Skip to main content

Sales Call Analysis: ComplyAI x Elixinol

Call Date: November 14, 2025 Participants: Nick Tumbocon (ComplyAI), Natalie Stanton (ComplyAI), Mike Rutledge (Elixinol) Call Type: Discovery/Demo Call Outcome: Positive interest, follow-up email requested

Executive Summary​

This call demonstrates a consultative sales approach with strong technical credibility but reveals gaps in qualification, objection handling, and competitive differentiation. Nick successfully built rapport and credibility through Meta expertise, but missed opportunities to qualify budget, authority, and timeline (BANT), and failed to address past vendor trauma adequately.

Key Strengths:

  • Strong technical credibility (ex-Meta employee positioning)
  • Clear differentiation on approach (no dummy websites)
  • Effective use of social proof (case study mention)
  • Good rapport building and active listening

Critical Gaps:

  • No budget qualification
  • Missed opportunity to address Zocket competitor directly
  • No timeline/urgency establishment
  • Pricing discussion deferred entirely
  • Limited discovery of decision-making process

1. Sales Methodology Analysis​

1.1 Discovery Questions​

Questions Asked:

  1. ✅ "If there were any issues with previous ad account shutdowns?" (Risk assessment)
  2. ✅ Implied questions about current advertising status
  3. ✅ Identification of Head of Digital Marketing (decision-maker discovery)

Questions NOT Asked (Critical Gaps):

  • ❌ Budget: "What's your current marketing budget? What were you spending before you stopped Meta ads?"
  • ❌ Timeline: "When are you looking to restart advertising? Is there a specific deadline or season?"
  • ❌ Authority: "Besides yourself and the Head of Digital, who else needs to sign off on this decision?"
  • ❌ Pain Quantification: "How much revenue are you losing by not running Meta ads? What's the opportunity cost?"
  • ❌ Previous Spend: "What was your ROAS before the issues started? What's your target ROAS?"
  • ❌ Competitive Context: "Are you actively evaluating other compliance vendors right now?"

Impact: Without budget/timeline qualification, Nick has no way to prioritize this opportunity or tailor his approach.

1.2 Pain Point Identification​

Primary Pains Identified:

  1. Top-of-Funnel Conversion Challenge

    "The biggest challenge, besides the recent spending bill that could impact the hemp industry, is top-of-funnel conversion."

    Analysis: Nick heard this but didn't probe deeper. What's the conversion rate? What's the gap vs. targets?

  2. Platform Restriction Frustration

    "They have mostly given up on Meta and other platforms due to overly restrictive content rules that resulted in very little return on ad spend."

    Analysis: This is the CORE pain. Nick should have quantified: "When you say 'very little return,' what does that mean? 1% ROAS? 50%?"

  3. Past Vendor Trauma (Zocket)

    "They recounted a negative experience with a previous vendor that started with simple solutions but turned into a complicated and costly process involving building a dummy website, which created an impossible user journey."

    Analysis: This is a buying blocker, not just a pain point. Nick needed to address this directly and contrast his approach explicitly.

  4. Trust Issues with New Vendors

    "Mike Rutledge expressed interest but caution, mentioning that two other companies this week had promised similar results."

    Analysis: This signals high buyer skepticism and competitive pressure. Nick didn't ask who the other vendors were or differentiate against them.

Pain Point Score: 6/10

  • Nick identified surface-level pains but failed to quantify business impact
  • Didn't build urgency around solving the problem
  • Missed opportunity to contrast pain of inaction vs. cost of solution

1.3 Value Proposition Delivery​

Core Value Props Delivered:

  1. Credibility through Meta Expertise

    "Compliance company founded by an ex-Meta employee specializing in compliance and aggressive marketing strategies."

    Strength: Establishes immediate authority. This is the strongest differentiator.

  2. AI-Powered Proactive Monitoring

    "They use an internal AI to scan clients' live Meta ads and assign them a score. They only take action when an ad is rejected."

    Weakness: This sounds reactive, not proactive. Should emphasize: "We catch issues BEFORE Meta does."

  3. Quantified Success Metric

    "The goal is to reduce the ad rejection rate below 15%."

    Strength: Specific, measurable outcome. But Nick didn't ask: "What's your current rejection rate?"

  4. Impressive Case Study

    "A standout case where a CBD company went from spending $30,000-$35,000 a month to achieving that spend easily in one day after their ad rejection rate was lowered."

    Strength: Concrete, relatable example. Weakness: Didn't tie this to Elixinol's specific situation or ask if similar scale applies.

  5. Simple Implementation (vs. Zocket)

    "Elixenol would need to make some shifts to their website, but clarified that it would involve simple changes to landing pages—not redirects or entirely new websites."

    Strength: Directly addresses Zocket trauma. Should have been more emphatic: "Unlike Zocket, we NEVER build dummy sites because..."

  6. Partnership Access vs. Account Takeover

    "They only require partner access to the existing ad accounts."

    Strength: Contrasts Zocket's shady approach. Missed opportunity: Should have explained WHY this matters for the client.

  7. Facebook Partner Status

    "As an official Facebook partner, Elixenol's existing ad accounts would be tagged under their company, granting them immediate support."

    Strength: Strong differentiator. Weakness: Didn't emphasize exclusivity or how many partners exist.

Value Prop Score: 7/10

  • Strong credibility and differentiation
  • Good use of case study
  • Missed opportunity to customize value to Elixinol's specific situation
  • Didn't quantify ROI or business impact specific to prospect

1.4 Objection Handling​

Objection 1: Skepticism from Other Vendor Promises

"Mike Rutledge expressed interest but caution, mentioning that two other companies this week had promised similar results."

Nick's Response: None captured in transcript.

