B2B Sales & BD Club · 2026-02-09 · 7 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
30 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The host shares five critical B2B thinking frameworks learned from serving as an academic paper reviewer for the first time. Drawing parallels between academic peer review and B2B sales and business development, the episode covers: validating that the core research question (or customer pain point) is genuinely important, conducting thorough literature review (competitive landscape analysis), distinguishing between selling vision versus evidence based on product type, ensuring methodological rigor while creating differentiation, and measuring real-world impact. Using concrete examples - selling AI and smart city solutions versus industrial screws - the host demonstrates how academic rigor applies to customer discovery and sales strategy. This episode is valuable for sales leaders, BD professionals, and founders who want to elevate their customer conversations beyond surface-level presentations and build trust through systematic, evidence-based problem-solving. The framework also addresses team leadership, showing how constructive feedback and specific improvement suggestions create stronger organizations.
The five frameworks are: (1) validating that the problem is genuinely important, (2) understanding existing solutions and competitive landscape, (3) distinguishing between selling vision versus evidence, (4) maintaining methodological rigor while creating differentiation, and (5) demonstrating real-world impact and implementation clarity.
Literature review in academia - understanding what solutions already exist and what the market commonly uses - parallels competitive product knowledge in B2B. The host emphasizes that before proposing solutions, salespeople must genuinely understand what customers have already tried and current market standards, rather than just promoting their own product.
Vision-based selling (used for AI, smart cities) focuses on inspiring customers' imagination of future possibilities, while evidence-based selling (like selling industrial screws) requires demonstrating how existing frameworks should be properly implemented. The evaluation criteria and customer expectations differ fundamentally between these two approaches.
Stability and meeting standards are baseline expectations that customers assume vendors will deliver. True differentiation emerges within that stable foundation - the question is not whether you're reliable enough, but what unique value you provide alongside that reliability to stand out from competitors who are equally stable.
Rather than highlighting deficiencies, effective feedback should build on what's already been done well and provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. This applies to both managing teams and conducting customer reviews, creating people willing to follow leaders who invest in their growth.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode surfaces five loosely developed analogies between academic peer review and B2B sales. The 'selling vision vs. selling evidence' distinction and the 'too standard to be differentiated' observation are mildly non-obvious, but most points (understand customer pain, map the competitive landscape, demonstrate impact) are standard sales training content delivered at surface level in a 7-minute monologue.
我們在賣的東西我們是在賣 vision 還是在賣 evidence
最後不選我們會不會是不是我們不夠穩而是我們太標準標準到別人也沒有辦法看出任何差異化的可能
Using the academic peer-review process as a structural metaphor for B2B sales thinking is a relatively fresh framing device, and the vision-versus-evidence product-selling distinction shows some first-principles reasoning. However, once the analogy is unwrapped, the underlying prescriptions map closely to well-circulated sales frameworks without adding meaningfully new arguments.
我被隨機分到論文他會把這個論文裡面的作者跟組織的資訊都拿掉所以我們也不會有 review 的盲點
我們在賣的東西我們是在賣 vision 還是在賣 evidence
This is a solo host monologue with no external guest. The host mentions personal sales experience across AI, smart city, and industrial products, which indicates some practitioner grounding, but there is no verifiable depth, scale, or seniority on display, and the academic reviewer role is itself very junior.
我個人兩種產品都賣過嘛譬如說我們賣 AI 以前賣智慧城市、智慧圖書館其實我都是在賣未來的一個想像
譬如說像我現在在賣螺絲好了你就不能用想像的方式去賣螺絲
The only concrete examples offered are passing references to 'AI,' 'smart cities,' 'smart libraries,' and 'screws' - no company names, deal sizes, win/loss data, customer names, or quantified outcomes appear anywhere. The academic review process itself is described in wholly generic terms.
譬如說我個人兩種產品都賣過嘛譬如說我們賣 AI 以前賣智慧城市、智慧圖書館
譬如說像我現在在賣螺絲好了你就不能用想像的方式去賣螺絲
The episode is an uninterrupted solo monologue with no dialogue, no questions posed and pursued, no self-challenge, and no pushback on any claim. The five-point enumeration provides a mechanical scaffold but there is no probing, no tension, and no development of any argument beyond a single illustrative sentence per point.
所以以上跟你分享我第一次當神稿人的眼光怎麼樣用在我的 B2B 謝大家下次見掰掰
那這件事情很重要喔因為你的研究的不同它後面的評價標準都會不同
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
哈囉大家好歡迎收聽 EP37 我第一次以 reviewer 的身份審稿我學到的五個 B2B 的思維這一陣子對我來講蠻有趣的因為我第一次不是以業務不是以 BD 也不是以企業的身份而是真的是像一個學者 reviewer 審稿員的角色去審一篇學術論文我要把去年的博士論文改寫成會議期刊要去投稿那要投稿的同時你必須也要負責去審其他人的論文那在讀博士班的時候當然我有跟同學互相 review 不過因為他不是匿名而且我同學有些比較敏感我也不太能夠直白的切入 review 的重點這次我被隨機分到論文他會把這個論文裡面的作者跟組織的資訊都拿掉所以我們也不會有 review 的盲點這一集我想跟你分享學術界怎麼系統化 review 論文其實也可以把這一套的邏輯帶回 B2BSales 跟 BD 的現場首先我們在回覆一篇文章它第一個最重要的問題就是這個研究問題真的重要嗎?所以我們的時間、資源、精力都非常有限的情況下選擇在專注最重要的事情下才能解決最大的問題我們每天在賣東西的時候其實也是同一個事情嘛客戶現在最著急的事情到底是什麼這個痛點現在重要嗎還是只是因為我們為了賣東西而賣所以如果你一開始就回答不了為什麼這件事情重要後面再漂亮的 solution 都站不住第二個你有站在前人的肩膀上嗎?
EP38: (上集)Burnout 不是脆弱, 它是訊號48 / 100EP36: Preparing for a DBA While Working in B2B: What Really Helped Me34 / 100EP35: 女性談薪水的 5 個心理地雷（Say Less, Get More 給我的啟發）67 / 100EP34｜BM Thinking for BD52 / 100EP33｜動盪時代的銷售：從賣產品，到讓客戶「敢選你」