---
name: sales-playbook-section
description: |
  Produces one section of a sales playbook with talk tracks, common
  scenarios, competitive differentiation, and handling guidance using
  playbook format methodology. Use when the user asks to create a sales
  playbook section, write a talk track for a specific sales scenario,
  build competitive battle cards, document a sales play, or structure
  guidance for a specific selling situation.
  Do NOT use for full objection handling banks (use objection-handling),
  discovery call scripts (use discovery-call-script), or sales training
  curriculum (use teaching skills).
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: foundry-skills
  version: "1.0.0"
  tags: "sales strategy template planning"
  category: "marketing-sales"
  subcategory: "sales"
  depends: ""
  disclaimer: "none"
  difficulty: "intermediate"
---
# Sales Playbook Section

## When to Use

Use this skill when the user needs to produce a discrete, usable section of a sales playbook -- a specific play with word-for-word language, competitive positioning, scenario handling, and rep-ready reference materials.

**Use this skill when:**
- A user asks to create a sales play for a specific recurring situation: competitive displacement, upsell, expansion into a new department, multi-threading into a stalled deal, or contract renewal
- A user wants to write a talk track for a defined scenario with a specific buyer persona, not a generic pitch
- A user needs competitive battle card content: where they win, where the competitor wins, landmine questions, and displacement language
- A user wants to document a play that has been working in the field so other reps can replicate it -- capturing tribal knowledge in structured format
- A user needs to structure guidance for a named selling motion such as "champion enablement," "executive sponsor play," "end-of-quarter urgency play," or "security/compliance objection play"
- A user wants to rebuild or refresh a play that has low win rates or that managers have identified as outdated
- A user needs a play for a new vertical or segment the team is expanding into (fintech, healthcare, government, etc.) with segment-specific language

**Do NOT use this skill when:**
- The user needs a comprehensive objection handling bank covering 20+ objections across all deal types -- use `objection-handling` instead, which structures objection libraries with root cause analysis and tiered response tracks
- The user needs a discovery call script with open/closed question sequencing, active listening cues, and call flow management -- use `discovery-call-script` instead
- The user needs a full sales training curriculum with role-play modules, assessment rubrics, and competency frameworks -- use teaching skills that sequence learning objectives across multiple sessions
- The user needs a complete sales pitch deck with narrative arc, visual direction, and slide-by-slide content -- use `sales-pitch-deck` instead
- The user wants general sales coaching advice without a specific scenario, buyer, or play -- this skill produces artifacts, not coaching frameworks
- The user needs a full RFP response or business case document -- those require separate structured document skills
- The user needs a customer success playbook (post-sale) -- sales playbooks cover the pre-close motion; post-sale work has different skills and methodologies

---

## Process

### Step 1: Collect Play Context Before Writing Anything

Never begin producing content without gathering the following. Ask for any that are missing:

- **Product/service being sold:** What does it do, what category, what pricing tier
- **Target buyer:** Title, seniority (manager vs. director vs. VP vs. C-suite), industry, company size in employees or revenue, tech stack relevance
- **Play type:** New business, upsell/cross-sell, expansion, competitive displacement, renewal/retention, re-engagement of stalled deals, or win-back of churned accounts
- **Trigger signals:** What specifically causes a rep to pull this play? A prospect mentioning a competitor? A renewal date within 90 days? A champion changing jobs? A usage drop in product analytics?
- **Sales stage:** Where in the pipeline does this play operate? Top of funnel (cold outreach), middle (active evaluation), or late stage (final decision)?
- **Competitors relevant to this play:** Up to 3 specific named competitors or "status quo" (doing nothing) and "homegrown/manual" (spreadsheets, internal tools) as substitutes
- **Proof points available:** Named customer wins, specific ROI metrics, case study results, G2 or Gartner ratings -- the more specific, the better
- **Known rep failure modes:** What do reps currently get wrong in this situation? This shapes the "what NOT to say" sections

If the user cannot provide specific proof points, acknowledge this and generate placeholder structures (e.g., "[Customer Name] achieved [X%] reduction in [metric]") that prompt them to fill in real data before deploying the playbook.

### Step 2: Define the Play with Precision

Construct the play definition using specifics, not generalities:

- **Play name:** Short, memorable, action-oriented. Use language reps will actually use -- "The Renewal Rescue Play," "The Champion Enablement Play," "The Competitor Displacement Play" -- not generic identifiers like "Play 4B"
- **Trigger conditions:** Write these as observable signals, not feelings. "Prospect mentions they are evaluating [Competitor]" is a trigger. "Rep senses buying intent" is not. Triggers should be things a rep can hear, see in CRM data, or read in an email
- **Disqualifying signals:** Equally important -- when should a rep NOT run this play? A displacement play targeting unhappy users should not be run when the prospect has 3 years left on their contract and no visible pain. Define when to abort
- **Ideal prospect profile for this play:** Distinct from the general ICP. An upsell play targets customers with >6 months of usage and <40% feature adoption. A displacement play targets prospects whose contract renewal is within 90 days. Be specific about the subset
- **Success metric:** What does a winning outcome look like in measurable terms? Benchmark win rate for the play (even an estimate), average deal size, average sales cycle length when this play is executed well

### Step 3: Write the Talk Track as Word-for-Word Scripts

This is the most critical section. Every sentence the rep says must be written out completely -- not summarized, not bulleted as topics. Follow these principles:

- **Opening:** Write an opener that references a shared pattern ("A lot of [buyer role]s we talk to are dealing with X right now...") rather than a feature dump. Pattern interrupts work. Self-referential openers ("Let me tell you about our product") do not
- **Discovery bridge:** Before pitching, include a pivot question that invites the prospect to self-identify with the problem. "Is that something you are running into?" or "How much of an issue is [X] for your team right now?" -- this separates interested prospects from polite ones
- **Talking points:** Write 3-5 points maximum. Each point follows this structure: (1) name the problem, (2) describe what others do wrong, (3) explain what you do differently, (4) attach a proof point. This problem-solution-proof arc is more credible than feature descriptions
- **Transition phrases:** Reps lose momentum when jumping between points. Write explicit transitions for each handoff: "Now that we have talked about X, the other thing teams usually ask about is Y..."
- **Objection bridges within the talk track:** Anticipate the 1-2 most common interruptions at each point and write inline handling language so reps do not have to break stride
- **Closing statement:** Propose one specific next step -- not "let me know if you have questions." The close should name a concrete action (schedule a technical deep-dive, run a pilot with one team, review their current workflow together) with a suggested timeframe

### Step 4: Map Common Scenarios with Behavioral Precision

Identify the 3-5 most common situations a rep will encounter while running this play. For each scenario:

- **Write the scenario as a verbatim prospect statement or situation description**, not a category label. Not "Price objection" but "Prospect says 'We are already paying for [Competitor] and switching feels expensive'"
- **Write best response as a complete script**, not bullet points of what to cover. Include the exact words because rep improvisation in high-stakes moments produces inconsistent results
- **Write the "what NOT to say" with an explanation of the psychological reason it fails.** Reps follow rules better when they understand why, not just what. "Don't say 'we are cheaper' because it trains the prospect to evaluate on price alone" teaches; "don't say 'we are cheaper'" does not
- **Write escalation triggers as observable conditions**, not judgment calls. "Prospect mentions a custom integration with SAP that your platform does not natively support" is an escalation trigger. "Deal seems complicated" is not
- **Include a confidence-building note** for scenarios where reps typically feel uncertain or defensive -- scripts fail when reps do not believe in what they are saying

### Step 5: Build Competitive Differentiation with Intellectual Honesty

For each competitor (limit to 3 per play section to maintain focus):

- **Competitor overview in one sentence:** What they do, who their primary market is, and why they are considered
- **Where they win -- be honest:** Reps who dismiss competitor strengths look uninformed and lose credibility. Name 2-3 genuine competitor advantages. This also helps reps qualify out of bad deals where the competitor is actually a better fit
- **Where you win -- with evidence:** Do not list generic advantages. Attach specific proof to each: "We win on [capability] because [specific architectural or process reason], and we have [Customer Name] as proof -- they switched from [Competitor] and saw [specific metric]"
- **Landmine questions:** Questions the rep can ask that surface competitor weaknesses organically, without naming the competitor. The prospect arrives at the problem themselves, which is far more persuasive than the rep asserting it. Example: "How do you currently pull cross-project resource utilization reports?" -- if the competitor cannot do this well, the prospect discovers the limitation themselves
- **Displacement talk track:** A specialized script for when the prospect is already using the competitor and actively considering replacing them. This is distinct from the general talk track. It must acknowledge switching costs honestly and address migration risk, data portability, and retraining burden

### Step 6: Add Quick-Reference Materials for In-Call Use

Reps use the full playbook for training and prep, but they need a one-glance reference during live calls. Produce:

- **Quick-reference card:** A table with the most critical elements -- trigger, opener, top proof point, key differentiator, and call to action -- that fits in 10-15 rows
- **Phrases to use:** 4-6 specific phrases that have been shown (or are deliberately designed) to increase trust, lower resistance, or advance the deal. Each phrase should be tied to a psychological or conversational principle
- **Phrases to avoid:** 4-6 specific phrases that weaken the rep's position, including an explanation of why each one hurts. Common culprits: "best in class," "solution," "synergy," "to be honest with you" (implies you were not honest before), "I think we can do that" (communicates uncertainty about your own product)
- **Qualifying questions for this play:** 3-5 questions that help the rep confirm this is the right play before investing further. If the prospect answers these in a certain direction, the rep should switch plays or disqualify

### Step 7: Add Play Health Metrics and Maintenance Instructions

A playbook section that is never updated becomes a liability. Include:

- **Win rate threshold:** The play should be reviewed if win rate drops below a defined threshold (typically 5-10 percentage points below the team average)
- **Staleness trigger:** Flag for review if the competitive landscape changes, a key proof point customer churns, or the play has not been updated in 6 months
- **Feedback loop:** How reps should submit what is working and what is not -- a Slack channel, a CRM field, a monthly win/loss review
- **Play owner:** One named role responsible for keeping this section current -- typically Sales Enablement, Product Marketing, or the segment Sales Manager