Recommended Response: "I completely understand the skepticism, especially in this space where everyone claims they can solve compliance. Here's what makes us different: [1] Our founder built Meta's ad compliance systems, so we know exactly how the algorithms work. [2] We never make promises we can't keep—I can share our average client results, not just best-case scenarios. [3] We're the only vendor who's an official Meta partner, which you can verify. Would it help to talk to 2-3 of our CBD clients directly?"

Objection 2: Past Vendor Trauma (Zocket)

"Negative experience with a previous vendor that started with simple solutions but turned into a complicated and costly process involving building a dummy website."

Nick's Response: Addressed implementation approach but didn't explicitly contrast.

What Nick Said:

"Simple changes to landing pages—not redirects or entirely new websites."

Stronger Response: "I'm sorry you went through that with Zocket. That's exactly the kind of approach that destroys trust and doesn't even work long-term. Let me be crystal clear about our approach: [1] We NEVER build dummy websites because Meta catches those eventually and bans accounts permanently. [2] Our changes are minimal—typically just adjusting how benefits are described on existing pages. [3] Everything we do is designed to be sustainable and compliant, not a workaround. Can I walk you through exactly what we'd change on your site so you can see how simple it is?"

Objection Handling Score: 4/10

  • Failed to address competitive skepticism
  • Partially addressed Zocket trauma but not emphatically enough
  • Missed opportunity to turn objections into differentiators

1.5 Competitive Positioning​

Competitor Mentioned: Zocket

What We Learned:

"Zocket [...] had attempted to run Elixenol's ad accounts through their own, which is not the typical compliance process."

Analysis: This is a critical differentiator. Zocket's approach is:

  • Violates Meta's terms of service (running ads through their own accounts)
  • Creates compliance risks for the client
  • Results in complicated, unsustainable implementations (dummy websites)

ComplyAI's Differentiation:

  1. ✅ Partner access vs. account takeover - mentioned
  2. ✅ Simple landing page changes vs. dummy sites - mentioned
  3. ✅ Meta partnership vs. unauthorized vendor - mentioned
  4. ❌ WHY these differences matter - not explained
  5. ❌ Long-term sustainability - not emphasized
  6. ❌ Risk mitigation - not highlighted

Recommended Competitive Positioning:

"Here's why our approach is fundamentally different from Zocket and others:

  1. Account Ownership: We never touch your accounts. You maintain 100% ownership and control. Zocket running ads through their accounts violates Meta's TOS and puts YOUR business at risk.

  2. Sustainable Compliance: Our changes are minimal and sustainable. We're not tricking Meta—we're helping you communicate your value within their rules. Dummy websites get caught eventually and result in permanent bans.

  3. Meta Partnership: We're an official Meta partner, which means we have direct escalation channels when issues arise. Zocket doesn't have this access, which is why they resort to workarounds.

  4. Insider Knowledge: Our founder built these systems at Meta. We're not guessing—we know exactly how the approval algorithms work.

Does this address your concerns about working with another vendor?"

Competitive Positioning Score: 5/10

  • Identified key differentiators but didn't emphasize them
  • Missed opportunity to turn Zocket's mistakes into a competitive advantage
  • Didn't ask about other vendors prospect is evaluating

1.6 Pricing Discussion Approach​

What Happened:

"Mike Rutledge requested that Nick Tumbocon summarize the conversation via email, outlining their approach, points of engagement, division of tasks, and pricing."

Nick's Response: Agreed to include pricing in follow-up email.

Analysis: Nick deferred pricing entirely to email. This is a critical mistake for several reasons:

Why This is Problematic:

  1. No Budget Qualification: Nick has no idea if Elixinol can afford his services
  2. Email Rejection Risk: Pricing in email allows easy rejection without conversation
  3. No Value Anchoring: Price without context of ROI will seem expensive
  4. Competitor Vulnerability: If Zocket or others quoted lower prices, Nick can't defend value
  5. No Trial Close: Can't gauge reaction or objections in real-time

What Nick Should Have Said:

"Happy to include detailed pricing in the email, but let me give you a quick framework now so nothing's a surprise:

Our pricing is based on three components:

  1. Initial compliance audit and setup: $X (one-time)
  2. Ongoing monitoring and optimization: $Y/month
  3. Ad appeal service: included (others charge extra)

For a company your size spending $30-50K/month on ads (which is where we think you'll be), our typical client investment is around $Z total.

To put that in perspective, if we get you back to even 50% of the $30K/month case study I mentioned, that's $15K/day in ad spend you're currently leaving on the table. Our fee pays for itself in the first week.

Does that ballpark feel reasonable for your budget, or should we look at a different scope?"

Benefits of This Approach:

  • Qualifies budget immediately
  • Anchors price to ROI, not just cost
  • Opens dialogue about objections
  • Prevents email sticker shock
  • Establishes value before sending proposal

Pricing Discussion Score: 2/10

  • Complete failure to qualify budget
  • Deferred critical conversation to email
  • No value anchoring or ROI framing
  • Missed trial close opportunity

1.7 Next Steps and Close Technique​

Next Steps Agreed:

  1. ✅ Nick sends summary email before Monday
  2. ✅ Mike discusses with Head of Digital Marketing Monday
  3. ⏳ Nick tries to get case study numbers
  4. ✅ Nick researches Zocket
  5. ⏳ Follow-up call with Australian Head of Digital

Analysis of Close:

Strengths:

  • Clear action items assigned
  • Specific deadline (before Monday)
  • Identified next decision-maker (Head of Digital)
  • Documented follow-up process

Weaknesses:

  • No commitment from prospect beyond "chat with my boss"
  • No urgency or timeline established
  • No mutual action plan (MAP)
  • No trial close to gauge interest level
  • No risk reversal or pilot offer

What's Missing:

1. Timeline Commitment: "Mike, if the Head of Digital is supportive after Monday's chat, what's your typical timeline for making a decision and getting started? Are you looking to have this running by [specific date/season]?"

