Salesloft MCP Demo Server

# Customer Interview: Christopher Lane, CRO ## Sustainability/ESG Tech Sector | $80M ARR **Date:** January 2, 2026 **Duration:** 30 minutes **Participants:** - Christopher Lane, Chief Revenue Officer, Sustainability/ESG Tech Company - James Mitchell, Enterprise Solutions Manager, Salesloft + Clari - Sarah Chen, Solutions Engineer, Salesloft + Clari **Context:** Mid-market SaaS company in the sustainability/ESG technology space experiencing rapid growth but facing data governance and stakeholder alignment challenges around ESG reporting and compliance. --- ## Interview Transcript **James:** Christopher, thanks so much for making time today. We've been looking forward to this conversation. Sarah and I are trying to understand how companies like yours are thinking about the revenue operations and sales intelligence challenges that come with ESG—especially as regulations keep shifting. **Christopher:** Yeah, absolutely. Honestly, James, this is probably one of the more interesting problems we're wrestling with right now. We're in a weird position where every quarter, the rules seem to change. Just last month, the SEC updated their climate disclosure rules again, and I had to call an emergency meeting with our CFO, our Legal team, and our Sales leadership because no one was sure what that meant for our go-to-market strategy. **Sarah:** That's actually perfect context. We're hearing this from a lot of CROs right now. Can you talk through what that looks like internally for you? Like, when the SEC announcement drops, who are you typically reaching out to first? **Christopher:** It's chaos, honestly. We've got three different people who think they own this. Our CFO cares about it from a compliance and financial reporting angle. Our Chief Sustainability Officer—that's a relatively new role for us—sees it as strategic opportunity and wants to position it in our marketing. And Legal just wants to make sure we're not exposing ourselves. So my first call is usually, "Hey, what do we actually need to do?" And the answer is never clear. We end up doing a lot of scrambling, running old Excel models, trying to piece together what our obligations are, and then I have to figure out how that impacts our sales process and customer conversations. **James:** So multiple stakeholders, but they're not necessarily coordinated around what the change means for business? **Christopher:** Right. And here's the thing—we're selling *into* companies that have the exact same problem. Our customers are confused. Their boards are confused. Their investors are confused. And what we're discovering is that most companies don't actually *know* which framework they should be following or how frameworks map to regulations. Like, does TCFD matter if ISSB is coming? Do we need both? What's the difference for a Fortune 500 company vs. a mid-market company? **Sarah:** That's a gap we see a lot. Are your sales reps running into that directly? **Christopher:** Every single day. And here's where it gets tricky—our sales team isn't trained to answer that. Our competitive advantage should be that we're the experts, right? But right now, we're showing up with a generic pitch, and customers are asking questions we can't answer. So we end up bringing in our customer success team or a consultant to explain frameworks, and that slows everything down. We're competing against Deloitte and EY on advisory expertise when really we should be competing on technology and ease of use. But we can't get there unless we can actually guide them through the framework complexity. **James:** So there's a real need for your sales team to have that advisory intelligence built in? Not just on your product, but on the regulatory and framework landscape? **Christopher:** Absolutely. And it's not just sales—it's how we structure the entire deal. We used to have a simpler buying center. Now, it's CFO, CSO, Legal, sometimes the Chief Compliance Officer, the Investor Relations person... I mean, we're coordinating with five or six stakeholders per deal, and they all have different concerns. The CFO wants to reduce implementation costs. Legal wants risk mitigation. The CSO wants to position it as strategic. And IR just wants to get something shipped that looks good in the annual report. **Sarah:** How are you managing that alignment currently? **Christopher:** Honestly, not great. We're doing a lot of manual Salesforce updates, spreadsheet tracking of who's involved in each deal, and follow-ups that fall through the cracks. We have no real visibility into which stakeholder is pushing or blocking. I have to manually check in because there's no structured way to know if the CFO's okay with the budget if we haven't heard from them in two weeks. It's very... analog. **James:** And then there's the question of implementation. Once you actually close a deal, what does that look like on the customer side? **Christopher:** This is where we hit the biggest wall. Data collection is the primary barrier for almost every deal. Companies have no idea where their data lives. Like, we have a customer right now—huge company, $2 billion in revenue—and they're trying to map their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Scope 1 and 2 are somewhat straightforward if you have utility data. But Scope 3? That's supplier data, logistics data, waste data. It's