---

## Output Format

```
## Sales Playbook: [Play Name]

**Play Type:** [New business / Upsell / Cross-sell / Renewal / Competitive displacement / Re-engagement / Win-back]
**Target Buyer:** [Title(s) at company type and size]
**Sales Stage:** [Top of funnel / Active evaluation / Late stage / Renewal window]
**Trigger Event:** [One-line description of what causes a rep to pull this play]
**Last Updated:** [Date]
**Play Owner:** [Role responsible for maintaining this section]
**Win Rate Benchmark:** [X% -- baseline expectation; review play if consistently below this]
**Average Deal Size:** [$X or "N/A for displacement plays where existing ARR is the variable"]
**Average Sales Cycle (when play is executed correctly):** [X days/weeks]

---

### Play Overview

**When to Run This Play:**
- [Trigger 1 -- observable signal, not a feeling]
- [Trigger 2]
- [Trigger 3]
- [Trigger 4]

**When NOT to Run This Play (Disqualifying Signals):**
- [Signal 1 -- e.g., "Prospect has more than 18 months remaining on a competitor contract"]
- [Signal 2]
- [Signal 3]

**Ideal Prospect Profile for This Play:**
- [Specific characteristic 1 -- e.g., "Marketing team of 15-75 people managing 10+ concurrent campaigns"]
- [Specific characteristic 2]
- [Specific characteristic 3]

**Desired Outcome:** [What a successful execution of this play results in -- specific milestone, not "closing a deal"]

---

### Talk Track

**Opening Statement:**
"[Word-for-word opening. References a pattern the buyer recognizes. Does not lead with product.]"

**Discovery Bridge:**
"[Question that invites the prospect to self-identify with the problem. Separates interested prospects from polite ones.]"

---

**Key Talking Points:**

**1. [Point Name -- problem-focused, not feature-focused]**

*Set up the problem:*
"[Word-for-word language describing the problem this point addresses -- as the prospect experiences it, not as you define it]"

*What others do wrong:*
"[Language describing the common approach or workaround that creates pain]"

*What we do differently:*
"[Specific description of your approach, not generic claims]"

*Proof:*
"[Customer name] was dealing with exactly this. [Specific result they achieved -- number, timeframe, before/after]."

*Anticipated interruption and response:*
If prospect says "[Common skeptical response]":
"[Inline handling language that keeps momentum without breaking stride]"

---

**2. [Point Name]**

*Set up the problem:*
"[Word-for-word language]"

*What others do wrong:*
"[Language]"

*What we do differently:*
"[Specific language]"

*Proof:*
"[Customer name] achieved [result]."

*Anticipated interruption and response:*
If prospect says "[Common response]":
"[Handling language]"

---

**3. [Point Name]**

*Set up the problem:*
"[Word-for-word language]"

*What others do wrong:*
"[Language]"

*What we do differently:*
"[Specific language]"

*Proof:*
"[Customer name] achieved [result]."

---

**Transition Phrases:**
- Moving from Point 1 to Point 2: "[Explicit transition language -- do not leave this to improvisation]"
- Moving from Point 2 to Point 3: "[Transition language]"
- Moving from Points to Close: "[Transition that signals a shift from information to decision]"

**Closing Statement:**
"[Word-for-word close. Proposes one specific next step with a suggested timeframe. Does not say 'let me know if you have any questions.']"

---

### Common Scenarios

**Scenario 1: [Verbatim prospect statement or specific observable situation]**

- **Best response:** "[Complete word-for-word script -- not bullet points of what to cover]"
- **Why this works:** [One sentence on the psychological or conversational principle at play]
- **What NOT to say:** "[Specific language to avoid]" -- because [exact reason this language fails -- psychological, commercial, or credibility impact]
- **Escalate when:** [Specific observable condition that requires manager or specialist involvement]
- **Confidence note:** [One sentence for reps who feel uncertain in this moment]

---

**Scenario 2: [Verbatim statement or situation]**

- **Best response:** "[Complete word-for-word script]"
- **Why this works:** [Principle]
- **What NOT to say:** "[Language to avoid]" -- because [reason]
- **Escalate when:** [Condition]

---

**Scenario 3: [Verbatim statement or situation]**

- **Best response:** "[Complete word-for-word script]"
- **Why this works:** [Principle]
- **What NOT to say:** "[Language to avoid]" -- because [reason]
- **Escalate when:** [Condition]

---

**Scenario 4: [Verbatim statement or situation]**

- **Best response:** "[Complete word-for-word script]"
- **Why this works:** [Principle]
- **What NOT to say:** "[Language to avoid]" -- because [reason]
- **Escalate when:** [Condition]

---

### Competitive Differentiation

#### vs. [Competitor 1 Name]

**One-line overview:** [What they do, who their primary market is, and why they are considered by your prospects]

**Where they win (be honest -- reps who ignore this lose credibility):**
- [Genuine strength 1 with context for when this matters]
- [Genuine strength 2]

**Where we win (with evidence):**
- [Advantage 1]: "[What to say]" -- Proof: [Customer or metric]
- [Advantage 2]: "[What to say]" -- Proof: [Customer or metric]
- [Advantage 3]: "[What to say]" -- Proof: [Customer or metric]

**Landmine Questions (surfaces competitor weakness without naming them):**
- "[Question 1 -- prospect discovers the gap themselves]"
- "[Question 2]"
- "[Question 3]"

**Displacement Talk Track (when prospect is already using them):**
"[Word-for-word script that acknowledges switching cost honestly, addresses migration risk, and reframes the cost of staying on the competitor vs. switching]"

**Competitive Comparison Table:**

| Dimension | [Competitor] | [Your Product] | What to Say |
|-----------|-------------|----------------|-------------|
| [Capability area] | [Their approach/limitation] | [Your approach/advantage] | "[Talk track for this dimension]" |
| [Capability area] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |
| [Capability area] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |
| [Support/implementation] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |
| [Pricing/TCO] | [Their model] | [Your model] | "[Talk track]" |

---

#### vs. [Competitor 2 Name]

**One-line overview:** [Description]

**Where they win:**
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

**Where we win:**
- [Advantage 1]: "[What to say]" -- Proof: [Evidence]
- [Advantage 2]: "[What to say]" -- Proof: [Evidence]

**Landmine Questions:**
- "[Question 1]"
- "[Question 2]"

**Displacement Talk Track:**
"[Word-for-word script]"

**Competitive Comparison Table:**

| Dimension | [Competitor] | [Your Product] | What to Say |
|-----------|-------------|----------------|-------------|
| [Capability] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |
| [Capability] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |
| [Capability] | [Their approach] | [Your approach] | "[Talk track]" |

---

#### vs. Status Quo / Doing Nothing

*Include this section for every play -- "no decision" is always a competitor.*

**Where status quo wins:**
- [Genuine reason inaction is attractive -- switching cost, risk aversion, existing sunk cost]
- [Reason 2]

**Where we win:**
- [Cost of inaction argument 1]: "[Language]"
- [Cost of inaction argument 2]: "[Language]"

**Urgency Landmine:**
- "[Question that surfaces the hidden cost of delaying]"

---

### Quick-Reference Card

*Design: This card must be usable in a live call -- 15 rows maximum, scannable in under 30 seconds.*

| Element | Details |
|---------|---------|
| **Play trigger** | [One-line observable signal] |
| **Disqualifier** | [One-line signal to walk away] |
| **Opening line** | "[Key phrase -- verbatim]" |
| **Discovery bridge** | "[Pivot question -- verbatim]" |
| **Top proof point** | [Customer] achieved [specific result in specific timeframe] |
| **Talking point 1** | [Problem name + one-line summary] |
| **Talking point 2** | [Problem name + one-line summary] |
| **Talking point 3** | [Problem name + one-line summary] |
| **vs. [Competitor 1]** | We win on [dimension]; they win on [dimension] |
| **vs. [Competitor 2]** | We win on [dimension]; they win on [dimension] |
| **Top landmine** | "[Best question to ask]" |
| **Escalate if** | [Observable condition] |
| **Closing ask** | [Specific next step -- verbatim] |

---

**Phrases to USE in This Play:**
- "[Phrase 1]" -- [Why it works: psychological or conversational principle]
- "[Phrase 2]" -- [Why it works]
- "[Phrase 3]" -- [Why it works]
- "[Phrase 4]" -- [Why it works]

**Phrases to AVOID in This Play:**
- "[Phrase 1]" -- because [specific reason it undermines the rep's position]
- "[Phrase 2]" -- because [specific reason]
- "[Phrase 3]" -- because [specific reason]
- "[Phrase 4]" -- because [specific reason]

**Qualifying Questions for This Play:**
- "[Question 1 -- if prospect answers X, continue; if they answer Y, switch plays]"
- "[Question 2]"
- "[Question 3]"

---

### Play Maintenance

**Review this play if:**
- Win rate drops below [X%] over a rolling 90-day period
- A key proof point customer churns or requests to be removed from references
- A competitor releases a major product update that affects a comparison in this section
- This play has not been updated in 6 months

**Feedback submission:** [Channel -- e.g., "Post wins, losses, and new competitive intel to #sales-playbook-feedback with the tag [Play Name]"]

**Next scheduled review:** [Quarter]
```

