Sales Playbooks
Part of Enablement collaboration
Prioritising sales requests by buyer need
Triage sales requests by buyer consequence, evidence, timing and available answers before commissioning enablement work.
Prioritise a sales request by the buyer decision it could improve, the evidence the gap matters, and the cost of leaving it unresolved. Ask for the situation before accepting the requested output. A request for a new slide may need a corrected answer, better access to existing guidance, or a specialist check.
Make requests comparable
Use one short intake for representatives and managers:
- What did the buyer need to understand or decide?
- Which offer and circumstances were involved?
- What answer was available, and where did it fail?
- Is the claim approved, uncertain or inconsistent with another source?
- What decision is waiting, and when is an answer needed?
- Which example can be inspected under the organisation’s access rules?
Do not require proof of a team-wide pattern before reporting a potentially consequential error. Equally, do not combine many loosely similar requests until their buyer questions have been compared.
Check claim risk before ranking ordinary work
A potentially inaccurate customer-facing claim needs prompt review by its authorised owner, even when only one case has surfaced. Australian guidance says product and service claims, including statements staff make, should be accurate and supported by reasonable grounds.
If an existing answer is doubtful, make its interim status clear and route any affected buyer follow-up through the responsible account team. A queue score should not delay that check.
For other requests, compare these factors. Do not turn them into an invented numerical formula.
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Buyer consequence | Could the gap prevent an accurate next decision? |
| Evidence | Are examples comparable, or is a small check needed? |
| Opportunity | Which roles and situations could encounter it? |
| Timing | Is a buyer or release decision waiting? |
| Existing route | Could current guidance, better access or a specialist hand-off resolve it? |
| Work and authority | What must change, and who can approve it? |
Keep “unknown” visible. A missing count is not zero impact; one memorable example does not prove broad reach. Where recurrence would change the priority, inspect suitable cases before deciding.
Choose a response
Imagine two fictional requests. One asks for an industry deck after a meeting, but the approved overview already answers the buyer’s question. The next step may be to find out whether representatives can locate it.
Another reports that a slide appears to omit a buyer responsibility. Its claim owner needs to check the answer before further use. Neither request automatically requires a new deck.
Group requests that concern the same buyer decision, while retaining circumstances that change the answer. Give each group a status: act now, verify before deciding, use an existing route, schedule later, or decline with a reason. Record the owner and what evidence could change the decision. Keep an account-specific exception out of general guidance unless its owner approves wider use.
Tell sales what happens next
Tell requesters what was decided, what they can use now, what remains under review, and when the next decision is due. Revisit the queue when evidence changes the buyer consequence or the offer changes. This gives representatives a reason to report the underlying problem, even when their suggested format is not selected.