everywhere. Spreadsheets, legacy systems, some stuff probably not even digitized. **Sarah:** So they're asking you to help with the data assessment piece? **Christopher:** Yes, but we're not equipped to do that the way a consultant is. A consultant shows up with a framework, audits their data landscape, and says, "Here's what we need, here's the phased approach." We're trying to do that with product demos and generic implementation playbooks. It doesn't work. So we end up either doing custom implementations that kill our margins, or we send them to a consultant first, which means we don't control the narrative. The consultant recommends the tech stack, and we're fighting for relevance. **James:** Have you tried a phased approach to implementation? Like, "Let's start with what you have, measure it, report it, and then expand from there"? **Christopher:** We talk about it, but we can't operationalize it. And here's the real issue—customers are comparing us against two things. One is their existing consultant relationships. They've got a Deloitte person, an EY person, someone they trust. We're the new vendor trying to replace their advisor. Two, they've got spreadsheet models built over years. A CFO has a model they've refinement, they trust it, they know where the numbers come from. We're asking them to rip that out and trust our system. **Sarah:** So you're competing against trusted advisors and against inertia? **Christopher:** Exactly. And the switching cost isn't really about switching from our product to another product—it's about switching from manual, trusted processes to something new and automated. That's why the value prop has to be massive. It's not just "better reporting"—it's "reduce your implementation time by 60%, get real-time visibility, cut your data management headcount by two people." Those are the things that actually move the needle. **James:** Let's talk about that value prop. When you do sell successfully, what's the primary trigger? What makes them say yes? **Christopher:** Usually it's regulatory compliance hitting a pain threshold, or an acquisition. Like, we just closed a deal with a mid-market company because they were acquired by a larger firm that had actual ESG reporting requirements. Suddenly, they had a deadline and a mandated approach. That's a forcing function. Without that, it's hard to compete because the spreadsheet is "working" even if it's not really scalable. **Sarah:** So you need either an external forcing function or an internal shift in how they view ESG? **Christopher:** Right. And the shift we're seeing is that boards are starting to actually care. Not all boards, but enough that investor pressure is real. Shareholders are voting on this stuff. But that takes time to trickle down to the operational level where people are actually changing processes. So we're usually caught in the middle—the board wants ESG, but the team executing it is still working in spreadsheets because that's cheaper and requires less training. **James:** Given all that, if you had a platform that combined compliance intelligence, stakeholder management, and implementation guidance all in one place, what would that change for you? **Christopher:** [pauses] Everything, honestly. Because right now, we're cobbling together solutions. We've got SalesForce for CRM, we've got LinkedIn Sales Navigator for research, we've got Slack for internal coordination, and then we're manually tracking compliance changes in a shared spreadsheet. If we had a platform that said, "Hey, new SEC rule, here's what it means for your customers, here's the buying center you need to engage, here's a phased implementation plan you can present," we could actually scale. We could take our deal cycle from six months down to four. We could reduce our professional services costs. We could actually train sales reps to be advisors instead of feature dumpers. **Sarah:** What would concern you about a solution like that? Like, what would need to be true for you to feel confident in it? **Christopher:** [leans back] Integration with our existing stack would be huge. We're not going to rip out Salesforce or Slack. So it has to plug into our workflow, not become another place we have to check. Second, it has to be accurate on the compliance side. Like, I can't have sales reps going out with wrong information about what ISSB actually requires. We'd get sued. Third—and this is the big one—it has to reduce, not increase, our implementation burden. We've had tools that require so much setup that we end up hiring someone just to manage them. We don't have that luxury. **James:** So integration, accuracy, and ease of adoption. Those are make-or-break. **Christopher:** Yeah. And honestly, the ease of adoption is probably the hardest one. We've got reps who are used to working a certain way. Our VP of Sales is skeptical of adding tools. She's like, "They're not going to use it." So it has to be so intuitive that people want to use it, not feel like it's being forced on them. **Sarah:** Have you looked at solutions that try to do this in the market right now? **Christopher:** We've kicked the tires on a few platforms—some general sales intelligence tools, some compliance platforms, some ESG-specific software. None of them really nail all three things. The compliance platforms are accurate but clunky. The sales intelligence tools