I spent three months building a comprehensive competitive intelligence platform. Battle cards for every competitor. Automated alerts for product launches. Weekly competitive digests. Quarterly deep-dive reports.
I was proud of it. This would transform how we competed.
I presented it to the exec team expecting enthusiasm. Instead, I got polite nods and "this looks great, thanks for putting it together."
Two weeks later, sales adoption was 12%. The platform sat unused. The weekly digests went unread.
I'd built something nobody asked for, solving a problem I assumed existed without validating it mattered enough for people to change their behavior.
Our CMO pulled me aside: "You built a solution before getting buy-in. That's backwards. Buy-in happens before you build, not after. You secure resources, alignment, and commitment first—then you build with confidence it'll get adopted."
That conversation changed how I approach every major initiative.
The shift: From "build it and they'll come" to "get buy-in first, then build."
The Mistake That Cost Me Three Months
What I did:
I saw a problem (inconsistent competitive intelligence), designed a solution (comprehensive CI platform), built it (3 months of work), then presented it for adoption.
Why this failed:
Nobody had bought into solving this problem. Executives hadn't agreed it was a priority. Sales hadn't committed to adopting it. I hadn't secured budget or resources. I just assumed everyone would see the value once I built it.
The result: An impressive solution that nobody used.
What I should have done:
- Validate the problem is urgent enough to warrant investment
- Build a business case showing ROI
- Pre-sell key stakeholders on the value
- Secure budget and resources upfront
- Get public commitment to adoption
- THEN build the solution
The difference: Building without buy-in = hoping people will adopt. Building with buy-in = knowing they'll adopt because they've already committed.
The Framework That Gets Executive Buy-In
After my failed CI platform launch, I rebuilt my approach for major initiatives.
I used this framework to get buy-in for every significant program: win/loss interview program, customer advisory board, repositioning initiative, sales enablement platform.
Every one got funded and adopted. The difference: I secured buy-in before building.
Step 1: Validate the Problem Is Urgent (Not Just Real)
Lots of problems are real. Few are urgent enough to warrant executive investment.
How I validate urgency:
I don't start by asking "should we have a competitive intelligence program?" I start by asking "what deals are we losing and why?"
If the answer is "we're losing $4.2M annually because sales doesn't have competitive intelligence at the right time," that's an urgent problem.
If the answer is "sales would like better competitive info," that's a nice-to-have.
The test: Can you quantify business impact (revenue loss, efficiency drain, competitive risk)? If not, executives won't prioritize it.
Example from my win/loss program pitch:
Wrong approach: "We should conduct win/loss interviews to better understand why we're winning and losing deals."
Right approach: "We're losing 38% of competitive deals. We don't know why 70% of those deals were lost—sales gives vague reasons like 'price' or 'features,' but we have no systematic pattern analysis. This means we're repeating losses without learning. Estimated cost: $3.2M annual pipeline without strategic insight into how to improve."
The second version makes the problem urgent, not just real.
Step 2: Build Business Case (Before Building Solution)
Executives don't fund initiatives—they fund ROI.
Before I build anything now, I create a one-page business case:
BUSINESS CASE: Win/Loss Interview Program
Problem: We lose $3.2M annually in competitive pipeline without understanding loss patterns. This prevents strategic response.
Proposed Solution: Systematic win/loss interview program (15 interviews/month with wins and losses)
Expected Outcomes:
- Identify top 3 loss factors within 90 days
- Inform product and positioning adjustments to improve win rate
- Expected win rate improvement: 38% → 45% (7 point improvement)
- Revenue impact: $1.8M additional annual revenue
Investment Required:
- My time: 8 hours/week (conducting + analyzing interviews)
- Incentive budget: $15K/year (gift cards for interview participants)
- Tools: $3K/year (interview platform, analysis software)
- Total: $18K + time investment
ROI: $1.8M revenue improvement from $18K investment = 100x return, 2-month payback
Decision Needed: Approval for $18K budget and commitment from Sales leadership to facilitate customer intros
That business case gets buy-in. It's not "should we do win/loss interviews?" It's "should we invest $18K to generate $1.8M in revenue improvement?"
Much easier decision.
Step 3: Pre-Sell Key Stakeholders (Before Group Presentation)
The biggest mistake: Presenting major initiatives in group meetings cold, hoping to get consensus.
