In the Shadow of Sun Tzu - When to do Battle

If one considers the nuances of the buyer / seller opportunity lifecycle, it's a pretty safe bet that if a prospect organization is going to spend funds on a new business solution, they've already conducted to some degree their own analysis of the various vendors before going public with the vendor selection process. However, it’s important that the buying entity have multiple appropriate vendors respond to their proposal requests. It has long been whispered that some selection decisions are made prior to inviting in a group of qualified vendors to compete for the business.


This notion presents a serious dilemma for those who’d like to engage, but feel as if they’re not likely to get the chance to do so on a level field. Our thoughts are, if you commit yourself, your organization and reputation to combat, you’d better execute a plan that will ensure success. There is a high risk of failure in this scenario if one chooses to follow the rules as designated by the buyer, or the “unbiased” 3rd party consulting entity.  Here’s a thought for those who like to think tactically.  Change the rules of engagement, or don’t play.
Ask any salesperson who’s ever carried a bag if they’ve heard the seductive whisper in their ear, "We're looking to buy and we're going to give you serious consideration." The seller quickly runs this 'steaming hot" lead up the flag pole and the appropriate organizational response has been to marshal the necessary resources and react by putting their best team on it. However, by being “reactive” a seller can easily squander an opportunity to control the field.  Thus begins the slippery path to sales perdition, the vendor showing its willingness to serve as column fodder. When invited to participate, many salespeople (and/or their managers) completely lose their critical thinking skills, abdicating power in the pursuit of checking a selection criteria box.

If a seller hasn’t participated in the creation of a buyer's initial buying vision, then there can be a reasonable assumption that someone else did, or, the buying entity has researched the web and formed their own conclusions without benefit of your input. In either scenario, the seller is merely a comparative column in the evaluation process.

With happy ears in full extension, sellers fall over themselves to accommodate the whims of the buyer, who probably has already mentally selected something else.

Consider this: If as a sales organization, management decides to commit the internal resources necessary to win, then salespeople should insist that the prospect’s organization provide them the opportunity to properly present products and services to those stakeholders (decision makers)   most impacted by the proposed change. It is, after all, a fair thing to ask, a very valid quid pro quo. If denied this reasonable request, it’s time to disqualify the opportunity.

Most people would agree that in a sales situation, the selling entity incurs significant costs just to compete. If not given the opportunity to expand the prospect's existing vision to one biased by the seller’s offering, why compete? It’s time to apply the qualification / disqualification litmus test. Are the existing rules of engagement fair? Are rigid rules in place restricting who a sales person can speak with? Are these rules unfair?

Has your sales team found itself blocked from interacting with true stakeholders – unable to demonstrate what they do best? Have your resources and efforts been spent on presenting to a "designated representative?" Our guess is that the engagement rules have been designed this way for a purpose. It is futile for anyone to attempt to sell to someone who can't buy. But, oh, how we try! In the fog of battle, unless the sales manager possesses an acute insight into the seller’s behavior under duress, the risk factors will be very high. 


At the risk of being cynical, if a selling organization is invited to compete in a competitive situation but hasn’t participated in the creation of the buyer’s initial vision, then what has been purported to be a level playing field, is probably skewed towards a competitor.

Continuing with this scenario, it’d be interesting to know just how many competing vendors are forecasting the same opportunity. In situations like this, a savvy salesperson may still have a trump card. Think of the prospect diligently preparing the columns in his vendor spreadsheet. Column A represents the vendor of choice - the favorite. However, this prospect actually needs the participation of several vendors to represent additional evaluation columns. This makes good business sense. Internal requirements (and in some cases, the law) demand a record of due diligence in the selection process. They certainly want to enhance their own negotiating & pricing position with the true vendor of choice.

Through the power of suggestion - happy ears, and other more nefarious means, they keep all competing vendors hopeful. Without realizing it, you've been pre-designated as a "Bronze Medalist" or, in some cases, the more exalted, "Silver Medalist," but to become the “Gold Medalist,” it may require the seller to break (or change) the rules

So salespeople beware! If it smells bad, or feels as if the fix is in, challenge the status quo. Ask for an audience with those key players in the buying organization who would be most impacted by the scope of your offering. If denied this reasonable request, walk away. Better yet, run like the wind and be vocal about it.

Chances are the seller's time and the selling organization’s resources will be squandered on this boondoggle. Why participate? Why not pursue something you have a fair chance of winning? Interestingly, a formal withdrawal or refusal to participate on the basis of fairness (or lack thereof), may compel the buyer to grant the necessary face-time.


If this hardball tactic is successful, and the audience request is granted, the seller is now afforded the opportunity to reengineer the existing vision to one that is now biased by the sellers' differentiator(s). If the seller succeeds at redefining the buyer’s perspective with a capability unique to his/her product, try the following tactic for grins and giggles. After proving to the stakeholders your offering's unique capabilities, insist (no guts, no glory) that the buyer have your competitor(s) demonstrate that same capability.  Crash and burn.