What is a sales content audit?
A sales content audit is a review of the assets sellers can find and share, judged against the plays and stages they are supposed to serve, that ends in a verdict on every asset. The verdict is the point. An audit that produces a spreadsheet of filenames and a summary slide has not audited anything.
That is the distinction worth getting right before you start. An inventory answers "what do we have, and where is it?" and is finished when the list is complete. An audit answers "what should we retire, what should we fix, what should we keep, and who does each of those by when?" and is finished when every row has an owner and a date. The first is a research task. The second is a set of decisions that someone has to be willing to make and defend.
Nobody audits sales content for fun. The audit usually arrives attached to something else: a platform being bought or replaced, a migration that nobody wants to carry dead weight into, or a request to justify what the content budget produced. That context decides the scope, so write it down before the first row.
The underlying problem is well documented. Forrester, citing its Portfolio Marketing Survey, reported that 53% of respondents said sales uses fewer than half of the enablement materials produced for them (Forrester, zero-waste B2B marketing, accessed 2026-10-24). Treat that as a direction, not a measurement: the post carries no publication date, the survey was fielded in 2023, and the page does not state how many people answered. The figure is a reason to look at your own library, not a substitute for having looked.
When to run one
- You are evaluating or replacing a content platform, and whatever you migrate you will live with.
- Someone has asked what the content budget produced, and the honest answer is that nobody knows which assets are used.
- Sellers say they cannot find anything, while marketing can point to an asset for every request.
- Several versions of the same deck are circulating and buyers have been sent more than one of them.
- Positioning, packaging or the sales process changed, and nobody went back through the library afterwards.
- Skip it if you already know the answer and just need permission to act. Then the audit is a short list of retirements with owners, not a project.
Audit, inventory and content strategy review
These get run under each other's names and answer different questions. The audit is the only one of the three that is allowed to remove things, which is also why it is the one most often quietly downgraded into a list.
| Exercise | Question it answers | Finished when |
|---|---|---|
| Content inventory | What assets exist, who made them and where do they live? | The list is complete. Nothing has been retired, fixed or republished as a result. |
| Content audit | Which assets do we retire, fix or keep, and who does each by when? | Every row has a verdict, a named owner, an action and a due date. |
| Content strategy review | What should we produce next, for which plays, stages and personas? | There is a production plan and a budget ask for the next period. |
| Governance review | Who owns each asset, who approves it and when does it expire? | Owners, review cycles and approval routes are written down and in force. |
The sales content audit template
Fill in the scope first, then write the decision rule, then open the list. Doing it in that order is what stops the audit turning into an argument about individual assets. One row per asset, square brackets mark what you replace. If a row ends without a verdict, an owner and a date, it is not finished.
Audit scope
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Why this audit is happening | [Platform change, migration, budget review, repositioning] |
| What is in scope | [The plays, stages or teams whose content you are reviewing] |
| What is out of scope | [Say it explicitly, e.g. internal training material, legal templates] |
| Review period | [The window usage is judged over, e.g. the last 90 days, or two quarters if your cycle is long] |
| Where usage evidence comes from | [Share links, CRM attachments, repository reports, a rep survey, or "none yet"] |
| Who gives the verdict | [The person who can say retire and make it stick] |
| Where retired assets go | [The archive location, not the recycle bin] |
| Next review date | [When this list gets looked at again] |
The decision rule (write this before you look at the list)
| Verdict | When it applies |
|---|---|
| Keep | Used inside the review period, accurate today, and an owner confirms it is current. No action beyond the next review date. |
| Fix | The play still needs this asset, but the content is wrong, out of date or off-message. Needs an owner and a date, not a discussion. |
| Resurface | Accurate, and used only by the handful of people who know it exists. The asset is not the problem; its title, tags or placement is. |
| Merge | More than one version of the same thing is in circulation. Choose the one to keep, point existing links at it, archive the rest. |
| Retire | No use in the review period and no owner will defend it, or it describes something you no longer sell or no longer claim. Archive it. |
| Investigate | You genuinely cannot tell, usually because there is no usage evidence. Allowed once per asset, and the row still needs a date by which you decide. |
The audit table: one row per asset
| Asset | Owner | Last shared or opened | Stage or play it serves | Verdict | Action | Due date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Asset name and version] | [Named person, or "unassigned"] | [Date, and how often in the period] | [Stage, play or persona] | [Keep] | [Confirm with owner, set next review] | [Date] |
| [Asset name and version] | [Named person] | [Date, and how often in the period] | [Stage, play or persona] | [Fix] | [What specifically is wrong and who rewrites it] | [Date] |
| [Asset name and version] | [Named person] | [Little or no external sharing] | [Stage, play or persona] | [Resurface] | [Rename, re-tag, link it from the play that needs it] | [Date] |
| [Asset name, older version] | [Named person] | [Date, and how often in the period] | [Stage, play or persona] | [Merge] | [Point live links at the version you keep, then archive] | [Date] |
| [Asset name and version] | [Unassigned] | [No use in the period] | [Play it was built for] | [Retire] | [Archive, and note any gap it leaves in the play] | [Date] |
| [Asset name and version] | [Named person] | [Unknown, no tracking] | [Stage, play or persona] | [Investigate] | [Ask the people who would use it, decide by the date] | [Date] |
Prefer a file? Both downloads are free and ungated.
