09 · Plays

Ninety days. Five windows. Three conversations.

The operating plan. Day-by-day milestones, three named client-conversation archetypes with full discovery + demo + objection + pricing detail, the BD enablement mechanism, the Year-1 risk that matters most, the early-signals dashboard tracked weekly from Day 30, and the five Week-1 assumptions that have to be true before any of this runs.

Window 01

Days 1-15

Internal mapping

Goal: Complete account segmentation and BD relationship overlay.

Deliverables

Customer revenue ranking (trailing 24 months) and Pareto cut
BD interviews for relationship classification across all long-tail accounts
4-quadrant matrix populated · Q4/Q5/Q6 target list
First-pass target list for Days 30-45 pitches (5-7 Q4 accounts, 2-3 Q6 accounts)

Explicitly not doing · No external pitches yet · whales held

Window 02

Days 15-30

Sell to BD · co-build demo · lock wedge

Goal: Internal commercialization complete · product is sellable internally before external pitches begin.

Deliverables

PM-sells-to-BD exercise done · every BD covering target accounts has heard pitch
Co-built demo (PM + BD) ready for external use
Wedge use case locked (always-on listening) · pricing range agreed (25-35% bolt-on)
Top 20 BD-anticipated client questions documented with one-line answers

Explicitly not doing · No deck without a live working demo · no client meetings yet

Window 03

Days 30-45

First external pitches · Q4 validation

Goal: 1-2 paid pilots signed.

Deliverables

5-7 external pitches with Q4 (long-tail strong-bond) accounts
1-2 paid pilots signed at half-rate ($50-70K, 90-day)
First lighthouse case study in motion
RCA loop: every 'hold' response gets same-week debrief + pitch iteration

Explicitly not doing · Don't approach whales · don't lead with price · don't soften the wedge

Window 04

Days 45-60

Lighthouse + Q6 feedback + whale warm intros

Goal: Harden the playbook. Prepare for whale conversations.

Deliverables

1-2 paid pilots live and producing data
2-3 Q6 (difficult-client) pitches done · objection map sharpened
3-5 whale warm intros initiated (NOT pitches - frame and listen)
Lighthouse case study v1 drafted from first pilot

Explicitly not doing · Don't pitch whales yet · don't promise multi-brand framework before anchor pitch

Window 05

Days 60-90

Anchor pricing · BD certification · scale

Goal: Scaled motion operational. First whale conversation lands at anchor pricing.

Deliverables

1 whale-account pitch at anchor pricing (Conv 3 archetype) · may not close in 90 days but sets benchmark
3-5 paid pilots across Q4 + Q5 by Day 90
Every BD covering target accounts passes certification (5 fit-questions, 10-min demo, 6 objections, pricing matrix)
Land-and-expand playbook documented and version-controlled
Friday Deal Desk operational

Explicitly not doing · Don't drop anchor price for the first whale · the price IS the strategy

Three client conversations

Validation. Feedback. Anchor.

Conv 1Validation pitchDay 30-45 · BD-led, PM in the room

Archetype

Strong-relation Brand Insights Director · mid-revenue ZoomRx account · post-launch oncology · existing tracker buyer

Why this conversation

Relationship exists. Wedge fits. Lowest downside. The goal is conversion velocity, not deal size.

Angle (verbatim opener)

“Close the 90-day visibility gap between your tracker waves. Same panel you already trust, async HCP listening on continuous cadence, priced as a bolt-on to your tracker contract. We can run a 90-day pilot at half the bolt-on rate.”

Discovery questions

Q1What blind spots does the current tracker leave between waves?
Q2What HCP signal are you wishing you had more often than quarterly?
Q3Who else internally has asked for more continuous HCP voice?
Q4What's the timing of your next tracker renewal?
Q5If we ran a 90-day pilot starting next month, what would success look like to you?

Demo flow

Show one finished AI qual transcript with thematic synthesis · run a live moderation snippet · walk through how AE flagging works (the single most important compliance question)

Top objections

“Is this research-grade?”Show probe-depth examples · reference panel verification · cite probe rate ≥0.6 / depth ≥3.5 SLA

“What about AE reporting?”Walk through the 24-hour PV workflow · cite HIPAA BAA + 21CFR Part 11 posture

“We have IDI work running already.”Doesn't replace. Extends. IDIs stay where they're best (depth on N=10); Sagan covers continuous breadth on N=50-100

“How are you priced vs my tracker?”25-35% of tracker TCV, structured as a bolt-on. No new procurement cycle. Pilot at 50% rate.

