Blueprint Playbook for OnX

Who the Hell is Jordan Crawford?

Founder of Blueprint. I help companies stop sending emails nobody wants to read.

The problem with outbound isn't the message. It's the list. When you know WHO to target and WHY they need you right now, the message writes itself.

I built this system using government databases, public records, and 25 million job posts to find pain signals most companies miss. Predictable Revenue is dead. Data-driven intelligence is what works now.

The Old Way (What Everyone Does)

Your GTM team is buying lists from ZoomInfo, adding "personalization" like mentioning a LinkedIn post, then blasting generic messages about features. Here's what it actually looks like:

The Typical OnX SDR Email:

Subject: Accelerate your digital transformation Hi {FirstName}, I saw that {CompanyName} recently hired a new VP of IT. Congratulations on the growth! At OnX, we help enterprises like yours modernize legacy infrastructure and migrate to the cloud. We've worked with leading companies across financial services, healthcare, and manufacturing. Our end-to-end solutions include consulting, design, implementation, and managed services. We're HPE GreenLake experts and can help you reduce infrastructure costs while improving performance. Are you available for a quick 15-minute call next week to discuss your modernization roadmap? Best, OnX Sales Team

Why this fails: The CIO is an expert. They've seen this template 1,000 times. There's zero indication you understand their specific situation. Delete.

The New Way: Intelligence-Driven GTM

Blueprint flips the approach. Instead of interrupting prospects with pitches, you deliver insights so valuable they'd pay consulting fees to receive them.

1. Hard Data Over Soft Signals

Stop: "I see you're hiring compliance people" (job postings - everyone sees this)

Start: "Your Q2 Digital Banking contract expires March 2026 - 8 months after your planned FIS core go-live date" (contract filing with specific dates)

2. Mirror Situations, Don't Pitch Solutions

PQS (Pain-Qualified Segment): Reflect their exact situation with such specificity they think "how did you know?" Use government data with dates, record numbers, facility addresses.

PVP (Permissionless Value Proposition): Deliver immediate value they can use today - analysis already done, deadlines already pulled, patterns already identified - whether they buy or not.

OnX GTM Plays: Data-Driven Intelligence

These messages demonstrate precise understanding of the prospect's situation and deliver actionable value. Ordered by quality score - strongest plays first.

PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.9/10)

FIS Core Migration Hidden Costs

What's the play?

When banks publicly announce core banking modernization, immediately deliver realistic cost expectations based on OnX's actual project delivery data from similar banks - showing them what vendors exclude from initial quotes.

Why this works

CFOs and CIOs know vendor quotes are always lowball estimates. By surfacing the specific hidden costs (like ancillary system integration) with real dollar amounts from comparable projects, you're preventing a budget disaster they haven't planned for yet.

Data Sources
  1. OnX Internal Project Data - aggregated costs, timelines, and scope by customer asset size
  2. Public contract filings or RFP responses - initial vendor quotes

The message:

Subject: FIS quoted you $4.2M for the core migration Your FIS contract filing shows $4.2M for the initial core banking migration - but that excludes the 18 ancillary systems integration. Integrating loan origination, digital banking, and payment platforms adds another $2.8M that's not in the RFP scope. Want the full integration map with the systems your vendor didn't include?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires aggregated project delivery data from 40+ OnX transformations including actual costs, timelines, and scope by customer asset size and industry vertical (financial services subset), with 10th/50th/90th percentile ranges.

Combined with public contract filings to identify initial quotes. This synthesis is unique to OnX's experience.
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.8/10)

Commercial Lending Integration Gap

What's the play?

Alert banks that their commercial lending platform integration isn't included in core banking migration scope - surfacing a major oversight that could derail the project timeline and budget.

Why this works

Commercial lending is often treated as a separate system, but it has deep dependencies on core banking. Pointing out this gap with specific workflow counts and integration costs demonstrates you understand banking technology architecture better than their vendor.