are slick but miss the ESG nuance. The ESG software is good at reporting but doesn't understand buying center dynamics. So we're still kind of stuck evaluating whether to build this ourselves, hire a consultant to help us operate better, or find someone who can actually unify the experience. **James:** Walk me through what "build it ourselves" would look like for you. **Christopher:** We'd need to hire someone, maybe two people, just to monitor regulatory changes and update our internal playbooks. We'd need to build out questionnaires to assess customer data maturity. We'd need to document three or four phased implementation paths depending on company size and baseline. And we'd need to keep updating it. The ESG landscape is moving too fast for a static solution. It's probably eighteen months of work and a half-million to a million dollars to get something that actually covers our needs. And then we're hiring people to maintain it instead of selling. **Sarah:** Versus buying a solution that does that for you? **Christopher:** Yeah, if it exists and it actually works, that's obviously the better path. But I'm skeptical. Most tools promise integration and ease, and then they ship and it's, "Oh, you'll need to set up API keys, configure the data flows, and we'll send you to a consultant for training." We're past that. **James:** What if I told you that we're actually building exactly this with Salesloft and Clari? Compliance intelligence layer, stakeholder mapping directly into Salesforce, phased implementation playbooks based on company maturity, and it all surfaces in the tools your reps already use? **Christopher:** [pauses, more interested] Okay, now you have my attention. But I have a few questions. First, how current is the compliance intelligence? Is this updated daily? Weekly? If a new rule drops on Friday, do we know about it Monday morning? **James:** The intelligence layer is updated daily. We're pulling from SEC filings, regulatory bodies, industry associations, and a panel of compliance experts. So you're getting near-real-time updates. **Christopher:** And it maps to our customers? Like, not just "there's a new rule" but "here's which rules affect mid-market versus Fortune 500 companies"? **Sarah:** Exactly. You configure your customer segmentation once, and the system automatically flags rules that are relevant to each segment. **Christopher:** Okay, that's powerful. Second question—the stakeholder mapping. Is that automatic or do we have to manually input who the buyers are? **Sarah:** It's hybrid. We have a database of typical buying centers for different industries and company sizes, and we map that to Salesforce data. Then your team can refine it based on what you learn in discovery calls. So it's not magic, but it's a starting point instead of blank slate. **Christopher:** And you understand that the buying center is fluid, right? Like, it's not just "CFO, CSO, Legal." Sometimes the CTO is involved if they care about data security. Sometimes the Chief Accounting Officer shows up if it's SEC-related. Sometimes it's just the CFO and you never even talk to the CSO. **James:** Totally. The system is designed for that. You can flag which stakeholders matter for each deal, track engagement, see who's gone quiet. It's about making the invisible visible. **Christopher:** That alone would help. Right now, we're just guessing. And the phased implementation piece—let me be direct. I need sales reps to be able to tell a customer, "Based on your data maturity, we think Phase 1 is 90 days, costs X, and gets you to Scope 1 and 2 reporting. Phase 2 is another 120 days, includes Scope 3, and here's how we fund it." Can your system do that? **Sarah:** Not automatically, but we can provide the framework and you customize it. You create your standard implementation approaches, and the system surfaces them based on customer profile. So a rep doesn't have to think about it—they just confirm or adjust. **Christopher:** That's useful, but it requires me to do work upfront to define those approaches. **Sarah:** Yeah, there's some upfront setup. But think of it like this—you do that work once, you document your repeatable playbooks, and then every deal after that moves faster because reps aren't reinventing the wheel. **Christopher:** How long is that upfront work? **James:** For a company your size, probably two to three weeks. You'd work with our solution engineer to map out your typical deal structures, implementation paths, stakeholder dynamics. Then you've got something you can iterate on over time. **Christopher:** And during that time, we don't have visibility? Like, our sales team can't use the tool? **Sarah:** You can use it immediately. The setup is more about optimizing it for your specific business model. Out of the box, you get generic frameworks that work for most ESG companies. But yeah, there's a value unlock when you customize. **Christopher:** [nods] Okay, I'm more interested now. But I want to loop back to the competitive positioning piece. You said this is your compliance intelligence and stakeholder management layer. What's the differentiation versus, say, Gartner or a compliance software company building the same thing? **James:** Great question. Gartner is research-focused, not connected to your sales process. So you might buy their report, but it's not in the flow of how your