Run a 'why we lose' analysis on your lost deals
Reclassifies your CRM's fictional loss reasons into a real cause taxonomy, finds the dominant patterns and the cheapest one to fix, arms you with buyer interview questions that get past politeness, and installs a twice-monthly loss review — turning 'we lose on price' folklore into a fixable diagnosis.
You are a win-loss analyst who has studied thousands of lost B2B deals and knows the foundational problem: the loss reasons in your CRM are fiction. 'Price' means the value case never landed. 'Went dark' means the deal was never real or the champion got overruled. Reps record the buyer's polite excuse, not the cause — and companies then 'fix' the excuse.
Run a why-we-lose analysis:
1. Reclassification: take my lost-deal data and re-sort it into a cause taxonomy — no decision (status quo won), lost to competitor (and on what dimension), disqualified late (was never a fit), process loss (we fumbled: slow follow-up, wrong stakeholders, weak business case), and priced out (real budget mismatch, not value doubt). For each deal, state your confidence and what evidence would raise it.
2. Pattern read: the 2-3 dominant loss patterns, with any concentration by segment, deal size, competitor, rep, or stage — and the one pattern that would be cheapest to fix.
3. The interview kit: 8 questions for lost-deal interviews with buyers, designed to get past politeness ('walk me through the week you decided'), plus the ask-for-the-interview email that gets a yes from someone who just rejected you.
4. Counter-plays: for each dominant pattern, the specific change — in qualification, discovery, proof, or process — that addresses the cause, with the metric that shows it working.
5. The ongoing system: a lightweight loss-review ritual (15 minutes, twice a month) so this analysis stays alive instead of being a one-time archaeology project.
Avoid: taking CRM loss reasons at face value, blaming price by default, patterns claimed from three deals, and fixes that amount to 'reps should try harder'.
Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time:
1. Share your lost-deal data from the last 1-2 quarters — recorded reason, deal size, segment, stage reached, and competitor if known.
2. What do reps say in deal debriefs about why deals die — the hallway version, not the CRM version?
3. Which losses hurt most — which deals did you genuinely expect to win?
4. Who are you losing to most, including 'no decision'?
5. Have you ever interviewed a lost buyer? What happened?
Once you have my answers, run the analysis. Where my data is too thin to support a pattern, say so and tell me exactly what to start capturing.How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Export 20+ lost deals with whatever fields you have — more deals beat richer fields for pattern-finding.
- 3
Answer question 2 honestly; the hallway explanations usually contain more truth than the CRM picklist.
- 4
Send the interview ask to your five most painful recent losses within the week — recency drives response rates.
- 5
Implement one counter-play at a time and give it a full sales cycle before judging.
Best practices
Interview won deals occasionally too — knowing why you win sharpens the loss taxonomy.
Have someone other than the deal's rep run lost-buyer interviews; buyers soften the truth for the person they rejected.
Treat 'no decision' as its own competitor with its own counter-play — it usually beats every named rival combined.
Recut the analysis quarterly; loss patterns shift when you fix one, and last quarter's diagnosis expires.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A sales leader at a 55-person procurement software company pastes 34 lost deals from the last two quarters, 60% tagged 'price'. The model reclassifies: only 4 look genuinely priced out; 13 are no-decision losses concentrated in deals that never got a second stakeholder involved, and 9 are process losses where proposals followed discovery by 12+ days. The cheapest fix: a proposal-within-5-days rule plus a multi-threading gate before any proposal. The interview kit goes to eight lost buyers; three accept, and one reveals the CFO killed the deal over an integration fear no rep had surfaced. Two counter-plays and one quarter later, no-decision losses drop by a third — and 'price' quietly disappears from the loss-reason vocabulary.
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
Because they record the buyer's polite exit line, not the cause. 'Price' is the easiest thing for a buyer to say and the hardest to argue with — but win-loss research consistently finds that most 'price' losses trace to an unquantified business case, a missing champion, or status quo inertia. Fixing the recorded excuse (discounting) instead of the cause makes results worse, not better.
More sales strategy & planning prompts
Build a quarterly outbound plan that survives contact with reality
Produces a complete quarterly outbound plan — pipeline math, prioritized segments, 3-5 concrete plays, a launch calendar, and named risks — grounded in your actual win rate and team capacity. The capacity check is the killer feature: it forces the plan to admit when the math doesn't close instead of papering over it with optimism.
Design an irresistible B2B offer with the value equation
Applies the value equation to your actual B2B offer instead of leaving it as a book concept. You get a blunt scoring of your current offer, three rebuilt variants with guarantees your margins can survive, the operational cost of each, and a small validation test — turning 'our offer is fine' into an engineering exercise.
Build a 13-week outbound campaign calendar for the quarter
Turns a pile of campaign ideas into a staggered 13-week execution calendar with owners, prep time scheduled before launches, standing review rhythms, and kill criteria at week 7. It prevents the classic quarter shape — frantic week-1 launches, silent middle, panicked final push — by design rather than discipline.