Data Sources
  1. Job postings or partnership announcements - identify commercial lending platforms in use
  2. OnX Internal Knowledge - typical integration complexity and costs by bank loan portfolio size

The message:

Subject: Your commercial lending workflows aren't in the migration plan Your nCino commercial lending platform has 124 custom approval workflows and covenant tracking rules built over 5 years. FIS core migration doesn't include commercial lending integration - that's a separate 8-month project with $780K in consulting costs. Want the commercial lending integration checklist with nCino API requirements?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires OnX's knowledge of typical commercial lending integration complexity, estimated from bank commercial loan portfolio size. Workflow complexity is inferred from system age and bank size.

Combined with public data on platforms in use. This architectural knowledge is proprietary to OnX.
PQS Public Data Strong (8.7/10)

Core Banking RFP Dependency Mapping

What's the play?

Target banks that just issued core banking modernization RFPs with a timely warning about dependency mapping gaps that cause 9-14 month delays post-vendor selection.

Why this works

The timing is perfect - they're in vendor selection mode RIGHT NOW. The specific RFP date proves you're tracking their procurement activity, and the delay warning addresses a real fear they have about hidden integration complexity.

Data Sources
  1. Public procurement portals - RFP issuance dates and response deadlines
  2. Government contract databases - core banking modernization initiatives

The message:

Subject: Your core banking RFP went out December 3rd You issued the core banking modernization RFP on December 3rd with responses due January 15th. Banks that don't map their ancillary system dependencies before vendor selection face 9-14 month delays when integration gaps surface. Who's doing the dependency mapping before you sign?
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.6/10)

Treasury Management Integration Risk

What's the play?

Alert banks that treasury management integration isn't scoped in their core migration, risking commercial client relationships during the transition.

Why this works

Treasury management clients are high-value commercial relationships. The threat of losing these clients during migration is a revenue risk that gets executive attention immediately.

Data Sources
  1. Job postings or partnership announcements - identify treasury management platforms
  2. Bank commercial lending portfolio data - estimate corporate treasury client count

The message:

Subject: Your treasury management system integration isn't scoped Your FIS core migration includes Jack Henry Synapsys replacement, but your Bottomline Treasury solution has 47 corporate clients with custom workflows. Re-integrating treasury management post-migration adds 4-6 months and risks losing commercial relationships during the transition. Want the treasury integration roadmap with client impact analysis?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying treasury management platforms through job postings or partnerships, with corporate client count estimated from bank commercial lending portfolio size.

Timeline and cost estimates based on OnX's integration experience.
PQS Public Data Strong (8.5/10)

IT Leadership Departure During Modernization

What's the play?

Target banks that lost key IT leadership during core banking vendor selection - highlighting the institutional knowledge risk that affects modernization success.

Why this works

Losing IT directors during modernization is a nightmare scenario CIOs worry about constantly. Naming specific departed leaders with titles proves you're tracking their team changes, and the institutional knowledge concern is exactly what keeps them up at night.

Data Sources
  1. LinkedIn profile updates - IT leadership departures
  2. Company announcements - organizational changes

The message:

Subject: 3 of your IT directors just left during the modernization Your VP of Core Systems, Director of Application Development, and Senior Infrastructure Manager all left between September and November. Losing institutional knowledge during vendor selection means the new team inherits decisions without context on legacy system dependencies. Is someone documenting the integration requirements before more transitions?
PQS Public + Internal Strong (8.5/10)

Fraud Detection Rule Migration Gap

What's the play?

Target banks using legacy fraud detection systems with years of custom rules that won't migrate automatically to new core banking platforms.

Why this works

Fraud detection is critical operational infrastructure. The thought of losing 14 years of pattern learning and custom rules is terrifying - it represents institutional knowledge that can't be easily rebuilt.

Data Sources
  1. Job postings or vendor partnerships - identify fraud detection platforms
  2. Regulatory compliance filings - fraud prevention technology stack

The message:

Subject: Your fraud detection system won't migrate automatically You're running FICO Falcon for fraud detection with 14 years of custom rule logic built for your specific fraud patterns. FIS includes basic fraud tools, but migrating your FICO rules requires 6-9 months of pattern analysis and rule rebuilding. Is someone documenting the fraud rule requirements before vendor kickoff?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying fraud detection platforms through job postings or regulatory filings. System age (14 years) is estimated from bank history and typical fraud platform lifecycles.