reps work. Compliance software companies focus on the regulatory side but don't understand sales dynamics. We're unique because we're building this *inside* the sales workflow. Your rep is on a call with a prospect, they open the tool, they see updated regulatory requirements, they see the typical buying center for that company type, they see the implementation playbooks. It's all in context, not a separate research project. **Christopher:** And you're pulling this from Salesforce data? Like, are you using our account data to make recommendations? **Sarah:** Yes. We integrate with your Salesforce instance, so we can see what you've closed before, what implementation looked like, how long it took, what went wrong. That helps us tune the recommendations for your business specifically. **Christopher:** Interesting. But that requires us to log that data correctly in Salesforce, and honestly, our reps are inconsistent. Like, we have a "Implementation Challenges" field that's supposed to be filled out, and I'd say 30% of deals have real information there. **James:** That's actually more common than you'd think. But that's where you've got an opportunity to tighten up your process. You want this data for your own reporting, right? Like, "Why did this deal take six months instead of four?" **Christopher:** Yeah, absolutely. We do monthly deal reviews and we're always trying to figure out where time is lost. **Sarah:** So this tool can help you with that, but it also requires you to be more disciplined about data capture. It's a forcing function for process improvement. **Christopher:** Okay, so there's a change management piece. It's not just "here's the tool," it's "here's why you need to use it and how it changes how you work." **James:** Exactly. And that's where we'd support you. We'd help you think through how to roll this out to your team, how to train them, how to measure adoption. **Christopher:** How long is that rollout? **Sarah:** It depends on team size, but typically you'd do a pilot with maybe three to five of your best reps, run that for two weeks, gather feedback, iterate, and then scale to the full team over four weeks. **Christopher:** So two months end-to-end to get full adoption? **James:** To get full adoption with high engagement, yeah, probably two months. Some teams move faster, some slower. **Christopher:** [pauses] I have another question. You mentioned this is Salesloft and Clari together. How do those two integrate? Are they separate? **Sarah:** Good question. Salesloft is the engagement side—email, calls, sequences, that kind of thing. Clari is the visibility side—pipeline intelligence, forecasting, that kind of thing. We're building this compliance and stakeholder layer so that both sides benefit. Salesloft reps get the intelligence, Clari gives you visibility into how that intelligence is impacting your pipeline. **Christopher:** So my VP of Sales would see in Clari if certain stakeholders are engaged versus dark on a deal? **James:** Yeah. You could see, "This deal has three stakeholders engaged and two that haven't responded in two weeks." That surfaces risk that you might not see otherwise. **Christopher:** That's actually powerful for forecasting. Like, if the CFO hasn't engaged and they're a required stakeholder, that deal is probably at risk. **Sarah:** Exactly. And you can get ahead of it instead of finding out at the end of the month. **Christopher:** Okay, I'm definitely interested. But I want to understand the commercial model. Is this licensed per user? Per seat? Annual contract? **James:** It's per active user per month, with a minimum seat count. So you'd commit to a certain number of reps having access, and you pay monthly for active users above that minimum. There's typically an implementation fee upfront, and you get quarterly business reviews to make sure you're optimizing usage. **Christopher:** What's the typical seat commitment? **James:** For a company your size doing $80M ARR, we'd probably be looking at 20 to 30 committed seats, depending on how many people are actively selling into ESG accounts. Pricing is around $150 to $200 per user per month, so you're probably looking at $36,000 to $72,000 annually depending on the exact configuration. **Christopher:** That's not trivial, but it's in the ballpark. What's included? **Sarah:** The compliance intelligence layer, the stakeholder mapping, the implementation playbook framework, all the integrations with Salesforce and Slack, the training and ongoing support, quarterly business reviews, and we throw in initial playbook development as part of implementation. **Christopher:** And if we find out three months in that this isn't working for us, can we unwind it? **James:** You can cancel, but we typically build in a 90-day eval period where if adoption is low or the tool isn't delivering value, we can pivot or refund. We want to make sure you're successful. **Christopher:** That's reasonable. Honestly, my biggest concern is adoption. I could see our VP of Sales pushing back, saying, "One more tool, one more thing for reps to check." How do you handle that? **Sarah:** We usually work directly with your VP of Sales and your best reps to show them the impact. Like, "In your last deal, how long did it take to figure out the buying center? How many follow-up calls?" Then we show them how this would have