I've come across a use case for a potential new feature idea regarding CTA assignment.
We have CTAs that we'd like to be firing based on a 1:many relationship. For example, if we are firing CTAs based on Opportunity, we'd like a separate CTA on each account for each relevant opportunity.
Currently, we are able to do this by tokenizing the ID into the CTA name, however the customer finds like to be a bit messy even though it works.
The idea I have is, what if we had the ability to set a field in the action that we could also use as an identifier.
So currently the CTA is being creating based on Account ID, but hypothetically, it would be awesome to be able to say "Create based on Account ID AND Opportunity ID" without tokenizing the CTA name and setting the name as an identifier.
New Idea
Ability to set CTAs based on a secondary ID
Yes! The ability to add additional identifiers without cluttering the CTA name would be amazing! We send out CTAs for services, but have to include the service ID in the CTA name so that a separate CTA goes out for each service (one account can have multiple services of the same name). Not only does it look ugly (a random 18 digit code behind the text), but sometimes it makes the CTA name to long, it gets truncated and Gainsight doesn't recognize it as an identifier anyways!
It would be great if just like we have a show box to select fields we need for the CTA, maybe there would be an identifier box? Create based off these unique fields?
It would be great if just like we have a show box to select fields we need for the CTA, maybe there would be an identifier box? Create based off these unique fields?
+4Good discussion. Participant uniqueness is a hugely important concept in any business process management system. We have made this very explicit in Advanced Outreach (the Uniqueness Criteria setting).
One practical question: if you were to end up with lots of CTAs with the same name do you worry about a user experience challenge where in the list view you can't really distinguish them or even understand easily why you have so many?
One practical question: if you were to end up with lots of CTAs with the same name do you worry about a user experience challenge where in the list view you can't really distinguish them or even understand easily why you have so many?
Interesting ask. I guess I am not extremely concerned with multiple CTAs of the same name for the same company. In the situations where we would like to 'hide' the identifiers (not show in CTA name), we don't expect more than 2-3 of the same name for the same company. They are also situations where the CSM expects and understand why there are multiples and having an 18 digit ID currently isn't telling them anything than if it weren't there at all.
+4OK. Got it.
Hi,
I agree with the ask. Few other use-cases are adding playbook as an identifier or removing status as an identifier. We will add this flexibility in rules engine soon.
Thanks,
Nitisha
I agree with the ask. Few other use-cases are adding playbook as an identifier or removing status as an identifier. We will add this flexibility in rules engine soon.
Thanks,
Nitisha
1 person likes this
Reply
Sign up
If you ever had a profile with us, there's no need to create another one.
Don't worry if your email address has since changed, or you can't remember your login, just let us know at community@gainsight.com and we'll help you get started from where you left.
Else, please continue with the registration below.
Welcome to the Gainsight Community
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.