The story How we approached it What it took The sales motion What I learned The workflow Do it yourself

BUILD LOG · THE LOVE TEST

My reps were reactive to love. They chased whoever wrote back, and neglected everyone they had to earn.

I ran an analysis I called the love test: were reps earning attention through multi-step prospecting, or just reacting to whoever already showed interest? The answer was uncomfortable. They were reactive to love, not showing it.

Steal this build ↓See the stack The people part →

touchpoints per account, on average, my reps

win rate when a deal is single-threaded

40%

of deals die from single-thread dependency

6.8

stakeholders in the average B2B purchase

THE STORY, FROM THE SEAT

Here is one I actually shipped. What happened, what I did, and the stack if you want to run it yourself.

Reps over-invest in the accounts that respond: the inbound lead that replies, the champion who is easy to reach. So they pour effort where interest already exists, and neglect the accounts, channels, and stakeholders they would have to earn.

It shows up two ways: too few touches, reactive instead of proactive, and too few threads, one champion instead of the buying committee. Almost seven people touch a B2B purchase, and a deal carried by one responsive contact is not de-risked by how much that one person likes you.

Keep Building,

Heath

FOUNDER, THE SALES OPERATOR

THE BUILD IN FIVE MOVES · THE GIANT METHOD

GReps poured effort into whoever already replied and neglected every account, channel, and stakeholder they had to earn.
IIt took Salesforce for the touches, Gong for stakeholder counts per deal, FullEnrich for the rest of the committee, and Mixmax for the motion.
AAI measures the effort gap and finds the committee; the motion runs the touches; the rep threads each altitude to its owner.
NEvery deal review asked who else is in the room and who we still have to earn, so a single-threaded deal got flagged before it stalled.
TThe love test put a number on the gut feel: about two touchpoints per account, over-indexed on inbound, an effort problem fixed with a motion.

RUN THE PLAY YOURSELFThis exact build is a playbook. Run it on your own data.

→

01 / HOW WE APPROACHED THE PROBLEM

Ran the loop.

The love test asked one question: were reps earning attention through multi-step prospecting, or just reacting to whoever already showed it? The data was blunt: about two touchpoints per account, over-indexed on inbound. The fix was not motivation and not more leads. It was a motion that runs across every channel and threads the whole buying committee.

1
The love test
I ran the analysis: were reps earning attention through multi-step prospecting, or just reacting to whoever already showed it? The data was blunt. Reps averaged about two touchpoints per account and over-indexed on inbound, neglecting every other channel. Effort was following responsiveness, not opportunity.
2
Make persistence a motion, not a mood
If most deals need five or more touches and reps average two, the fix is not motivation. It is a multi-step prospecting motion that runs across every channel, whether or not the account has written back yet.
3
Thread the deal, not the champion
Ladder each altitude of the problem, personal, team, and org, to the person who owns it, so the deal survives any one contact going dark. Multi-threading covers the whole buying committee, not just the contact who answers first.

02 / WHAT IT TOOK CROSS-FUNCTIONALLY

Nobody ships this alone. Here is who had to move.

Threading into a committee takes more than a rep with a map. The content and the coaching that carried the reach-up came from outside the deal.

ENABLEMENT

The reach-up rehearsal.

The hardest conversation in threading is the one above your contact. It got rehearsed as a named play, not improvised on a live deal.

MARKETING

Committee-level content.

An exec joins a deal for an exec-level reason. The materials that earned the second and third thread spoke to the committee's problem, not the user's feature list.

03 / HOW WE TURNED IT INTO A SALES MOTION · THE PEOPLE PART

The love test found the gap. Coaching reps to earn the room is what closed it.

The system proved effort was following replies, not opportunity. But multi-threading is a habit, not a dashboard. The leadership half was making 'earn every stakeholder' the default motion instead of a heroic exception, and giving reps the reps to do it before the deal was on the line.

THE FRAMEWORK BEHIND IT

PLAN Selling, Advance Decision Dynamics

Map who decides, who blocks, who signs, and each person's real concern. Then thread every altitude, personal, team, and org, to the person who owns it, so the deal survives any single contact going dark. One champion is not a de-risked deal.

01
Made the buying committee a required field
Every deal review asked the same two questions: who else is in the room, and who do we still have to earn. A single-threaded deal got flagged before it stalled, not after.
02
Coached reps to thread up, not just wide
The champion sells internally, but the rep still has to reach the economic buyer before legal, not after the stall. I coached the reach-up, not just more contacts.
03
Rehearsed the reach-up before the live one
Reps practiced the multi-thread email and the exec-sponsor ask in a roleplay, so the first real attempt was not the first attempt.

Map the buying committee →

04 / WHAT I LEARNED

Not proof. Just what the build taught me.

01
Effort follows responsiveness, not opportunity
Reps over-invest in the accounts that respond: the inbound lead that replies, the champion who is easy to reach. The accounts they would have to earn go untouched.
02
Persistence is a motion, not a mood
Most deals need five or more touches and reps averaged two. The fix is a multi-step prospecting motion that runs whether or not the account has written back yet.
03
One champion is not a de-risked deal
Almost seven people touch a B2B purchase, and 40% of single-threaded deals die. A deal carried by one responsive contact dies when that contact goes dark.
04
Thread up, not just wide
The champion sells internally, but the rep still has to reach the economic buyer before legal, not after the stall.

