What would you focus on – Quality of Revenue OR Win Rate?
It was perfect on paper. That was the problem. A multi-million-dollar renewal. Multi-year. North American energy customer we had been supporting for years. Strong existing reference. Healthy relationship. Capacity already in place.
Every internal stakeholder wanted to win it. So did I – until I read the RFP carefully.
The customer wanted us to bid at a price that assumed automation. They wanted year-on-year productivity improvements priced in. The pricing model only worked if 20–30% of the work disappeared into automation over the contract life.
The same customer had, for three years, blocked every automation pilot we had attempted in their environment.
Senior leadership was pro-automation in every quarterly review. Operating directors blocked it with every change approval.
So we walked.
What walking away actually felt like
Internal trust eroded in real-time. A renewal you’re “supposed to win” doesn’t politely allow itself to be declined. People above you don’t applaud. They escalate. They ask why you’re declining the easiest deal in the pipeline. They wonder, quietly, whether you’ve lost your edge. However, no one is yet looking at the quality of revenue.
The customer went to a competitor. Through industry channels, I later learned the competitor took the deal – and was blocked from implementing the same automation we had been blocked from implementing. The economic damage we had modeled showed up on someone else’s books impacting their quality of revenue.
That validation arrived eighteen months later. The internal cost of walking away arrived immediately.
This is the actual asymmetry of deal selectivity: the discipline is paid in the present; the vindication, if it comes at all, arrives much later – often after the people who criticized your decision have already moved on.
The math nobody runs
There is a calculation that almost no business unit reviews well, and it explains most of the bad deals services firms sign:
When a customer says they want automation, productivity, transformation – at what level of their organization is that intent funded, and at what level is it permitted?
In the deal I walked from, the answer was: funded at the C-suite, blocked at the directors. Senior leadership wanted the future. Operating leadership had no incentive to allow it. Their performance reviews depended on stability, not transformation.
If you sign a contract priced on the C-suite’s stated intent but delivered against the operating layer’s actual behavior, you are not signing a contract. You are signing a structured loss impacting your quality of revenue.
The deal team sees the upside. The delivery team eats the downside. The decision and the consequences sit eighteen months apart in time and several layers apart in the organization. By the time the damage to quality of revenue (margin) shows up, accountability has diffused beyond repair.
This is the deal pattern that destroys services-firm P&Ls. Not bold mistakes. Quietly mispriced renewals where the customer’s intent and the customer’s behavior don’t match – and where everyone involved in the sale was incentivized to ignore the gap.
What the disciplined “no” requires
Three things, and they are uncomfortable.
The first is the willingness to be wrong in public, slowly. Walking from a deal looks indistinguishable from losing one for the first six to twelve months. The validation arrives later, if it arrives at all. You must be okay with that gap.
The second is the willingness to disappoint people you respect. Senior stakeholders who genuinely want to win the deal. Account leaders whose reviews depend on revenue retention. Customers you’ve supported for years and who don’t understand why you won’t bid. None of them will see the trap you’re seeing. They will see only the decision.
The third is the willingness to trust your own pattern recognition against a system that rewards win rate and not the quality of revenue. Every services firm I have seen measures pipeline coverage, win rate, and customer retention. Almost none measures quality of revenue – what percentage of signed deals are still margin-positive in year three. The metrics reward what is easy to count. The damage is in what is hard to count.
A business unit leader who can sit with all three of these – being wrong in public, disappointing people they respect, trusting their own read against the system – is a different category of leader. Most can’t. The ones who can, compound.
The harder claim
Here is what I believe, having now done this several times across multiple roles:
Win rate is the most overrated metric in services-firm P&L management. It is the wrong objective. It rewards bidding on what is winnable rather than what is profitable. It penalizes selectivity. It does not measure the deals that should never have been in the pipeline in the first place.
The metric that matters is quality of revenue retained over time – and the upstream input to that metric is the deals you didn’t sign.
In every business unit I have run, the discipline that has most reliably protected margin has not just been better delivery or better automation or better account management. It has been better refusal. Saying no, at the right moment, to the deal that looked like a sure thing to preserve the quality of revenue.
Some of the most important commercial decisions I have made were the ones to get away from a contract.
The hardest part of running a P&L is not chasing revenue. It is holding the line to maintain the quality of revenue.
What’s the metric your organization rewards – win rate, or quality of revenue retained over time?
#CommercialLeadership #StrategicSales #DealMaking #RevenueQuality #ServicesIndustry #RKJONLeadership