2. Decision Process Clarity: "Walk me through what happens after you and the Head of Digital review my email. Who else needs to be involved in the decision? What's your process for vendor approval?"

3. Urgency Creation: "I know you mentioned two other vendors reached out this week. To help you compare apples to apples, what criteria are most important to you in making this decision? Compliance track record? Ease of implementation? ROI guarantees?"

4. Trial Close: "Based on what we've discussed, does this approach feel like it would solve your Meta advertising challenges? What concerns do you still have?"

5. Risk Reversal: "What if we started with just the compliance audit—no ongoing commitment? That way you can see exactly what we'd change, get our recommendations, and decide if it makes sense to move forward. Would that reduce the risk for you?"

Next Steps Score: 6/10

  • Good task clarity and timeline
  • Poor commitment level from prospect
  • No urgency or decision process established
  • Missed trial close and risk reversal opportunities

2. What Works Well in This Sales Process​

2.1 Effective Messaging​

✅ Credibility Through Founder Story

"Compliance company founded by an ex-Meta employee"

Why It Works: Instant authority and differentiation. This is the #1 trust builder and should be emphasized even more.

✅ Concrete Success Metrics

"Reduce the ad rejection rate below 15%" "CBD company went from spending $30,000-$35,000 a month to achieving that spend easily in one day"

Why It Works: Specific, measurable outcomes that prospects can visualize.

✅ Simplicity Positioning

"Simple changes to landing pages—not redirects or entirely new websites"

Why It Works: Directly addresses implementation anxiety and past vendor trauma.

✅ Partnership Model

"They only require partner access to the existing ad accounts"

Why It Works: Addresses control and trust concerns, especially after Zocket experience.

2.2 Credibility Builders​

  1. Meta Insider Knowledge

    • Ex-Meta employee founder = unmatched authority
    • "Proven formula for getting ads approved while remaining compliant"

  2. Official Meta Partner Status

    • "Immediate support through their Facebook representative"
    • This is a HUGE differentiator that should be emphasized more

  3. Client Success Stories

    • CBD case study with specific numbers
    • "Working on obtaining case studies" shows professionalism

  4. Proactive Lead Generation

    • "Hired a leads company and were already in contact with three interested CBD companies"
    • Shows momentum and specialization

2.3 Differentiation from Competitors​

vs. Zocket (and implied others):

DimensionZocketComplyAI
Account ControlRuns ads through their accounts (TOS violation)Partner access only
ImplementationDummy websites, complex workaroundsSimple landing page changes
SustainabilityGets caught, leads to bansCompliant, long-term approach
Meta RelationshipNo official partnershipOfficial Meta partner
ExpertiseUnknownEx-Meta employee, insider knowledge

Recommendation: Create a competitive comparison one-pager to send with proposals.

2.4 Customer Pain Point Alignment​

Well-Aligned:

  • ✅ "Top-of-funnel conversion" → ComplyAI's AI scanning and approval optimization
  • ✅ "Overly restrictive content rules" → Meta insider knowledge of what works
  • ✅ "Very little return on ad spend" → Case study of 30x improvement
  • ✅ "Complicated and costly process" → Simple implementation promise

Gaps in Alignment:

  • ❌ Didn't quantify current vs. potential revenue impact
  • ❌ Didn't connect solution to specific Elixinol use case (older female demographic, repeat buyers)
  • ❌ Didn't address regulatory concerns (spending bill mentioned)

3. Gaps and Weaknesses​

3.1 Missing Qualification Questions​

Critical BANT Elements Not Covered:

Budget:

  • Current marketing budget?
  • Historical Meta ad spend before stopping?
  • Budget allocated for compliance/optimization vendors?
  • Authority level to approve vendor spend?

Authority:

  • Who besides Mike and Head of Digital needs to approve?
  • What's the decision-making process?
  • Budget approval authority and limits?
  • Procurement or legal review required?

Need:

  • Quantified pain: How much revenue are they losing daily/monthly?
  • Current rejection rate (to establish baseline)?
  • Target metrics for success?
  • Consequences of not solving this problem?

Timeline:

  • When do they want to restart advertising?
  • Seasonal considerations for wellness products?
  • Pressure from parent company to improve metrics?
  • Are they evaluating other vendors in parallel?

Impact: Without BANT qualification, Nick can't prioritize this deal or tailor his approach effectively.

3.2 Unclear Pricing/Packaging​

What Was Missing:

  1. No Price Range Discussed

    • Deferred entirely to email
    • No budget qualification to gauge affordability
    • Risk of email sticker shock

  2. No Packaging Options Presented

    • No mention of different service tiers
    • No pilot or trial offer
    • No flexibility based on client size/spend

  3. No ROI Framework Established

    • Didn't calculate opportunity cost of NOT advertising
    • Didn't tie pricing to potential revenue uplift
    • Didn't compare cost to current pain/losses

Recommended Packaging Structure:

Tier 1: Compliance Audit Only ($X)
- One-time comprehensive audit
- Landing page recommendations
- Ad creative review
- Compliance score baseline
→ "Low-risk way to see our value"

Tier 2: Audit + Setup ($Y)
- Everything in Tier 1
- Implementation of landing page changes
- Initial ad account setup and tagging
- Meta partnership activation
→ "Get compliant and ready to run ads"

Tier 3: Ongoing Optimization ($Y + $Z/month)
- Everything in Tier 2
- Continuous AI monitoring
- Monthly ad appeal service
- Quarterly strategy reviews
→ "Full-service compliance partner"

3.3 Objection Handling Opportunities​

Objection 1: "Two other companies this week promised similar results"

What Nick Did: Nothing (no response captured)

What Nick Should Do:

  1. Acknowledge: "I completely understand—compliance vendors have over-promised and under-delivered in this space."
  2. Differentiate: "Here's what makes us different: [Meta founder, partnership status, sustainable approach]"
  3. Proof: "Would it help to talk to 2-3 CBD clients who've worked with us for 6+ months?"
  4. Trial Close: "If we can prove our track record, would you be ready to move forward?"

