.svg){kind=small}
Latest articles
Follow Us
.svg){kind=small}
By Carlos Vadillo
(Scroll to the bottom for the TL;DR)
An enterprise's survival relies heavily on the design and execution of its sales strategy and a successful sales strategy relies on three foundational pillars that drive success in early-stage startups. First, a company must possess a compelling product ready to validate Product-Market Fit (PMF) within a defined Ideal Customer Profile (ICP). Second, founders require an agile product-and-development team capable of evaluating a Minimum Viable Profitable Product (MVPP) and pivoting quickly based on market feedback. Finally, founders must secure the resources to ensure their teams are fully capitalized and fairly compensated. Each pillar is critical, but over-bootstrapping in the early stages triggers severe, adverse effects on both product development and organizational stability.
In early-stage companies, sales strategy does more than just hunt for revenue, it serves as the primary engine for validating the ICP, securing vital market intelligence, and feeding capital back into the company. Without this vital artery, even well capitalized companies will fail. In fact, few deep-tech startups have succeeded using the passive "if you build it, they will come" philosophy. As technology grows more complex, the baseline market expectation has risen dramatically. Success demands an impeccable execution of a sales model. From a human-centered design perspective, a properly functioning product feedback loop is imperative. This feedback loop is the only mechanism that allows a startup to learn exactly where its messaging, marketing, and product utility have succeeded or failed.
As an advisor and consultant to early-stage enterprises, I have witnessed both the misalignments and winning strategies in these sales loops constantly. As a result, we want to share our experience and observations about how these misalignments occur, what founders can do to mitigate these risks, and how to improve the odds of turning on the sales engine to scale a company. We’ll be diving into the tales of two different startups and founders that we’ve worked with.
LithoSim Analytics is a deep-tech quantum physics simulation software that created a highly sophisticated SaaS platform designed to help research labs virtually simulate atomic and molecular structures for silicone wafers used in quantum computing components, eliminating the need for expensive physical clean-room testing.
VetPulse Networks is a niche veterinary B2B inventory management software which allows users to access a specialized B2B logistics and marketplace engine that allows independent veterinary hospitals and clinics to track, trade, and clear specialized animal medical inventory, bypassing rigid corporate medical distribution loops.
Both companies were founded at roughly the same time, are in the SaaS space, are operated by founders with a passion for changing their industries, and are staffed with similarly sized teams of about 10-20 people each. However, one company has become extremely successful at properly managing their sales team and budget. That company grew from $100K in monthly recurring revenue (MRR) in early 2025 to $5MM MRR in 2026 and now services over 300 vet practices. The second company is struggling immensely and has been unable to convert more than ten clients since the product was launched in 2017.
Prior to unlocking the success and failures of both of these companies, let’s look at historical data. CB Insights indicates that the number one reason startups fail is building a product with "No Market Need." This mismatch accounts for roughly 35% of failures in the innovation economy. The bigger lethal trap though, is in how early-stage companies mismanage the relationship between market validation, capital runway, and human capital.
When I was applying to Y Combinator for funding back in 2013, co-founder Paul Graham broke down his philosophy on product-market fit through the "hair-on-fire" analogy. If a customer’s hair is on fire, they will eagerly buy an ugly, incomplete, half-baked product because it puts out the flame. Conversely, if their hair is not on fire, even a beautiful, seamless enterprise platform will fail to close.
The second common cause of early-stage failure is running out of cash or failing to raise capital. As a former founder, I know that early-stage success is a race between operational runway and validation. High-growth startups succeed because they manage cash and people strategically. They understand that you do not invest heavily in aggressive outbound scaling until you have established a highly repeatable, predictable sales loop.
When a pipeline stalls, founders and boards will panic about their runway and look for a scapegoat. In almost all cases, the sales team is the dead horse that continues to be beaten by founders and boards as the company attempts to force raw sales execution to solve a fundamental product-market fit or capital efficiency problem. Unfortunately, scaling outbound outreach to thousands of contacts before fixing the underlying value proposition is a terminal mistake; it simply wastes precious runway, firing blank bullets at an indifferent market.
Let’s start with the success story. VetPulse Networks was founded in 2021 by a vet technician who was tired of seeing veterinary supplies go to waste and had an understanding of the product management systems that veterinary practices use to both manage and order products. Prior to launching, the founder followed the human centered design process to understand the needs of his industry. He started calling other vet practices and asking about the pain points they were facing, how pet medicines were being both utilized, stocked, and eventually disposed of if products were past their expiration dates.The underlying technology of VetPulse was not inherently revolutionary, but it was an elegant, cloud-based B2B inventory optimization and clearinghouse platform.
However, while the software itself was straightforward, the market approach was revolutionary. VetPulse integrated directly into existing clinical workflows. It gave independent, commercially minded practice managers an automated tool to track shelf-life, optimize supply chains, and legally reallocate or clear inventory before it turned into a capital loss.
Because the founder built the product based on the frustrations of his peers, VetPulse launched with an instantly validated product-market fit. The commercial buyers didn't need to be educated on the problem; their hair was already on fire and they needed a way to put it out.