Pricing

Pilot at 50% of bolt-on rate ($50-70K for 90-day) · full-year post-pilot at standard bolt-on range

Learn

Deal-breaker objections · true willingness to pay · whether the wedge resonates

Sell

A 90-day paid pilot with clear success criteria

Conv 2Feedback pitchDay 45-60 · PM-led

Archetype

Tough/difficult mid-revenue account · post-launch immunology · history of friction with ZoomRx or new-vendor pitches

Why this conversation

Tough clients give the sharpest feedback. If the pitch survives this conversation, it survives anything. Conversion is secondary; playbook upgrade is primary.

Angle (verbatim opener)

“We're launching a new methodology and want your honest reaction before we approach senior buyers. Your skepticism will make this product better.” The framing lowers defensive posture and surfaces sharper objections than a standard sell motion.

Discovery questions

Q1What's wrong with how MR vendors typically pitch you?
Q2If you saw a product that promised 'HCP qual in days at half the cost,' what would your first concern be?
Q3What would have to be true for you to recommend this internally?
Q4What competitive products in this space have you seen?

Demo flow

Same demo as Conv 1, but stop early and ask 'where does this break for you?'

Top objections

“This feels like a survey dressed as qual.”Probe-rate floor ≥0.6 · show three branch examples from the EGFR demo · invite a live moderation challenge

“Other AI-natives are pitching us the same.”Acknowledge · point to pharma logo gap on horizontal AI · show panel + tracker integration they can't match

“We're not buying anything new this year.”Reframe: this is in the tracker contract you already buy, not a new vendor. Bolt-on, not net-new procurement.

Pricing

Pricing not the primary focus · if interest emerges, same pilot offer as Conv 1

Learn

Toughest objections we haven't heard yet · competitive products surfacing · pricing ceiling pressure · methodology credibility concerns

Sell

Secondary · primary goal is feedback that strengthens the playbook for Conv 5+ and the whale pitch

Conv 3Anchor pitchDay 60+ · PM-led, not BD-led

Archetype

Whale account · Head of Insights or VP Research · multi-brand portfolio

Why this conversation

Pricing leverage comes from proof plus senior posture. By Day 60, we have proof points from Conv 1 and 2. The goal is not Year-1 revenue - it's anchor pricing that sets the benchmark for every subsequent deal.

Angle (verbatim opener)

“We have been quietly building an AI qual methodology and the early proof points are strong (cite Conv 1 outcome). We're not productizing this for everyone yet. The first three multi-brand framework deals will define how this category gets priced. We want yours to be one of them.”

Discovery questions

Q1What's your AI/ML strategy at the research org level?
Q2Are you evaluating other AI MR vendors? If so, what's shortlisted?
Q3What does preferred-methodology-vendor status require at your company?
Q4What's the right pricing structure: per-brand, multi-brand framework, enterprise license?
Q5Who else needs to be in this conversation (procurement, legal, IT security, Med Affairs)?

Demo flow

Higher-altitude · show the Sagan Agents marketplace concept + roadmap · co-developed roadmap framing · multi-brand utilization model

Top objections

“We're evaluating Outset / Listen Labs.”Pharma logo gap (verifiable on their sites) · we already sit inside your tracker contract · second-vendor risk if you wait

“What's the buyer journey for this internally?”Co-design with you · joint QBR · roadmap input · we want you in the room when the category gets defined

“Enterprise licensing - not per-brand.”Framework price · $500K-1M+ annual commitment for unlimited use across N brands · volume drops marginal study cost to ~$40K

Pricing

Multi-brand framework · $500K-1M+ annual commitment · unlimited use across N brands · the framework IS the anchor

Learn

Enterprise-buyer expectations · competitive set in their consideration · what 'preferred vendor' status requires

Sell

A multi-brand framework signed within 6 months · Year-1 revenue impact may be small but strategic value (locking out AI-native competitors, anchor pricing) is large

BD enablement

Five phases. One Friday standing meeting.

What “BD is confident selling Sagan” looks like: every BD runs qualified discovery solo with the five fit-questions; demos end-to-end on a generic brief in under 10 minutes; handles top six objections with a one-line response plus backup artifact; knows the pricing matrix; knows when to pull PM in. Measurable: 50% of BD-sourced opportunities qualified within 60 days; 30% convert to pilot within 90 days.

