What ASI reveals
Every engagement contradicts assumptions. Here's what happened when firms tested what they thought they knew against what their buyers actually think.
The CRM that partners wouldn't use
Sector: Global law firm | Internal adoption
A global law firm was rolling out a new CRM system. Leadership had clear assumptions about what would drive partner adoption. They needed messaging that would work across a diverse partnership.
What the intelligence revealed:
The firm came to us with six partner archetypes — a sophisticated starting point. Each archetype wanted the same CRM capabilities for completely different reasons, resisted adoption for different psychological triggers, and responded to different value propositions.
The firm's assumptions about what partners wanted were fundamentally wrong. The real adoption driver was something leadership hadn't considered at all.
One messaging approach would have triggered resistance in most segments. The intelligence revealed which specific words and frames activate resistance in each archetype — language the firm was planning to use in their rollout communications.
Result: The firm avoided a rollout that would have triggered resistance across most of the partnership. Archetype-specific messaging replaced generic communications.
The referral blind spot
Sector: Technology | B2B partner referrals
A technology company needed to win more referrals from account managers at a global cloud provider. Those account managers were impossible to reach through traditional research — protected, time-pressured, high turnover, scattered globally.
What the intelligence revealed:
Nearly one-third of account managers fell into a high-value segment that actively sought partnerships — but this segment was concentrated in specific markets that competitors hadn't identified. Everyone was spreading resources evenly when they should have been concentrating them.
How most partners positioned themselves fundamentally misaligned with what actually drove referral decisions. The industry's standard positioning approach triggered the wrong psychology.
Result: The client gained intelligence their competitors can't access. Traditional research can't reach this population efficiently. Everyone else is still operating on assumptions.
The invisible decision
Sector: Enterprise technology | CRM evaluation
A CRM/MarTech provider wanted to understand how enterprise buyers evaluate and select platforms. They assumed buyers followed a rational evaluation process based on feature comparison.
What the intelligence revealed:
Enterprise buyers fall into three distinct archetypes, and each evaluates the same platform using completely different criteria. Same product, three different value propositions required — and using the wrong one actively damages your chances.
Stated evaluation criteria are largely post-rationalisation. The actual decision happens earlier in the process, triggered by something most vendors don't address in their positioning.
One psychological barrier dominated the evaluation process — and it had nothing to do with features, pricing, or competitive comparison. Most vendors' sales processes actively amplify this barrier instead of neutralising it.
Result: The client discovered why deals were stalling at specific stages — and it wasn't the reasons their sales team assumed.
First 100 days
Sector: Accounting | Ongoing engagement
Major accounting firm wanted to know what converts a satisfactory first year into committed ongoing engagement. Intelligence revealed a singular priority that 80% of decision-makers said determines whether they continue — and that most firms consistently underweight.
Result: Onboarding strategy based on what actually builds lasting relationships.
Read more...
Audit client retention
Sector: Accounting | Retention
International audit firm needed to understand what drives client retention and defection — questions you can't ask clients directly. Intelligence revealed a vulnerability gap larger than expected: satisfied clients who could nonetheless identify triggers that would send them to market.
Result: Segment-calibrated retention playbooks with early warning signals.
Read more...
The heritage liability
Sector: Law firm | Competitive positioning
An established commercial law firm faced commoditisation pressure. Clients couldn't tell them apart from competitors. Partners assumed their decades of experience and technical expertise differentiated them.
What the intelligence revealed:
Partners thought their 1960s founding signalled heritage and stability. Clients saw it as "old-fashioned" — a liability, not an asset.
100% of prospects rejected standard legal industry messaging. Not some — all of them. The firm was competing in the wrong category entirely, positioning as a generalist when prospects were evaluating them against a completely different frame of reference.
The capability they led with in pitches? It ranked 5th in buyer priorities. The factor that actually drove decisions wasn't mentioned in any of their materials.
Result: Complete repositioning around what clients actually value, using their language instead of legal industry language.
The wrong category
Sector: Education | Parent decision-making
A performing arts organisation faced declining enrolments. They assumed they competed against other creative arts programmes and that parents evaluated them on creative development outcomes.
What the intelligence revealed:
The organisation wasn't competing in the category they thought. Parents were evaluating them alongside a completely different set of alternatives — which explained why creative arts positioning wasn't resonating.
Price wasn't a competitive differentiator within the category — it was a barrier that prevented parents from considering the category at all. Two completely different strategic implications.
Parents evaluated instructor quality using specific signals that had nothing to do with traditional credentials.
Result: Category repositioning to align with how parents actually evaluate options. The organisation discovered they'd been optimising for the wrong competitive frame entirely.
The retention mystery
Sector: Engineering consultancy | Client retention
An engineering consultancy faced high client churn despite strong technical delivery and positive feedback. Clients praised the work — then left anyway. Satisfaction surveys weren't revealing the real retention drivers.
What the intelligence revealed:
Clients feared something that had nothing to do with technical quality or relationship management — an anxiety they'd never admit in surveys or feedback conversations.
Four distinct psychological segments, each with different switching triggers. The consultancy had been investing resources inversely to risk — over-serving low-risk clients, under-serving high-risk ones.
Results:
- Retention: 66% → 89% within 12 months
- Revenue impact: 23% increase in average account value
- Efficiency: 31% reduction in retention costs through precision targeting
143% win rate improvement
Sector: Recruitment | Government & NFP procurement
Searchlight, a recruitment firm specialising in government and not-for-profit clients, was stuck on the proposal hamster wheel. Despite genuine expertise, their win rate was 35% in a market with formal evaluation committees and systematic scoring criteria.
What the intelligence revealed:
The ASI Advisor was trained on decision psychology patterns that most recruitment firms don't understand — the unstated criteria evaluation committees actually use, the positioning mistakes that trigger "safe choice" rejection, and the specific proof points that close the gap between "qualified vendor" and "obvious choice."
Results:
- Win rate: 35% → 85% (143% improvement)
- Revenue impact: $1.5M+ additional annual revenue potential
- Efficiency: 6 hours → 2 hours per proposal (75% time reduction)
- Capacity: 700+ hours freed annually (18 working weeks)
Clients report feeling "positive about their choice" without being able to articulate exactly why. The positioning operates below conscious awareness — which is why competitors can't reverse-engineer it from the proposals themselves.
What every engagement reveals
Across every ASI engagement, the same patterns emerge:
Assumptions are consistently wrong.
In every engagement, client assumptions have been contradicted by the intelligence. Firms think they know what matters. They're consistently wrong about priorities, language, and decision drivers.
Segments are psychographic, not demographic.
Demographics rarely create meaningful variation. How people think and decide dominates. A particular decision-maker type behaves consistently regardless of tenure, firm size, or industry.
Universal messaging fails.
One value proposition triggers resistance in most segments. What resonates with opportunity-seekers repels threat-avoiders. Generic positioning is worse than no positioning.
The real value is invisible.
The most valuable findings are things clients didn't know to ask about. Priorities they'd ranked wrong. Anxieties they didn't know existed. Category mistakes they couldn't see from inside.
See how ASI applies to your situation
Book a 30-minute discovery call to discuss your specific positioning challenge — competitive losses, unclear differentiation, panel renewals, new leadership direction.
We'll map your situation against these patterns and determine whether ASI reveals the decision intelligence you need.
Prefer to email? Email us at asi@taleist.agency.