Proof Points: Issue 20

"No, use that figure."

As conversations go, it was definitely uncomfortable.

We'd incorporated a third-party tool into our product and I was building the GTM plan - developing the story for existing clients first, then the broader public-facing materials. I pulled some early data, created a conservative KPI range, and drafted what I'd call a story so far version. Something like: "early indicators are positive - we've seen an uplift of between 6% and 12% so far."

Real numbers. Honest framing. Appropriate caveats.

That messaging had buy-in right up until it reached the top. I was told the figure was weak. I countered that it was real. They countered with "up to 25%."

We did have one case from beta testing where a client hit 25%. One. A genuine outlier - the kind of weird statistical anomaly that occasionally surfaces in early data and means absolutely nothing at scale.

I'd love to tell you I won the day. We are not, alas, living in the land of rainbows and unicorns. There was some compromise, but it still made me uncomfortable.

I'm sharing this because it's not an unusual story. And because there's a better way.

Early-stage proof is genuinely hard. If you've just launched something - in beta, onboarding your first customers, or simply too new to have a deep library of case studies - the pressure for proof arrives long before the proof does.

Sales want something credible. Prospects want reassurance. The GTM machine is moving. The proof base is still catching up.

The temptation, especially from above, is to reach for the biggest defensible number and quietly ignore the word "defensible." One outlier becomes a headline claim. "Up to X%" does a lot of heavy lifting.

The problem isn't just ethical, though it is that. It's practical. Early-stage buyers - particularly in B2B - are often experienced, often sceptical, and often burned. The moment your claim doesn't survive basic scrutiny, you haven't just lost the number. You've lost the trust. And trust, once gone at that stage of a relationship, rarely comes back.

Here's the reframe that helps: early-stage proof doesn't need to close the argument. It just needs to build justified belief.

Those are different jobs. Closing the argument requires settled, robust, repeatable data. Building justified belief just requires honesty about what you've seen so far - and the confidence to present it without dressing it up.

And crucially - early proof isn't always a number at all.

A direct client quote can carry more weight than any KPI at this stage. Something like "it's early days, but the signs are good - we're seeing better than expected results already" is genuinely credible, precisely because it sounds like a human being rather than a marketing claim.

A comment about how smooth onboarding was, how fast migration went, how supported the team felt - that's real proof too. It reduces the uncertainty that early-stage buyers actually feel, which is rarely "I need a bigger percentage" and more often "I need to know this won't be a disaster."

So before reaching for the headline number, it's worth asking: what have customers actually said? Sometimes the most credible thing in your early proof pack is a quote, not a KPI.

"We're still early, but across our first wave of customers we've seen consistent improvement in X. We'll share a fuller picture as the data matures" is not a weak claim. It's a credible one. There's a difference, and buyers can feel it.

(The version with the 25% outlier, incidentally, is also technically defensible. It's just not honest. And most experienced buyers will sense that, even if they can't immediately prove it.)

One of the most underused tools in early-stage proof is simply telling the honest version of the story up to this point.

Not the final case study. Not the sweeping claim. Just: here's what we've seen, here's what it suggests, here's what we're continuing to measure.

Used well, this format does something the inflated claim never can - it makes you look like someone who takes evidence seriously. Which, in B2B, is itself a form of proof.

It also gives you somewhere to go. "We shared early indicators in Q1. Here's the fuller picture from Q3" is a genuinely compelling narrative arc. Whereas "up to 25%" has nowhere to develop - it just sits there, waiting to be questioned.

Not every early proof point needs to go public.

Sometimes the right move is keeping it inside sales enablement, SDR messaging, or customer success conversations - where there's more room for context and nuance. Public proof carries more pressure. It reads as official. Internal proof lets your team say "here's what we're seeing" rather than committing to a headline number the whole market can pick apart.

For a lot of businesses at an early stage, that's the smarter first step. Use the real signals internally to support credible conversations. Build toward public proof once the evidence base is genuinely there.

Early-stage proof should be building toward something - a fuller picture, a more settled case study, a story that gets stronger as the data matures.

That progression only works if the early stage is honest. Inflate the numbers at the start and you've set a bar you may not clear, created expectations you can't consistently meet, and built the relationship on a foundation that will eventually shift.

Handle it well - real data, honest framing, appropriate caveats - and each stage strengthens the next.

The market doesn't expect perfection at launch. It does expect not to be misled.

And occasionally, the uncomfortable conversation is worth having.

If you've ever been on either side of that "just use the bigger number" conversation - I'd genuinely like to hear how it played out. Hit reply.