Sell to BD

Weeks 1-3

I am the salesperson. BD is the toughest customer panel I will ever face.

Activities

Week 1: 1:1 mindset interviews with every BD covering target accounts
Week 2: Group pitch session · BDs role-play toughest client objections · document everything
Week 3: Reverse role-play · BDs pitch back to PM · capture language patterns + hesitations

Output

Top 20 objections documented · top 5 BD-language patterns that work · top 5 hesitations to address

Build real proof

Weeks 3-5

Spend the budget. Run one actual research project end-to-end.

Activities

Real client (friendly Q4 prospect or internal proxy) · real HCPs · real AI moderation
BD sees the entire pipeline: what the moderator asks, how HCPs respond, how synthesis comes together
Removes abstraction · BD stops selling a concept, starts selling something they've seen work

Output

Live demo asset · BD-internalized confidence · first piece of the lighthouse case study

Build the playbook

Weeks 4-5 (parallel)

Codify everything BD needs to run a discovery + demo solo.

Activities

ICP and anti-ICP definitions
5 qualifying questions for discovery
10-minute demo script
Objection map: 20 objections, one-line responses each
Pricing matrix (pilot / bolt-on / framework)
Competitor battle cards (Outset · Strella · Listen Labs · Kantar · Trinity)

Output

Self-contained sales kit · BD can pick up and run without PM coverage

Role-play and certify

Weeks 6-7

Public scorecards. No shame, clear bar.

Activities

Mock pitch with PM + one customer-experienced peer
Bar: can BD run discovery call solo, demo the product, handle top 6 objections, quote pricing accurately?
BDs who don't pass get additional coaching · PM stays on their calls until they do pass

Output

Certified BD roster · pipeline ready to run without PM coverage on routine deals

Friday Deal Desk

Ongoing

30 minutes weekly. BD brings live deals. PM helps unstick.

Activities

BD brings any deal stuck > 7 days
PM unsticks (price, positioning, objection, scope)
Outputs feed the playbook update
PM joins BD on first 10 external calls in this window

Output

Continuous playbook upgrade · front-line signal back to product roadmap

Year-1 headline risk

Penetration depth, not logo count.

The risk I would watch most closely in Year 1 is NOT logo count or pipeline volume. It is penetration depth inside converted accounts. The right question is not “how many clients converted?” but “of the converted clients, how much of their research engagement is now flowing through Sagan?”

Metric definition

penetration_depth = research_projects_using_sagan / total_research_projects_at_client

Tracked quarterly per converted account. Defines whether we are a methodology partner or a niche vendor.

60-80%

Healthy

Sagan is a default methodology · traditional methods reserved for specific use cases · renewal is high probability

40-60%

Concerning

Adoption is real but not deep · competitive entry likely · renewal uncertain · escalate

<40%

Failing

Niche-vendor trap · client uses us for narrow use cases only · competitive replacement likely in Year 2

Connected risk · pilot-to-renewal gap

Enterprise pharma research budgets are set September-Novemberfor the following year. Pilots that close in Q1/Q2 must be embedded in the client's annual research plan by Q4 to survive into renewal. If Sagan misses that window, it stays in experimental budget until it dies. This is innovation theater risk - the dangerous failure mode where the client gives positive pilot feedback, BD reports the deal as successful, but the work never makes it into the client's actual research planning.

Early-signals dashboard

Five signals. Tracked weekly from Day 30.

SignalTargetFailure modeCadenceIf it fires

Competitive shadow<3 mentions / 90d≥3 'we're already piloting [AI-native]' surfacing in discoveryWeekly from Day 30Escalate to product roadmap urgency · feature-gap RCA

Annual-plan inclusion≥80% by Nov 30<50% of pilot clients name Sagan in next-year research planTracked Sept-Nov each yearRenewal motion broken · pilot-to-production conversion repair needed

Expansion ratio>1.0Sagan ACV growth < tracker ACV growth in same accountMonthly · YTDWe're rotating existing budget, not capturing net-new · pricing or positioning fix

Penetration depth60-80% by EOY<40% of client research engagements running through SaganQuarterly QBRNiche-vendor trap · feature-set audit · methodology partnership conversation

How to validate

1:1 with founder + sales leadership

If it's wrong

We're in recovery mode, not launch mode · plan adjusts heavily · run a post-mortem first

The bet

90 days. Existing team. No new hires. Three paid pilots, one whale anchor, certified BD, and Sagan named in next year's annual research plan at 80%+ of pilot accounts.