Trust-Led Growth Maturity Assessment

Name* This field is required.

First Name

Last Name

Company Name* This field is required.

Position* This field is required.

Country* This field is required.

Work Email* This field is required.

name@company.com

Please complete the entire Assessment
Answer questions across six key dimensions of customer advocacy maturity:

1. Strategy & Vision - Where are we going, and why does advocacy matter?
2. Resourcing & Governance - Who's making this happen, and how are we supporting it?
3. Infrastructure & Enablement - What tools and systems power advocacy at scale?
4. Advocate Engagement & Growth - How do we attract, activate, and retain advocates?
5. Measurement & Impact - How do we prove it's working?
6. Cross-Functional Alignment – Is there a shared North star?

Is there a clearly defined and documented vision for customer advocacy that has wide internal stakeholder support and buy-in?* This field is required.

1. No vision exists or advocacy is ad-hoc and led by individuals

2. Basic vision exists but not well communicated or supported across the business

3. Clear, documented vision with good stakeholder buy-in and motivated internal teams

4. Compelling vision that motivates stakeholders, drives organizational decisions, and creates enthusiasm for involvement

How well is your advocacy strategy aligned with broader organizational objectives (growth, retention, brand differentiation)?* This field is required.

1. Little-to-no coordinated integration into overall marketing mix

2. Basic strategy with limited business alignment and early programmatic steps

3. Strategic program aligned with broader objectives and standardized across departments

4. Fully integrated strategy embedded in company culture with full business alignment for 'voice of advocate' activities

How well do stakeholders across the business understand the value and benefits of the advocacy program?* This field is required.

1. Limited understanding - advocacy viewed as purely tactical with poor awareness

2. Superficial understanding with varied opinions on what 'good' looks like

3. Good understanding with clear value communication - advocacy championed by key stakeholders

4. Advocacy is part of organization's DNA with staff clear on program value to them, customers, and partners

Is there senior/executive sponsorship with ongoing support and strategic involvement in the advocacy program?* This field is required.

1. No executive support or awareness of advocacy program

2. Limited executive awareness with minimal strategic support

3. Strong executive support with regular involvement and backing for program initiatives

4. Executive champions who actively promote program and provide unrivalled advocate access to executives

What level of dedicated staffing exists for the advocacy program?* This field is required.

1. No formal team - individuals developing advocacy part-time as part of wider remit

2. Minimum staffing of one program manager with possible agency support

3. Program owner with regional managers - recommended minimum global approach

4. Senior program owner, three regional heads, and additional staff as needed with aligned agency support

How well does the team focus on building long-term advocate relationships with personalized engagement?* This field is required.

1. Activities are purely reactive and campaign-driven when needed

2. Some relationship building but mostly limited to campaign-driven activities

3. Team focuses on proactive, ongoing advocacy efforts with good relationship building

4. Strategic focus on long-term relationships with dedicated time for personalized advocate experiences and tiered relationships

How adequate is the dedicated budget for the advocacy program to meet strategic needs?* This field is required.

1. No dedicated budget - often sits within other departments facing internal competition for spend

2. Basic budget that covers essential activities but limits program growth

3. Substantial budget aligned with program goals enabling technologies and meaningful advocate experiences

4. Comprehensive budget enabling advanced technologies (AI, analytics), VIP experiences, and program innovation

How well does the funding support meaningful advocate recognition and value propositions?* This field is required.

1. Minimal funding for basic tools or advocate recognition

2. Limited budget for basic advocate activities and emerging value propositions

3. Good funding for structured advocate experiences and persona-based value propositions

4. Advanced funding for clear, mutually beneficial value propositions with awards, exclusive access, and executive engagement

How standardized and documented are your advocacy program processes and workflows across cross-functional teams?* This field is required.

1. Processes are manual, slow, and inefficient with no documentation

2. Basic processes exist with some coordination but competing demands and limited transparency

3. Standardized program with clear, documented roles and proactive rather than reactive outreach

4. Scalable, adaptable structure with shared responsibility for advocate identification and continuous optimization

How robust are your integrations with VoC tools such as Medallia, Qualtrics, Nice, and NPS platforms?* This field is required.

