# 02 - Sandra Kowalski, Inbound Campaign Conversation

## Purpose

Test campaign-triggered discovery with a cautious HR director who needs a CEO-ready answer and fears looking naive in front of Finance.

## Setup

- Persona: Sandra Kowalski - Cautious Pragmatist
- Scenario: Inbound Campaign Conversation
- Expected recommendation fit: recommended

## Scenario Context

Sandra clicked a retention-cost email campaign after an operations manager cited a competitor's pension plan in his exit interview. The email CTA offered a short board-ready guide: "How HR leaders can compare retirement-plan options without becoming pension experts." The CEO has asked Sandra, "What are we doing about this?"

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
board-ready comparison
responsible evaluation
what Finance will need to see
based on what you shared
```

Do not use:

```text
complex
actuarial
guaranteed
no-brainer
```

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Understand what Sandra needs to take back to her CEO and Finance.

Outcome: Agree on a short follow-up package and a finance-oriented second conversation.

Structure: Confirm campaign trigger, ask open questions, summarize, prioritize, offer a simple next step.

Timing: 20 minutes.

SMARTER objective: By the end of the call, agree to send a two-page comparison and schedule a 30-minute Finance review within one week.

Likely hooks: Retention, CEO credibility, fear of overcommitting, simple language she can explain.

Question funnels: What caught your attention? What changed internally? Who needs to be comfortable? What would Finance need in plain language?

Likely resistance: "I do not want this to become a complex project."

Intended action plan: Rep sends board-ready comparison by Friday. Sandra confirms whether Finance should join the next call.

## Rep Lines

1. Sandra, I saw you came in through the retention-cost guide. Rather than assume the guide answered the question, can I ask what caught your attention?

2. When your CEO asked what you are doing about this, what kind of answer would feel credible to bring back?

3. What would Finance need to see before you felt comfortable even recommending a closer look?

4. Let me check the hooks. You are not trying to become a pension expert. You need a responsible evaluation, simple enough to explain, with enough substance that Finance does not think HR got sold something. Is that accurate?

5. Of those pieces, which is most important first: employee-retention logic, cost and implementation, or a plain-language comparison for the CEO?

6. Here is the short version. CAAT may be worth evaluating because it can give employees a pension-style outcome without asking you to manage a pension internally. The business reason to look is retention, but the reason to proceed carefully is credibility with Finance. I would not suggest a pitch deck as the next step.

7. A better next step is that I send a board-ready comparison using the language you can take to the CEO, plus the cost and implementation questions Finance will ask. If that passes your first read, we book a 30-minute Finance review next week. Does that fit?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- Campaign context used as a trigger, not permission to pitch.
- Open questions before story.
- Sandra's fear of complexity and Finance credibility named accurately.
- Language policy respected, especially avoiding "complex" and "actuarial."
- Clear action plan with owner and timing.