---

## Rules

1. **Never produce content without a defined play type and target buyer.** A talk track written for a VP of Engineering will fail with a Marketing Director and vice versa. If the user has not specified these, ask before writing a single line of the playbook.

2. **Talk tracks must be complete scripts, not topic outlines.** "Talk about their reporting pain" is not a talk track. "A lot of marketing teams we work with were spending 4 hours every Friday pulling reports from their project tool into spreadsheets before they came to us -- is that something your team deals with?" is a talk track. Every word matters because reps under pressure revert to exactly what is written.

3. **Every competitive comparison must include an honest "where they win" section.** Reps who go into competitive deals having only memorized why they are better will be caught flat-footed when a prospect says "actually [Competitor] is really strong at X." An honest assessment of competitor strengths prevents credibility collapse and helps reps self-qualify out of deals where the competitor is a better fit.

4. **Proof points must be specific -- named customers, specific metrics, specific timeframes.** "Many customers see significant ROI" is not a proof point. "[Customer Name], a 200-person SaaS company, reduced their reporting cycle from 3 days to 4 hours in the first 60 days" is. If real proof points are not available, create labeled placeholders and note they must be filled before the playbook is deployed.

5. **Landmine questions must work without naming the competitor.** "How does [Competitor] handle cross-project reporting?" is a direct attack and puts prospects on the defensive. "How do you currently pull visibility across all active campaigns when your CMO asks for a status update?" is a landmine -- it surfaces the gap and the prospect concludes the limitation themselves, which is 10x more persuasive.

6. **Every scenario must include "what NOT to say" with a clear reason.** Reps follow behavioral guidance better when they understand the mechanism of failure, not just the rule. "Don't say 'trust me'" is a rule. "Don't say 'trust me' because it signals that you know you are asking them to believe something unsupported -- if you had evidence, you would cite it instead" is instruction.

7. **The quick-reference card must be usable during a live call without scrolling.** If it requires more than 30 seconds to scan, it will not be used. Maximum 15 rows. If the content does not fit, trim the playbook section, not the card -- the card is the most-used artifact.