LithoSim Analytics was established in 2018 by an Intel researcher who used a prestigious university's quantum physics and material science department to do material research. The output was a proprietary computational framework that simulates how subatomic particles interact under extreme environmental conditions to create complex silicone wafers. To put these components to use, corporate R&D required a cycle of physical manufacturing. Scientists had to rent time in multimillion-dollar university clean-rooms, physically bake atomic layers onto silicon wafers, and test them. A single iteration loop could take 6 to 12 months and cost $100K or more in fees.
LithoSim Analytics’s cloud-based physics simulation engine helped speed up R&D by allowing users to virtually model chemical compounds within the browser, allowing algorithms to simulate quantum behaviors in under 48 hours instead of fabricating physical silicone prototypes.
While this innovation held promise for the semiconductor and chip-manufacturing sectors, it introduced a significant operational hurdle. It demanded a fundamental behavioral shift in how scientists, engineers, and researchers approached their daily workflows. The platform was incredibly feature-dense, requiring a steep learning curve and high-touch, concierge-level implementation from LithoSim’s own data science team to drive basic user adoption.
In this scenario, while the target audience understood their R&D bottlenecks, the hair was not entirely on fire. Researchers and corporations already possessed legacy methodologies, established academic workarounds, and open-source tools to douse the flames.
What the leadership team failed to recognize was that this level of product complexity and behavioral inertia dictates a long, consultative enterprise sales cycle that behaves completely differently from a traditional, high-velocity SaaS model.
For those who like post mortems, now is the time for the juicy details to understand what worked and what didn’t for AtherSim Labs and VetPulse Networks. Each company had a different approach to both product development and sales. While both companies did a lot of research prior to launching their respective products and understood the pain points in their target markets, the results could not have been more different.
VetPulse engineered a targeted, multi-channel outbound sales motion. Strategically, the company prioritized independent, smaller veterinary practices where the value proposition would yield the fastest impact. VetPulse enabled clinics to monetize expiring pharmaceutical inventory rather than incurring the direct financial and compliance costs of destroying it. Beyond this immediate cost-recovery mechanism, the platform offered vital operational value by allowing clinics to optimize current inventory levels and accurately predict seasonal demand fluctuations. Because these pain points were recognized, the value proposition required virtually zero market education. Lastly, even with clients that required education, the client’s initial economic risk was zero because signing up for an account cost them nothing. VetPulse made money on the transactions, not a monthly fee.
The sales team used a single outbound representative with structured activity quotas. To drive early platform liquidity, the compensation framework was tied directly to key adoption milestones. Aside from the base pay, reps received bonuses for both clinic onboarding and active inventory listings. To incentivize high-quality account activation, reps earned a trailing percentage fee on all transaction volume generated by their signed accounts for the first 90 days. While optimizing the sales organization required several tactical iterations, the alignment between messaging, market demand, and economic value was present from day one. Consequently, scaling the business model shifted from a speculative gamble into a highly predictable, repeatable exercise in revenue forecasting.
In contrast, LithoSim Analytics’ tiered pricing strategy fell completely flat across both the academic and commercial sectors, exposing a deep disconnect in their Go-To-Market architecture. The first problem arose when the sales engine engaged the academic and commercial sectors, it ran headfirst into a wall of bureaucracy. Despite strong messaging campaigns aimed at three distinct subsect of users and multiple campaigns aimed at 3,000+ potential buyers, the marketing campaign and outbound sales strategy never took off. In fact, it was a disaster; 400+ opportunities stalled in the company’s sales pipeline. Sad.
In addition to this disconnect, the sales team was expected to work on a commission-only model that would only give the sales person a financial incentive when the client signed the dotted line and paid their monthly SaaS subscription. Lastly, the company used a set of complex milestones and clawbacks that could penalize the sales person. If the contract was terminated before 6 months, the sales person would never see a dime because their commission would be clawed back. LithoSim faced a dual-front crisis in that the academic market liked the tool but couldn't buy it, and a commercial market that could afford the tool but had no urgent reason to adopt it.
Individual researchers and bench scientists liked the software's capabilities, but they lacked purchasing authority. This created a user-buyer asymmetry in which the end-user advocating for the tool was divorced from the buying process. Deals languished in queues, lack of fundings, and approval chains. The market showed interest, but the institutional infrastructure was incapable of moving at fast pace.
At the same time, sales reps hunted for high-dollar enterprise accounts by targeting commercial semiconductor giants. But here, the product hit a different barrier. Commercial enterprises operate on strict Return On Investment (ROI) metrics and discretionary R&D budgets. While LithoSim promised a revolutionary leap in virtual prototyping, the value proposition lacked urgency. To a commercial buyer, adopting the platform meant forcing their engineering teams to undergo a massive behavioral shift, abandoning deeply entrenched legacy workflows to instead rely on a tool that still required high-touch data-science support to operate.
Recognizing these systemic barriers, the sales team and external operators proposed a pivot to sell the product. The team argued that market penetration required shifting from a transactional to an education-first sales motion; one that explicitly demonstrated how LithoSim could seamlessly co-exist with a researcher's existing workflows and open-source tools.
