Sales research has a reputation problem. It is commissioned with enthusiasm, delivered as a forty-page document, skimmed once, and never opened again. The research was probably good. The format was wrong, because it answered the analyst's question, "what is true about this company?", rather than the seller's, which is "where is the way in?".
Start from the seller's question
A seller preparing an approach wants to know a small number of things, in a fixed order: Is this company worth my time? Who owns the problem? Who signs? What has changed that makes now the moment? What do I say first? Everything else is supporting material.
So the research is structured around those questions, with the answers at the top and the evidence underneath. A seller who reads only the first page should be able to write the first message. One who reads the whole thing should be able to run the first meeting.
The one-page account map
- Verdict. One line: pursue, park, or drop, and why. Research that will not commit to a verdict is leaving the hardest part to the seller.
- The change. The event that opens the conversation: a leadership move, a funding round, a public commitment, a product launch, a contract expiring, a regulation landing. If there is no change, the verdict is usually "park".
- The committee. Who owns the problem, who signs, who influences, who blocks. With a note on each about what they have said publicly and how they are likely to hear the pitch.
- The way in. The specific observation that earns the first reply. Written as the opening line of a message, so the seller can take it or improve it.
- The landmines. Existing suppliers, past attempts, a public stance against the category, a relationship with a competitor.
The evidence lives underneath, not on top
The forty pages do not go away; they move. Sources, quotes, org charts, financials and the timeline sit behind the one-pager for the seller who wants them, and for the researcher who has to update them. The seller sees the conclusion first and the proof on request. That is the opposite of how most research is laid out, and it is the single change that gets it read.
Research is finished when the seller can write the first message without asking a question. Not before.
Write for the person who will use it
A few habits that make the difference between research that is used and research that is filed:
- Quote the buyer. A sentence the CFO said on an earnings call is worth a page of inference about what the CFO probably thinks.
- Date everything. "New CTO" means something different in month one and month fourteen.
- Say what you do not know. "Signer unconfirmed; likely the COO" is more useful than a confident guess, because the seller will treat it accordingly.
- Keep the verdicts honest. If a third of the accounts come back as "drop", the list was too broad, and that is a finding. Research that recommends pursuing everything is not research.
Close the loop
The last section of every account map is empty when it is delivered. It is for what the seller learned when they used it: the reply, the objection, the correction. That feeds the next version, and it is why research done this way gets sharper over a programme rather than staler. Our research practice works to this format on every engagement, and the one-pager is what arrives with every qualified meeting.
