.png)
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
23
August
2022
.svg)
Something I have noticed that occurs frequently when MEDDIC is raised in discussions is that people relate it to BANT, which is another sales qualification framework based on the acronym:
B – Budget
A – Authority
N – Need
T – Timing
I have seen people highlight that because it is effectively seeking a number of deal qualification criteria that it is in fact similar to MEDDIC.
The fundamental difference between BANT and MEDDICC is that BANT is most widely used to qualify opportunities, and is useful for answering questions such as ‘should I pursue this opportunity past a first meeting?’ Whereas MEDDIC is a deal qualification framework, it not only helps Sellers qualify if they should be in a deal, but it helps them keep track of where they are in the deal and subsequently helps them forecast.
Whilst it is hard to argue against the concept that two sales qualification frameworks are going to be similar, comparing BANT to MEDDIC is like comparing travelling to the shops on your bike to travelling to the moon in a rocket.
I don’t mean to be derogatory of BANT, it is a highly useful framework to empower SDRs and Inside Sellers to obtain an early steer on an opportunity, but at Enterprise level, it leaves a lot to be desired.
My favorite analogy is to imagine if selling was a computer game, BANT would be the sales qualification framework you’d have to follow on the EASY difficulty setting, whereas MEDDIC would be towards the more difficult settings and when used properly it would be the highest difficulty setting, where only Elite Sellers can play to its full potential.
Perhaps I should have renamed my book ‘How to go from Amateur to Pro in the Game of Sales’.