Objection 2: "Zocket was shady and complicated"

What Nick Did: Briefly addressed approach differences

What Nick Should Do:

  1. Empathize: "I'm sorry you went through that. Zocket's approach violates Meta's TOS and puts YOUR business at risk."
  2. Contrast: "We never build dummy sites or run ads through our accounts because it's unsustainable and gets clients banned."
  3. Educate: "Here's why our approach is different: [Meta partnership, minimal changes, long-term compliance]"
  4. Reassure: "I can walk you through our exact process so you can see there are no hidden steps or costs."

Objection 3: "Recent spending bill could impact hemp industry"

What Nick Did: Nothing (didn't address regulatory concern)

What Nick Should Do:

  1. Acknowledge: "You're right to be thinking about regulatory risks. That's actually why a compliant advertising approach is even more critical."
  2. Reframe: "Regardless of the bill's outcome, you still need to reach customers. Our approach ensures you're maximizing every ad dollar while staying compliant."
  3. Pivot: "Have you thought about how to adjust messaging if regulations change? That's something we can help with proactively."

3.4 Follow-Up Process Gaps​

What's Missing from Next Steps:

  1. No Mutual Action Plan (MAP)

    • No agreed timeline for decision
    • No clear milestones beyond "chat with boss"
    • No commitment to next call

  2. No Calendar Block

    • Didn't schedule follow-up call during this call
    • Risk of "let me get back to you" limbo

  3. No Pre-Call Prep for Head of Digital

    • Didn't ask what concerns the Head of Digital might have
    • Didn't tailor email content to address decision-maker's priorities

  4. No Risk Reversal

    • No pilot offer or trial period
    • No money-back guarantee or performance guarantee
    • No low-risk entry point

Recommended Follow-Up Structure:

Immediate (Within 24 Hours):

  • Send promised email with pricing, approach, case studies
  • Include competitive comparison (vs. Zocket and others)
  • Add testimonials from CBD clients
  • Propose specific date/time for follow-up call

Monday Follow-Up:

  • Check in after Mike's conversation with Head of Digital
  • Offer to join a follow-up call with both stakeholders
  • Address any new questions or concerns

Wednesday Follow-Up (if no response):

  • "Just checking if you had a chance to review the email and discuss with your team"
  • Offer alternative pilot approach if full engagement is too much

Week 2 (if still no decision):

  • Share new case study or client success story
  • Create urgency: "We're onboarding 2 new CBD clients this month—want to make sure we have capacity for you"

4. Competitive Intelligence​

4.1 Competitor Identified: Zocket​

What We Learned:

  1. Zocket's Approach:

    • Runs client ads through Zocket's own accounts (TOS violation)
    • Builds dummy websites as a workaround
    • Creates "complicated and costly" implementations
    • Starts with "simple solutions" promise but evolves into complex process

  2. Customer Perception:

    • "Shady"
    • Untrustworthy (bait-and-switch tactics)
    • Creates "impossible user journey" (bad UX for end customers)

  3. Why Customers Left Zocket:

    • Over-promised and under-delivered
    • Implementation complexity exceeded expectations
    • Cost escalation beyond initial quotes
    • Lack of transparency in process

4.2 How ComplyAI Differentiates​

Current Differentiation (from call):

FactorZocketComplyAI
Account OwnershipRuns ads through their accountsPartner access only
ImplementationDummy websitesSimple landing page changes
Meta RelationshipNo official statusOfficial Meta partner
TransparencyBait-and-switchUpfront about approach
SustainabilityWorkarounds that get caughtCompliant, long-term strategy

Additional Differentiation Opportunities (not mentioned):

  1. Founder Expertise

    • Ex-Meta employee = insider knowledge
    • Built the compliance systems at Meta → "We're not guessing—we know how the algorithms work"

  2. AI Monitoring

    • Proactive scanning vs. reactive firefighting
    • Assigns compliance scores before ads are rejected → "We catch issues before Meta does"

  3. Appeal Service

    • "We often appeal on the client's behalf as a false positive"
    • Direct access to Meta reps through partnership → "When things do get flagged, we can fix them in hours, not weeks"

  4. Track Record

    • "Reduce ad rejection rate below 15%"
    • Case study: $30K/month → $30K/day → "We have quantified, repeatable results"

  5. Client Testimonials

    • Opportunity to share CBD client references
    • Could contrast with Zocket's poor reviews → "Talk to our clients who've been with us 6+ months"

4.3 Competitive Positioning Strategy​

Recommended Positioning:

"We're Not a Workaround—We're a Solution"

"Here's the difference between ComplyAI and vendors like Zocket:

Other vendors try to trick Meta with dummy websites, redirects, and account swapping. This:

  • Violates Meta's terms of service
  • Gets caught eventually and results in permanent bans
  • Creates terrible user experiences (complicated funnels)
  • Is unsustainable and risky

ComplyAI works WITH Meta's compliance systems, not against them:

  • Our founder built these systems at Meta—we know exactly how they work
  • We make minimal, strategic changes to your messaging and landing pages
  • Everything is compliant and sustainable long-term
  • We're an official Meta partner with direct support channels

The result: Our clients get better ad approval rates, lower rejection rates, and sustainable growth—without the risk of account bans or complex workarounds that destroy your conversion rates."*

4.4 Competitive Analysis: Other Vendors​

Who Else is in This Space?

Based on "two other companies this week had promised similar results," Nick should have asked:

  1. "Can I ask who the other vendors are? I want to make sure you're comparing apples to apples."
  2. "What did they promise specifically? I want to make sure our approach aligns with what you're evaluating."
  3. "How are you planning to decide between vendors? What matters most to you?"

Likely Competitors:

  1. General Marketing Agencies with Compliance Add-Ons

    • Don't specialize in highly regulated industries
    • Lack Meta insider knowledge
    • Often outsource compliance to white-label providers

  2. Compliance-Only Tools (No Service)

    • Software platforms that scan ads
    • No implementation or strategy support
    • Require in-house expertise to execute

  3. Full-Service Agencies with CBD Experience

    • Expensive (full-service pricing)
    • Compliance is one service among many
    • May not have Meta partnership or insider knowledge

ComplyAI's Positioning Against Each:

Competitor TypeTheir WeaknessComplyAI's Strength
Zocket-styleUnsustainable workaroundsCompliant, long-term approach
General AgenciesNo specialized expertiseMeta insider knowledge + partnership
Software ToolsNo implementation supportFull-service with AI + human expertise
Full-ServiceExpensive, unfocusedSpecialized, cost-effective for compliance

5. Recommendations for Improving Sales Process​

5.1 Immediate Tactical Improvements​

1. Implement BANT Qualification Framework

Before Every Call:

  • Research prospect's company size, funding, parent company
  • Estimate current marketing budget from public info (job postings, press releases)

During Discovery:

  • Budget: "What's your current marketing budget? What were you spending on Meta before you stopped?"
  • Authority: "Besides yourself and the Head of Digital, who else needs to sign off? What's your vendor approval process?"
  • Need: "If you could restart Meta ads tomorrow, how much revenue would that represent monthly?"
  • Timeline: "When are you looking to have this up and running? Any seasonal deadlines?"

After Qualification:

  • Score leads: A (high budget, urgent timeline, clear authority) to C (low budget, long timeline, complex approval)
  • Prioritize follow-up accordingly

2. Create Pricing Conversation Script

Never defer pricing entirely to email. Use this framework:

"Happy to include detailed pricing in the follow-up email, but let me give you the framework now so nothing's a surprise:

For a company your size, our typical engagement includes:

  1. Initial compliance audit and setup: $[X] one-time
  2. Ongoing monitoring and optimization: $[Y]/month
  3. Ad appeal service: included

Total first-month investment: $[X+Y] Ongoing monthly: $[Y]

To put that in perspective: If we get you back to even 50% of your pre-shutdown ad spend, you'd be running $[Z] in daily ads. Our fees pay for themselves in the first [timeframe].

Does that ballpark feel reasonable for your budget, or should we look at a different scope like starting with just the audit?"

Then ask: "What questions do you have about pricing before I put together a formal proposal?"

3. Develop Competitive Battle Card

Create a one-page comparison to send with every proposal:

CriterionZocketGeneric AgencyComplyAI
Meta Expertise❌ No❌ No✅ Founder built Meta's compliance systems
Official Meta Partner❌ No❌ No✅ Yes
Account Ownership❌ Runs through their accounts✅ Yes✅ Partner access only
Implementation❌ Dummy websites⚠️ Varies✅ Simple landing page changes
Sustainability❌ Gets caught/banned⚠️ Depends✅ Long-term compliant
AI Monitoring❌ No❌ No✅ Proactive scanning
Pricing$$$$$$$
Track Record⚠️ Mixed⚠️ Varies✅ <15% rejection rate

4. Build Trust Recovery Protocol

For prospects burned by previous vendors (like Elixinol with Zocket):

Step 1: Acknowledge and Empathize "I'm sorry you went through that. Unfortunately, there are vendors in this space who overpromise and use risky workarounds. That's not how we operate."

Step 2: Contrast Your Approach "Here's what makes us different: [3 specific points with examples]"

Step 3: Prove It "Don't take my word for it. I can connect you with [2-3 CBD clients] who've been with us for [6+ months]. Ask them about our process, transparency, and results."

Step 4: Reduce Risk "What if we started with just the compliance audit—no long-term commitment? That way you can see exactly what we'd recommend and decide if it makes sense to move forward. Sound fair?"

5. Create Objection Handling Playbook

Common Objections:

ObjectionResponse Framework
"You're expensive""Compared to what? Let's look at ROI: If we get you back to $X/day in ad spend, our fee is Y% of that. What's your current cost of NOT advertising?"
"We got burned before"Use Trust Recovery Protocol above
"We're evaluating others""Great—what criteria are you using? I want to make sure you have all the info to compare properly. What matters most: track record, Meta partnership, or implementation simplicity?"
"We need to think about it""Totally understandable. What specifically do you need to think about? Budget, timing, or whether the approach will work?"
"Our boss needs to approve""Makes sense. What questions will they have? Can I join a call with both of you to address their concerns directly?"

5.2 Strategic Process Enhancements​

1. Develop Qualification Scorecard

Score every prospect 1-5 on:

  • Budget: Do they have allocated budget or need to secure it?
  • Authority: Can this person make the decision or are they a recommender?
  • Need: How painful is the problem? Quantified revenue impact?
  • Timeline: When do they need this solved? Urgent or exploratory?
  • Fit: Do they match our ideal customer profile (industry, size, ad spend)?

Total Score:

  • 20-25: A Lead (prioritize, fast-track)
  • 15-19: B Lead (standard follow-up)
  • 10-14: C Lead (nurture, delay)
  • <10: Disqualify (politely decline)

2. Build ROI Calculator Tool

Create a simple spreadsheet or web tool:

Inputs:

  • Current monthly marketing budget
  • Pre-shutdown Meta ad spend
  • Average ROAS (return on ad spend)
  • Current ad rejection rate (if known)

Outputs:

  • Revenue lost per month by not advertising
  • Projected revenue with <15% rejection rate
  • ComplyAI ROI (revenue uplift / fees)
  • Payback period in days

Use in Sales Calls: "Let me pull up our ROI calculator. If I plug in your numbers... [show screen share]... you're leaving $[X] on the table every month. Our fees are $[Y], so the payback is [Z days]. Does that math work for you?"

