BANT is still relevant. But most sales teams use it wrong. This cheat sheet is designed for SDRs and AEs working SMB or mid-market cycles. It’s especially useful for reps qualifying high-volume inbound leads or early-stage outbound. Use it in deals under $25K, with 1 to 2 stakeholders, and short buying processes. Each letter includes plug-and-play questions you can use live on calls. No fluff. Just field-tested phrasing and fast filters. Here’s what you’ll find inside: - Clear definitions for Budget, Authority, Need, and Timeline. - Real questions that help you qualify in 10 minutes. - Situations where BANT works best. - Tactical tips on how to adapt it for 2025 SaaS cycles. Save this cheat sheet. It will help you avoid chasing leads that were never going to close.
And also disqualify quickly !
Fast questions matter more than perfect frameworks here.
Not every deal needs a 45-question discovery call Use this to qualify in 10 mins and move! Benjamin
Thanks so much for sharing Benjamin Douablin I would add more reps fail bant because they run it as an interview instead of including it in a conversation
Do you not BANT for enterprise prospects?
BANT isn’t dead Bad discovery is This is a solid modern take
This is gold. Curious—how would you tweak BANT for multi-threaded deals with longer sales cycles?
The 2 big mistakes I see sellers make are: 1) Going down the list in order, instead of asking as part of the conversation 2) Asking what their budget is, which turns them off and gets them to lie BANT works as long as it is used right, just like most sales methodologies.
Sales Discovery Expert | Predictable Revenue Growth | I Don’t Love Dogs | Sales Training & Reinforcement | Gap Selling Certified Training Partner Powered by the Problem-Centric™ OS | Co-Founder, Sales On Tap Community
2moTotally disagree - how does using BANT help the BUYER? Have you seen the statistics around how many times a buyer re-scopes AFTER interacting with a seller? Over 60%. So in your example - a seller uses bant, doesn’t actually uncover a problem - sells the prospect and poof - they churn or acv stays low because you didn’t actually help or seek to understand your buyer. And need? Do you know many times a buyer says they need something - yet when they get deep into discovery the seller actually uncovers a different problem. Buyers come to me all the time - “we need more pipleline” - thorough diagnosis uncovered what they “need” is to win more. That costs them nothing as they already have that pipe - vs going out to acquire more pipe (their original thought/knee jerk reaction- which can be very costly). Help me understand why people are supporting this? Sure a $1000 transaction - they why even have a seller. Over that - you are gambling… Chris ☕ Cicconi - thoughts here…