1. No VoC tool integration or systematic use of customer feedback data

2. Basic customer feedback tools but not integrated with advocacy program

3. Good VoC tool integration enabling structured advocate identification and feedback

4. Advanced VoC tool integration with AI-driven advocate identification and proactive engagement at scale

What is the current state of your advocacy technology stack and integration capabilities?* This field is required.

1. Minimal technology - mostly spreadsheets or basic tools with no integration

2. Basic point-product technology and apps but lack integration across departments

3. Integrated tools managing workflows and enabling internal collaboration with some automation

4. Advanced integrated stack with AI, automation, and seamless collaboration enabling scalability

How effectively does your technology enable advocate journey mapping and automated provisioning?* This field is required.

1. No systematic advocate journey mapping or automated provisioning capabilities

2. Basic advocate tracking but limited automation or journey optimization

3. Good journey mapping (Discovery → Recruitment → Activation → Engagement → Recognition) with some automation

4. Advanced journey mapping with automated provisioning and self-service model enabling partner access

How well can your current infrastructure handle growth and provide centralized resources across teams?* This field is required.

1. Program would struggle with growth due to manual processes and limited visibility

2. Limited scalability with basic resource sharing but relies heavily on manual effort

3. Good scalability with centralized resources enabling both self-service and guided access

4. Highly scalable infrastructure with automated provisioning ensuring timely, relevant support for all deals

How well does your program integrate with partner communities and support partner access to advocacy resources?* This field is required.

1. No partner integration or support for partner use of advocacy resources

2. Limited partner awareness of advocacy program with basic resource sharing

3. Good partner integration with structured access to advocacy resources and references

4. Full partner community integration with easy access extending reach and impact beyond internal teams

How strong is the internal adoption with sales teams regularly nominating clients as advocates?* This field is required.

1. Limited to isolated teams with poor awareness - advocacy seen as internal service provider

2. Some awareness but lack of understanding leads to last-minute, stressful advocate requests

3. Strong leadership support with advocacy becoming part of organization's DNA

4. Sales regularly nominate clients, seeing program benefits as competitive differentiator - organization wide adoption

To what extent do advocates experience meaningful engagement and derive tangible value from participating in your advocacy program?* This field is required.

1. Advocates engaged sporadically for tactical asks (quotes, ad-hoc references).

2. Advocates begin to see personal/professional benefits; some structured opportunities exist.

3. Diverse advocacy opportunities offered and taken up (case studies, advisory boards, events, content co-creation).

4. Advocacy is a partnership; customers co-innovate, shape product strategy, and gain career/community value.

How well do you maintain an active pipeline of potential advocates aligned to strategic business needs?* This field is required.

1. Reactive identification with limited visibility and low, inconsistent advocate participation

2. Basic advocate identification but overuse of most visible advocates on tactical opportunities

3. Active pipeline with good alignment to strategic business needs and tiered relationships

4. Rolling pipeline strategically aligned with continuous recruitment enabling efficient engagement of more advocates

What percentage of your advocates are actively contributing across multiple advocacy activities?* This field is required.

1. Low, inconsistent participation - advocates may experience poor advocacy experience

2. Limited active participation with basic testimonials and emerging value propositions

3. Good active participation (references, case studies, speaking) with persona-based value propositions

4. High percentage actively contributing with clear, mutually beneficial value propositions and trusted relationships

How effectively do you enable advocate involvement with product teams and customer advisory boards?* This field is required.

1. No advocate involvement in product, solution, and services development

2. Basic advocate involvement but not well coordinated with product teams

3. Good advocate integration into customer advisory boards and product feedback sessions

4. Strategic advocate involvement in advisory boards, early adopter programs, and industry analyst reviews (e.g., Gartner)

How strategically do you integrate advocacy into events with programmatic approach and flagship summits?* This field is required.

1. No dedicated event strategy for customer advocacy or coordinated integration

2. Ad-hoc initiatives at proprietary and industry events to identify or use advocates

3. Strategic approach with advocates as speakers, co-creation content, and VIP experiences

4. Fully programmatic approach with flagship advocacy summits, keynote addresses, and executive engagement

How effectively do you leverage events for advocate recruitment, awards, and exclusive experiences?* This field is required.

