# Call Preparation Reference

Deep methodology for sales call preparation. Covers research checklists, meeting-type frameworks, question design, and objection mapping.

---

## Research Checklist

Run this checklist before synthesizing any call prep brief. Each item must be either completed (with source) or explicitly marked "not found."

### Company Research (Required)

| Research Item | Search Query | What to Extract | Red Flag If Missing |
|--------------|-------------|-----------------|---------------------|
| Company overview | "[Company] about" | What they do, who they serve, how they make money | Cannot proceed |
| Industry | "[Company] industry" | Sector, sub-sector, market position | Low-priority gap |
| Company size | "[Company] employees" OR site:linkedin.com | Employee count range, growth trajectory | Note as unknown |
| Recent news | "[Company] news" (last 30 days) | Announcements, press releases, trigger events | Proceed without |
| Funding | "[Company] funding crunchbase" | Last round, amount, investors, date | Proceed without |
| Leadership changes | "[Company] CEO/CTO/CRO appointed" | New executives, departures | Proceed without |
| Product/service | "[Company] product" | Core offering, pricing model, target market | Cannot proceed |
| Hiring signals | "[Company] careers" | Open roles, growth areas, tech stack clues | Proceed without |
| Competitors | "[Company] vs" OR "[Company] alternatives" | Named competitors, positioning | Proceed without |

### Attendee Research (Required per person)

| Research Item | Search Query | What to Extract |
|--------------|-------------|-----------------|
| Current role | "[Name] [Company] LinkedIn" | Title, tenure, responsibilities |
| Background | "[Name] LinkedIn" | Prior companies, education, career trajectory |
| Content | "[Name] [Company] blog/podcast/talk" | Published content, speaking topics, public opinions |
| Mutual connections | Cross-reference with user's network | Shared contacts, shared schools, shared companies |
| Role in deal | Infer from title + meeting context | Decision maker / Champion / Evaluator / Influencer / Blocker |

### Deal Context (From user input only -- never fabricate)

| Context Item | Source | How It Shapes Prep |
|-------------|--------|-------------------|
| Prior interactions | User provides | Reference in agenda, track commitments |
| Open commitments | User provides | List as follow-up items |
| Known objections | User provides | Prepare responses, structure agenda to address |
| Competitor involvement | User provides | Load competitive intelligence reference |
| Budget signals | User provides | Calibrate proposal scope |
| Timeline signals | User provides | Adjust urgency of next steps |

---

## Meeting Type Frameworks

Each meeting type has a different optimal structure. The meeting type determines agenda shape, question ratio, and output emphasis.

### Discovery Call

**Objective**: Understand their world. Qualify the opportunity.

**Agenda structure** (talk/listen ratio: 20/80):

| Phase | Duration | Activity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| Open | 5 min | Build rapport. Reference trigger event or research finding. |
| Context | 5 min | "Tell me about [their situation]. What prompted this conversation?" |
| Pain exploration | 15 min | Deep dive on stated challenges. Ask "why" twice. |
| Impact quantification | 5 min | "What does this cost you? What happens if nothing changes?" |
| Process | 5 min | "Who else is involved? What does your evaluation process look like?" |
| Next steps | 5 min | Propose specific next step with date. |

**Qualification signals to listen for**:

| Signal Type | Positive | Negative |
|------------|----------|----------|
| Budget | Discusses budget ranges, asks about pricing | "We don't have budget for this" |
| Authority | Decision maker present, or clear path to them | "I'd need to check with..." (vague) |
| Need | Describes specific pain with impact | Generic interest, no urgency |
| Timeline | Active project, defined deadline | "Maybe next year" |
| Champion | Advocates for you, shares internal context | Passive information gathering |

**Discovery question design**: Questions should be open-ended, follow a logical sequence (situation -> problem -> impact -> need), and uncover information the prospect hasn't volunteered. Avoid leading questions that telegraph your solution.

| Question Category | Example Pattern | Purpose |
|------------------|-----------------|---------|
| Situation | "Walk me through how you currently handle X" | Understand baseline |
| Problem | "What breaks down when Y happens?" | Identify pain |
| Impact | "What does that cost you in terms of Z?" | Quantify pain |
| Need-payoff | "If you could solve X, what would that unlock?" | Link to value |
| Process | "Who else would need to be involved in evaluating this?" | Map decision process |
| Timeline | "What's driving the timeline on this?" | Assess urgency |

### Demo / Presentation

**Objective**: Show relevant capability. Get feedback. Advance to next stage.

**Agenda structure** (talk/listen ratio: 60/40):

| Phase | Duration | Activity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| Recap | 5 min | Summarize what you learned in discovery. Confirm priorities. |
| Demo: Priority 1 | 10 min | Show the capability that addresses their top pain. Get reaction. |
| Demo: Priority 2 | 10 min | Second use case. Tie to their stated needs. |
| Demo: Priority 3 | 5 min | Third use case or technical depth if requested. |
| Q&A | 10 min | Address questions. Surface objections. |
| Next steps | 5 min | Propose evaluation plan, POC, or proposal. |

**Demo failure modes** (things that kill demos):

| Failure Mode | Why It Fails | Instead |
|-------------|-------------|---------|
| Feature tour | Prospect doesn't care about features they didn't ask for | Show only what maps to their stated needs |
| Happy path only | Feels rehearsed, doesn't build confidence | Show edge cases they will encounter |
| No interaction | Prospect zones out after 10 minutes of watching | Pause every 5 minutes: "Is this relevant to your situation?" |
| Jargon dump | Alienates non-technical attendees | Use their language, not your product vocabulary |
| Skipping setup context | Prospect doesn't understand why you're showing this | Start each section: "You mentioned X. Here's how we handle that." |