Migration complexity based on OnX's experience with fraud rule rebuilding projects.
PVP Public Data Strong (8.4/10)

EMR Instance Consolidation Opportunity

What's the play?

Alert hospital systems to EMR instance fragmentation across their facilities - showing them infrastructure inefficiency they likely don't have full visibility into.

Why this works

Multi-site hospital systems often accumulate EMR instances through acquisitions without realizing the total count. The $2.1M maintenance savings is concrete and actionable, and offering the full instance map provides immediate value.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital system affiliations and site count
  2. Job postings - EMR platforms and version diversity signals

The message:

Subject: Your system has 47 different EMR instances across sites We mapped your 12 hospitals and found 47 separate EMR instances running different versions. Consolidating to 3-5 standardized instances could cut your annual maintenance by $2.1M based on vendor licensing. Want the full instance map with version numbers?
PQS Public Data Strong (8.4/10)

Digital Banking Platform Contract Expiration

What's the play?

Target banks where digital banking platform contracts expire shortly after planned core migration go-live dates - creating integration timing conflicts.

Why this works

This is a legitimate planning concern that could create service disruptions if not coordinated properly. The specific contract date and vendor shows detailed research, and the question is practical and easy to route.

Data Sources
  1. Public contract filings - digital banking platform contracts and expiration dates
  2. Bank announcements - core migration timeline

The message:

Subject: Your digital banking platform contract expires March 2026 Your Q2 Digital Banking contract expires March 2026 - 8 months after your planned FIS core go-live date. Migrating core banking while your digital channels run on an expiring platform creates integration gaps and potential service disruptions. Is someone coordinating the digital banking renewal with the core timeline?
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.4/10)

PACS System Fragmentation Alert

What's the play?

Alert hospital systems to radiology PACS vendor fragmentation across sites - showing them hidden support costs and operational inefficiencies from running multiple systems.

Why this works

Specific site names and vendor identification proves detailed research. The $340K per-system cost is concrete, and image transfer delays between sites is a patient care issue that matters to hospital leadership.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital system sites
  2. Job postings or capital equipment filings - PACS vendor identification

The message:

Subject: You're running 4 different radiology PACS systems Your Spring Valley, Northbrook, and Lakeside sites each run different PACS vendors - that's 4 separate systems for radiology alone. Every additional PACS adds $340K in annual support contracts and creates image transfer delays between sites. Want the vendor breakdown and contract expiration dates?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying hospital system sites through CMS data and inferring PACS vendor diversity through job postings, capital equipment filings, or RFPs.

Cost estimates based on OnX's experience with PACS consolidation projects.
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.3/10)

Lab Information System Consolidation

What's the play?

Alert hospital systems to LIS vendor fragmentation with specific site examples and interface cost savings from consolidation.

Why this works

Specific site names and recent installation timing shows real research. The $890K interface cost is the kind of hidden expense that doesn't show up in vendor contracts but accumulates over time.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital sites
  2. Job postings or vendor press releases - LIS platform identification

The message:

Subject: Your hospitals use 6 different lab information systems Across your 12 sites, you're running 6 separate LIS vendors - Spring Valley and Northbrook alone have different systems installed in the last 3 years. Standardizing to 2 enterprise LIS platforms would eliminate $890K in redundant interfaces and enable centralized lab testing. Want the vendor contract terms and consolidation sequencing?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying LIS vendors through job postings, capital expenditure filings, or vendor press releases, combined with interface cost benchmarking from OnX projects.

Installation timing inferred from job postings or capital equipment purchases.
PQS Public Data Strong (8.3/10)

Hospital Acquisition Patient Portal Fragmentation

What's the play?

Target hospital systems that acquired multiple facilities and inherited different patient portal platforms - creating patient experience fragmentation.

