Sales Enablement Vs Revenue Enablement – Making the Distinction

One of the goals of this blog, from its earliest days, has been to address the many misconceptions which prevent some people from truly understanding sales enablement as a discipline. 

In my conversations with other sales enablement leaders and salespeople in general, and while doing research, I discovered a “theme” of sorts. Namely, many people are unsure about the full extent of what sales enablement does and how it relates to adjacent concepts in the field. 

That is why I looked at how sales enablement relates to sales training, sales coaching, sales operations, and buyer enablement.

In this article, I am tackling an additional relationship that is often cause for confusion – the one between sales enablement and revenue enablement. 

I will try to unwrap the reasons why distinguishing between the two can be complicated, cover the most crucial similarities and differences between them, as well as provide some practical advice along the way. 

What is revenue enablement?

First, let’s start by taking a look at how various sources define revenue enablement. 

Gartner, puts it this way:

“Revenue enablement connects enablement efforts and uses shared technology, tools, data, analytics, processes and KPIs to reduce the complexity of the modern sales ecosystem. It provides buyers and sellers with a seamless and more effortless experience.”

Seismic adds the revenue teams into their definition, putting it like this:

“Revenue enablement is a strategic approach that focuses on providing revenue-generating functions and channels with the right tools, resources, and information to effectively engage with prospects and customers at each stage of their buying journey.”

Mindtickle sees revenue enablement as the next version of sales enablement:

“Revenue enablement is the next iteration or V2 of sales enablement. It’s the idea that all revenue-generating teams at an organization — not just sales — are empowered with the same tools and data.”

I wanted to give revenue-generating teams more weight in my definition, as well as add the concept of customer lifetime value, which conveys the idea that the customer journey doesn’t start or end with a sale: 

While I am satisfied with this definition (and parts of those quoted above), it doesn’t provide enough clarification on the relationship between sales enablement and revenue enablement.

In a way, it even muddies things further, at least for people whose understanding of sales enablement makes them wonder, “Well, isn’t this just the definition of sales enablement?”

This brings us to the crux of the problem – the relationship between these two concepts can be a very complex one, especially if you want to make sure to address every angle (and there are many). 

The nuances have nuances. 

But, I never shy away from a challenge, so let’s give it a go. 

Unravelling the complexity of sales enablement vs revenue enablement

I already mentioned that there are numerous angles from which to approach the relationship between salea enablement and revenue enablement.

After some industrial-grade pondering, I’ve opted for this approach: identifying the most representative comparisons, claims, attitudes, and approaches shared by some of the most reputable sources on both sales and revenue enablement and investigating them in more detail.

Revenue enablement is sales enablement 2.0

Revenue enablement is often regarded as the evolved form of sales enablement, a concept that resonates with many in the field, including, for example, the perspective shared by Mindtickle (refer to the above definitions). 

This progression is logical: it leverages the proven strategies of sales enablement, extending them across marketing, customer success, and any other customer-facing teams, aiming for a compounded impact on overall revenue generation.

This notion suggests an evolution, a kind of sales enablement 2.0, where the integration and strategic alignment of go-to-market teams amplify their collective success.

(There is also a possibility that some people make a parallel with revenue operations and sales operations where RevOps often does actually subsume what had previously been handled by SalesOps).

However, the transition from sales to revenue enablement is not as straightforward as it might seem. 

Drawing from my experience in sales enablement and numerous discussions with peers, it’s clear that the leap to revenue enablement often requires significant foundational maturity within the organisation’s sales enablement function.

This maturity is not merely about longevity but reflects a depth of strategic integration and operational effectiveness that allows for a seamless extension into revenue enablement.

Yet, in many organisations, particularly those where enablement functions have not been strategically prioritised, a different scenario unfolds. 

Professionals in these environments frequently find themselves navigating across go-to-market teams in a reactive manner, patching gaps and addressing immediate needs without the benefit of a cohesive strategy. 

This ad-hoc approach, while pragmatic, underscores the variability in how revenue enablement is realised in practice.

