Share article
I’ll start provocatively: most customer journey maps (customer journey maps) that hang on walls in B2B companies today are useless. Not because they are poorly made. But because they describe a journey the customer has never taken.
The classic journey map was created for the B2C world. It assumes a single customer, a linear progression, and a decision that is made in hours or days. For buying a washing machine, opening an account, or placing an order from an app, it is a model that works perfectly.
In B2B, however, a washing machine is not being sold. A commitment for years is being sold, often for millions, into an environment where five, seven, sometimes fifteen people have a say in the decision. And the whole process from first contact to signature takes on average six to nine months. Applying a B2C methodology to this is roughly like mapping the flight of an intercontinental airplane according to a plan of a cycling trip.
And yet it happens. The data are consistent in this regard.
One customer, ten decision-makers
Gartner in the study “The B2B Buying Journey” found that the average B2B purchase involves six to ten stakeholders (interested parties). Each of them independently searches for information from four to five sources. And the group dynamics of such decision-making are not straightforward; Gartner described it as a set of “buying jobs,” that is, purchasing tasks that repeat, return, and overlap in the process.
Specifically, Gartner defined six of them: problem identification, solution exploration, requirements definition, supplier selection, validation, and consensus building. The key word is “consensus.” In B2C, the customer decides alone. In B2B, the customer must first convince their own organization. And this internal journey is often harder than the journey to the supplier itself.
Forrester came to a similar conclusion: 74% of B2B purchases involve a group of decision-makers, not an individual. However, that group does not proceed synchronously. While the IT manager addresses integration risks, the CFO calculates ROI (return on investment), the operations manager thinks about implementation, and the CEO wants to know what it will do to competitiveness. Each has a different timeline, different concerns, different information needs.
The linear map “awareness → consideration → decision → retention” simply does not capture this reality. And neither does its extended variant with post-purchase phases. The reason is structural: the linear model assumes a single actor, but B2B is an orchestration of many people moving at different speeds.
What happened to the linear model
McKinsey after 2020 described a phenomenon it called the “rule of thirds”: approximately one third of B2B interactions today take place in person, one third remotely (video calls, phone calls), and one third via a digital self-service channel. What is more essential, however, is that buyers continuously switch between these channels within a single decision.
A map that assumes the customer proceeds through defined phases in a defined order ignores the fact that the same stakeholder can simultaneously be in the “research” phase in one channel and in the “evaluation” phase in another.
The real question therefore is not: how to draw a better map? But: what tool actually reflects what really happens in B2B purchasing?
Three approaches that capture B2B reality more accurately
In professional literature and practice, three frameworks are emerging that have proven more functional in recent years. It is worth knowing them.
The Buyer Enablement Framework from Gartner does not describe the journey as a sequence, but as a set of six parallel tasks (those six “buying jobs” mentioned above) that stakeholders repeatedly go through. For each task, it is defined what information, tools, and interactions will help the buyer complete it. Instead of the question “what stage is the customer in?” we ask “what purchasing task are they currently solving and how do we make it easier for them?”. Gartner’s own data show that suppliers who actively support buyer enablement close deals 2.8× more often.
Account-Based Journey Mapping abandons the idea of a single customer and maps the journey at the level of the entire buying committee. ITSMA and Demand Metric in their studies on ABM (Account-Based Marketing) repeatedly show that companies with a mature ABM strategy report higher ROI than with traditional marketing approaches. The map is not one – for each key role (economic buyer, technical buyer, user, influencer), a separate version is created, which are then combined into an orchestrated strategy.
Jobs-to-be-Done in the B2B context shifts attention from the journey to motivation. Instead of the question “what does the customer do?” we ask “what progress are they trying to make?”. Clayton Christensen, who popularized this concept, showed that B2B customers “hire” products and services to perform specific functional, emotional, and social tasks. In B2B, the social ones tend to be the most underestimated: the buyer is not only buying a solution. They are also buying insurance against damaging their reputation if they make a bad decision. A classic journey map will not show this.
Why the difference matters in practice, not only conceptually
However, a key condition remains overlooked: if a B2B company manages customer experience according to a B2C model, it allocates resources incorrectly. It invests in touchpoints that do not carry weight for the actual decision and ignores those that influence it the most.
A specific example: Forrester repeatedly documents that a large part of the B2B purchasing cycle takes place completely without interaction with the supplier’s sales team. The percentages differ between studies and the methodology evolves, but there is agreement that most of the decision process takes place outside direct contact with the seller. If a company measures customer experience only at sales touchpoints, it measures only a minority of the actual journey. The entire phase of the customer’s internal deliberation when stakeholders forward documents to each other, argue in meetings, think at night remains invisible.
The second practical consequence concerns metrics. NPS (Net Promoter Score) measured with a single contact person in a B2B relationship is notoriously misleading. The economic buyer may be enthusiastic, while the end user hates the product, and contract renewal depends on both. CES (Customer Effort Score), measured only after sales interactions, in turn ignores how difficult it was to justify the purchase internally. Advanced B2B CX programs therefore measure experience at the account level, not the contact level, and combine the perspectives of multiple stakeholders into a single evaluation.
Three questions a B2B company needs to be able to answer
Before a company begins to rebuild its customer journey methodology, it is worth testing the current state with three simple questions.
First: How many stakeholders do we identify in a typical customer, and how many of them do we really understand? If the answer is “we mainly talk to one contact,” you probably do not have a map of a B2B journey. You have a map of one relationship.
Second: What is the ratio of the time when the customer is in active contact with us versus the time when they are deciding internally without us? If you do not have data for this, you have a blind spot that constitutes the majority of the journey.
Third: Does our journey map describe what we do, or what happens in the minds of the customer’s stakeholders? If the former, you have an internal process document, not an experience map.
What follows
This article opens a topic that X Pulse will develop from multiple angles in the coming months. In the follow-up text, we will look in detail at the buying committee—who actually sits in it, what motivation each role has, and where suppliers most often fail in communication with specific types of stakeholders. Then we will return to metrics: how to measure B2B customer experience so that the numbers truly predict behavior (and contract renewal), and not just flatter reporting.
The B2B customer journey is a terrain where traditional CX tools fail. Not because they are bad, but because they were designed for a different environment Maps that we need for this new environment are only now emerging. And whoever can use them earlier than the competition gains an advantage that is counted in percentages of retention and millions of contracts.
Do you not want to miss the next part? Download the X Pulse app and have new articles always at hand.