3. Create Pilot/Trial Offer

Current Gap: No low-risk entry point for skeptical prospects.

Recommended Pilot:

"Compliance Audit + Test Campaign"

  • Duration: 30 days
  • Price: $[X] (½ of normal setup fee)
  • Deliverables:
    1. Full compliance audit of existing ads and landing pages
    2. Detailed recommendations report
    3. Implementation of changes for ONE product/campaign
    4. 30-day monitoring with rejection rate tracking
    5. End-of-pilot results presentation

Value Prop: "This lets you see our process, validate our approach, and measure results before committing to ongoing engagement. If we don't reduce your rejection rate below 15%, we'll refund 50% of the pilot fee. Fair?"

4. Implement Mutual Action Plan (MAP)

During Every Sales Call, Create Shared Next Steps:

Example MAP:

DateComplyAI ActionClient ActionStatus
Nov 15Send proposal email with pricingReview email⏳ Pending
Nov 18Follow up after Mike's chatMike discusses with Head of Digital⏳ Pending
Nov 20Join call with Mike + Head of DigitalSchedule 30-min call📅 TBD
Nov 25Provide 2-3 client referencesTalk to references📅 TBD
Nov 27Send contract and onboarding planSign contract📅 TBD
Dec 2Begin compliance auditProvide ad account access📅 TBD

Benefits:

  • Creates accountability on both sides
  • Prevents "let me think about it" limbo
  • Surfaces objections and blockers early
  • Demonstrates professionalism and organization

5. Develop Case Study Library

Current Gap: Nick mentioned "working on obtaining case studies" but didn't have them ready.

Recommended Case Study Structure:

1. Quick Stats (for verbal pitches):

  • Company: [CBD Company A]
  • Challenge: 78% ad rejection rate, stopped advertising for 6 months
  • Solution: ComplyAI compliance audit + ongoing monitoring
  • Results: 12% rejection rate, 6x increase in ad spend, 4.2 ROAS

2. Full Case Studies (for proposals):

  • Client background (industry, size, challenges)
  • Specific problems before ComplyAI
  • ComplyAI's approach and implementation
  • Quantified results (metrics, timeline, ROI)
  • Client testimonial quote
  • Before/after screenshots (if possible)

3. Vertical-Specific Studies:

  • CBD/hemp companies (Elixinol's vertical)
  • Other regulated industries (finance, healthcare, alcohol)
  • Different company sizes (SMB vs. enterprise)

Delivery:

  • Verbal: Quick stats during discovery calls
  • Proposal: Attach 1-2 relevant full case studies
  • Follow-up: Share additional case studies addressing specific objections

6. Create Competitive Differentiation One-Pager

"Why ComplyAI vs. The Rest"

Section 1: The Problem "Most compliance vendors use risky workarounds that violate Meta's TOS and lead to account bans. This creates short-term gains but long-term disaster."

Section 2: Our Unique Approach

  1. Meta Insider Knowledge: Our founder built Meta's compliance systems
  2. Official Partnership: Only Meta-approved vendor in this space
  3. Sustainable Compliance: No dummy sites, no account takeovers, no TOS violations
  4. AI + Human Expertise: Proactive monitoring + expert appeals
  5. Proven Track Record: <15% rejection rate, [X] clients, [Y] years

Section 3: Head-to-Head Comparison [Use battle card from Recommendation #3]

Section 4: Client Proof "Don't take our word for it: [3 client testimonials with names, companies, results]"

5.3 Operational Improvements​

1. CRM and Lead Scoring System

Implement in HubSpot/Salesforce:

  • Automatic BANT scoring based on call notes
  • Lead prioritization (A/B/C tiers)
  • Automated follow-up task creation
  • Pipeline stage definitions with exit criteria

Pipeline Stages:

  1. Discovery Call Scheduled → Exit criteria: Call completed
  2. Qualified → Exit criteria: BANT confirmed, proposal sent
  3. Proposal Sent → Exit criteria: Decision-maker reviewed
  4. Negotiation → Exit criteria: Pricing agreed, contract sent
  5. Closed-Won → Exit criteria: Contract signed
  6. Closed-Lost → Capture reason and competitor info

2. Sales Enablement Content

Create for Every Rep:

  1. Call Script Template (discovery questions, qualification, objection handling)
  2. Pricing Calculator (ROI modeling tool)
  3. Proposal Template (pricing, scope, case studies, testimonials)
  4. Competitive Battle Cards (Zocket, general agencies, DIY tools)
  5. Case Study Library (sortable by industry, company size, challenge type)
  6. Email Templates (initial outreach, follow-up, nurture sequences)
  7. Demo Video (how the AI scanning works, landing page examples)
  8. FAQ Document (answers to 20 most common questions)

3. Regular Sales Training

Monthly Role-Playing Sessions:

  • Practice objection handling
  • Review recent won/lost deals
  • Share best practices across team
  • Update battle cards based on competitive intel

Quarterly Case Study Development:

  • Interview satisfied clients
  • Document results and testimonials
  • Create new vertical-specific case studies
  • Update competitive positioning

4. Win/Loss Analysis Process

After Every Deal (Won or Lost):

For Won Deals:

  • What made us stand out vs. competitors?
  • Which case studies or proof points sealed the deal?
  • What objections did they have and how did we overcome them?
  • How can we replicate this success?

For Lost Deals:

  • Why did we lose? (price, timing, features, trust, competitor)
  • Who did they choose and why?
  • What could we have done differently?
  • Should we have disqualified earlier?

