LeapGreat owns the strongest risk-reversal in SAP migration ... and buried it under a capability question aimed at nobody's career. Your job in 30 minutes isn't to sell. It's to make Ross feel the gap between the thunderbolt they own and the homepage they shipped.
You know how to run a meeting. This is the spine for this call. Rough budget: 3 min agree-and-reframe, 10 min let him map his own pain, 8 min name the deeper problems plus one live framework, 5 min the X-Ray close. The one who names the pain owns the deal.
Don't recap the score or walk the rubric. Validate his own words, raise the stakes, and earn permission to be direct. You're confirming his instinct that it runs deeper, then telling him exactly where ... which proves you read past the number to the business.
"Ross, you said your problems run deeper than the assessment. I think you're right, and I want to tell you exactly where, because it's probably not where you'd guess. Can I be direct?"Name the insurance-vs-manufacturing mismatch as your opening move, framed as an asset misallocation, not a credibility knock. It signals you see the company, not just the website. Bob's pride is in play, so frame it as "your strongest evidence is pointed at the wrong audience," never "you don't know manufacturing."
"Your deepest, most verifiable credibility is insurance ... Camilion went to SAP, Bob helped found SAP's Industry Business Unit for Insurance. Your offer points at manufacturers and distributors, where you can't name a soul. You're spending your best proof in the one room buyers can't see it."The one who names the pain owns the deal. Ask, then shut up. Get him to say out loud where deals actually come from (rolodex vs cold) and where they stall (before or after the test-drive offer). This converts your diagnosis into his self-diagnosis and keeps you from monologuing the frameworks.
"When a deal closes right now, walk me through where it actually came from ... a relationship you already had, a referral, or a stranger who found you cold? What's the honest split?"Tie it together: the buried risk-reversal, the capability-vs-stakes frame, the believability vacuum on an extraordinary claim. Demonstrate one tool on their actual homepage (the Three Questions Test or the stakes-vs-capability reframe), not a parade of five. Deploy two fear-economics facts, not all of them. Drop the AEO one-liner once.
"Cover your logo, give me your homepage for five seconds. Who's it for, what problem does it kill, what's your point of view? Right now it answers 'is automation possible.' It never answers 'who should panic, and why you.'"Don't pitch the Sprint. Offer the small paid diagnostic and use the symmetry of their own methodology to close it. They let buyers drive the real system before they sign ... so let Ross drive your thinking on a small paid piece before committing to the rebuild. Book the follow-up before the call ends.
"Here's what I love about your company. You don't ask buyers to trust a promise ... you let them drive the real system before they sign. So let's do business the LeapGreat way. Don't buy my rebuild on faith. Let me run a two-week X-Ray. You drive my thinking, on your real homepage, before you commit to anything bigger. Fair?"The algorithm gave you 32/100. Here's the expert read underneath it ... the buried treasure first, then the one-sentence diagnosis, then the gaps that matter.
The headline ("Is it possible to automate SAP ERP implementations? Yes") is a curiosity question that flatters the engineer founders. The buyer's real question is survival: ECC support ends in 2027, the last failed ERP project cost someone their job, and the category has named graveyards. The narrative isn't pointed at the fear that actually drives the purchase. Same words can't answer both ... re-point the gun at the actual target.
Their proof sub-score is 2/10 for a reason: no named customers, no before/after, no number, lowest SAP partner tier (Registered), 16 people, bootstrapped. The more extraordinary the claim, the more proof it demands ... and a "drive it before you sign" promise is hardest to believe when nobody public took the drive and lived to recommend them. The offer and the proof are working against each other.
The team's most verifiable credibility is insurance (Camilion acquired by SAP, SAP's Industry Business Unit for Insurance). The offer targets manufacturers and distributors, where they have zero public proof. A manufacturing buyer pattern-matches on "have you done MINE," and the evidence that would prove SAP mastery is invisible because it's pointed at the wrong vertical. Bridge it in the narrative, or move the ICP toward where the proof already lives.