1. Events not connected to advocacy goals or advocate development

2. Basic connection between events and advocacy with limited strategic focus

3. Good alignment with advocate awards, VIP event experiences, and connection with executives

4. Events as strategic pillar with exclusive advocate lounges, reserved seating, physical promotion, and executive dinners

How well is your program prepared to adapt to new markets, customer segments, and account-based advocacy?* This field is required.

1. Focus slips when other business priorities demand attention with no growth strategy

2. Basic growth ideas but limited adaptability to changing customer needs

3. Good adaptability with clear growth strategy and preparation for evolving customer needs

4. Account-based advocacy pursuing growth opportunities in strategically important advocate base

How well does the advocacy program maintain sustainability through systematic processes and ongoing advocate engagement?* This field is required.

1. Highly dependent on specific individuals with risk of advocate burnout

2. Some documentation but still person-dependent with inconsistent advocate experiences

3. Good sustainability with cross-training, documentation, and nurture programs for advocate loyalty

4. Institutionalized processes with long-term advocate loyalty and continuous improvement through analytics

How comprehensively do you track and measure advocacy metrics including AQLs (Advocate Qualified Leads) and revenue contribution?* This field is required.

1. Reactive measurement with little tracking or proof of ROI

2. Basic activity metrics but limited reporting capabilities - often manual and time-consuming

3. Comprehensive metrics tracking program contribution to business goals with some ROI analysis

4. Advanced metrics including AQLs, revenue contribution, NPS, retention rates with full ROI analysis and transparency

How well do you measure advocacy influence on pipeline acceleration, deal closure, and sales support?* This field is required.

1. No measurement of sales impact or revenue influence

2. Anecdotal tracking with limited proof of tangible benefits to sales teams

3. Structured system tracking advocacy influence with good sales and marketing asset utilization

4. Comprehensive attribution model with consistent use of program assets by sales as competitive differentiator

How effectively do you demonstrate business value and provide executive visibility into advocacy impact?* This field is required.

1. Limited understanding of advocacy as business-critical program

2. Basic understanding but challenging to prove tangible benefits to wider business

3. Clear evidence of program's contribution with regular stakeholder reporting and business impact

4. Transparent proof of ROI with executive visibility and clear documentation of advocacy's contribution to business objectives

How well are advocacy assets utilized and measured across sales, marketing, and customer success teams?* This field is required.

1. Limited visibility and utilization of advocacy assets across teams

2. Basic usage but not well measured or integrated into team KPIs

3. Good utilization with measurement of asset impact and proof-points of program contribution

4. Advocacy assets fully utilized and measured across sales, marketing & comms KPIs with clear business impact

To what extent do Sales, Marketing, and CS share a common definition of advocacy and trust signals as growth drivers?* This field is required.

1. Each function defines advocacy differently.

2. Some agreement on definitions, but inconsistent across teams.

3. A working definition exists, referenced in pockets of the org

4. Shared language across GTM functions; some joint metrics tracked.

How well are advocacy signals and customer proof orchestrated across teams, versus trapped in silos?* This field is required.

1. Advocacy signals are invisible or manually tracked in one function.

2. Some signals captured, but rarely shared across departments.

3. Signals flow between some teams, but orchestration is ad hoc.

4. Signals flow seamlessly across Sales, Marketing, CS, and Product; advocacy is systematically activated at scale.

How consistently do executive leaders (CRO, CMO, CCO, CEO) reinforce trust and advocacy as a company-wide priority, not just a marketing initiative?* This field is required.

1. Advocacy and trust never appear in leadership priorities.

2. Leaders acknowledge advocacy, but it’s still seen as a marketing-led effort.

3. Advocacy is part of leadership dashboards and cross-functional reviews.

4. Trust and advocacy are board-level topics, tied to GTM KPIs and central to growth strategy.

Please complete the entire AssessmentAnswer questions across six key dimensions of customer advocacy maturity:

Please complete the entire Assessment
Answer questions across six key dimensions of customer advocacy maturity: