Use caseRun win-loss research
Learn what decided recent wins, losses and stalled deals from the buyers in each role, with an AI moderator that has no stake in the outcome, builds each follow-up on what a buyer said and asks again when a reply is vague.
A lost deal explained only by the contact the rep knew best is one person's version of it, so the program reaches every seat in the decision.
Contacts from deals marked won, lost or closed with no decision are invited from an exported deal list or through Pulse's link to the sales team's existing tools, so stalled deals are heard as fully as the ones that closed.
Each deal is covered by more than its main contact: the executive who approved or refused the spend, the technical evaluator who scored the options and the user who ran the trial.
Buyers talk to an AI moderator instead of the rep who pitched them, so criticism of the price, a missing feature or a clumsy demo comes out plainly, and the moderator asks about each one in turn.
The world's most ambitious teams research with Pulse.
GrowwEach deal is compared with others like it, by rival and by size, before any single interview is allowed to change a playbook.
Buyers walk through the options they compared, the criteria that carried weight and the moment one supplier pulled ahead, which shows where in the evaluation the deal was decided.
Buyers who chose a rival name the capability, integration or proof they could not find, and product teams weigh those gaps, by how many lost deals mention them, against the rest of the roadmap.
The reasons are cut by the competitor that won and by the size of the deal, since the argument that loses a large enterprise contract often differs from the one that loses a quick departmental purchase.
Win-loss analysis interviews buyers after a purchase decision to learn what decided it. It earns its keep in considered purchases, such as business software, services and financial products, where evaluations involve several people and a sales process. Programs study wins, losses and no-decisions, since comparing them shows which factors separate outcomes. Interviews are usually run by someone other than the account team, because buyers soften criticism when talking to the person they rejected. The conversation reconstructs the evaluation: who was involved, which options were considered, how they were compared and what finally decided it. Reasons are coded across many deals and reported by competitor, segment and deal size. Programs that run continuously can connect findings to action, updating sales playbooks, product priorities and messaging, and then checking whether win rates move.
Product marketing keeps a battlecard on each rival, often written from sales anecdotes. Quotes from buyers who chose that rival, grouped by the argument that won them over, let each card be rewritten from what buyers weighed.
Deals that end in no decision are logged as lost to nobody. The moderator asks what the buyer did instead, funding pushed to next year, an internal tool, a reorganization, so sales leadership sees how much of the pipeline dies of inertia.
The deal desk approves discounts one deal at a time, without seeing why price mattered. A survey alongside the interviews counts how often price decided the outcome, and buyers' own accounts show the desk where a discount changed the result and where it was given away.