Team/Manager
Scorecard/Rubric
Free
Demo Customisation Depth Scorecard: Generic vs. Tailored
A 12-criterion rubric that scores every demo across four dimensions to diagnose exactly how generic or truly tailored it is. Each criterion has word-for-word behavioural anchors so scores are consistent whether you're self-reviewing, peer reviewing, or coaching.
How to use it
Score the demo live or from a recording, marking 1-3 on each criterion using the behavioural anchors, not gut feel. Total the score, read the band interpretation, and use the debrief prompts to run a focused coaching conversation within 24 hours of the demo. Managers: run this on at least three demos per rep before drawing conclusions about patterns.
What's inside
- 12-criterion scoring rubric across four dimensions: discovery integration, persona-specific framing, commercial context, and proof-point relevance
- 1-3 point behavioural anchors for every criterion, written as observable rep behaviours not vague descriptors
- Total score interpretation table with four bands: Generic, Adequate, Tailored, and Mastery
- Named failure modes for each band so you know exactly what went wrong, not just that it did
- Quick-reference scoring summary table for recording marks during a live demo
- One-page debrief prompt sheet for post-demo coaching conversations
- "When this scorecard does not apply" note to prevent misuse
What this is for
Reps consistently rate their own demos as personalised. Buyers disagree. This scorecard gives a concrete, repeatable score to every demo so you can diagnose the generic-versus-tailored gap, not just sense it.
Use it: live during the demo, from a recording, or as a peer-review instrument. Do not use it as a performance management tool in isolation. One demo is a data point, not a verdict.
When this scorecard does not apply:
- First discovery calls where no product has been shown yet
- Internal demos or sandbox walkthroughs for the rep's own learning
- Demos where the prospect explicitly requested a standard product tour with no prior discovery
The Four Dimensions
| Dimension | Criteria | Max Points |
|---|---|---|
| A. Discovery Integration | A1, A2, A3 | 9 |
| B. Persona-Specific Framing | B1, B2, B3 | 9 |
| C. Commercial Context | C1, C2, C3 | 9 |
| D. Proof-Point Relevance | D1, D2, D3 | 9 |
| Total | 12 criteria | 36 |
Scoring Rules
Score each criterion 1, 2, or 3. No half points. Score what you observed, not what you think the rep intended. If a criterion was simply skipped, score 1.
Dimension A: Discovery Integration
A1. Use of prospect's own language
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep uses product or category language only. ("Our workflow module streamlines your processes.") No prospect vocabulary heard. |
| 2 | Rep references the prospect's industry or company name at least once but phrases are generic. ("For a company like yours in logistics…") |
| 3 | Rep mirrors specific phrases the prospect used in discovery. ("You said approvals were your biggest time sink, here's where that changes.") |
A2. Direct callback to stated pain points
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Demo follows a fixed agenda. No explicit link is made between a feature and a stated problem from discovery. |
| 2 | Rep mentions the problem category but does not tie it to a specific moment or quote from discovery. |
| 3 | Rep names the specific problem as the prospect described it, then shows exactly where the product addresses it. Happens at least twice across the demo. |
A3. Handling of discovery gaps
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep shows everything regardless of what was surfaced. Coverage is uniform and unedited. |
| 2 | Rep skips some sections but does not explain why, or refers vaguely to "what we discussed". |
| 3 | Rep explicitly tells the prospect which sections they are not showing and why. ("We're skipping the reporting suite today because you told me that's handled centrally, we'll stay on the intake workflow.") |
Dimension B: Persona-Specific Framing
B1. Role-appropriate emphasis
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep presents the same features and benefits regardless of who is in the room. |
| 2 | Rep adjusts tone (more technical / more strategic) but the core narrative does not change. |
| 3 | Rep actively reframes what a feature means based on the decision-maker's function. CFO in the room: cost and risk language. Head of Ops: throughput and exception handling. Both in the room: rep names the different value explicitly for each. |
B2. Seniority calibration
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep defaults to feature walk-through regardless of seniority in the room. |
| 2 | Rep moves to outcomes language with senior stakeholders but still shows more product depth than needed. |
| 3 | Rep adjusts depth in real time. With senior stakeholders, the product is almost incidental. Rep is selling a decision and a result, not a screen. |
B3. Acknowledgement of the prospect's internal context
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Demo treats the prospect as an isolated individual. No mention of their team, their internal constraints, or their political environment. |
| 2 | Rep references the prospect's team or org structure at least once but does not connect it to what is being shown. |
| 3 | Rep explicitly frames features in terms of the prospect's internal reality. ("You mentioned your IT team will need to sign off: here's the security summary page they'll want to see, and here's how you export it.") |
Dimension C: Commercial Context
C1. Reference to the cost of the current state
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | No mention of cost, time, or resource impact of the problem being solved. |
| 2 | Rep mentions cost in general terms without connecting to the prospect's numbers. ("Most companies waste significant time on this.") |
| 3 | Rep uses a figure, estimate, or reference that is traceable to this prospect's discovery. ("You said you're running three people on this manually: at current headcount cost, that's roughly £X a year sitting on a process we replace.") |
C2. Tie to a stated business objective or deadline