### Negotiation / Proposal Review

**Objective**: Address concerns. Justify value. Close gaps to agreement.

**Agenda structure** (talk/listen ratio: 40/60):

| Phase | Duration | Activity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| Confirm proposal | 5 min | "Have you had a chance to review? What questions came up?" |
| Address concerns | 15 min | Work through each objection systematically |
| Value reinforcement | 10 min | Tie back to their ROI, their pain, their timeline |
| Terms discussion | 10 min | Pricing, contract, implementation |
| Path to close | 5 min | "What needs to happen for you to move forward?" |

### Check-in / QBR

**Objective**: Demonstrate value delivered. Surface expansion opportunities.

**Agenda structure** (talk/listen ratio: 50/50):

| Phase | Duration | Activity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| Results review | 10 min | Metrics, wins, value delivered since last QBR |
| Their feedback | 10 min | "What's working? What's not?" |
| Roadmap alignment | 10 min | Upcoming features relevant to their needs |
| Expansion | 5 min | New use cases, additional teams, upsell |
| Next quarter | 5 min | Priorities, success metrics, meeting cadence |

---

## Objection Mapping Framework

Structure objections by category. Prepare responses that acknowledge the concern, reframe, and provide evidence.

### Common Objection Categories

| Category | Example Objections | Response Framework |
|----------|-------------------|-------------------|
| **Price** | "Too expensive" / "Over budget" / "Competitor is cheaper" | Acknowledge -> Reframe as total cost (include switching cost, ramp time, hidden fees) -> Quantify value against their specific pain |
| **Timing** | "Not now" / "Next quarter" / "Too busy" | Acknowledge -> Ask what changes next quarter -> Quantify cost of delay -> Offer phased approach |
| **Status quo** | "Current solution works fine" / "We built our own" | Acknowledge -> Ask about specific pain points you uncovered -> Quantify manual effort / opportunity cost |
| **Authority** | "Need to check with my boss" / "Committee decision" | Acknowledge -> Offer to present to committee -> Ask what their recommendation will be -> Equip champion |
| **Trust** | "Too new" / "Unproven" / "Security concerns" | Acknowledge -> Reference similar customers -> Offer POC -> Provide security documentation |
| **Competition** | "We're also looking at X" | Acknowledge -> Ask what they like about X -> Position on differentiated strengths -> Offer comparison |

### Objection Response Pattern

```
1. ACKNOWLEDGE: "I understand that [their concern]. That's important."
2. CLARIFY: "Can you help me understand specifically what [aspect] concerns you?"
3. REFRAME: "What we've seen with similar companies is [evidence-based reframe]."
4. EVIDENCE: "For example, [Customer X] had the same concern and [outcome]."
5. CHECK: "Does that address your concern, or is there more to it?"
```

Never dismiss an objection. Never argue. The goal is to understand the real concern behind the stated objection.

---

## Post-Call Workflow

After every call, capture:

| Item | Example | Why |
|------|---------|-----|
| Key decisions made | "Agreed to 30-day POC starting Feb 1" | Tracks deal progression |
| Action items (yours) | "Send security questionnaire by Friday" | Commitments to honor |
| Action items (theirs) | "Share technical requirements doc" | Follow-up triggers |
| Objections surfaced | "Concerned about migration timeline" | Shapes next interaction |
| Competitive intel | "Also evaluating Competitor X for reporting" | Informs positioning |
| Next meeting | "Technical deep-dive with engineering team, Feb 10" | Calendar action |
| Deal stage change | "Move from Discovery to Evaluation" | CRM update |
| Risk signals | "VP seemed disengaged after pricing slide" | Early warning |

---

## Attendee Role Classification

Classify each attendee to shape how you engage them.

| Role | Characteristics | How to Engage |
|------|----------------|---------------|
| **Decision Maker** | Signs the contract. Controls budget. | Focus on ROI, risk, strategic fit. Respect their time. |
| **Champion** | Internal advocate. Wants you to win. | Equip with internal talking points. Share ammunition. |
| **Evaluator** | Technical validation. Tests the product. | Deep technical answers. Don't oversell. Honesty builds trust. |
| **Influencer** | Shapes opinion but doesn't decide. | Understand their agenda. Align your pitch to what makes them look good. |
| **Blocker** | Opposes the deal. Has competing priorities. | Acknowledge their concerns directly. Find out what would change their mind. |
| **User** | Will use the product daily. | Show ease of use. Address workflow concerns. Listen to pain points. |

Multiple roles can attend the same meeting. Adjust your agenda to give each role the information they need. If the audience is mixed, lead with the decision maker's priorities and address technical depth in Q&A or a follow-up session.

---

## Information Density Rules for Call Prep Output

| Section | Target Length | Must Include | Must Not Include |
|---------|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
| Account Snapshot | 6-8 row table | Company, industry, size, status, last touch | Unverified financials |
| Attendee Profile | 4-6 lines per person | Name, title, background, talking point | Assumptions about personality |
| Suggested Agenda | 5-7 items | Opening reference, core topics, next steps | Generic "introductions" unless new participants |
| Discovery Questions | 5-7 questions | Gap-targeted questions | Leading questions that telegraph your solution |
| Objection Table | 2-4 rows | Likely objections based on context | Every possible objection |
