ACCOUNT RESEARCH FOR DATA-CENTER AND COLOCATION PROVIDERS SELLERS

Your racks are not all ready for a better address.

Find accounts whose workloads, location, security needs and operating-cost baseline make a data-center move worth evaluating—before migration scope and readiness become hand-waving.

Find my buyers Model the buyer’s ROI

The accounts. The business case. The next move.

ILLUSTRATIVE BUYER-VALUE PATH / NOT LIVE ACTIVITY
  1. 01Workload and site fit
  2. 02Documented cost baseline
  3. 03Migration readiness
  4. 04Evidence → account report
Fit is a hypothesis.
Evidence supports the next move.
01 / NEXTA plausible account is only the start.

THE PAIN / NOT ANOTHER GENERIC LIST

A rack is not a migration plan

Before selling time becomes sunk time, test the obstacles.

The cost is hiding in several budgets

Hardware, licenses, facility space, support and network spend are scattered, making avoidable on-prem costs hard to establish.

A poor fit travels badly

Workload dependencies, performance needs, latency, compliance and security requirements can make a seemingly simple move the wrong move.

Interest is not readiness

Incomplete inventories, unclear migration scope, missing cost assumptions and unowned next steps can stall a promising conversation.

02 / NEXTThe obstacle becomes a research question.

WHAT ALMA HUNTER DELIVERS

Qualify the move before quoting the move

  1. 01

    Workload fit, not just server count

    Surface workload architecture, dependencies, performance needs, location and latency constraints, and security or compliance requirements.

  2. 02

    A defensible cost baseline

    Compare documented current operating costs with prospective service and migration costs; label assumptions and gaps instead of promising savings.

  3. 03

    Readiness signals buyers can act on

    Clarify inventory quality, scope, stakeholders, timing and migration-cost assumptions to distinguish exploration from a buying process.

FROM PROFILE TO A SUPPORTED NEXT MOVE
ALMA HUNTER / ACCOUNT REPORT
01Business fitEvidence + unknowns
02Buyer ROIFull cost ↔ realized value
03Technical fitEvidence + unknowns
04IntentEvidence + unknowns
05TimingEvidence + unknowns
06Decision teamEvidence + unknowns
BANTBudget · Authority · Need · Timing
BUDGET UNKNOWNHOLD / VALIDATE

Illustrative qualification, not a researched account. Unknowns stay unknown.

03 / NEXTA better-supported account gives your team something to measure.

THE KPIs / TRACK, DO NOT PROMISE

Better evidence.
Clearer sales decisions.

Metrics to monitor—not guaranteed lifts, meetings or sales.

TRACK 01

Workload-fit coverage

Share of reviewed target accounts with documented workload, dependency, performance, location and security-fit information; a research-completeness target, not a conversion lift.

TRACK 02

Cost-baseline completeness

Share of reviewed accounts with sourced or buyer-confirmed on-prem cost categories and explicit gaps; a learning target, not proof of savings.

TRACK 03

Readiness evidence rate

Share of reviewed accounts with evidence for inventory, scope, decision stakeholders, timing and migration-cost planning; not a forecast of purchase or migration.

04 / NEXTThe buyer still has to win. Test the economics.

THE BUYER’S RETURN FROM YOUR SOLUTION

If the numbers don’t work,
the pitch won’t fix them.

This models your buyer’s return from your solution—not your revenue from buying leads.

YOUR BUYER’S ROI / FICTIONAL INPUTS

Change the inputs. See what the case needs.
Purchase/setup + installation, integration, training and internal implementation.
Recurring fees, energy, maintenance or operations not already included above.
Potential annual units before the realized share below.
Economic unit value. Use the defensible value described below.
How much potential benefit is actually realized; not an assumed success rate.

YEAR ONE / USD / MODEL, NOT A FORECAST

386.5%Modeled buyer ROI
Full year-one cost$37,000
Gross realized benefit$180,000
Net year-one benefit
$143,000
Year-one break-even units
4.1
Simple upfront payback
1.8 months

Positive year-one model. Validate every assumption.

Illustrative, editable assumptions—not validated results, guarantees or Alma service pricing.

Make the value real.

Illustrative fictional USD inputs only. This estimates a BUYER's first-year economics for deploying a prospective data-center/colocation service: annual gross benefit = workload count × estimated avoidable annual on-prem cost per workload × realized share; year-one cost = upfront migration/transition cost + annual ongoing service cost; net = benefit − cost; ROI = net ÷ cost × 100. Costs are counted once. The realized share is the share of estimated cost avoided, not the probability that a project succeeds. Validate scope, baseline, service pricing, migration labor, overlap, taxes, contract terms and timing with the buyer; savings are not assured.

See formulas, evidence needed and research context

Gross benefit = potential units × economic unit value × realized share.

Full year-one cost = full upfront deployment + annual operating cost. Net = benefit − full cost. Year-one ROI = net ÷ full cost × 100. Each cost is subtracted once.

Simple upfront payback = upfront cost ÷ (annual benefit − annual operating cost) × 12 months, only if annual net benefit is positive. It assumes steady annual realization, not a discounted cash-flow forecast. Year-one break-even units = full year-one cost ÷ realized unit value.

Microsoft's workload-assessment guidance calls for collecting performance and usage baselines, documenting security and identity configurations, mapping internal and external dependencies, and assessing compliance, SLAs, RPOs and RTOs. AWS's migration-assessment guidance describes assessing current on-premises costs, inventory and scope, then configuring assumptions and comparing scenarios. These support assessing evidence and documenting assumptions; they do not validate the fictional calculator inputs or establish savings for an individual buyer.

These sources explain the economic mechanism and measurement—not Alma Hunter performance:

  • Microsoft Azure Cloud Adoption Framework: Assess workloads for cloud migration — Recommends documenting workload architecture and components; collecting CPU, memory, disk, network, response-time and SLA baselines; recording security, identity and encryption configurations; mapping internal and external dependencies; and assessing compliance, SLAs, RPOs and RTOs. Supports page emphasis on workload fit and readiness evidence, not colocation-specific outcomes.
  • AWS Transform: Migration assessments — States assessments evaluate cost, feasibility and business value of migrating on-premises infrastructure; identifies hardware, licenses, data-center space, support and network among current costs; and describes inventory review, scope management, scenario assumptions and scenario comparison. Vendor documentation supports assessment method, not independent proof of savings or a specific provider's performance.
  • NIST Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap, SP 500-291r2 — States security spans cloud architecture layers and is generally shared between provider and consumer; consumers must ensure the offering satisfies security requirements and compliance rules, and jurisdiction can affect requirements. Also notes cost-effectiveness matters in choosing cloud solutions. This informs security/compliance fit and buyer-side cost evaluation; it is cloud guidance, not a colocation procurement benchmark.

FROM THE FOUNDER / NOT A CUSTOMER TESTIMONIAL

Built from the seller’s side.

“Finding companies was never the hard part.”

Scott Hawkyard · Founder, Alma Hunter

A buyer needs a supported business case—not another profile match.

THE NEXT MOVE

Find the buyers.
Bring the case.

Tell us what you sell and who buys it. We agree scope, price and delivery before payment. An inquiry does not start research.

Find my buyers
ALMA HUNTER / YOUR ACCOUNT REPORT
Buyer value.Evidence.Your next move.

Accounts reviewed against your brief.
Unknowns left visible.