16 people, bootstrapped, founded ~2018, still zero public customers ... that pattern means revenue runs on who the founders already know. Bob's 30-year SAP network and Ross's SAP relationships ARE the pipeline. It got them here and it can't get them to the 2026-2027 wave. Ross owns "Company Scaling," so this is literally his mandate. If belief lives in Bob's calendar instead of the story, the company can't grow past Bob.
He handed you the opening. Walk in with four read-outs for what "deeper" probably means, and let him confirm which one bleeds. Lead with the question, not your conclusion, then match what he says to one of these.
The whole model rests on a risk-reversal ("drive it before you sign"), but risk-reversal only fires AFTER a buyer believes you can deliver. With zero references, the lowest partner tier, and 16 people, nothing on the page earns that pre-belief. The 2/10 proof score is literally measuring the thing killing top-of-funnel conversion. They're not losing deals at the test drive ... they're losing them before anyone earns the test drive.
Bob is a 30-year SAP engineer, Ross owns scaling; the page reads as engineers admiring their own automation. They're so proud of HOW it works that they led with the mechanism, not the stakes. Classic insiders talking to insiders. The good news: the fix is reframing, and the raw material (the buried test-drive line) is already theirs.
The headline and wedge ("pre-configured processes, go fast") echo claims SAP's own GROW with SAP makes about pre-configured public-cloud rollouts. When you make SAP's pitch louder, you become the riskier-looking version of SAP. The real enemy in the narrative should be a failed 18-36 month project and the 2027 cliff, not SAP ... and the differentiator is the risk-reversal and the mechanism, not speed (speed is now table stakes SAP itself claims).
Bi-weekly blogs, LinkedIn Lives, webinars ... all about why SAP projects fail. Real effort that feels like marketing but generates awareness, not qualified pipeline, because none of it converts a stranger into a believer (no proof) or routes urgency to a stakes-based offer. Ross may be conflating motion with traction. Reframe it as good fuel pointed at the wrong target, never as wasted work ... he built it.
Firmographics, founders, the offer mechanics, and the proof gap ... all verified, so nothing in the room surprises you.
| Company | LeapGreat · www.leapgreat.com |
| Founded | ~2018 |
| HQ | Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta metro) |
| Team size | ~16 employees; 12-person leadership incl. German SAP veterans (Lang, Förster, Schönfelder) |
| Funding | No funding on record; appears bootstrapped. (One unverified aggregator shows a $2.1M unattributed figure ... discounted, but don't assert a hard zero if he presses.) |
| SAP partner tier | SAP Registered ... the entry-level PartnerEdge tier, below Silver / Gold / Platinum |
| Founders | Bob Cummings (CEO) ... 30+ yr SAP career (joined 1994, R/2 through S/4HANA), one of the original founders of SAP's Industry Business Unit for Insurance. Ross Orrett (your counterpart, owns Company Scaling) ... ex Chairman/CEO/President of Camilion Solutions (insurance software, acquired by SAP 2013), ex CEO of InSystems (acquired by Standard Register 2002); LinkedIn headline "Serial Scaler of Software Businesses." |
| The platform | The "LeapGreat Factory" ... a SaaS automation engine for S/4HANA implementations (incl. Public Cloud), built on 100+ pre-configured end-to-end processes and "the LeapGreat Standard" (a clean core built for automation). For manufacturers and distributors, not a consultant body-shop. |
| The wedge (verbatim) | "It's not a demo. It's not a proof-of-concept. It's your working system with your data. And you get to drive it the following week." Risk-reversal as a product. |
| Homepage headline | "Is it possible to automate SAP ERP implementations? Short answer: Yes." (a capability question, not a stakes question) |
| Tech partners | Microsoft, SAP, UiPath (RPA) |
| Pricing | Not public |
| Proof / customers | Zero public customers, case studies, logos, or testimonials (verified absence). This is the 2/10 proof sub-score. Even the UiPath co-marketing names no end customer. |
| Brand Signal Score | 32/100 (proof sub-score 2/10). They booked the call AFTER seeing it. |
This is your unfair advantage in the room: walk in fluent in their market. The timing isn't neutral ... there's a forced-migration cliff, and a fast, de-risked SAP play is built for exactly this moment. Every number below was adversarially fact-checked (see the source-integrity notes at the bottom before you quote any of them).
