed, and then fixed them. IMPORTANT: The customer is currently looking at contracting for additional services, and is talking to us. And the customer felt it was 'not _troubling_, but...'not very efficient' to have one sales rep for services, and one for product, and one for other solutions. Although according to him, 'it's all straightened out now,' he _really_ would have liked to have a single point of contact to work with from us, instead of having to figure out and learn how to navigate the sales organization to get his needs met. This is a _great_ example of a customer where they have had good service, their expectations have not only been met, but _surpassed_, and that has resulted in a long term relationship.
customer and prospect
feedback