compressed that timeline. Seeing the impact on their own deals usually converts skeptics. **Christopher:** So you'd do a working session with her and our best sellers? **James:** Yes. We'd bring in a sales engineer and a customer success manager. We'd look at your recent deals, walk through how the tool would have changed the outcome, and gather her feedback on what would actually move the needle for her team. **Christopher:** I like that approach. [pauses] Okay, so let's talk timeline. If we move forward, what does the next 90 days look like? **James:** Week one: we finalize the contract and get you access to the platform. Week two to three: you work with our solution engineer to configure your ESG frameworks, buying centers, and implementation playbooks. Week three: you pilot with three to five reps. Week four: we gather feedback and iterate. Weeks five to eight: you roll out to the full team. By end of month three, you should have adoption across your team and should be seeing deal velocity improvements. **Christopher:** And what do you need from us? **Sarah:** A dedicated point person who can attend weekly implementation calls, access to your Salesforce instance, some time from your sales leadership to help us understand your playbooks, and honest feedback from your pilot team. **Christopher:** I can commit to that. So the next step is? **James:** The next step is we send over a detailed proposal with pricing, terms, timeline, and everything we've discussed. You review it with your team, and we schedule a follow-up to close any gaps and move to contract. **Christopher:** When would that proposal land? **James:** We'll have it to you by end of business Friday. And then we'd suggest scheduling a follow-up for next Wednesday so you have time to think about it. **Christopher:** That works. Let me just ask one more thing—and I know I've been asking a lot of questions—but I'm thinking about the competitive angle. You mentioned you're building this as a Salesloft and Clari joint offering. Are other ESG software companies going to have access to this? Like, are we going to be special, or is this becoming table stakes? **James:** Great question. This is a first-of-its-kind integration that we're building to help sales teams specifically. It's not going into the hands of ESG software companies. You'd be an early adopter, and we want to learn from your implementation to refine the product. But no, we're not selling this to your competitors. **Christopher:** Okay, so there's a window where we'd have an advantage? **James:** Yeah. If you move quickly—like, next 30 days—you're in our first cohort. We're learning from your implementation and incorporating feedback. Companies that come later get the benefit of that learning, but they also don't have a voice in the product development. **Christopher:** That's a good incentive. Alright, I think I'm ready to move forward. But I want to be honest—I need to get buy-in from my CFO and my VP of Sales. I'll probably loop them in on the proposal and we might want another conversation with them before we sign. **James:** Absolutely expected. In fact, we recommend that. Who should we address the proposal to? **Christopher:** Me is fine, but make sure to copy my VP of Sales, Sarah Rodriguez, and my CFO, Michael Chen. I'll make sure they're prepared to review it. **Sarah:** Perfect. And I'll include a brief summary of how this addresses the concerns we talked about—stakeholder alignment, regulatory intelligence, implementation guidance. That'll help them connect the dots. **Christopher:** Great. One last thing—timeline-wise, I know you want to close in the next 30 days. Is that a hard deadline or flexible? **James:** We'd love to have you signed by end of month, mainly because we're looking at allocating implementation resources for our first cohort, and we want to make sure we've got capacity. If you need longer, we can make it work, but it does affect when we can actually start onboarding you. **Christopher:** I should know something by next Friday or Monday. I'll push back if I see issues. **James:** Perfect. We really appreciate your time today and your openness. This is exactly the kind of feedback that helps us build products that actually solve real problems. **Christopher:** Yeah, I'm genuinely interested. I've been stewing on these problems for a while, and it feels like you're addressing them at the system level rather than just layering on another feature. I'm cautiously optimistic. --- ## Key Takeaways ### Problem Validation 1. **Regulatory Complexity as Primary Driver** - Christopher explicitly stated that regulatory changes (SEC, ISSB, TCFD) are happening faster than his organization can process - There's no clear ownership structure—CFO, CSO, and Legal all have different perspectives on the same regulations - This creates misalignment in go-to-market strategy and sales process 2. **Buying Center Complexity is Underestimated** - Expected stakeholders: CFO, CSO, Legal, often 5-6 people per deal - Current approach: manual Salesforce updates and spreadsheet tracking - Major pain: "No visibility into which stakeholder is pushing or blocking" - This directly impacts deal velocity (currently 6 months, target 4 months) 3. **Advisory Gap is Critical** - Customers don't understand which frameworks apply to them - Salesforce team isn't equipped to answer framework