Field dependencies in Playbooks

[Monjogard]

Would be very useful with some smartness to questions in Playbooks (similar to dependent fields in HubSpot forms), e.g. ff answer is  X on question 1, show question 1B, otherwise move on to question 2.

A Playbook can become quite tedious for a sales rep to scroll through when not all questions are relevant to the conversation.

Also great if a Playbook could update properties on multiple objects within the same Playbook. Now a feature!

[Monjogard · Accepted solution]

Now in beta!!

[CSic]

+1

[MdeWit9]

Need this too. A prospect is currently using Typeform €300/year) and is able to use dependancies in their playbook form questions. 

[AaronBoatin]

Would absolutely love this much needed feature enhancement!!

[JSchönwald]

+1, das wäre eine sehr große Hilfe !!

[HHutson]

This would be super useful as we are also using playbooks to help train new team members. Having the right options apearing at the right time especially when they are filling a playbook out over the phone is essential to newcomers who wont know which fields are not needed in certain situations.

[BMonteiro4]

We need this!

[LBeer3]

100% need this feature. Would be super helpful

[ChrisBreitbach]

Yes, we absolutely need that, please! I have an active prospect considering other solutions for sales playbooks due to this single feature...

[SlimBob]

Conditional questions in playbooks would be fantastic!

[SMohan3]

This is much needed!!

[Aleena_Malik]

This is extremely needed! As someone mentioned above, it does get tedious having to scroll to the right place WHILE on a conversation.

How many votes does it take to get a feature worked on? 😅

[Lmz23]

As a small but quickly growing business that is making our first sales hire, this would be incredibly valuable in getting them up to speed and on the phone faster.

[DouglasW]

This would be incredibly useful, both when talking to clients, and for gathering information to share with other team members internally. It would also be great to be able to organize sets of questions by category.

[AaronBoatin]

Totally agree with this idea. Having branches and conditional formatting would allow us to not have to build out multiple playbooks, instead a 'Mega Playbook'. Our example would be the different verticals that we serve. Right now, we are having to clone and adjust each.

[CDouglas4]

Yes please, this would be very beneficial.

I am currently building a customer save / lose playbook for the Account Managers, if they've managed to save the customer I don't want them to have to note the competitor they've gone to so I can't make that a required field -- but I also don't want to have them bypass the field on every contact they speak with. By nature of the conversation, it does not make sense to have the two in seperate playbooks either.

Hope to see this update sooner than later!

[TCoppen1]

bumping this is a must for sales teams

[JenPickard]

This would be really helpful, we have tons of different job types, customer/company types, and deal types. If I were to make each job type, customer/company type, and deal type it's own playbook... I would have over 200 playbook scripts. If we were able to use a if/then where different information would show pending on the answer, we could reduce the amount of playbooks to 10

[nelmsbrad]

Whole heartedly agree!  The key is not only in building the playbook, but in using it as a rep.  It should feel dynamic and jump you to the right place based on the answer option.  I envision a flow that feels much like TypeForm but that has a conversation index on one side that allows you to jump around, if needed.  It should be able to support multilple nested levels of if/then instances to be effective.

To further that, specified responses could also be used in workflow triggers.  That would save time in having to start processes later or manually.

[BSegal]

This will be extremely helpful. 

Not only it is cumbersome for the reps, it also prevents operators creating required fields because they might not be relevant in all cases and therefore discourage process compliance.

[DPeacock]

We desperately need this. We're having to use non-HubSpot forms to create a shadow system for a huge segment of our work.

[Benarivo]

+1, this is needed