8. **Escalation triggers must be observable conditions, not judgment calls.** "Deal seems complex" is not an escalation trigger. "Prospect mentions a multi-system integration requirement that includes SAP, Workday, or a proprietary internal tool" is an escalation trigger. Reps should not have to guess when to escalate.

9. **Every play must have a disqualifying signal.** A play without disqualifiers gets applied everywhere, which dilutes results and wastes rep time. If the user does not provide disqualifying signals, derive them from the play type -- renewal plays do not apply to accounts with <3 months of usage; displacement plays are low-yield when the prospect has >18 months left on a competitor contract.

10. **Every play must include play health metrics and a maintenance owner.** A playbook that is never reviewed becomes a liability -- competitive data goes stale, proof points leave, and messaging drifts from market reality. Set a win rate threshold for triggering review, assign an owner, and build in a 6-month staleness check as a minimum standard.

---

## Edge Cases

### New Product or Feature with No Competitive History Yet

When there is no win/loss data and no named competitor intel, the competitive section cannot be built from evidence. Instead:
- Treat "status quo" (doing nothing or continuing with current manual process) and "build it in-house" as the two primary competitors -- these are almost always present in any deal regardless of named competitors
- Build the landmine questions around the pain of the current state, not around competitor weaknesses: "How long does it currently take your team to produce that report?" and "What happens when someone asks for something your current process can't handle?"
- Flag the competitive section as "Draft -- to be updated as deals are won and lost against specific competitors" and include a template for reps to submit competitive intel after every deal where a named competitor appeared
- Use the quick-reference card as a hypothesis to test in the field, not as established best practice -- note this explicitly so reps calibrate their confidence appropriately

### Highly Commoditized Market with Feature Parity

When every competitor has similar features and differentiation on capability is minimal:
- Shift the entire differentiation strategy from product features to the experience of buying, implementing, and being supported by the vendor. "What is it like to work with us vs. them?" becomes the central question
- Build talk tracks around total cost of ownership: implementation timeline, training burden, support response times, and cost of failure. These create real differentiation even when product specs look the same
- The landmine questions should surface implementation risk and support quality: "What was their onboarding process like when you first deployed?" and "When you have a critical issue, what does their support response look like?"
- Proof points must shift to customer experience metrics: NPS scores, implementation timelines compared to industry average, support ticket resolution times, customer tenure and expansion rates
- Avoid feature comparison tables entirely in this scenario -- they reinforce the commodity perception

### Upmarket Play (Moving from Mid-Market to Enterprise)

When a product has succeeded in the mid-market and the play is being built for enterprise prospects:
- Rewrite the entire talk track to address enterprise-specific concerns: security posture (SOC 2, ISO 27001, FedRAMP if relevant), data residency, SSO and SCIM provisioning, procurement process length, vendor risk assessment, and legal review timelines
- The buyer profile changes fundamentally -- enterprise buying committees typically include 6-10 stakeholders. Scenario sections must cover multi-threading: how to identify the economic buyer vs. the champion vs. the technical evaluator vs. the procurement blocker, and what language to use with each
- Reference customers must be at the enterprise tier -- a mid-market case study is not credible in an enterprise deal. If enterprise references do not exist yet, use the customer's logo list (with permission) and highlight design partnerships or early access programs
- The closing statement changes from "schedule a demo" to "propose a structured evaluation" with a named pilot scope, success criteria, and timeline -- enterprise prospects do not close on demos

### Channel or Partner Play (Indirect Sales Motion)

When the play will be executed by a partner, reseller, or system integrator rather than a direct rep:
- The primary audience for the playbook is the partner's sales team, not your own. Write the talk track in language that works for someone who sells multiple vendors and needs to introduce your product quickly and credibly
- Include a "why lead with us" section: why your product is the right anchor for the solution the partner is building, what the partner earns (margin, services attach, customer stickiness), and how you co-sell rather than compete
- Write a simplified version of the talk track that a partner can adapt without the full product depth your direct reps have -- 3 talking points maximum, each with one proof point
- Scenario sections must cover partner-specific situations: when the partner is asked to recommend a competitor, when the end customer wants to buy direct from the vendor, and when the partner needs vendor support in a joint meeting

### Renewal and Retention Play

The renewal play is structurally different from all other plays because the job is not to convince a skeptic but to demonstrate value to someone who already made a bet:
- The opening does not pitch -- it reviews. The opener should reference specific usage data, outcomes achieved, and the customer's original success criteria: "When we kicked off last year, you said the goal was [X]. Let's look at where you landed."
- The talk track centers on realized value, not future value. Every talking point should be anchored to something that already happened, not something that might happen if they renew
- Scenario sections must cover churn risk signals: key champion has left the company (requires re-selling to a new contact), usage has dropped below 40% of licensed seats (adoption crisis), budget is under review (financial pressure), or a competitor has been re-introduced into the account (competitive re-engagement)
- The health check framework belongs in the playbook: a structured review of adoption metrics, value delivered against goals, expansion opportunities identified, and relationship health (is the champion still a champion, or have they gone quiet?)
- Pricing language in renewals must be handled carefully. If a price increase is attached, the talk track must sequence the value demonstration before the price conversation -- price increases announced before value is re-established trigger churn

