Audience research
Part of Proposal software audience research without the guesswork
What proposal software competitor research means for sales teams
A practical checklist for B2B sales teams in England on running proposal software competitor research, covering data sources, compliance and a decision table.
What to take away
- Competitor research has shifted from a quarterly slide to a continuous feed, because vendors now repackage pricing and features inside a single buying cycle.
- The strongest evidence is publicpricing pages, datasheets, release notes and tender award notices.
- Under the UK GDPR, rival contact details count as personal data, so keep research files away from campaign lists.
- Start with a one-page comparison of three rivals; add rows only when a live deal needs them.
- Refresh pricing monthly and positioning quarterly, then review the comparison before every renewal.
Why competitor research changed recently
Buyers compare quoting tools before they speak to a salesperson. That means competitor notes age faster than CRM records. A feature or published price captured in January may be packaged differently by September, so date every observation and treat it as evidence of what was published then.
Release cycles moved as well. Vendors often change packaging between major launches, so a feature list captured at renewal can be stale within weeks.
Research carries more risk now. Sales operations teams in England hold rival contact details, event lists and inbound enquiries, all personal data. The ICO's marketing guidance sits beside your research notes, as one mailbox often serves both jobs.
For proposal software, start with products buyers mention in live opportunities. Separate proposal and quoting tools from RFP response platforms, and treat adjacent products as rivals only when they appear in the same deal. This keeps the research focused on the alternatives your sales team actually encounters.
A six-point checklist before you begin
Six-Point Pre-Research Checklist
- Define the decision research will inform
- List rivals you actually meet
- Set a review date
- Agree what you will not collect
- Separate storage from campaign lists
- Assign one owner
- Define the decision the research will inform. Pricing, positioning and objection handling each need different evidence.
- List the software rivals you actually meet, alongside the incumbent spreadsheet and any free quoting tier.
- Set a review date. Thirty days suits pricing pages; ninety days is the outer limit.
- Agree what you will not collectscraped personal data, private forum content, anything gathered under a false identity.
- Separate storage. Keep competitor files away from campaign lists so consent records stay clean.
- Assign one owner, so the comparison does not become an orphan document.
For a category-specific starting comparison, use PandaDoc, Proposify and Qwilr only if they appear in your deals. Put each on the one-page sheet, with columns for product scope, proposal or quote workflow, integrations named by the vendor, published pricing (or “quote required”), and the source and date for each finding. Fill the cells from current evidence rather than assuming the products or their plans are equivalent.
Sources that hold up
Public sources carry the least risk. Vendor pricing pages, product documentation, release notes and published case studies are fair game. Tender award notices on public procurement portals show what buyers actually chose. Award notices often include contract values, which give a firmer read than a vendor's own summary.
Source Reliability Ranking
Public sources
- Risk level
- Least
- Examples
- Pricing pages, tender notices
- Key check
- Date the screenshot
- Best use
- Firm price evidence
Your own data
- Risk level
- Low
- Examples
- Win-loss notes, transcripts
- Key check
- Record source and date
- Best use
- Practical feature relevance
Third-party analysis
- Risk level
- Higher
- Examples
- Analyst reports, review sites
- Key check
- Check publication date
- Best use
- Initial orientation
Product documentation explains capability but rarely states list price. Pair it with a dated record of the pricing page, so a colleague can see what was published at the time. Where plans are quote-only or not directly comparable, record that limitation instead of inferring a figure.
Your own data is the second source. Win-loss reasons, lost-deal notes and call transcripts reveal which rival features matter in practice. Use the same prompts for each buyer conversation, then record the buyer's stated reason and the deal context so the notes can be compared rather than treated as anecdotes.
Record each finding with a date and source, and feed it into sales conversations rather than leaving it in a shared drive. Store account-specific findings in a CRM such as Salesforce or HubSpot; reusable battlecards can sit in a sales enablement tool such as Highspot or Seismic, if your team uses one.
Third-party analysis comes last. G2, Capterra and TrustRadius review pages can help you orientate, but check the category, publication date and sample before quoting reviews internally. Treat review-site claims as buyer evidence, not as verified product specifications.
Compliance points to check
Competitor research sits close to marketing, so the rules overlap. If you email rival customers or event attendees, treat it as direct marketing and follow the ICO's direct marketing checklist. It covers consent, soft opt-in and the right to object.
Keep a record of your lawful basis for holding contact data. A documented complaints route helps if a contact objects. BS ISO 10002 covers complaints handling, and the BSI page on the standard explains its scope.
Retention matters as much as collection. Delete contact records once the research question closes, and keep the written decision instead.
Paid social research is greyer. If you run ads to test rival audiences, follow the platform's own rules. LinkedIn publishes advertising best practices covering targeting and creative limits for B2B campaigns.
Decision table
Choose
- Entering a new segment
- Public pricing pages, tender notices and two win-loss reviews
- Defending a live deal
- Feature comparison for the named rival only
- Testing a new price band
- Your own quote data plus published vendor bands
- First research cycle
- One-page summary of three rivals
Avoid
- Entering a new segment
- Buying contact lists or scraping directories
- Defending a live deal
- A full market matrix built months ago
- Testing a new price band
- Surveying rival customers without consent
- First research cycle
- A 40-row spreadsheet nobody updates
Common questions
How often should a small team refresh competitor notes?
Monthly for pricing and packaging, quarterly for positioning. Anything older than a quarter is indicative, not factual.
Is it lawful to record a rival's public pricing page?
Yes. Public pages are fair to record. The risk lies in personal data about the people behind them, so store only what you need.
Should research include free tools and spreadsheets?
Yes. In many deals the real competitor is a spreadsheet or a free quoting tier, and ignoring it distorts your win rate. Log which one appears most often, so your battlecards reflect reality.