Use Insights To:

  • Update battle cards
  • Refine pricing/packaging
  • Improve qualification criteria
  • Create new case studies addressing common objections

5.4 Call-Specific Recommendations for Elixinol Deal​

Immediate Actions (Next 24 Hours):

1. Send Follow-Up Email

Subject: "ComplyAI Approach + Pricing for Elixinol - [Your Name]"

Body Structure:

  • Paragraph 1: Thank you for the time, recap key pain points discussed
  • Paragraph 2: How ComplyAI solves these differently than Zocket
  • Paragraph 3: Pricing framework (use recommended script from 5.1.2)
  • Paragraph 4: Case study highlights (include 1-2 CBD client results)
  • Paragraph 5: Next steps and call to action

Attachments:

  • Detailed proposal PDF
  • Competitive comparison one-pager (vs. Zocket)
  • 2-3 case studies (CBD companies if possible)
  • Client testimonials

2. Research Zocket

Find:

  • Their pricing (if public)
  • Client reviews (Google, Trustpilot, Reddit)
  • Common complaints
  • Technical approach details

Create:

  • Zocket-specific battle card
  • "Why We're Different Than Zocket" one-pager
  • FAQ addressing Zocket's approach vs. ComplyAI's

3. Prepare for Head of Digital Call

Research:

  • Head of Digital's background (LinkedIn)
  • Their role at Elixinol (responsibilities, tenure)
  • Their likely concerns (technical implementation, ROI, risk)

Create:

  • Customized deck for this stakeholder
  • Technical FAQ for digital marketing leader
  • ROI model specific to Elixinol's situation

What to Include in Email:

Pricing Example:

"For a company like Elixinol looking to restart Meta advertising, our typical engagement includes:

Phase 1: Compliance Audit & Setup ($[X] one-time)

  • Comprehensive audit of your current website and ad creative
  • Detailed compliance recommendations (landing pages, messaging, ad copy)
  • Implementation of approved changes
  • Meta partnership activation for your account

Phase 2: Ongoing Optimization ($[Y]/month)

  • AI-powered monitoring of all live ads (compliance scoring)
  • Proactive alerts before Meta flags content
  • Ad appeal service (included, others charge $[Z] per appeal)
  • Monthly strategy review and recommendations

Total Investment:

  • First month: $[X+Y]
  • Ongoing: $[Y]/month

ROI Framework: Based on your mention of other CBD clients spending $30K-50K/month on Meta ads, if we get you to even half that ($15K-25K/month), you'd be generating $[calculated revenue based on typical 3-4x ROAS]. Our fees represent [X]% of that revenue opportunity.

Risk Mitigation: If you'd prefer to start smaller, we can begin with just the Compliance Audit ($[X]) with no ongoing commitment. This lets you see our recommendations and decide if the full engagement makes sense.*"

4. Proactive Competitive Positioning

In the email, address Zocket directly:

"I know you mentioned a frustrating experience with Zocket. I want to be explicit about how our approach differs:

Zocket's Approach (Why It Fails):

  • Runs ads through their own accounts (violates Meta TOS, puts YOUR business at risk)
  • Builds dummy websites that create terrible user experiences
  • Gets caught by Meta's algorithms eventually → permanent account bans
  • Not an official Meta partner → no support when things go wrong

ComplyAI's Approach:

  • Partner access to YOUR accounts (you maintain 100% ownership)
  • Simple landing page changes on YOUR website (no redirects, no dummy sites)
  • Sustainable and compliant long-term (we work WITH Meta's systems, not against them)
  • Official Meta partner → direct escalation channels when issues arise

The Bottom Line: Zocket's approach is a short-term workaround that creates long-term risk. Our approach is sustainable compliance that protects your business while maximizing ad performance."*

5. Add Urgency Without Being Pushy

"We're currently onboarding 2 new CBD clients this month and want to make sure we have capacity to give Elixinol the attention you deserve. If the approach makes sense after your Monday chat, I'd love to get started by [specific date] so we can have you running compliant ads by [seasonal milestone—holiday shopping, new year, etc.]."

6. Propose Specific Next Steps

"Here's what I propose for next steps:

  1. This Week: You review this email and discuss with your Head of Digital (Monday)
  2. Next Week: I join a 30-minute call with you both to answer technical questions and walk through our exact implementation process (I have availability Tuesday 11/19 at 10am or 2pm Pacific)
  3. Week of Nov 25: If aligned, we sign agreement and begin compliance audit
  4. Week of Dec 2: Implement recommendations and activate Meta partnership
  5. Week of Dec 9: Launch first compliant campaigns

Does this timeline work for your team? If you'd prefer to start with just the audit to reduce risk, I can adjust accordingly."

Medium-Term Actions (Next 7-14 Days):

1. Schedule Follow-Up Call with Both Stakeholders

  • Don't wait for them to propose timing
  • Offer 2-3 specific time slots
  • Send calendar invite immediately when they confirm

2. Prepare Client References

  • Identify 2-3 CBD clients willing to talk
  • Brief them on Elixinol's situation (Zocket trauma, skepticism)
  • Provide talking points: implementation simplicity, ROI, support quality

3. Create Elixinol-Specific Proposal

Not generic template—customized to:

  • Their demographic (older female customers)
  • Their product categories (sleep, pain relief, wellness)
  • Their regulatory concerns (spending bill, hemp industry)
  • Their past vendor trauma (Zocket)

4. Build Trust Through Education

  • Send article: "Why Dummy Websites Destroy Conversion Rates and Get You Banned"
  • Share case study: "How [CBD Company] Went from 0 to $50K/day in Meta Ads Compliantly"
  • Offer webinar: "Meta Advertising for Regulated Industries: What Works in 2025"

Long-Term Actions (If Deal Progresses):

1. Pilot Success → Case Study

If Elixinol signs and sees results:

  • Document their journey (before/after metrics)
  • Create detailed case study for future CBD prospects
  • Request testimonial and LinkedIn recommendation
  • Ask for referrals to other hemp/wellness companies

2. Learn from This Sale

Win or lose, capture:

  • What messaging resonated
  • What objections came up
  • How Zocket comparison played out
  • What ROI framing worked
  • Time from first call to close (or loss)