What works: Pre-selling stakeholders one-on-one before group presentation.
My process for win/loss program:
Week 1: CEO (30 min 1:1)
I showed him the business case and asked: "Do you see this as a priority? Would you support this in front of the exec team?"
He asked three questions, I refined the proposal, and he said: "Yes, this makes sense. Present it at next exec meeting and I'll back it."
Week 2: CRO (30 min 1:1)
"Sales is critical to this program—you'll need to facilitate customer intros. Here's the value: systematic understanding of why we win and lose, which informs better enablement and positioning. Would you commit Sales to supporting this?"
He had concerns about rep time. We adjusted the proposal—I'd handle all scheduling and interviewing, reps just make intros. He agreed.
Week 3: VP Product (30 min 1:1)
"This program will surface product gaps systematically. I'll share insights with Product team monthly. Does this feel valuable to you?"
She was enthusiastic—"We need this data for roadmap decisions."
Week 4: CFO (20 min 1:1)
"I need $18K annual budget. Here's the ROI case showing 100x return. Does this meet your bar for investment approval?"
CFO: "If CEO and CRO support it and ROI is this strong, approved."
By the time I presented to the exec team, I already had:
- CEO backing the initiative publicly
- CRO committed to Sales support
- VP Product excited about insights
- CFO budget approved
The exec meeting was a formality. The real work was pre-selling stakeholders individually.
Step 4: Get Public Commitment (Not Just Approval)
Approval ≠ Commitment
Approval: "Yes, you can do this."
Commitment: "Yes, and I'll ensure my team supports it."
The difference:
After exec team approved my win/loss program, I asked for public commitment:
"To be successful, I need specific commitments:
From CRO: Sales will introduce me to 5 wins and 5 losses per month. Can you communicate this expectation to sales managers?
From VP Product: Product team will review win/loss insights monthly and provide feedback on which findings are actionable. Can we schedule recurring 30-min monthly review?
From CEO: You'll reference win/loss insights in exec meetings so the team sees this is a priority. Can I send you top 3 insights each month for you to reference?
From CFO: Budget approved for $18K. Can we confirm this is locked for the year so I can commit to vendors?"
Getting specific commitments matters. "We support this" is vague. "I commit to X specific action" creates accountability.
Step 5: Communicate The Plan (Before Launching)
Once I have buy-in and commitments, I communicate the plan broadly before launching:
I sent an all-company email:
Subject: Launching Win/Loss Interview Program
What: Starting next week, we're launching a systematic win/loss interview program. I'll interview 5 won deals and 5 lost deals monthly to understand why we win and lose.
Why: We're losing $3.2M annually in competitive pipeline. This program will identify patterns and inform product, positioning, and sales strategy to improve our win rate.
How it works:
- Sales makes customer intros
- I conduct 30-min interviews
- Insights shared monthly with Product, Sales, and exec team
- Expected outcome: Improve win rate from 38% to 45% within 6 months
What I need from you:
- Sales: Facilitate customer intros (I'll handle scheduling)
- Product: Review insights and provide feedback on what's actionable
- Everyone: If you hear competitive intelligence, share it with me
Expected impact: $1.8M additional annual revenue from improved win rates.
CEO forwarded this email to the whole company with: "This is exactly the kind of strategic initiative we need. Please support [my name] on this."
That email accomplished three things:
- Set expectations for what's launching
- Created public accountability (everyone knows this is happening)
- Made it easy for people to support (clear asks)
What Happens When You Build With Buy-In vs. Without Buy-In
Without buy-in (my CI platform):
- Built for 3 months with no stakeholder input
- Presented finished solution hoping for adoption
- Got polite approval but no commitment
- 12% adoption because nobody was invested
- Wasted 3 months
With buy-in (my win/loss program):
- Spent 4 weeks getting buy-in before building
- Had budget, resources, and stakeholder commitment secured
- Launched with exec team publicly supporting it
- 85% adoption in first month because people were committed
- Generated actionable insights that changed strategy
The irony: The win/loss program took less total time (4 weeks buy-in + 2 weeks building = 6 weeks) than the CI platform (3 months building + weeks of failed adoption).
Getting buy-in first is more efficient, not slower.
The Questions Executives Ask When You're Seeking Buy-In
I've pitched dozens of initiatives to executives. Here are the questions they always ask:
Question 1: "Why is this a priority now?"