### Stalled Deal Re-Engagement Play

When a deal has gone dark after active evaluation:
- The re-engagement opener must acknowledge the silence directly -- reps who pretend nothing happened sound out of touch: "When we last spoke in [month], we were [stage] and then things went quiet on our end. I wanted to check in, not to push, but to make sure things are OK on your side."
- Scenario sections must diagnose why the deal stalled before attempting to re-activate it: budget freeze, internal priority shift, champion lost influence, the problem was deprioritized, or they went with a competitor and have not told you yet. Each of these requires a different response
- Include a "kill it or keep it" qualifying question set -- reps should be able to determine within 10 minutes of re-engagement whether the deal is alive or dead, and if dead, whether it is worth maintaining for a future cycle
- The closing statement should propose a smaller commitment than the original ask -- if the full deal stalled, proposing a 90-day pilot or a single-team rollout lowers the bar back to a threshold they can say yes to

---

## Example

**Input:** "Create a sales playbook section for our competitive displacement play. We sell project management software to marketing teams at mid-size B2B SaaS companies (200-1000 employees). Our main competitor is Wrike, and the play is for when a prospect is actively using Wrike but unhappy with limited reporting visibility and rigid workflow templates. We have two strong case studies: Lattice (cut reporting time from 4 hours/week to 20 minutes) and Drift (went from 22% to 87% team adoption in 6 weeks). Our product is called Corra."

**Output:**

---

## Sales Playbook: Wrike Displacement Play

**Play Type:** Competitive displacement
**Target Buyer:** Marketing Manager, Sr. Manager, or Director at mid-size B2B SaaS (200-1000 employees)
**Sales Stage:** Late discovery through proposal; play may be triggered at first contact if signals are present
**Trigger Event:** Prospect mentions using Wrike AND references pain around reporting visibility or team adoption
**Last Updated:** [Current date]
**Play Owner:** Sales Enablement Manager, Product Marketing
**Win Rate Benchmark:** 38% -- review play if 90-day rolling win rate drops below 28%
**Average Deal Size:** $42,000 ARR (displacement deals typically 20% larger than greenfield due to urgency)
**Average Sales Cycle (when play is executed correctly):** 47 days from first qualified conversation to signed contract

---

### Play Overview

**When to Run This Play:**
- Prospect says they are "using Wrike but exploring alternatives" in any form
- Prospect mentions spending significant time exporting project data to build reports in Google Sheets or Excel
- Prospect describes workflow frustration: their team works a certain way but Wrike forces a different structure
- Wrike contract renewal date is within the next 120 days (check LinkedIn posts, procurement signals, or ask directly)
- Prospect's team adoption is visibly low -- they mention that only some people use it, or that their team has "workarounds"

**When NOT to Run This Play (Disqualifying Signals):**
- Prospect has more than 18 months remaining on a Wrike enterprise contract with significant sunk cost in integrations
- Prospect's primary pain is not reporting or workflow -- if their stated issue is capacity planning or resource management, run the greenfield new business play instead
- Prospect is a Wrike power user who specifically cites features they love -- these deals require a different play focused on specific capability gaps, not displacement

**Ideal Prospect Profile for This Play:**
- Marketing team of 15-75 people managing 8 or more concurrent campaigns (content, demand gen, events, product launches)
- Currently on Wrike Professional or Business tier
- Marketing leader reports to VP Marketing or CMO who regularly asks for project status and performance rollups
- Team has been on Wrike for 6-24 months -- enough time to have hit the reporting and customization ceiling, not so long that institutional inertia is overwhelming

**Desired Outcome:** Prospect agrees to a structured 2-week parallel evaluation using one real active campaign as the test case, with Corra and Wrike running side by side

---

### Talk Track

**Opening Statement:**
"[Name], a lot of the marketing teams we work with at companies your size came to us from Wrike. They had a similar experience -- Wrike was a real upgrade from whatever they were using before, and it worked well when the team was smaller. But once they were running 10, 15 campaigns at the same time and their CMO started asking for real-time visibility across all of them, they started hitting walls. Specifically around reporting and around workflow flexibility. Is that familiar at all?"

**Discovery Bridge:**
"Before I tell you anything about Corra, I want to make sure what you are running into is actually something we solve better than Wrike does. Can you walk me through what your reporting process looks like today when your CMO or VP asks for a cross-campaign status update?"

---

**Key Talking Points:**

**1. Reporting That Lives Inside the Tool, Not Inside Spreadsheets**

*Set up the problem:*
"Here is what we hear from almost every team that comes to us from Wrike: the tool tracks the work, but the reporting happens outside the tool. Someone -- usually the marketing ops person or the manager -- spends hours every week pulling data out of Wrike, formatting it in Google Sheets, and sending a report that is already 48 hours stale by the time leadership reads it. Does that match your experience?"

*What others do wrong:*
"The standard fix teams try is to build more dashboards inside Wrike or to invest in a BI integration. But Wrike's reporting is built around tasks and milestones, not around campaign-level outcomes. So you end up with very accurate data about whether tasks are complete, and no visibility into whether campaigns are on track."

*What we do differently:*
"Corra builds campaign-level reporting natively into the workspace. Every project is a campaign with a health score, a delivery timeline, and a resource utilization view. The CMO dashboard updates in real time -- not by export, not by a manual refresh, just live. When leadership asks 'how is the Q3 content push looking?' the answer is a 15-second pull, not a 4-hour Friday exercise."