3. Refine Sales Process

Use this deal to:

  • Update discovery question list
  • Improve pricing conversation script
  • Create "overcoming vendor trauma" playbook
  • Build Zocket-specific competitive content

6. Summary and Action Plan​

6.1 Key Findings​

Strengths:

  1. ✅ Strong credibility through Meta founder story and partnership
  2. ✅ Clear differentiation from competitors (Zocket)
  3. ✅ Concrete proof points (case study, success metrics)
  4. ✅ Good rapport and active listening

Critical Gaps:

  1. ❌ No budget qualification → Can't prioritize deal or tailor pricing
  2. ❌ Weak objection handling → Missed opportunities to convert skepticism into trust
  3. ❌ Deferred pricing discussion → Risk of email sticker shock
  4. ❌ No urgency creation → Deal could sit in limbo indefinitely
  5. ❌ Incomplete discovery → Don't understand decision process or success criteria

Overall Assessment: Nick has strong product-market fit and credibility, but needs to strengthen qualification, objection handling, and deal progression skills to close faster and at higher rates.

6.2 Prioritized Recommendations​

Immediate (Next 7 Days):

  1. ✅ Send follow-up email with pricing, case studies, and Zocket comparison
  2. ✅ Research Zocket thoroughly and create battle card
  3. ✅ Prepare for Head of Digital call (research stakeholder, create custom deck)
  4. ✅ Create ROI calculator for this specific prospect
  5. ✅ Line up 2-3 CBD client references

Short-Term (Next 30 Days):

  1. ⏳ Implement BANT qualification framework for all sales calls
  2. ⏳ Create objection handling playbook with scripts
  3. ⏳ Develop competitive battle cards (Zocket + 2-3 others)
  4. ⏳ Build case study library (target: 5 detailed case studies)
  5. ⏳ Create pilot/trial offer to reduce buyer risk

Medium-Term (Next 90 Days):

  1. 📅 Build sales enablement content library (scripts, templates, tools)
  2. 📅 Implement CRM with lead scoring and pipeline management
  3. 📅 Develop pricing calculator and ROI modeling tool
  4. 📅 Create industry-specific sales decks (CBD, finance, healthcare, etc.)
  5. 📅 Establish win/loss analysis process

6.3 Success Metrics​

Track These KPIs:

  1. Qualification Rate: % of leads that meet BANT criteria
  2. Proposal-to-Close Rate: % of proposals that convert to customers
  3. Sales Cycle Length: Days from first call to signed contract
  4. Average Deal Size: Revenue per customer (by tier/industry)
  5. Win Rate vs. Competitors: % won when competing against Zocket, agencies, etc.
  6. Objection Frequency: Which objections come up most often
  7. Case Study Impact: Close rate with vs. without case studies

Goals (Next Quarter):

  • Increase qualification rate from ~60% to 80% (disqualify bad fits earlier)
  • Reduce sales cycle from 30-45 days to 21-30 days (better urgency creation)
  • Increase proposal-to-close rate from ~25% to 40% (better objection handling)
  • Win rate vs. Zocket: >70% (strong competitive positioning)

6.4 Next Steps for Sales Team​

This Week:

  1. Review this analysis with sales team
  2. Implement BANT qualification checklist for all calls
  3. Create Zocket battle card and objection handling script
  4. Draft pricing conversation framework
  5. Build 3 initial case studies

This Month:

  1. Role-play objection handling scenarios
  2. Create sales enablement content library
  3. Implement CRM lead scoring system
  4. Develop pilot offer and trial pricing
  5. Conduct win/loss analysis on last 10 deals

This Quarter:

  1. Achieve 80% BANT qualification rate
  2. Reduce sales cycle to <30 days
  3. Build case study library (8-10 studies across verticals)
  4. Implement competitive intelligence tracking
  5. Train team on new sales process and tools

Appendix: Sales Call Transcript Highlights​

Strongest Moments:

  1. Credibility Establishment:

    "Compliance company founded by an ex-Meta employee specializing in compliance and aggressive marketing strategies."

  2. Quantified Success:

    "A standout case where a CBD company went from spending $30,000-$35,000 a month to achieving that spend easily in one day."

  3. Differentiation from Zocket:

    "Simple changes to landing pages—not redirects or entirely new websites."

Weakest Moments:

  1. No Budget Qualification:

    • Missed opportunity to ask about current marketing budget
    • No discussion of historical Meta ad spend
    • No understanding of what they can afford

  2. Passive Response to Skepticism:

    "Mike Rutledge expressed interest but caution, mentioning that two other companies this week had promised similar results."

    • Nick didn't respond to this critical buying blocker
    • Should have asked about the other vendors
    • Missed chance to differentiate proactively

  3. Incomplete Objection Handling:

    • Addressed Zocket's approach but didn't empathize deeply with the trauma
    • Didn't turn the negative experience into a trust-building moment
    • Failed to offer risk mitigation (pilot, guarantees, references)

Questions Nick Should Have Asked (But Didn't):

  1. "What were you spending on Meta ads before you stopped? What was your ROAS?"
  2. "How much revenue are you losing per month by not advertising on Meta?"
  3. "When you say 'very little return,' what does that mean specifically? What's acceptable vs. unacceptable ROAS for you?"
  4. "Besides you and the Head of Digital, who else needs to approve this decision?"
  5. "What's your budget for fixing this problem? Have you allocated specific funds for a compliance vendor?"
  6. "When do you want to have Meta ads running again? Is there a seasonal deadline or company goal?"
  7. "Can you tell me about the two other vendors you mentioned? What did they promise and how are you evaluating them?"
  8. "If I could wave a magic wand and solve this perfectly, what would success look like in 3 months? 6 months?"
  9. "What would need to happen on this call for you to feel confident moving forward with us?"
  10. "Are you currently running ads on any other platforms? What's working and what's not?"
Last updated on