What they're really asking: "Why should we invest in this vs. the 50 other things we could do?"
How to answer: "We're losing $3.2M annually and have no systematic way to understand why. This is preventing us from improving win rates. Every quarter we delay costs us $800K in lost revenue we could have prevented."
Question 2: "What's the ROI?"
What they're really asking: "Is the return worth the investment?"
How to answer: "Investment: $18K. Expected return: $1.8M revenue improvement. ROI: 100x with 2-month payback. Even if I'm off by 50%, it's still 50x ROI."
Question 3: "Who else is on board?"
What they're really asking: "Is this just your idea or do other leaders support it?"
How to answer: "I've discussed with CRO, VP Product, and CFO. CRO has committed Sales support. VP Product sees this as critical input for roadmap. CFO approved budget. CEO indicated this is strategic priority."
(This is why pre-selling matters—you can answer "yes, key stakeholders are bought in.")
Question 4: "What could go wrong?"
What they're really asking: "What's the risk and have you thought through mitigation?"
How to answer: "Three risks: (1) Low customer response rate—mitigated by offering incentives and having Sales make warm intros. (2) Insights don't lead to action—mitigated by monthly review with Product and Sales to ensure findings are actionable. (3) Takes more time than expected—mitigated by setting realistic goal of 10 interviews/month, not 20."
Question 5: "How will we measure success?"
What they're really asking: "How will we know if this was worth the investment?"
How to answer: "Three metrics over 6 months:
- Win rate improvement from 38% to 45% (7-point improvement)
- Top 3 loss factors identified and addressed (measured by product/positioning changes)
- Sales feedback that insights are actionable (measured by quarterly survey)
If we don't see 5-point win rate improvement by month 6, we reassess."
The Secret to Getting Budget Approved
Early in my career, I thought: Make the best case possible and hope CFO approves budget.
What actually works: Frame budget in terms of cost of NOT doing it.
Old approach: "I need $18K for win/loss program."
New approach: "We're losing $3.2M annually without systematic win/loss intelligence. Investing $18K to recover even 50% of that loss ($1.6M) is 89x ROI. The cost of not doing this is $3.2M in preventable losses per year."
CFOs think in terms of opportunity cost. Showing the cost of inaction makes budget decisions easier.
The Follow-Through That Proves You Were Right
Getting buy-in to launch an initiative is step one. Delivering the results you promised is what builds lasting credibility.
After launching my win/loss program, I reported results monthly:
Month 1: "Completed 10 interviews (5 wins, 5 losses). Early pattern: We lose when buyers need compliance certifications. Full analysis next month."
Month 3: "Pattern confirmed: 68% of losses cite compliance gaps. Shared with Product—they're accelerating SOC 2 timeline. VP Sales updated battle cards to address compliance objection earlier in sales process."
Month 6: "Win rate improved from 38% to 44% (6-point improvement). Revenue impact: $1.5M annual. ROI: 83x on $18K investment. Program delivering as projected."
That follow-through did more to build executive trust than the original pitch.
Executives remember whether initiatives delivered on promised ROI more than they remember your presentation.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Major Initiatives
Most PMMs think: If I build something great, executives will recognize its value and support it.
The reality: Executives support initiatives they've bought into before you build them.
The PMMs who successfully launch major initiatives:
- Validate urgency before building
- Build business case showing ROI
- Pre-sell key stakeholders individually
- Secure public commitments
- Communicate plan before launching
- Deliver on promised results
The PMMs who build initiatives that fail:
- Build solutions without validating urgency
- Present finished work hoping for adoption
- Pitch to group without pre-selling stakeholders
- Get vague approval without specific commitments
- Launch without broad communication
- Don't track whether they delivered promised results
The difference in career trajectory is dramatic.
PMMs who can get buy-in for major initiatives become strategic leaders who drive company change. PMMs who build without buy-in stay stuck at tactical execution.
The pattern:
Secure buy-in → Build with confidence → Deliver results → Build credibility → Get buy-in for bigger initiatives → Repeat
That's how PMMs go from executing programs to driving company strategy.
The key isn't having the best ideas—it's securing buy-in before building.
Master that, and you'll spend less time on initiatives that fail and more time on initiatives that transform how your company competes.
That's when your career accelerates.