Lidl walked away from a SAP project after sinking about EUR500 million (roughly $600M) into it. Revlon's botched go-live left it unable to ship about $64 million in net sales and triggered shareholder class actions. MillerCoors sued integrator HCL for more than $100 million over a failed rollout. National Grid spent roughly $585 million just cleaning up. Your buyer isn't wondering whether automation is possible ... they're terrified of becoming the next name on that list. The homepage answers "possible." It doesn't answer "safe."
Tier-1 SIs (Accenture, Deloitte, IBM, Capgemini, Infosys, TCS) are the slow, time-and-materials incumbents the wedge is aimed at. The harder competitor is SAP's own RISE / GROW with SAP, the bundled default that already claims pre-configured public-cloud rollouts ... so "100+ processes, drive it next week" can read like the riskier version of SAP. Migration-tech players (SNP, Panaya, Syntax) are funded and HAVE references. LeapGreat's true differentiator is risk-reversal-as-product. Differentiate on the mechanism and the risk-reversal, not on speed. Speed is now table stakes SAP itself is claiming.
▸ Proof to drop (in order, don't fire all five)
LeapGreat reads as founder-led with no demand engine and a real burn. The cleanest entry is a scoped paid diagnostic, the Tech-A-GoGo move ... not OK or Sprint cold. Get paid to diagnose the deeper problem, deliver a prescription, and the bigger engagement follows with evidence instead of a pitch.
Mirror the Tech-A-GoGo motion. Two weeks, fixed fee, produces a written "Messaging Prescription." Scope it to the believability gap: (1) the one-sentence stakes-narrative that makes the test-drive believable to a scared manufacturing CEO, (2) a proof-asset inventory ... credibility they own and aren't using, deployable without breaking NDAs, (3) the insurance-vs-manufacturing ICP call with a recommendation, (4) a rewritten homepage hero that leads with the 2027 cliff and surfaces the test-drive as the thunderbolt, (5) an AEO snapshot ... what ChatGPT/Claude say when asked who automates S/4HANA for mid-market manufacturers. Low friction, self-usable even if they walk, and it qualifies hard for the Sprint. It mirrors their own wedge: drive my thinking on a small paid piece before you commit. That parallel is the close.
The full narrative rebuild: the Magnetic Messaging Framework plus AI Brand Twin training. This is the treatment, not the diagnosis. The right answer to the depth Ross suspects, but $40.5K committed on a first call against a bootstrapped burn triggers the price objection. Position it only as "where the X-Ray points if the rebuild is as deep as you think," never as the cold open. Let the diagnostic prove the depth, then walk him in with evidence.
If Ross hesitates on the X-Ray price or wants to test you first, drop to a tightly scoped homepage-and-positioning teardown as a taste: the stakes-vs-capability reframe on the live hero, the Three Questions Test run on their page, and the buried risk-reversal surfaced as the headline. Cheaper, faster, lower-commitment, and it still demonstrates the thinking. Use it as the de-risk step into the full X-Ray, not the destination.
You read past the 32/100 to the thing Ross actually lies awake on ... a category-of-one risk-reversal trapped in a founder-led, rolodex-fed demand engine that can't scale or self-prove. Naming that proves you see the business, not just the website.
The insurance-vs-manufacturing fault line: their hardest-won, most verifiable credibility (Camilion to SAP, the SAP Insurance unit) is pointed at the wrong room, while the room they're chasing sees a 16-person unknown. Nobody else will name this.
You found the buried thunderbolt and can read it back verbatim ... "your working system with your data, drive it the following week, before you sign." Best risk-reversal in enterprise software this year, three scrolls down. The fix is their own copy.
You live in their market: the 2027 cliff math, the ~21,000 holdouts, the 18-36 month window, the Lidl and Revlon graveyards, AND the SAP GROW collision most boutiques miss. You're the calm outside eye on a believability problem they can't see from inside the bottle.
You close by mirroring their own genius back as the offer: they let buyers drive the real system before they sign, so you let Ross drive your thinking on a small paid X-Ray before he commits to the rebuild. The symmetry closes it, and the paid diagnostic screens tire-kickers while sidestepping the budget reflex.