In partnership with
You're already late hiring a marketing agency for 2027.
Your 2027 budget is almost finalized, and the clock is ticking to hire your new agency partner for next year.
An agency search takes this long:
3 weeks to scope the brief and build a shortlist
4 weeks of pitches and reference calls
3 weeks for contracting and legal
60–90 days of onboarding before the work is worth judging
That's over 5 months wasted, so an agency hired in January doesn't deliver results until May.
Vendry helps you hire the best agency for your business, ASAP.
Describe the brief, we do the shortlisting, and your search begins tomorrow.
Tell us what you need and we'll send 3 or 4 vetted agencies matched to your budget and category in <7 days.
Earlier this week, my friend Nick Bennett, someone I go to when I want to pressure-test my own thinking on marketing, posted a tweet that nails one of the most expensive mistakes in ABM: too many accounts, and no real reason for most of them to be on the list.
He laid out the math on how most ABM programs actually start. Someone pulls a firmographic filter in ZoomInfo (industry, headcount, revenue range) exports 500 accounts, hands it to sales, and calls it ABM. In his example, 90 days and about $35K later, that gets you 8 meetings and 3 real opportunities. Roughly $12K per opportunity, on accounts nobody had a specific reason to believe would buy.
His fix is 30 accounts, each one selected because of a real signal:
"30 accounts. Each one selected because there are real signals. They visited the pricing page. They engaged with content from your founders on LinkedIn. Their company just raised a round or made a leadership change in a function your product serves. Someone on the buying committee attended your webinar or showed up at an industry event where your team was present."
Build a contact map for each one, economic buyer, champion, technical evaluator, and Nick says cohorts like this can hit a 30-40% meeting rate. On 30 accounts, that's 9-12 meetings in 90 days, converting to real pipeline because, in his words, "the accounts were selected on buying signals, not firmographics."
That's a real upgrade over the filtered-export version of ABM. If you're not already selecting this way, start.
But there's a step before it, and Nick names the exact place it belongs without filling it in.
The step before signals
He writes: "If your ABM program has more than 50 accounts and you cannot explain why each one is on the list, you are running a filtered export with a budget attached."
That's the right question. His answer is signals. Mine is a step earlier:
Which accounts support a priority you can defend in the same board deck he's talking about?
Nick's right that 30 accounts looks small in a board deck. But the fix for that isn't just better signals. It's being able to say what business priority those 30 map to: a cross-sell push behind a launch, a vertical you're trying to break into, a renewal risk you're covering. That's what actually plays in a board deck.
A signal explains why an account is warm. It doesn't explain why the business should care that it's on the list at all.
Not every signal carries the same weight, either
Once the priority is set, I'd also push on the signals themselves. They're not all the same strength.
Tier 1 — the strongest signal, and the most underused: closed lost opportunities, churned accounts, expired trials. These accounts already evaluated your specific product and had a real reason to say no or walk away. That's a resolvable objection sitting in your CRM, not a cold start.
Tier 2 — real, but softer: a funding round, a leadership change, a pricing page visit, engagement with your founders on LinkedIn, a webinar attendee, someone who stopped by your booth. All genuinely useful for timing and personalization. None of them confirm the account has actually evaluated buying from you.
Nick's list is almost entirely Tier 2. Nick's cohorts hit a 30-40% meeting rate off of it. I'd expect a cohort weighted toward Tier 1 — closed lost and churn — to beat that number, because those buyers already went through an evaluation with you. That's a stronger signal than a pricing page visit or a LinkedIn like.
Where this shows up in how I coach teams
The account selection process I take teams through starts at the objective, not the account. Only after that's set does account strategy come in, and closed lost and churn data are the first input I look at, ahead of firmographic or engagement signals.
It's the same audit I run on a client's CRM: sort what's already closed lost by the actual reason it didn't close, and more often than not, your best next thirty accounts are sitting in your own database, not on a LinkedIn engagement report.
Nick's signals are still worth building into the list. Just not as the starting point, and not all weighted the same.
When you build your next target account list, where do you actually start, the priority, or the signals? And if you've got closed lost or churned accounts you haven't touched, reply and tell me why they're not already at the top of the list.
What did you think about this week's newsletter?
