Tiering accounts without overthinking it

Tier your accounts on two questions. Do they fit? And is something happening there right now? That's enough to sort any list. Everything else is decoration.

Firms spend weeks building scoring models with dozens of weighted fields. Then nobody uses them, since the scores don't match what sellers know. Simple beats clever here.

Fit first

Fit tells you whether an account could buy from you. Right industry. Right size. Right kind of problem. A buyer type you know how to reach.

Be honest about fit. Look at your best clients, the ones where the work went well and the relationship grew. What do they have in common? Industry, revenue range, the systems they run, the shape of the team you sold to.

An account that looks like your best clients fits. One that looks like the client you'd never take again doesn't. That's most of what you need.

Don't overthink the edges. If you can't decide whether an account fits, it probably fits well enough to watch.

Signals second

Fit alone doesn't tell you when. Plenty of accounts fit and aren't buying this year.

Signals tell you when. A new leader in the buying seat. An RFP. A filing that names the problem you solve. A job post for the role your team would fill. A funding round. An acquisition.

Look at each fit account and ask whether anything real is happening there now. One signal is interesting. Several stacking in the same few weeks is a reason to move. The buying signals guide explains which ones carry the most weight.

Three tiers

Combine the two questions and you get three tiers.

Tier one is strong fit with signals stacking now. These get the full treatment. Research every committee member, map warm paths, write three distinct openers and follow up steadily. This list is short on purpose.

Tier two is strong fit with little happening. These get watched. Track them for signals, keep warm paths ready and check in on them every couple of weeks. When a signal fires, they move up.

Tier three is weaker fit, or an account that just told you no. Park it. Look again next quarter.

That's the whole system. Three tiers, two questions.

Let accounts move

The tiers aren't permanent. That's the point.

An account in tier two becomes tier one the week a new CIO starts. An account in tier one drops back when signals go quiet and nobody replies after a few honest attempts. An account in tier three comes back when it merges with something that fits.

Signals lose weight as they age. A new leader from last month is fresh. One from last year isn't. So review the list every week or two and move accounts up or down based on what's happening now.

Keep tier one small

The biggest mistake in tiering is a tier one that's too big. If everything's a priority, nothing is.

A seller can only work so many accounts deeply at once. I wrote about the real number in how many accounts one seller can really work. Tier one should fit inside that number.

When a new account earns tier one, ask which one comes out. If the answer is none, tier one is too big.

A quick example

Say your firm sells data and analytics work to mid-size healthcare and insurance companies. You've got a list of a few hundred accounts that fit.

You check them for signals. A dozen have a new CIO, CDO or CFO in the last couple of months. Of those, a handful have job posts for data roles or filings that mention legacy systems.

Those handful are tier one. The rest of the dozen are high tier two. The remaining fit accounts are tier two or three.

You just tiered a few hundred accounts in an afternoon, and you know where to spend next week.

Don't let the model win

If you build a scoring model anyway, keep it simple and keep the seller in charge. A seller who knows an account is about to move should be able to bump it up, whatever the score says.

Tiering is a tool for focus, not a substitute for judgment. Two questions, three tiers and a weekly look. That's enough to keep your sellers on the right accounts at the right time.