There’s an inherent irony in expecting professionals, who may not have fully succeeded within the confines of sales enablement, to now broaden their impact across the entire go-to-market organisation. 

This perspective suggests that the shift to revenue enablement, while strategic, requires a foundational strength in sales enablement that many organisations may still be developing.

It also brings to light concerns about the potential for revenue enablement to become a mere rebranding effort, rather than a substantive expansion of enablement’s scope and impact.

In such cases, the initial vision of revenue enablement as a sophisticated expansion of sales enablement must be tempered with the reality of organisational readiness and strategic focus.

Teams, especially those early in their enablement journey, may inadvertently assume revenue enablement roles out of necessity, rather than through deliberate planning. 

This dynamic further complicates the narrative, suggesting that while revenue enablement represents an ideal evolution for sales enablement, the path there is not uniform and is fraught with challenges unique to each organisation’s context.

In essence, while the concept of revenue enablement as sales enablement 2.0 offers a compelling framework for organisational growth, the practical application of this model varies widely. 

Success in this undertaking is contingent upon a strategic foundation in sales enablement, a commitment to cross-functional collaboration, and an adaptive approach to overcoming the inherent complexities of aligning diverse go-to-market teams.

Thus, while some organisations may naturally transition into a mature revenue enablement practice, others may navigate this path in a more piecemeal, albeit valid, manner.

Revenue enablement is easier said than done

Even though I have already introduced (just) some of the complexities that make adopting revenue enablement difficult, if you were to skim a few online articles and even some more comprehensive content available, you’d be fooled into thinking that revenue enablement is easy to execute. 

For example, here are just a few snippets from Gartner’s guide, “Build an Effortless Buying Experience With Revenue Enablement“

Just get sales and marketing teams to change everything they’ve been doing, hire half a dozen programme managers to help out, redo your data infrastructure, and perform a lot of streamlining. 

You don’t have to be cynical to realise that advice such as this is good in theory but very different in practice.

We are talking about entire teams here – teams that have their own ways of doing things, agendas, pressures, KPIs, hierarchical structure, and more.

Barging in with something that sounds more like a silver bullet than anything else will encounter snickers, at best. At worst, you will alienate entire teams of hard-working folks.

Revenue enablement is a very ambitious undertaking, and as such, it requires more than ambitious individuals looking to shake things up. 

It requires a strategic basis, a lot of executive backing, and a significant amount of resources, both in terms of money and time.

For revenue enablement to become more than just a “wouldn’t it be nice” initiative, many key players in the go-to-market group will have to invest a good portion of their time – time which is often hard to come by. 

An alternative is that you have a strong, senior-level executive who will spearhead the entire transformation and play the role of the world’s greatest Swiss knife.

One of the key ideas behind revenue enablement is that you align all go-to-market teams, enhance their skills, resources, tools, and processes, and establish a collaboration that will provide optimal results for the organisation. 

For this hypothetical Swiss knife person to have the required experience, skills, and knowledge to accomplish this, they would have had to spend decades across marketing, sales, customer success, revenue operations, enablement, and more. 

To cut a long story short, revenue enablement is a massive undertaking, and underestimating the resources and time required is the shortest path to killing it as a concept at your company.

Revenue enablement is another word for sales enablement

When I started researching this subject, and even before that, when I had been looking for sales enablement leaders to pick their brains for other articles on the blog (like those on sales enablement career or sales enablement challenges), I noticed something interesting.

I encountered what could aptly be termed a blurring of lines between sales and revenue enablement. Specifically, I noticed a number of professionals with “revenue enablement” in their job titles who, in practice, were predominantly engaged in sales enablement activities.

This trend was particularly pronounced among peers from the United States.

The reasons behind this mix-up – whether it’s an attempt to add a touch of allure to job titles and, by extension, the companies, or if there’s more to it – remain unclear to me.

However, it’s crucial to underline a key takeaway: while sales and revenue enablement share similarities, they are different concepts.

This distinction is something we’ll explore further in the next sections of this article.

The main differences between sales enablement and revenue enablement

Now that we’ve shed some light on some possible misconceptions about sales and revenue enablement and analysed other valid perspectives objectively, it is time to sink our teeth into the main differences between the two.

