Written Sales CommunicationTwenty accounts to write to this week. One of them opened a second site in March. What goes in the email?
Eighteen situational-judgement scenarios on a salesperson's judgement in writing: first-contact outreach, follow-up after silence, proposal framing a buyer can defend internally, and tone matched to the reader. Partial-credit scoring, three competencies, banded report.
Judged on what you would send, not on your grammar
You are writing a first email to a head of operations whose company opened a second site in March, with twenty similar accounts to reach this week: the merged template, two sentences and a question, a note admiring what they are building, or a detailed message with three capabilities and two case studies. Marketing has handed you a twenty-page deck for a plant manager who has never heard of you. A contact who replies one time in four now has a genuine reason to hear from you. A mandatory implementation fee makes your competitor's headline look cheaper. Eighteen writing decisions, each with four things sellers actually send.
Options are scored on a 0–3 gradient with a reason for every score, and distractors are anchored to the habits that make commercial writing fail: false familiarity, effort demanded before any is given, claims without substance, the wrong register for the reader's seniority. Any option that manufactures familiarity, conceals a cost or makes a guarantee it cannot support scores zero whatever its likely response rate. Constructs are described generically — reader-relevance, reciprocity of effort, substantiation, register — and the bank is original; no branded outreach method is used or implied.
The report bands Outreach and First Contact, Follow-up After Silence and Proposal Framing and Tone Calibration separately. A seller who writes a sharp first email and then nags a silent contact will see that split. The AI-personalised narrative names the tendency, the growth plan begins with the weakest competency, and each scenario is reviewed with the reason the warm-sounding option scored zero and the plain one scored three.
What you walk away with
Outreach and First Contact, Follow-up After Silence and Proposal Framing and Tone Calibration come back Emerging to Exceptional with a coaching interpretation each, so a strong opener with a weak follow-up instinct sees exactly where the reply is being lost.
The competency radar shows the three bands together, and the strengths and development panel, generated from your 18 choices, names the pattern — the over-long first email, the follow-up with no new reason, the fee presented as a footnote.
One 0–100 score and band for hiring decisions where a role lives in the inbox, with a pass mark, so a manager knows before interview whether a candidate's writing judgement clears the bar the territory needs.
Steps built from your weakest competency, then a review of all 18 scenarios with the reasoning behind each option, so the report becomes a short guide to writing that earns replies without borrowing trust that has not been given.
What comes back
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Every competency this test declares, scored from the items tagged to it — so the shape is yours, not a template.
Assembled from your lowest competencies, in order — not a generic checklist.
Built for
- Business development and inside sales staff whose first contact with a buyer is written
- Account executives who write their own proposals and follow-ups
- Hiring managers screening for written judgement without setting a writing exercise
- Sellers whose outreach gets opened but not answered
The buyer reads your email once, for about eight seconds. Find out what you would send.
Eighteen scenarios in 30 minutes, three competencies banded and interpreted, with a growth plan and full review on completion.
Take free · full report ₹299 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
Judgement in writing rather than grammar or vocabulary: whether a first email earns a reply, whether a follow-up after silence adds a reason or merely nags, whether a proposal is framed so the buyer can defend it internally, and whether tone matches the reader's seniority. Three competencies across 18 scenarios. It is for sellers whose first contact is written, for account executives who draft their own proposals, and for managers hiring into those roles.
You do not write anything. Each scenario offers four messages or approaches a seller might actually send, scored on a 0–3 gradient with a written reason for each. That keeps the test to 30 minutes and makes scoring consistent across candidates. Options that manufacture false familiarity, conceal a cost such as a mandatory fee, or promise a guarantee they cannot support score zero regardless of how many replies they would get. Options are length-matched.
Thirty minutes for 18 scenarios. The report arrives immediately and includes an overall score with band against a 70 per cent pass mark, a radar and banded bars for the three competencies with coaching interpretations, an AI-personalised narrative of strengths and development areas, a growth plan built from your weakest competency, and a review of every scenario with the reasoning behind each option. There is nothing further to unlock.
For hiring, the pass mark screens and the lowest band gives you an interview question: if Follow-up After Silence is Developing, ask the candidate to describe their last three touches to a silent contact. For coaching, pull up the seller's real outbound emails beside the scenario review and compare. Because the report is generated from the candidate's own responses, a retake after a month of coached writing shows what changed.
Yes. The scenarios are in plain international English, the companies and people are fictional, and the judgements — relevance, reciprocity, substantiation, register — hold in any market where buyers read email. Nothing tests idiom or spelling convention. The assessment is priced in INR and USD; the live price in both currencies is on this page.
Foundation, core selling, specialist and sales-leadership bands — every one an original situational-judgement bank with weighted partial credit, a stated reason for every option, and ethics scored to zero on a mis-sell. Hire with the band that matches the role, or develop with the one that matches the gap.
See every sales assessment →Methodology: Original AssessAll situational-judgement item bank for written commercial communication, authored to the AssessAll Scientific Item-Authoring Standard: behavioural-tendency framing, misconception-anchored distractors, weighted partial-credit keys with per-option rationale, and option-length parity control. Constructs are described generically (reader-relevance, reciprocity of effort, claim substantiation, register matching) with no branded or trademarked sales methodology used or implied. Any option that manufactures false familiarity, conceals a cost or makes an unsubstantiated guarantee scores zero regardless of its likely response rate.