1. How I
dissect a
revenue goal
to determine
feasibility
[B2B Analysis]

2. Let’s use an example
scenario.
The business needs to
grow by $20M this year.

3. Net New vs. Expansion
Determine what % will come
from net new vs. expansion.
Then, what % of net new will
be sourced by marketing.

4. Use the historical win rate to
determine pipeline $ needed
to hit the revenue target.
You’ll use these figures
whether you’re goaled on
pipeline or revenue.
Uncover Pipeline Target

5. I label this the “default plan”
because it’s often the first plan
finance comes up with. Marketing
needs to create $25M in pipeline.
But the conversation shouldn’t
end here.
Let’s keep going →
Default Thinking

6. Source-level analysis uncovers the
truth about your ability to drive
pipeline & revenue with any given
“big bucket” investment.
Next, pull historical
pipeline & revenue
contribution by source.

7. Website & Events drove 82% of the
revenue on just 54% of the pipeline.

8. All other sources combined to drive
18% of revenue on 46% of pipeline.

9. And it exposes a flaw in the
default plan.
The default plan assumes we
need $25M in pipeline to hit
$5M in revenue without regard
for pipeline sources.
Some programs are performing
much better than others. We
need to account for that.
We’ve just uncovered
a key insight.

10. Let’s see how the
default plan pans out
before we come up
with a new one.

11. Extreme #1
Default Plan
We need to hit $25M in pipeline.
That’s 36% higher than last year.
Each pipeline source needs to
contribute 36% more to get there.

12. Extreme #1
Default Plan
“Let’s keep doing the same stuff.
We’ll either need more resources or
bet that efficiency will improve.”

13. Extreme #1
Default Plan
Questions this should spark:
→ Do we have evidence that each
source can scale predictably?
→ Are we increasing budget across
sources to drive improvement?
→ If not, what evidence do we have
that efficiency can improve?
→ Is it optimal to mirror the same
activities as last year?

14. Website & Events are
crushing it, both in total
contribution and efficiency.
They’re delivering ~4x more in
revenue for every dollar in
pipeline vs. other sources.
Now consider an
alternative plan.

15. Which begs the
question:
What if we only put our eggs in
the two proven baskets
(website/events)?

16. If we can invest in programs
that drive website & event
pipeline, and historical funnel
efficiency holds, it would take
just ~$17M in pipeline to hit the
$5M revenue target–not $25M.
Removing inefficient
investments

17. Extreme #2
Alternate Plan
Since we’re only relying on efficient
sources, the pipeline requirement is
reduced significantly...

18. Extreme #2
Alternate Plan
...to yield the same 36% increase in
revenue YoY.

19. Extreme #2
Alternate Plan
“Ditch all the inefficient sources.
We’ll only invest in proven
business drivers.”

20. Extreme #2
Alternate Plan
Questions this should spark:
→ Do realistic approaches exist to
scale at this level using 2 sources?
→ If we make this bet and find out
they can’t, how will we pivot?
→ Is a plan this narrow sustainable,
given the lack of diversification?
→ Can we shift strategies in ABM
and Partner to improve outcomes?

21. The default plan could be viable,
but assumes we need to keep
investing in inefficient programs.
The alternate plan could be viable,
but leaves zero room for error and
severely limits your options.
The right plan typically
falls between the 2
extremes.

22. Whether or not the goal is feasible
depends on many factors–
resources, category momentum,
audience, program maturity,
execution ability, & more.
Using data to set context and
uncover the right questions will
help you and your team form a
more unified answer, together.
The point: You’re now
armed with data to
have the conversation.

23. Build a strategy
that creates
predictable
pipeline.
DM me or book a
consultation at
methodrevenue.com