Map your buying committee and their conflicting priorities
Maps the full buying committee for your deals — including the stakeholders you never meet — and, critically, where their priorities collide. You get veto powers with early-warning signs, reconciliation arguments for each conflict, and a coverage plan that tells you which stakeholders need direct outreach versus champion enablement.
You are an enterprise sales strategist who has dissected hundreds of complex B2B deals. You know the average buying committee runs six to ten people, and that deals rarely die because one person said no — they die because two stakeholders wanted opposite things and the vendor never noticed. Your specialty is mapping not just who's in the committee, but where their priorities collide. Map my buying committee. Produce: 1. THE ROSTER: each committee role (champion, economic buyer, technical evaluator, security/legal, end-user representative, the skeptic), with their likely title in my target accounts and what a win looks like from their seat. 2. THE CONFLICT MAP: the 3-4 most likely priority collisions — e.g., champion wants speed vs. security wants review time; end users want ease vs. IT wants standardization; CFO wants annual prepay vs. champion wants a low-commitment pilot. For each: who wins by default in my kind of deal, and the argument that reconciles them. 3. VETO POWERS: who can kill the deal unilaterally, at what stage, and the early warning sign they're about to. 4. COVERAGE PLAN: which stakeholders my champion can cover internally versus which I must reach directly, with one talking point per stakeholder written in their language. 5. THE DANGEROUS SILENCE: the stakeholder most often forgotten in deals like mine, and what it costs to skip them. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. What do you sell, at what price point, and to what size of company? 2. Walk me through your last complex deal — who was involved, and where did it slow down? 3. Have you lost a deal to an internal stakeholder you never met? Tell me what you know. 4. What does your product touch that makes departments nervous (data, budgets, workflows, headcount)? Once you have my answers, produce the map. Where I lack visibility into a committee role, say what's typical for my deal size and flag it as an assumption.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Reconstruct your last complex deal before answering — every meeting attendee, every 'let me check with' moment, every unexplained delay.
- 3
Pay special attention to the dangerous-silence section; it usually names the stakeholder behind your unexplained losses.
- 4
Turn the coverage plan into action: add the must-reach-directly stakeholders to your multithreading sequences.
- 5
Rerun the prompt per segment — a 100-person company's committee looks nothing like a 2,000-person one.
Best practices
Use the conflict map in champion prep: 'when security pushes back on timeline, here's the reconciling argument' is the most valuable coaching you can give a champion.
Watch for the early-warning signs the model lists — a security stakeholder going quiet is more dangerous than one asking hard questions.
Multithread before you need to; the worst time to first meet the CFO is at contract stage.
Log actual committee structures from each closed deal back into your notes — real data beats assumptions within a few deals.
Example: what this looks like in practice
An AE selling a $60K data platform to mid-market retailers keeps losing deals at the six-week mark without clear reasons. The interview surfaces the pattern: her champion is always the analytics lead, and deals stall after the 'IT review'. The model maps the committee and flags the conflict: analytics wants self-serve flexibility while IT wants controlled, standardized tooling — and in her deal size, IT wins by default. The dangerous silence is the IT director, whom she has never once met before the review stage. The coverage plan has her requesting a technical stakeholder intro in week one and arming her champion with a standardization talking point. Over the next quarter, the six-week stall rate drops by half.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
Six to ten people in most mid-market and enterprise deals: a champion who drives internally, an economic buyer who owns budget, technical evaluators, security or legal reviewers, end-user representatives, and often an unofficial skeptic. The composition shifts with deal size and what your product touches — which is why this prompt builds the roster from your specific deals rather than a generic template.
More icp, targeting & lead scoring prompts
Define your ICP from your 10 best customers
Reverse-engineers a tight, one-page ICP from your actual closed-won history instead of aspirational guesswork. It forces narrow ranges, separates signal from coincidence, and flags when your customer base actually contains two different ICPs — the insight most founders miss until their outbound numbers tell them the hard way.
Design a lead scoring model with firmographic and behavioral points
Produces a complete, implementable lead scoring model: firmographic fit points, behavioral intent points with decay and negative scoring, threshold bands tied to actions, and a monthly validation loop. It caps complexity at 12 criteria and adapts to what you can actually track, so the model ships instead of dying in a spreadsheet.
Build a negative ICP: who to actively avoid and why
Turns your worst-customer war stories into a formal negative ICP: hard disqualifiers, stacking yellow flags, and the false-positive profile that keeps fooling your team. Includes list-building exclusion filters and a polite decline template, so avoiding bad fits becomes operational instead of a lesson everyone relearns quarterly.