05 / THE WORKFLOW

The runnable version. Copy it into your stack.

SalesforceThe account and contact records the love test read.

MixmaxThe multi-step, multi-channel prospecting motion that runs before an account writes back.

GongHow many stakeholders each deal actually touched.

FullEnrichFinds the rest of the buying committee to thread.

[ SALES OPERATOR ]

The Love Test

Heath Barnett · Sales Operator

G / Groundthe problem that started all of it, with the receipt and the cost

Deal effort

Effort followed responsiveness, not opportunity.

Reps poured touches into whoever already replied and neglected every account and stakeholder they would have to earn.

Risk

One champion is not a de-risked deal.

Almost seven people touch a B2B purchase. A deal carried by one contact dies when that contact goes dark.

A / Assignthe build, block by block, and who owns each one. Open a step to see it run.

HUMAN + AI, IN THE LOOP

AI measures the effort gap and finds the committee; the motion runs the touches; the rep threads each altitude to its owner.

Run the love test

Salesforce01

Measure touches and channels per account

Details

Reps averaged about two touches and over-indexed on inbound. Effort followed replies.

Gong02

Count stakeholders per deal

Details

How many people each deal actually touched, one champion or the committee.

Find the committee

FullEnrich03

Find the rest of the buying committee

Details

The stakeholders to thread, beyond the one who answers first.

Powers up with

Make persistence a motion

Mixmax04

Run multi-step, multi-channel prospecting

Details

The motion runs across every channel whether or not the account has written back yet.

AI + human

The rep05

Ladder each altitude to its owner

Details

Personal, team, and org, mapped to the person who owns it, so the deal survives any one contact going dark.

Human

N / Normalizethe motion that made it stick

A workflow without a motion is dead. This is how it became the way the team works.

The buying committee, a required field

Every deal review asked the same two questions: who else is in the room, and who do we still have to earn. A single-threaded deal got flagged before it stalled, not after.

Coached the reach-up

More contacts was not the coaching. The reach-up was: get to the economic buyer before legal, not after the stall.

Rehearsed before the live one

Reps practiced the multi-thread email and the exec-sponsor ask in a roleplay, so the first real attempt was not the first attempt.

T / Tie backthe result it drove, and how they know

RESULT · 01

6x win rate

single-threaded 5% to five-stakeholder 30% (UserGems).

RESULT · 02

130% win-rate lift

multi-threading on large deals (Gong).

RESULT · 03

2x buyer contacts

on deals that close vs those that do not.

OUTPUT · 01

The love-test read

Where effort followed replies, not opportunity.

OUTPUT · 02

The full buying committee

Everyone to thread, not just the reply.

OUTPUT · 03

A multi-channel motion

Touches that run before a reply.

The Sales Operator

06 / HOW YOU DO IT TOO

Here is what I built. Here is how you build it.

The whole thing installs as one plugin. Or grab the skills a la carte. Everything on this page, runnable, on what you paste today.

✓ EVAL PASS · 4/4

THE PLAYBOOK · ONE INSTALL

Win the whole buying committee

4 skills chained into one runnable play. Installs as a single plugin, no copy-pasting each skill. It runs on what you paste; connect your stack to go live.

SEE THE FULL PLAYBOOK →

SEE IT RUN IN CLAUDE

EXAMPLE CHATMarcus, Account Executive, running the loop in one sitting

My biggest deal is riding on one guy who replies to me. Every time I go single-threaded like this it dies. Help me build a real champion.

Step 1· Champion Plan

Let's turn that one contact into a real champion and stop the deal resting on him. I scored who can actually champion, wrote the narrative he uses to sell it internally, and mapped the other threads you need to open.

threadseconomic buyer, IT, end user

Receipt

Champion scored CHAMPION (power yes, pain high, will-act proven); a forwardable one-pager built plus 3 stakeholders to thread into.

Is this deal actually multi-threaded now or am I fooling myself?

Step 2· Deal Health Analyst

I gave the deal a straight verdict and checked whether the relationships are real or just the one reply thread. Right now it is still thin, with the economic buyer never having been in a live conversation.

Receipt

Verdict: slipping. Only 2 of 5 committee members have any recorded activity.

Who has gone quiet that I have not noticed?

Step 3· Conversation Analyst

I put every meeting, reply, and sequence touch on one timeline and watched for the trend. Your champion is cooling, replies have slowed over the last two weeks, well before the formal 21-day drop-off line, so you still have a window to act before it becomes a lagging signal.

Receipt

Reply cadence trend: every 2 days to 9 days between replies, a warning sign short of the formal 21-day drop-off threshold; a re-engage touch drafted.

Give the deal a real path to signature I can put in front of them.

Step 4· Mutual Action Plan

I built a dated close plan backward from signature with the champion: milestones, owners, and exit criteria, written so you can send it. It puts the committee on a shared timeline instead of your hopeful close date.

Receipt

MAP with 6 milestones to a signature date 34 days out, each with a named owner on their side.

THE SKILLS IT USES

Get a straight verdict on every open deal.

deal-health-analyst

Read the whole relationship at a glance.

conversation-analyst

Walk into every 1:1 with the gap already found.

coaching-analyst

THE OTHER HALF · LEAD THE TEAM

Map the buying committee→

I write up one of these a week. Free, receipts only.