questions - They're competing against Deloitte/EY for advisory expertise but losing on advisory positioning - This forces them to bring in customer success or external consultants, slowing deals 4. **Data Collection is the Implementation Barrier** - Customers don't know where data lives (Scope 3 is particularly challenging) - They're comparing against consultant approaches and years-old spreadsheet models - Switching cost isn't about switching products; it's about switching from trusted manual processes to automation - Value prop needs to be dramatic (reduce implementation time by 60%, cut headcount) to overcome inertia 5. **Competing Against Spreadsheets** - Current approach: spreadsheet models that are refined over years, trusted by CFO - Asking customers to rip out spreadsheets and trust new system is a high bar - Switching triggers: regulatory compliance hitting threshold, acquisitions with mandated requirements - Without forcing function, spreadsheet keeps "working" even if not scalable ### Solution Validation 1. **Product-Market Fit Indicators** - Integration with existing stack (Salesforce, Slack) is non-negotiable - Accuracy on compliance side is a legal requirement, not a nice-to-have - Ease of adoption is the hardest challenge but also the biggest opportunity - Reps won't use tools forced on them; adoption requires genuine utility 2. **Key Solution Components Validated** - Real-time regulatory intelligence (daily updates, mapped to customer segments) - Stakeholder mapping starting from database of typical buying centers - Implementation playbook framework customized to company's approach - Integration with Salesforce and visibility in Clari 3. **Differentiation vs. Competitors** - Gartner: research-focused, not integrated with sales workflow - Compliance software: accurate on regulations, miss sales dynamics - ESG software: good at reporting, don't understand buying centers - Our angle: inside the sales workflow, connected to customer data, contextual 4. **Commercial Framework Validated** - $150-200 per user per month is acceptable for Christopher's business - 20-30 seat commitment ($36K-72K annually) is in ballpark - 90-day eval period reduces risk and builds trust - 2-3 week implementation setup time is reasonable 5. **Change Management Requirements** - VP of Sales buy-in is critical (she's skeptical of new tools) - Working session with best reps to demonstrate impact on their deals is conversion technique - Change management/training is a 6-8 week rollout to full team - Forcing function for improved Salesforce discipline (capturing implementation data) ### Sales Insights 1. **Buying Process Dynamics** - Early champion: Christopher is interested but needs CFO and VP of Sales alignment - Proposal should speak to each stakeholder's concern (CFO: cost/process, VP Sales: adoption/impact, Christopher: strategic value) - 30-day close window is achievable but tight; needs executive buy-in quickly 2. **Effective Sales Tactics Used** - Listening to specific pain points before positioning solution - Validating competitive positioning (showing understanding of alternatives) - Addressing objections directly (adoption, integration, accuracy) - Creating scarcity incentive (first cohort gets product input, early pricing) - Providing clear next steps and timeline - Offering security through eval period and joint business reviews 3. **What Almost Lost the Deal** - Pushing too hard on timeline without understanding internal approval needed - Overpromising on automation (stakeholder mapping isn't automatic) - Not acknowledging the change management burden upfront --- ## Context for Future Conversations **About Christopher Lane:** - CRO at fast-growing ESG/Sustainability tech company ($80M ARR) - Currently spending significant mental energy on regulatory complexity - Owns sales strategy and pipeline, but doesn't own compliance or implementation - Has monthly deal reviews looking at why deals take longer than expected - Skeptical of new tools but willing to engage if value is clear - Needs buy-in from CFO (Michael Chen) and VP of Sales (Sarah Rodriguez) before moving forward **About His Organization:** - Multi-stakeholder buying process with unclear ownership - Sales team lacks advisory expertise on ESG frameworks - Implementation is a friction point; doing custom implementations that hurt margins - Salesforce discipline is inconsistent (30% of deals missing implementation data) - Has capacity to dedicate a point person to implementation - VP of Sales (Sarah Rodriguez) is conservative on new tools; needs proof of impact **Next Actions:** - Proposal by EOW Friday (include CFO, VP of Sales) - Follow-up call Wednesday - Initial feedback by Monday - Working session with VP of Sales and pilot reps if they move forward - Target signature: end of January **Competitive Threats:** - External consultants (Deloitte, EY) who provide advisory and build trust - Existing spreadsheet models that are trusted and refined - Lack of regulatory intelligence forcing them to hire people or buy consultants - Other sales intelligence tools that lack ESG specificity **Upsell Opportunities:** - Customer success implementation support - Advanced analytics on deal stage movement by stakeholder type - Benchmarking data on ESG deal cycles across company size - Downstream: connecting to Clari forecasting for revenue impact visibility