sample win-loss analysis
current quarter
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
London Health and Life
Assurance
Mauston Chemical
Barber
Kansa Gold
Bobbins, Davis, Nunn, and
Roberts
Krystan
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.
survey results summary
QUESTION: Did we win or lose?
Win
6
Lose
5
Deal slipped out of
quarter
2
QUESTION: Who did we compete against?
SAP
6
Oracle
6
Microsoft / Great Plains
4
Lawson
1
Baan
1
Other0
QUESTION: What product(s) were included in the deal?
7
HR
2
Financials
4
Manufacturing
2
Supply Chain Planning
CRM
0
2
E-Commerce
Other
0
QUESTION: Who did we partner with on this deal?
No Partner
7
Accenture0
KPMG
EDS
3
1
IBM Global Services
2
Other0
QUESTION: What criteria did the prospect use in this selection?
4
Technical Fit
2
Size of Vendor
Financial Stability of Vendor
1
4
Features
ROI
3
5
Successful Implementations
3
Ease of Use
2
Vision
5
Price
6
References
Integration Capabilities
Other
1
3
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Marian Webster
Company:
Circuit Warehouse
Sales Rep:
Tom Adamson
Industry:
Retail
Region:
Southern Europe
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
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:
Selection Criteria 1:
Price
Selection Criteria 2:
Other, Please Specify
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:
'Nothing you really could have done to win the deal.'
TEI Commerce
5
Standards of note:
not asked
Conversion impact from existing system
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Marian Webster
Company:
Circuit Warehouse
Sales Rep:
Tom Adamson
Industry:
Retail
Region:
Southern Europe
Quote:
n/a
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.
Ok to share info?
Customer openly shared information
Do they need a Rep to call?
No
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Daniel Wilson
Company:
SRL Americas
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Consumer Goods
Region:
US-Southeast
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
Selection Criteria 3:
References
Product 1:
Financials
Product 2:
HR
Product 3:
N/A
System Integrator:
Customer will perform work themselves
Ability to consolidate down to one vendor
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:
n/a
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Daniel Wilson
Company:
SRL Americas
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Consumer Goods
Region:
US-Southeast
Quote:
n/a
Other Comments:
None noted
Ok to share info?
Customer openly shared information
Do they need a Rep to call?
No
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Josh Hall
Company:
Eltrada
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Automotive
Region:
US-Southeast
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 Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Josh Hall
Company:
Eltrada
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Automotive
Region:
US-Southeast
Quote:
n/a
Other Comments:
None noted.
Ok to share info?
Customer openly shared information
Do they need a Rep to call?
No
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Marie Guenther
Company:
Stellar
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Construction
Region:
US-Central
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:
Selection Criteria 1:
Other, Please Specify
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
3
Standards of note:
none
Existing relationship with us
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.
[If a loss]What could we have done to win the deal:
Customer Interviews, Win-Loss Analysis – Most Recent Quarter
This document contains proprietary and confidential information. Do not distribute.
Customer:
Marie Guenther
Company:
Stellar
Sales Rep:
Jonathan Leonca
Industry:
Construction
Region:
US-Central
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.
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.
Ok to share info?
Customer openly shared information
Do they need a Rep to call?
Yes
customer and prospect
feedback