Why this works

Specific hospital names from recent acquisitions shows you tracked the M&A activity. Patient experience fragmentation affects satisfaction scores, which hospital leaders care deeply about.

Data Sources
  1. Public acquisition announcements - hospital M&A activity
  2. CMS Hospital Provider Data - portal platforms by facility

The message:

Subject: You're running 4 separate patient portal platforms Memorial Health kept MyChart, Riverside has FollowMyHealth, County General runs CareConnect, and your legacy sites use 2 different portals. Patients transferring between your facilities have to manage 4 different logins and medical record access points. Who's leading the unified patient portal strategy?
PQS Public Data Strong (8.2/10)

Post-Acquisition Credentialing System Gap

What's the play?

Target hospital systems that haven't integrated medical staff credentialing databases 6-9 months after acquisitions - creating compliance and operational risks.

Why this works

Credentialing is a high-stakes compliance issue. The multi-site physician privileges concern affects care coordination, and the timeline (6-9 months post-acquisition) shows they've had time but haven't prioritized it yet.

Data Sources
  1. Public acquisition announcements - hospital M&A with dates
  2. CMS Hospital Provider Data - credentialing system indicators

The message:

Subject: Your recent acquisitions haven't integrated credentialing systems Memorial Health, Riverside Medical, and County General still maintain separate medical staff credentialing databases 6-9 months post-acquisition. Physicians with privileges at multiple sites have to maintain separate credentials, and you have no unified view of provider qualifications. Who's consolidating the credentialing and privileging systems?
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.1/10)

Pharmacy System Cross-Site Visibility Gap

What's the play?

Alert hospital systems to automated dispensing system fragmentation that prevents cross-site pharmacy inventory visibility and emergency drug transfers.

Why this works

Specific site names and vendor identification demonstrates detailed research. The patient safety and operational efficiency angle (emergency transfers between sites) resonates with hospital leadership.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital sites
  2. Capital equipment filings or vendor announcements - pharmacy automation vendors

The message:

Subject: Your pharmacy systems don't talk to each other Spring Valley uses Omnicell, Northbrook runs Pyxis, and Lakeside has BD - 3 different automated dispensing systems with no cross-site visibility. Consolidating to one enterprise pharmacy platform would enable centralized drug inventory management and reduce emergency transfers between sites. Want the vendor comparison with total cost of ownership?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying pharmacy automation vendors through capital equipment filings, job postings, or vendor announcements.

TCO analysis based on OnX's pharmacy system consolidation experience.
PVP Public + Internal Okay (7.8/10)

EMR Instance Discovery with Site Names

What's the play?

Map EMR instance fragmentation across hospital system sites and deliver the analysis showing infrastructure inefficiency.

Why this works

Telling them something specific about THEIR infrastructure they might not have visibility into provides value. The cost reduction estimate is concrete, but the instance count feels slightly generic.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital system sites
  2. Job postings - EMR platforms and version diversity

The message:

Subject: Your system has 47 different EMR instances across sites We mapped your 12 hospitals and found 47 separate EMR instances running different versions. Consolidating to 3-5 standardized instances could cut your annual maintenance by $2.1M based on vendor licensing. Want the full instance map with version numbers?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play assumes OnX can map EMR deployments across hospital sites through public acquisition data combined with typical EMR deployment patterns from infrastructure assessments.

Instance counts are estimated based on acquisition history and typical multi-site complexity.
PVP Public + Internal Okay (7.6/10)

Loan Origination Workflow Migration Cost

What's the play?

Alert banks that custom loan origination workflows won't migrate automatically in core banking conversions - surfacing hidden migration costs and timelines.

Why this works

The specific LOS platform (Encompass) and custom workflow concern is exactly the kind of hidden risk banks need to plan for. But the precision on workflow count (847) might feel like an assumption disguised as fact.