Some of these have already been touched upon; others will be introduced in this section.

Strategies and goals beyond sales

Arguably, the biggest difference between sales and revenue enablement is in the goals and strategies they focus on to support revenue growth. 

While both sales and revenue enablement aim for revenue growth and profitability increase (at the highest level of goal definition), the objectives and strategies for sales enablement mostly revolve around maximising the results of sales reps and sales team(s).

The various efforts of sales enablement teams, such as sales training and coaching, sales collateral, tools, processes, methodologies, and even inter-departmental collaboration, are geared toward enhancing sales teams’ performance and results.

On the other hand, revenue enablement has a wider scope when the objectives and strategies are in question.

Revenue enablement looks to improve results across the many go-to-market departments. Its syncretic nature calls for improved results for sales, marketing, customer success, and other relevant teams.

In short, revenue enablement focuses on a much wider field beyond that of traditional sales enablement, demanding a significant increase in investment, as we’ve touched on before. 

This expanded focus necessitates a deeper, more comprehensive involvement from all go-to-market departments. It’s about fostering a culture of collaboration and shared goals, rather than siloed operations.

Implementing revenue enablement successfully hinges on strong coordination and transparent collaboration across all customer-facing teams.

Without this, there’s a risk of inadvertently reinforcing departmental silos, which can lead to misaligned objectives and counterproductive efforts.

Harmonising the goals and strategies of the different customer-facing teams so that they do not cannibalise each other is a tall order and one that should never be underestimated.

The intensity of interdepartmental collaboration

Based on what’s been discussed so far, it’s fair to state that revenue enablement might require more intense collaboration between departments than sales enablement. 

This is not to say that sales enablement efforts do not involve collaboration; it is just that the wider concept of revenue enablement requires more than just an eager enablement team working 24/7 to eke out some support for the sales organisation. 

In revenue enablement, collaboration has to be established at the highest strategic level possible.

Every team has to come in with their ideas, aims, and suggestions on how this newly established interaction should be set up in order for their team to contribute and benefit from it.

In other words, an hour-long workshop is not enough.

It requires strong buy-in from the entire revenue team, starting from leadership all the way to individual contributors. It also requires a complete overhaul of how the different departments set up processes in order to accommodate an increased level of collaboration. 

As an added layer, a revenue enablement strategy should also assign defined roles and responsibilities to various contributors, establish carefully crafted interrelated metrics, and define processes for measuring revenue enablement effectiveness.

In all of this, the contributions from each team should be equally appreciated, but also scrutinised.

This makes revenue enablement a terrain with much more complex dynamics compared to traditional sales enablement, which might be exclusively focused on sales teams and their managers.  

The need for increased resources

It is probably clear by now that revenue enablement is a much more resource-heavy concept than sales enablement.

The participation of all go-to-market teams in somewhat equal measure means that those teams will need to put in time and effort if they wish to be true contributors. 

It should also be pointed out that, in line with what has been proven to work in sales enablement, revenue enablement should involve training, coaching, content, tools, processes, and methodologies for the different go-to-market teams.

Since they are all different, this will entail execution across varied disciplines, which is an important requirement to take into consideration. 

Furthermore, in the context of revenue enablement, the technology stack is more complex as it involves more factors and dimensions to consider.

This necessitates greater strategic thinking and planning, analytical skills, tech expertise, and much more. 

The end result is a several magnitudes higher need for resources and manpower, which is something most sales enablement teams struggle with already.

Conclusion

The sales enablement vs revenue enablement debate is an interesting and important one.

Sales enablement sets the stage for boosting sales team performance, while revenue enablement takes a wider view, aligning and enabling all teams involved in generating revenue.

This is more than simply going wider; it’s about evolving smarter, with a focus on holistic growth and better customer value.

Committing to revenue enablement requires significant dedication and resources, but the resulting alignment and efficiency among go-to-market teams can be well worth the effort.

For some inspiration and practical advice on building a sales or revenue enablement function, I’d recommend checking out my piece on when and how to build an enablement function.