Rather than continuing to fight a one-to-one enterprise battle against procurement officers, the sales team advocated for a classic one-to-many 'land-and-expand' model. The strategy was clear: give potential users a trial period and anchor that access with group technical seminars and hands-on application workshops that would help them leverage the tool.
By educating the ecosystem collectively, LithoSim could foster ground-up user adoption, cultivate internal engineering champions, and allow the software’s organic value to justify the economic investment before ever triggering a formal, bureaucratic procurement review. This approach would have organically elevated LithoSim’s brand equity, fortified user loyalty, and systematically retrained a workforce deeply entrenched in legacy tools; the literal definition of market disruption.
The leadership team dismissed these insights. At no point did the executive team take it upon themselves to try outbound sales or talk with users outside of the founders network to understand the pitfalls faced by their sales team or external partners. Blinded by short-term pressures of fundraising and a lack of interest in the sales process, they chose to bypass the pivot and insisted on doubling down on a failing, commission-only outbound motion, mistakenly believing that a profound deficit in Product-Market Fit could be solved by simply forcing a sales team to work harder on a rigged incentive structure.
This operational disconnect bled into the human element of the organization. As Harvard Business School Professor Noam Wasserman notes in The Founder’s Dilemmas (2008), up to 65% of startups collapse due to internal team friction, misaligned expectations, and structural operational gaps.
Early-stage enterprises are volatile, high-pressure environments that require alignment across three distinct players; the board, executive leadership, and the execution team. Because startups sometimes pivot rapidly, operational roles must remain clear, and strategic boundaries must be transparent.
At LithoSim, leadership routinely misattributed the pipeline's stagnation to a failure of sales execution rather than recognizing a small, niche, and unviable target market. Pressured by the board's aggressive timeline, the CEO demanded immediate conversions within a 60-day window. This expectation stood in direct defiance of macro industry data. According to benchmarks from Gartner and Forrester Research, any complex enterprise platform requiring significant behavioral change or high-touch data science implementation carries a standard sales lifecycle of 270 to 365 days. For a five to six-figure contract, a 9-to-12-month timeline is not a failure of sales hustle, it is the statistical industry norm required to navigate multi-layered corporate procurement and consensus buying groups. By penalizing the sales engine for failing to compress a 365-day procurement cycle into a single quarter, leadership was effectively punishing their team for the laws of enterprise physics.
This blurred boundary created destructive operational fractures. The full breakdown occurred when the board began evaluating and penalizing the partner against the metrics of a full-time Chief Revenue Officer. The friction became untenable and, refusing to serve as the corporate scapegoat for a fundamental deficit in Product-Market Fit (a strategic validation milestone the founding team had failed to achieve) the partner chose to protect their business boundaries and immediately terminate their collaboration.
The difference between VetPulse Networks and LithoSim Analytics highlights a fundamental truth about the innovation economy – revenue velocity is determined by structural alignment, not solely sales effort. VetPulse did not scale from $100K to $5MM in MRR in a year because their sales reps worked fifty times harder than LithoSim’s team. They scaled because their technology directly targeted an immediate capital leakage problem for buyers who possessed independent purchasing power. LithoSim Analytics failed not because their outbound execution lacked rigor, but because their Go-To-Market model was entirely mismatched with the structural realities of their buyers. The leadership team shot themselves in the foot by not heeding the warnings of their own internal team.
When a startup's pipeline stalls, the board and executive leadership must resist the primal urge to scream for higher call volumes, better pitch decks, or a tactical savior. Instead, they must honestly self-reflect: Are we trying to solve an execution problem, or are we refusing to face a product-market fit reality?
For founders, investors, and fractional operators navigating this high-stakes landscape, the path forward requires adherence to four non-negotiable rules:
Building a startup is a masterclass in managing volatility. But the companies that survive the crucible are those that understand a sales engine can only accelerate an existing momentum, it cannot conjure momentum out of a vacuum. To scale seamlessly, founders should stop forcing their team to fire blank bullets at an indifferent audience. Align your foundation, respect your operational boundaries, and let the data dictate the destination.
The Core Thesis: Revenue velocity is driven by structural alignment and true Product-Market Fit (PMF), not raw sales hustle. Startups cannot out-sell a fundamentally flawed Go-To-Market (GTM) foundation.
The Winner (VetPulse Networks): Scaled rapidly from $100K to $5M MRR by solving an urgent, "hair-on-fire" problem for independent clinical buyers who actually possessed discretionary budgets. They backed this up with a properly incentivized, milestone-driven sales structure.
The Loser (LithoSim Analytics): Stalled out with zero revenue growth because they pointed a highly complex deep-tech product at an academic market with no purchasing power, and a commercial market deeply entrenched in legacy tools.
Leadership Failure: Instead of acknowledging the macroeconomic reality of a 270-to-365-day enterprise sales cycle and pivoting to an education-first sales model, LithoSim's leadership doubled down on a commission-only structure. They scapegoated their sales operations partner and ignored pipeline data that explicitly highlighted their lack of PMF.
The 4 Survival Rules for Founders:
.svg)