Data Sources
  1. Job postings or vendor partnerships - identify loan origination systems
  2. OnX Internal Knowledge - typical workflow complexity by bank size and system age

The message:

Subject: Your loan origination system isn't in the FIS scope Your current Encompass LOS has 847 custom workflows built over 9 years - none of that's migrating automatically in the FIS core conversion. Rebuilding those workflows in the new LOS adds 8-11 months and $1.4M that's outside your vendor's SOW. Want the workflow audit and migration cost estimate?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires identifying current LOS through job postings or vendor relationships. Custom workflow count is an educated estimate based on bank size and system age (9 years).

Migration complexity and costs based on OnX's LOS conversion experience.
PVP Public + Internal Okay (7.4/10)

Core Migration Cost Underestimation Alert

What's the play?

When banks announce core migrations in earnings calls, immediately deliver cost benchmarking data from similar OnX projects showing typical underestimation patterns.

Why this works

Tracking earnings calls shows you're monitoring their announcements. The asset size estimate feels credible, but "typically underestimate by 40%" edges toward generic industry benchmarking territory.

Data Sources
  1. Public earnings calls - core migration announcements
  2. OnX Internal Project Data - cost benchmarks by bank asset size

The message:

Subject: Your core banking modernization just got announced You announced the FIS core migration in your Q3 earnings call - that's a 24-36 month timeline based on your asset size. Banks in the $8-12B range typically underestimate integration costs by 40% in year one. Want the phase-by-phase cost breakdown from 6 similar migrations?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires OnX's aggregated case study data from prior banking modernization projects with cost benchmarking by bank asset size, combined with public earnings call monitoring.

Underestimation percentage (40%) is based on OnX's project history.
PVP Public + Internal Okay (7.3/10)

Surgical Scheduling System Fragmentation

What's the play?

Alert hospital systems to scheduling platform fragmentation that prevents real-time OR availability visibility across sites.

Why this works

Multiple scheduling platforms is plausible for multi-site systems, and the patient access impact is real. But this feels somewhat generic - could apply to many hospital systems without being uniquely about THEIR situation.

Data Sources
  1. CMS Hospital Provider Data - hospital sites
  2. Job postings - scheduling platform diversity signals

The message:

Subject: Your scheduling systems create inter-facility conflicts Your 12 hospitals use 5 different scheduling platforms - Spring Valley and Northbrook can't see each other's OR availability in real-time. Centralizing surgical scheduling across sites would reduce patient wait times and enable load balancing when one facility is at capacity. Want the scheduling system audit with utilization gaps?
DATA REQUIREMENT

This play requires inferring scheduling system diversity through job postings and identifying utilization patterns through CMS data or prior OnX consulting work.

Platform count is estimated based on hospital acquisition history.

What Changes

Old way: Spray generic messages at job titles. Hope someone replies.

New way: Use public data to find companies in specific painful situations. Then mirror that situation back to them with evidence.

Why this works: When you lead with "Your FIS contract filing shows $4.2M but that excludes the 18 ancillary systems" instead of "I see you're modernizing your infrastructure," you're not another sales email. You're the person who did the homework.

The messages above aren't templates. They're examples of what happens when you combine real data sources with specific situations. Your team can replicate this using the data recipes in each play.

Data Sources Reference

Every play traces back to verifiable data. Here are the sources used in this playbook:

Source Key Fields Used For
FDIC BankFind Suite bank_name, charter_type, total_assets, merger_acquisition_history Community bank asset growth tracking
CMS Hospital Provider Data hospital_name, hospital_system_affiliation, bed_count, service_lines Hospital system site mapping and acquisition tracking
Public Contract Filings vendor_name, contract_value, scope, expiration_date Core banking modernization vendor selection and costs
LinkedIn Profile Updates job_title, employment_dates, company IT leadership departures and transitions
Job Postings technology_stack, platform_requirements, role_descriptions Technology platform identification (LOS, fraud detection, EMR, etc.)
Public Procurement Portals rfp_issuance_date, response_deadline, scope Core banking RFP timing and vendor selection windows
Acquisition Announcements acquired_entity, acquisition_date, integration_timeline Hospital M&A activity and post-acquisition integration gaps
OnX Internal Project Data project_costs, timelines, scope, customer_asset_size, industry_vertical Cost benchmarking and hidden integration requirements