Conflict graph
Also called: committee physics, influence map, veto map.
A conflict graph is a map of how the members of a buying committee influence each other’s decision on one specific asset: who advocates, who hesitates, who vetoes, and which direction the influence flows. It turns a blended conversion number back into the disagreement that produced it, which is where the actionable fix always sits.
Why an average hides the answer
Take a five-role committee where three roles convert enthusiastically and two abandon. The blended number is 60%, which reads as “decent page, needs work.” That reading is wrong in a specific and expensive way.
In a committee purchase the two abandonments are not 40% of the outcome. If one of them is the security guardian, they are 100% of it. Consensus purchases are conjunctive: every seat has to clear, so the weakest role sets the ceiling. Averaging is exactly the wrong operation.
As an average: 60% positive. Ship it, iterate later.
As a conflict graph: Champion and technical decision-maker advocate. End user is neutral. Economic buyer hesitates at the pricing section. Security guardian vetoes above the fold. The deal cannot close in this state, whatever the average says.
What the graph shows
- Position per role. advocate, neutral, hesitant, or veto.
- The trigger. The section and the missing evidence that produced each position.
- Influence direction. whose position moves whose. A champion cannot carry a security veto, but a resolved security objection frequently unlocks a hesitant economic buyer.
- The unblocking fix. The single change that moves the most positions, which is rarely the change that moves the average most.
How to read one
Work the graph from the veto inward, never from the average down. Three rules:
- Fix vetoes before you optimise advocates. Making the champion more enthusiastic does nothing if security is blocking.
- A hesitation behind a veto is often not real. Resolve the veto and re-run before spending anything on the hesitation.
- Watch for the fix that helps one role and hurts another. Adding compliance detail above the fold can clear the guardian and bury the end user. The graph shows the trade before you ship it.
Questions people ask about conflict graph
What is a conflict graph in B2B marketing?
It is a map of how each buying committee role reacts to one asset, showing who advocates, who hesitates, who vetoes, and which way influence flows between them.
Why not just use an average conversion score?
Because committee purchases are conjunctive: every seat has to clear, so the weakest role sets the ceiling. A 60% average can describe a page that cannot close a single deal because the security reviewer vetoes above the fold.
How do you act on a conflict graph?
Work inward from the veto. Fix blocking roles before optimising for roles that already advocate, and re-run before spending effort on hesitations that sit behind a veto.