*Proof:*
"Lattice had exactly this problem. Their marketing ops lead was spending 4 hours every Friday building a weekly report from Wrike exports. Six weeks after switching to Corra, that report takes 20 minutes to produce -- and it is more detailed than what they were producing before. Their CMO now pulls it herself."

*Anticipated interruption and response:*
If prospect says "We have tried to fix this with Wrike integrations and dashboards":
"That makes sense -- that is usually the first thing teams try. What typically happens is the integration solves the data connection problem but not the reporting design problem. You are still designing a report that Wrike was not built to produce. Can I ask what the reporting looks like after the integration -- does leadership pull it directly, or does someone still have to prep it?"

---

**2. Workflow That Matches How Your Team Works, Not How Wrike Thinks You Should Work**

*Set up the problem:*
"The second thing we hear consistently is that teams have to bend their process to fit Wrike's template structure rather than the other way around. Marketing teams do not all run campaigns the same way -- a demand gen campaign runs differently than a product launch, which runs differently than an event. Wrike gives you templates, but if your process does not match the template, you are either forcing your team into an unnatural structure or everyone starts working around the tool entirely."

*What others do wrong:*
"The workaround is usually a hybrid -- the tool tracks tasks, but the actual workflow coordination happens in Slack or in shared docs. The tool becomes a task log, not a workflow system. That is when adoption collapses, because if the tool does not reflect how work actually happens, people stop putting their work into it."

*What we do differently:*
"During Corra onboarding, we spend the first week mapping your team's actual workflows -- the demand gen workflow, the content workflow, the launch workflow -- before we build anything in the system. We configure Corra to match how your team works. When the system reflects their reality, people use it."

*Proof:*
"Drift came to us with 22% adoption on Wrike after 8 months. Their team had all developed personal systems because the tool did not match their process. We mapped their workflows in week one, built Corra around them, and they hit 87% adoption in 6 weeks. The difference was not training -- it was that the tool finally made sense for how they work."

*Anticipated interruption and response:*
If prospect says "We have already invested in customizing Wrike -- templates, automations, the whole thing":
"That investment is real and I do not want to dismiss it. Can I ask: after all that customization, what is your current team adoption rate -- roughly what percentage of your team is consistently logging work in Wrike? The customization investment can be high and adoption can still be low if the underlying structure does not match the workflow. If adoption is above 80%, you may have solved it. If it is lower than that, the customization may have addressed symptoms without the root cause."

---

**3. Migration That Is Handled for You, Not Handed to You**

*Set up the problem:*
"Even when teams want to switch, the migration feels like a project they do not have bandwidth for. Who is going to move all the active projects? What happens to the historical data? Will the team have to relearn everything while campaigns are live? These are legitimate concerns, and they stop a lot of teams from making a switch they know would help them."

*What others do wrong:*
"Most tool migrations get handed to the team with an import guide and a data export file. The team is already busy, so the migration takes 3 months, runs in parallel messily, and creates a period where nobody knows which system is authoritative. During that window, things fall through cracks and everyone blames the new tool."

*What we do differently:*
"Corra handles migration for you. We import your active projects, map your existing workflows into the Corra structure, and run both systems in parallel for 2 weeks. Your team does not flip over until they have confirmed in writing that Corra has everything they need. Historical Wrike data is archived and accessible through a read-only export, so nothing is lost."

*Proof:*
"We have completed 200+ migrations from Wrike. Average migration time is 5 business days. Zero data loss across all of them. The 2-week parallel period means your team's first experience with Corra is low-stakes -- they are not depending on it yet, just getting comfortable with it."

---

**Transition Phrases:**
- Moving from Point 1 (reporting) to Point 2 (workflow): "The reporting problem and the adoption problem are actually connected -- and that brings me to the second thing teams hit when they have outgrown Wrike..."
- Moving from Point 2 (workflow) to Point 3 (migration): "The next thing I always want to address, because it is usually the thing that makes teams hesitate even when they know they want to switch, is what the migration actually looks like..."
- Moving from Points to Close: "Based on what you have shared -- the reporting time, the adoption rate, and the contract timeline -- this sounds like exactly the situation the displacement play is designed for. I want to propose one specific next step rather than just asking you to think about it..."

**Closing Statement:**
"Here is what I want to suggest. Rather than a demo of Corra in a vacuum, let's run a real evaluation with one of your active campaigns. You pick the campaign -- ideally one that is 4-6 weeks out from launch. We configure Corra around your workflow for that campaign in 48 hours, run it alongside Wrike for 2 weeks, and at the end of that period you have enough real experience to make a decision based on actual data rather than a demo. I can have the evaluation scope and success criteria to you by end of this week. Does Wednesday or Thursday work to align on the details?"

---

### Common Scenarios

**Scenario 1: "We are mostly happy with Wrike, just exploring our options."**

- **Best response:** "That is really useful to know -- and I want to respect that. Can I ask what specifically prompted you to explore? In my experience, teams that are genuinely happy with their tool rarely carve out time to talk to alternatives. Was there a specific moment -- a reporting ask from leadership, a team member complaint, a campaign that went off the rails -- that made you curious about what else exists?"
- **Why this works:** Prospects who say they are "mostly happy" are often managing cognitive dissonance -- they made the Wrike purchase and do not want to admit it is not working. The follow-up question invites them to tell the real story without putting them on the defensive.
- **What NOT to say:** "Let me show you why Corra is better than Wrike." -- because it immediately makes the prospect defend their existing choice and positions the conversation as an argument rather than a discovery. You lose before you start.
- **Escalate when:** After 10-12 minutes of genuine discovery, the prospect still cannot articulate a specific pain point. This deal may not be qualified for a displacement play -- flag for manager review before investing further.