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Demo is product-centric. No business goal or timeline is referenced. |
| 2 | Rep mentions a business objective but it is generic or unprompted by discovery. ("Helping you hit your growth targets.") |
| 3 | Rep connects what is being shown directly to a named initiative, target, or deadline the prospect stated. ("You're going live on the new platform in Q3: this workflow needs to be set before that, here's the implementation timeline.") |
C3. Competitive or status-quo framing
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep shows product features with no acknowledgement of what the prospect currently uses or is evaluating. |
| 2 | Rep acknowledges the incumbent or competitor exists but does not address the gap in the demo itself. |
| 3 | Rep names the contrast directly and shows it. ("You're currently on [incumbent], the specific gap you described is here. Let me show you the comparison in the context of your workflow, not ours.") |
Dimension D: Proof-Point Relevance
D1. Case study or customer match quality
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | No customer evidence used, or evidence is generic ("a Fortune 500 company"). |
| 2 | Rep references a named customer in the same industry but the use case does not match what this prospect described. |
| 3 | Rep references a customer who matches on at least two of: industry, company size, stated problem, or decision-making structure. The outcome cited is the same type of outcome this prospect wants. |
D2. Specificity of proof-point outcomes
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Outcomes are vague. ("Customers save time and reduce costs.") |
| 2 | Outcomes are quantified but not connected to this prospect's situation. ("They reduced processing time by 40%.") |
| 3 | Rep translates the proof-point into the prospect's context. ("They reduced processing time by 40%: you're doing roughly [X] transactions a month, so that would move the needle on [the backlog problem you named].") |
D3. Absence of irrelevant proof points
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rep uses three or more case studies or statistics that have no clear relevance to this prospect. Feels like a brochure. |
| 2 | Rep uses one or two irrelevant references but recovers by returning to the prospect's situation. |
| 3 | Every piece of evidence cited has a visible reason for being in this demo for this prospect. Rep either states that reason or it is self-evident from context. |
Quick-Reference Scoring Sheet
Use this during the demo. Fill in the score (1, 2, or 3) for each criterion.
| Criterion | Score |
|---|---|
| A1. Use of prospect's own language | |
| A2. Callback to stated pain points | |
| A3. Handling of discovery gaps | |
| B1. Role-appropriate emphasis | |
| B2. Seniority calibration | |
| B3. Acknowledgement of internal context | |
| C1. Cost of current state | |
| C2. Tie to business objective or deadline | |
| C3. Competitive or status-quo framing | |
| D1. Case study match quality | |
| D2. Specificity of proof-point outcomes | |
| D3. Absence of irrelevant proof points | |
| Total | /36 |
Score Interpretation
| Band | Score range | Label | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12-18 | Generic | This is a product tour with the prospect's name on the title slide. Customisation is cosmetic at best. |
| 2 | 19-24 | Adequate | Personalisation exists but is surface-level. The demo would survive peer review but is unlikely to create urgency or differentiate in a competitive situation. |
| 3 | 25-30 | Tailored | The prospect can see themselves in the demo. Most criteria are met. Gaps are isolated. |
| 4 | 31-36 | Mastery | The demo functions as a consultative argument, not a product show. The prospect's words, numbers, and context are visible throughout. |
Failure Modes by Band
Generic (12-18)
- Discovery was thin or not referenced at all
- Rep defaulted to a standard flow because preparation time was short
- Rep conflated "knowing the industry" with "knowing this prospect"
- No internal stakeholder mapping done before the call
Adequate (19-24)
- Discovery was good but transfer to the demo was incomplete
- Rep referenced the prospect's situation in the opening but reverted to a standard walk-through after the first five minutes
- Proof points were relevant by industry but not by use case
- Commercial numbers were raised but not grounded in prospect-specific data
Tailored (25-30)
- One dimension consistently underscores the others (check which one and target it)
- Commercial context is often the weak dimension at this level: the rep personalises the story but does not close the commercial logic
- Proof points are relevant but the translation to the prospect's context is assumed rather than stated
Mastery (31-36)
- This is the target. The remaining development conversation is about consistency across deal types and replicating this approach when preparation time is compressed.
Post-Demo Debrief Prompts
Run this conversation within 24 hours. Keep it to 15-20 minutes. Pick the two or three questions most relevant to the score.
On discovery integration:
- Walk me through how you decided what to show and what to skip. What was that decision based on?
- Where in the demo did you use the prospect's own language? Where could you have but didn't?
On persona framing:
- Who was in the room and how did you adapt what you showed for each of them?
- If the CFO or CEO had joined unexpectedly halfway through, at what point would you have had to change gear, and why?
On commercial context:
- What numbers from this prospect's world appeared in the demo? Where could a number have grounded the story but didn't?
- Did the prospect know by the end of the demo what staying with the status quo is costing them? How do you know?
On proof points:
- For each customer reference you used: why that one, for this prospect, today?
- Did you translate the outcome into their context or leave it as a raw statistic? What would the translation have sounded like?
Closing question (every debrief):
- If you were the prospect and you saw that demo, at what point would you have thought "this is built for my situation"? If there was no such moment, what would have created it?