Mike Schultz's Blog

C-suite buyers expect sellers to connect what they sell to the business results executives are accountable for. That requires understanding the financial context behind those priorities and using it to build a credible value case.

A seller walks out of a final presentation feeling confident.

The solution fit is strong and the demo went well. The team built good rapport and the buyer seemed engaged. On paper, they should win.

Then the decision goes to a competitor.

A sales team can create more qualified pipeline and still miss its number.

That’s one of the more frustrating performance patterns for sales and enablement leaders. Opportunity flow may be improving, sellers are busy, forecast reviews are active, and leaders see movement in the funnel. But deals still stall and results don’t follow.

A deal doesn’t have to go to a competitor to drain revenue.

Sometimes the buyer just doesn’t decide.

The opportunity looked real: the seller had conversations, sent the proposal, answered questions, and followed up. But the deal sat in the forecast longer than anyone wants to admit. Then a key stakeholder went quiet. Budget got reprioritized. It turns out the business case was never quite strong enough to hold up internally.

No decision.

When sales performance is under pressure, many organizations look first to pipeline. Are there enough qualified opportunities? Is there enough coverage? Is there enough activity to support the number?

That focus is often warranted. Without enough qualified opportunities, growth becomes difficult. Pipeline matters. It always has.

But the data suggests there’s more to the story.

Only about 3 in 10 sales managers are effective in getting maximum performance from sellers, have the necessary skills to manage and coach sellers, and prioritize coaching their teams, according to our Top-Performing Sales Organization research.

Sales and marketing alignment is usually framed as an internal coordination problem: teams need to communicate better, handoffs need to improve, metrics need to be shared.

While that’s all true, it undersells what’s at stake.

In many sales organizations, performance conversations cover familiar ground: pipeline reviews, forecast inspection, deal-by-deal scrutiny, and the recurring question from leadership: what needs to change for more opportunities to close?

The answer isn’t always more pipeline. Nor is it always more activity, another tool, or more forecast pressure. Sometimes those are the right moves. Often, they treat the symptom while the root cause lies in weak qualification, unclear value, stalled buyer consensus, limited manager coaching, or poor visibility into deal risk.

A sales proposal is a formal document that outlines why a buyer should purchase from you and what you're specifically proposing to do. At its core, it's a persuasive document that answers the question:

Why should we buy this, and why from you?

A good proposal shouldn't be a catalog of everything you offer. It's a focused, tailored document that reflects the specific conversations you've had with a buyer, including their needs, their current situation, and the value you can deliver.

Crucially, a proposal should summarize what's already been agreed. It formalizes the shared understanding between seller and buyer, rather than doing the work of convincing them from scratch.

As a practitioner working closely with client organizations and senior executives, and I get a lot of questions about AI. How is RAIN Group helping clients leverage AI? What’s working for sales teams in terms of applying AI? How do we make AI work for us?