A worked example
Example: fictional company
The same template filled in for an invented company, before a platform change. Every number below is this company's own count from its own systems; none of it is a benchmark and none of it is drawn from the source cited above.
Harborview Metrics audited its shared drive before moving to a managed repository. The drive held several hundred files; the enablement lead scoped the audit to the assets the team's three main plays actually point at, and judged usage over the previous quarter. The audit ended with nine retirements, fourteen fixes, two merges and a named owner on everything kept, which is the part that made the migration smaller. Those counts are Harborview's own.
Harborview Metrics: audit scope
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Why this audit is happening | The shared drive is being replaced. Whatever moves across becomes the new library. |
| What is in scope | Buyer-facing content for the three main plays: platform overview, competitive and industry. |
| What is out of scope | Internal onboarding material, which is being handled by the onboarding plan instead. |
| Review period | The previous quarter. |
| Where usage evidence comes from | Trackable share links for the last six weeks, plus files attached to CRM opportunities. The drive itself reports nothing. |
| Who gives the verdict | Dana Okafor, Enablement Lead, with the asset owner in the room. |
| Where retired assets go | An archive folder with read access for everyone and no search indexing. |
Rows from Harborview's audit
| Asset | Owner | Last shared or opened | Stage or play it serves | Verdict | Action | Due date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform overview deck v4 | Dana Okafor | Eleven days ago, shared often in the period | Discovery, all plays | Keep | Owner confirms the integration slide is still accurate | 12 Nov |
| Platform overview deck v2 | Unassigned | Seven months ago, twice in the period | Discovery | Merge | Point the two live links at v4, then archive v2 | 5 Nov |
| Security and data-handling one-pager | Grace Lindqvist | Three days ago, shared often in the period | Validation | Keep | Owner re-reads it each quarter; next review set | 30 Oct |
| Competitor comparison sheet | Sam Whitley | Two days ago, shared often in the period | Competitive play | Fix | Two competitor rows describe last year's packaging; product marketing rewrites | 19 Nov |
| Return-on-investment worksheet | Priya Nair | Never shared externally | Business case | Resurface | Rename to the words reps actually search for, link it from the business case play | 14 Nov |
| Manufacturing customer story | Unassigned | Fourteen months ago, once in the period | Industry play | Retire | Archive, and flag that the industry play now has no proof point | 5 Nov |
| Implementation timeline PDF | Dana Okafor | Unknown; the drive records nothing | Validation | Investigate | Ask the three AEs who mention it on calls, then decide | 7 Nov |
| Packaging summary (pre-rename) | Martin Hale | Five days ago, shared often in the period | Negotiation | Fix | Two tiers were renamed in July; finance supplies the current wording | 31 Oct |
| Launch webinar recording | Unassigned | No use in the period | None | Retire | Archive; the product it demonstrates has been rebuilt since | 5 Nov |
Example: fictional company. Ferncastle Analytics, Harborview Metrics, Marlow & Finch Logistics and every person named in this example are invented for illustration. Any resemblance to real companies or people is coincidental.
How to run a sales content audit
Write down what the audit is for
A migration audit, a budget audit and a repositioning audit cover different assets and end in different documents. Name the reason and the person who will act on the result, in one sentence, at the top of the sheet.
Scope by play and stage, not by folder
Auditing a drive means auditing whatever happens to be in it, including things nobody has claimed since the last reorganisation. Start from the plays and stages you sell with, list what each one needs, and audit the assets that answer to those. What is left over is the interesting part of the list.
Get usage evidence, even when the system cannot report it
If your repository has no usage data, build a proxy rather than guessing. Send everything through trackable share links for a few weeks, pull the files attached to opportunities in the CRM, and ask each rep, separately, which assets they sent in their last few deals. Three weak sources that agree beat one strong opinion.
Write the decision rule before you open the list
Agree what counts as used, what counts as current and who can overrule a verdict, while the discussion is still abstract. Afterwards every rule change looks like a defence of a particular asset, usually one somebody wrote.