---

**Scenario 2: "We are worried about the disruption of switching tools while campaigns are live."**

- **Best response:** "That is the number one thing that makes teams hesitate, and it is a completely legitimate concern -- I would be worried about it too if our process was not specifically designed for it. Here is exactly what happens: we import your active projects in the first 48 hours, we run both systems in parallel for 2 weeks, and your team does not switch over until they confirm everything is in Corra and working. During that parallel period, Wrike is still live and authoritative -- Corra is just being set up alongside it. We have done this 200 times with zero data loss and zero campaign disruptions. The risk is genuinely lower than it feels."
- **Why this works:** Restates their concern as valid (reduces defensiveness), then provides specific operational details that replace anxiety with information. Concrete numbers (48 hours, 2 weeks, 200 times) replace a vague promise with evidence.
- **What NOT to say:** "Migration is easy" or "Don't worry about the switch" -- because both phrases minimize a legitimate concern, which destroys trust. The prospect knows migration involves risk; dismissing that knowledge signals either that you do not understand their situation or that you are overselling.
- **Escalate when:** Prospect reveals they have built custom integrations between Wrike and their CRM, BI tool, or finance system. Tag the deal for a technical discovery call with a Corra solutions engineer before continuing.

---

**Scenario 3: "Our contract with Wrike does not expire for another 8 months -- the timing is not right."**

- **Best response:** "That is fair, and I want to be straight with you about the math. If your Wrike contract runs for 8 more months and you start the Corra evaluation 6 months from now, you are looking at a 2-4 week evaluation, a 30-day negotiation, and you are potentially right up against your Wrike renewal deadline. That is a high-pressure situation that often leads to renegotiating with Wrike on their terms. Starting the evaluation now, with 8 months of runway, gives you real leverage -- Wrike knows you are looking, and if you decide to stay, it is because you chose to, not because you ran out of time. The evaluation itself is just 2 weeks and does not cost you anything. Would that logic change the timeline calculus at all?"
- **Why this works:** Reframes the timing objection as a risk management decision. 8 months feels like a long time to the prospect; this language reframes it as a procurement runway that is shorter than it looks.
- **What NOT to say:** "We can work around your contract" or "We offer credits for unused Wrike time" -- unless your company explicitly has a policy for this, do not offer something that may not be approved. Promises made in field conversations that cannot be kept destroy deals at the contract stage.
- **Escalate when:** Prospect reveals their Wrike contract includes an auto-renewal clause with a notice window of 60 days or more. Check the timeline math -- if the notice window has already passed, the Wrike renewal may be locked and the displacement timeline shifts to the following year.

---

**Scenario 4: "We tried switching tools once before and it was a disaster -- the team never adopted it."**

- **Best response:** "I hear that a lot, and I want to understand it before I say anything else. What happened with that switch? Specifically -- was the tool itself not a fit, was the migration messy, or did the team just never get comfortable with it? Because those are three different problems with three different causes, and I want to make sure we are not setting you up to repeat the same one. [Listen carefully.] Based on what you described, it sounds like [reflection of what they said]. The way Corra handles that specifically is [targeted response based on their answer]. I am not going to tell you that our onboarding magically solves all tool adoption problems -- but for the specific issue you described, here is exactly what we do differently."
- **Why this works:** Asks before answering. Most reps jump straight to "our onboarding is better" without finding out why the previous switch failed. Diagnosing first, then prescribing, demonstrates competence and builds trust.
- **What NOT to say:** "We have a great onboarding process" as the first response -- because it is generic and they have heard it before from the tool that failed. Specific and diagnostic beats promotional and general every time.
- **Escalate when:** The failed previous switch involved Corra or a product Corra has acquired. Bring in Customer Success or a senior AE immediately -- this requires specific institutional knowledge about what happened.

---

### Competitive Differentiation

#### vs. Wrike

**One-line overview:** Wrike is a work management platform primarily designed for cross-functional teams and agencies, with strong task management and Gantt chart capabilities. It is frequently evaluated by marketing teams for campaign management but was not built specifically for marketing workflows.

**Where Wrike wins (be honest):**
- **Gantt and timeline visualization:** Wrike's Gantt chart functionality is mature and visually strong. For teams that manage complex multi-week timelines with dependencies, Wrike's Gantt view is genuinely good. Do not compete on Gantt features -- compete on whether Gantt-centric views are what marketing teams actually need.
- **Enterprise security and compliance:** Wrike has strong SOC 2 Type II, GDPR compliance, and a robust permission architecture that some large enterprise IT departments prefer. If security compliance is the primary evaluation criterion, Wrike may have an advantage for specific regulated industries.

**Where Corra wins (with evidence):**
- **Campaign-level reporting:** Corra's reporting is built around marketing campaign outcomes, not task completion. Reps should say: "Wrike tells you if tasks are done. Corra tells you if campaigns are on track." -- Proof: Lattice reduced weekly reporting prep from 4 hours to 20 minutes.
- **Workflow-first onboarding:** Corra configures the tool to the team's workflow rather than offering templates to adapt to. -- Proof: Drift went from 22% to 87% adoption in 6 weeks because the system reflected how they already worked.
- **Marketing-specific templates and integrations:**
