With deep expertise in analytics, performance optimization, and demand generation, Milena Traikovich has a sharp perspective on what it takes for B2B companies to win in today’s competitive landscape. She guides organizations in building effective campaigns that nurture high-quality leads, transforming how they approach revenue growth. In our conversation, we explored the critical shift from instinct-based marketing to a strategy driven by precise buying signals. Milena unpacked the concept of building an “efficiency moat” through account-based qualification, the necessity of multi-threaded engagement with modern buying committees, and how AI research complements rather than replaces traditional intent data. She also offered a stark warning and a clear path forward for revenue leaders feeling the pressure to adapt or be left behind.
You describe a scenario where a competitor seems to have a “crystal ball.” How does a revenue team move from operating on instinct to acting on signal, and what are the first practical steps they should take to gain this early visibility into deals?
It’s a gut-wrenching feeling for any marketing leader to realize they’re consistently late to the party. Moving from instinct to signal begins with the honest admission that your old playbook is no longer working. That “crystal ball” isn’t magic; it’s just a sophisticated system for listening to buying signals across the digital world. The first practical step is to fundamentally change how you view your audience—shift your focus from individual leads to the collective behavior of an entire account. This means investing in the capability to see which companies are actively researching your solutions, long before anyone fills out a form. It’s about seeing the entire picture of an account’s interest, which is how you get into deals early and shape the conversation.
The idea of an “efficiency moat” is powerful. Given that accounts with verified intent can convert to meetings up to 10 times more often, what specific operational changes are required to align marketing and sales teams to capitalize on these high-conversion opportunities?
Building that moat requires a total rewiring of the traditional, siloed relationship between marketing and sales. The days of marketing just throwing leads over the wall are over. When you know that an account showing clear intent is 8 to 10 times more likely to book a meeting, and that meeting is 2 to 3 times more likely to become revenue, you simply can’t afford to let that signal go to waste. Operationally, this means creating a single, unified qualification model where both teams agree on what a “hot” account looks like. Sales must trust the data and prioritize their time engaging these active buying groups, while marketing’s role shifts to orchestrating a full-funnel experience for them. This alignment transforms the sales team from cold callers fighting a 95 percent failure rate into strategic advisors entering conversations that are already warm.
With buying groups now averaging 13 people, traditional single-lead follow-up is ineffective. What does a successful multi-threaded engagement strategy look like, and what common mistakes do companies make when trying to orchestrate communication across an entire buying committee?
A successful multi-threaded strategy looks like a coordinated symphony, not a series of disconnected solos. In a world where buying committees average 13 people, relying on a single point of contact is a recipe for failure. A winning approach involves identifying the key players in the entire committee—the champion, the influencer, the technical buyer, the finance approver—and orchestrating a cohesive journey for all of them. The most common and damaging mistake is still thinking in terms of that single lead. A company will get one form fill and hound that one person, completely ignoring the other 12 people in the room who are influencing the decision. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. True orchestration means using data to engage that entire group with relevant messaging, so when a salesperson finally connects, the whole committee is already familiar with your value.
Some leaders worry that AI research tools undermine traditional intent detection. How do you see these behaviors coexisting, and how should marketing teams adapt their strategies to capture new, complementary AI-driven signals without losing focus on what already works?
That’s a fair question, but it’s based on a false premise that it’s an either/or situation. Buyers aren’t replacing their old research habits with AI; they’re adding AI to their toolkit. A prospect might use an AI tool to generate an initial vendor list, but they will absolutely still visit websites, consume content, and check third-party reviews to validate their choices. Those traditional signals of engagement are as important as ever. For marketing teams, the strategy should be to embrace this as a “both/and” reality. It means continuing to master the detection of core buying signals while building the flexibility to incorporate new AI-driven behaviors as they emerge. The goal is to build an adaptable system that can interpret a rich mosaic of signals, not just a single data point.
There are serious career implications for revenue leaders who fail to adapt. For a CMO or CRO facing internal resistance, what data-driven arguments are most effective for building a business case for account-based qualification, especially when the competitive runway is closing?
When you’re facing internal resistance, you have to anchor your argument in the language the business understands best: efficiency, revenue, and competitive advantage. The most potent argument is the stark contrast in performance. You can walk into the boardroom and state plainly that while your team is spending resources on leads that have a 95 percent failure rate, there is a way to focus on accounts that are 14 times more likely to become real opportunities. You can prove that meetings set with intent-qualified accounts convert to revenue two to three times more often. This reframes the conversation from a marketing initiative to a core business strategy for building a predictable revenue engine. The final piece is urgency—highlighting the 2-3 year competitive runway. This isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a critical investment to ensure survival and market leadership before that window closes for good.
What is your forecast for account-based engagement?
My forecast is that the gap between the companies that master account-based engagement and those that don’t will become a chasm. It has already moved from a progressive strategy to the absolute minimum for competing effectively, and this trend will only accelerate. The organizations that have already invested in the technology and processes to act on account-level intent will build up an operational momentum that is almost impossible for laggards to overcome. For companies that delay, they will find themselves in a perpetual and exhausting game of catch-up, plagued by inefficient spending and an eroding market position. It will no longer be a question of if a business should adopt this model, but a stark reality of who already has and who is being overtaken.