Separate bad from unfindable
An accurate asset that nobody opens may have a naming, tagging or placement problem rather than a content problem. Retiring it destroys work and leaves the gap in place. Resurface it instead: rename it to the words reps search for, tag it to the play, and link it from where the play lives.
Archive rather than delete
Archiving removes an asset from search and from sellers' reach while keeping it recoverable, which is what makes a decisive verdict safe to give. It also keeps the record of what was in circulation and when, which matters if a buyer asks about something they were sent. Deleting saves nothing worth having and makes the next retirement harder to agree.
Close every row and book the next review
An audit ends in a list of actions with owners and dates, reviewed like any other work. Put the next review in the calendar before this one closes, because the library starts drifting the day after you finish.
Common sales content audit mistakes
Stopping at the list
A complete inventory with no verdicts is the most common outcome and the easiest to mistake for progress. Nothing has changed in the library.
Auditing the folders instead of the plays
Starting from the drive tells you what exists. Starting from the plays tells you what is missing, which is usually the more expensive finding.
No decision rule
Without an agreed rule, each row becomes a negotiation with whoever made the asset, and the assets with the most senior authors survive.
Deleting instead of archiving
Deletion makes the verdict feel final and makes everyone cautious about giving one. Archiving gets the same result and can be undone.
Treating age as the verdict
An old asset that still gets shared and is still accurate is a keep. A deck from last month that contradicts current packaging is a fix. The date is evidence, not a decision.
Retiring quietly
If reps find an asset gone with no notice and no replacement, they keep private copies, and the next audit is auditing the wrong library. Say what was retired and what to use instead.
How Revspire makes the next audit smaller
The hard part of an audit is the evidence, not the judgement. Most of the work goes into reconstructing what sellers actually used from share links, email and memory, and that work has to be repeated the next time because nothing recorded it.
Revspire Content Hub is a governed repository: each asset has an owner and a version, and the record of what was shared, opened and attached to a deal is already there, so the usage column of the audit is a report rather than a fortnight of asking people. Versioning keeps links already sent pointing at the current file, which is what stops the merge verdict coming back every year.
Archiving removes an asset from search and from sellers' reach without destroying it, so a retirement is reversible and the audit record stays intact. Owners and review dates mean the next audit starts from a shorter list of open questions instead of from the whole library.
Sales content audit template FAQs
What is the difference between a sales content audit and a content inventory?
An inventory lists what exists and is finished when the list is complete. An audit judges each asset against the play or stage it serves and ends in a verdict with an owner and a date: retire, fix, resurface, merge or keep. An inventory is usually the first step of an audit, not a substitute for one.
How often should you audit sales content?
Once a year for the whole library is enough for most teams, with a shorter check whenever positioning, packaging or the sales process changes. If every audit is a large project, the problem is that nothing is being retired in between, not that the audit is too infrequent.
How do you audit sales content when you cannot see what sellers use?
Build a proxy. Route sharing through trackable links for a few weeks, pull the files attached to opportunities in your CRM, and ask each seller privately which assets they sent in their last few deals. Where the three disagree, mark the row as investigate and set a date to decide rather than guessing.
Should you delete unused sales content?
Archive it instead. Archiving takes an asset out of search and out of sellers' reach while keeping it recoverable, which makes a clear verdict safe to give and keeps a record of what was in circulation. Delete only duplicates you have already replaced and files you are certain were never sent to a buyer.
Who should own a sales content audit?
Whoever can make a retirement stick, usually enablement or revenue operations, working with the owner of each asset. Product marketing gives the verdict on accuracy and message, sellers supply the evidence of what they actually send, and one named person signs off the list so it does not stall asset by asset.
Related templates and reading
- Free templateSales playbook templateA B2B sales playbook outline: ICP, personas, stages with exit criteria, discovery questions, plays for common situations and objection responses.
- Free templateMessaging framework templateA B2B message house: positioning statement, value proposition, three pillars with proof, persona messages and answers to the questions buyers ask.
- Free templateSales battlecard templateA one-page card per competitor: why you win, where they are strong, landmine questions, objection responses and pricing guardrails.
- Free templateMutual action plan templateA shared, dated plan from discovery to go-live, with a buyer owner and a seller owner on every milestone.
- Revspire data: how much content goes unused, and what winsSales content benchmark
- Revspire data: how current, approved and used content isSales content governance benchmark
- Tool: size the unused part of your own libraryUnused content cost calculator
Sources
- Forrester, A Call For Zero-Waste B2B Marketing (citing Forrester's Portfolio Marketing Survey, 2023) (2026-10-24 (accessed); survey fielded 2023, sample size not stated)