Many are too long, but okay, a lot are.
Some request specific information that any vendor would have to spend an inordinate amount of time on.
Then the prospect (you) places a timeframe when the RFP has to be returned, ignoring the fact that by having an extensive RFP and many questions that are not honestly relevant to what you want OR are so vague, a vendor says, “yes” to everything.
Depending on your vernacular, it would be unreasonable for any vendor to spend more than a week on an RFP or RFI.
I wouldn’t do it regardless of who you are—the simple fact is that the vendor is not guaranteed to win the deal or provide you with a demo.
Nor is there any awareness from the vendor if you have already selected someone or are forced to by a higher-up—perhaps your conglomerate friends.
Section 2
Should the potential client provide any insight beyond what they present?
I say no, but with caveats.
When a vendor receives a lengthy RFI/RFP, I consider long to be anything past 10 pages.
I say this because you should have seen the demo already and asked extensive questions, with requested follow-up, before deciding whether to use RFP or RFI—depending on your vernacular for the type.
Thus, seeking additional insight with that RFP – the term I prefer – zeros in on more specifics.
That said, many people nowadays, okay, even in the past, blast away an RFP without seeing the system first.
This is how you get the 50-page, 200-page RFPs—as a vendor and then as the potential buyer spending all this time.
Who has that much time?
You can get your AI agent or use ChatGPT, but that would be a huge mistake.
In the meantime, a vendor is placed into a situation nobody should be in.
Complete or not.
This gets back to the “What you don’t know.”
I mentioned caveats in this situation.
It would behoove you to decide whether you want to waste your time and the vendor’s time if you have zero interest in seeing the system.
I never understood why people base their whole decision-making process on sites such as G2, whereas there are comments from others who may or may not have used the system.
Plenty of us – including myself, receive these “We will give you an Amazon gift card for X” if you leave comments.
I get them from Trust Radius all the time.
Another site with comments.
You shouldn’t buy anything, let alone inquire about a system like purchasing something from Amazon.
When I present my awards, I aim to say, “Check out these systems for further analysis.”
If you see a potential fit, then move forward.
The potential fit isn’t just talking to the vendor; it is seeing a system demo.
Not the other way around.
I recommend this same strategy when you use FindAnLMS (my platform) with the awards or any other insight.
You can skip FAL, read my analysis, and contact the vendor in this manner.
The time point is where I am going here.
Section 3
The Salesperson – how much do they know about the system?
This is the biggest misnomer in the industry, and so many vendors have no idea it’s happening.
However, some vendors are aware of this and are okay with it.
Here is how it works – and surprise, it slides under what you don’t know.
You assume that the salesperson knows the system’s ins and outs—sans technical questions—because you think they have seen the entire system and asked questions to the product team, their head of sales, or someone in the company.
Fun fact – many do not.
When I say many, I am referencing the majority.
It is baffling how someone talks about the system in initial discussions if you ask but then lacks the information when you push deeper into the conversation.
If you are buying a house, the salesperson should know the ins and outs of the house.
Ditto on you taking your car to a mechanic.
A salesperson should be the initial expert here because you rely on them to present factual and accurate information.
This information will tell you whether to move forward and see the demo.
If not, you toss this system aside and look elsewhere.
How many times when you are viewing the demonstration, there is another person driving the system—i.e., showing you the system, following through on everything you ask, and knowing the system in detail?
If they do not know, they ask and tell you they will get back to you, which falls under the salesperson.
I can state the response rate for your inquiries that they do not know, and well follow-up is unacceptable.
I digress.
So someone is driving it. The term is often solutions consultant; however, a vendor will also refer to them in other terms.
The salesperson is on the call as well, I guess, seeing the demo and then answering any questions about X or Y.
Especially when it is the “I will follow up.”
I have been on calls where it is evident that the salesperson is doing something else rather than paying close attention to what you are asking.
This person, the salesperson, is your point of contact here.
The person who will impact you moving forward or not.
Is that what you want?
Section 4
The use case and getting back to the RFP will be huge factors.
I will bring back the RFP because the person completing the RFP isn’t always the salesperson.
I bet you didn’t know that.
Some vendors have another person who completes the RFP.
This person, you would assume, is more of an expert than the salesperson.
The vendor receives a lot of RFPs and they lack the time (remember above), so they have another person or multiple people handle it.
Many vendors see the same questions and then take a cut-and-paste approach.
Time here.
Let me ask you a question: What if the product management folks know more than the salesperson because new capabilities are being rolled out in short order or coming in, say, the next couple of quarters?
Do you believe the salesperson is aware of that?
The majority are not.
It is a silo game.
The same applies to the use case you present.
The more detailed you go – something I have written about and would happily send you an example to save you time.
A lack of details leads to a tornado of misinformation.
The vendor should have multiple people review that use case.
Yet, so many do not.
And that is a failure on their part.
You are unaware of this, or perhaps you never thought about it.
The team approach should be
- Salesperson – the more they know about the use case, the better it is for everyone
- Someone on the product team should know what is coming now and in the future because your use case may involve seeking items not yet available but in the pipeline.
- A technical expert from the vendor. Many people ask technical questions about the systems they need to connect to the platform because it currently does not.
- A support person—Many use cases fail to provide this as it relates to the impact of the current situation. If users are switching from another system or are new, they genuinely need to understand the process and mechanisms of a support department.
- A review team – Pick an expert from the company to review all this information and make sure it is 100% accurate based on the use case you provided
Realize that your decision-making will be based on that use case.
The vendors themselves are pushing to show that the use case aligns with what they can offer.
The demonstration should be intertwined with that use case, something a vendor should do instead of following a script or proceeding first as if it were a list.
Never tell a vendor your budget.
They all want to know if your use case, follow-up questions, and demonstration will drive how they present to try to land you.
Yes, in the use case, present the number of people you want in the system and whether you are going to roll it out to a few people and then move on.
Still, you are pigeonholing yourself into a box by providing the budget.
Section 5
The Price Game
Vendors go two ways about this: firstly, when it comes to the price they present to you.
It is either the assumption that you will further negotiate or the “discount” is a load of baloney because the price is a street price, which they never sell the system for.
I’m sure you have seen online ads or visited a site that offers a 25% discount on the retail price.
No, it isn’t.
Because that retail price point is magic beans, where the magic isn’t accurate – it’s just beans.
.
Now, consider that when a vendor says the system’s price is usually ABC, they give you a CDE discount.
They never pay attention to selling you the system at ABC unless they are just slimeballs, in which case, yeah, they will do it.
Then, other vendors go high, knowing or assuming that your procurement flows will negotiate or select a vendor at a lower price point.
Yet, they fail to recognize that you have procurement, but you are still the final decision maker.
Equally, there are companies where the decision maker isn’t the person who says they are the decision maker because, behind the scenes, there is a power struggle.
I’ve seen this with IT, who thinks the system is just another system like an ERP, and therefore, they should control it.
Plus, I have seen it where the shadow person has the CEO’s ear, and thus, even if you are running the department, that decision goes elsewhere.
The vendor is unaware of this.
This is especially true around you being the actual decision marker, regardless of IT, or you won’t have the power struggle or have procurement make the decision.
The procurement game is tricky because you may have the final say thus going high backfires.
As a vendor, you ask if the person you are talking to is the final decision-maker.
It can fail and irks the person.
Some people say they are the person who will make the final decision.
The vendor now knows.
Section 6
Pay Upfront, and we are buddies!
Don’t go into the active user angle.
It’s garbage.
Vendors either follow the long-time method of bundled pricing or go with range pricing.
Overwhelmingly, the vendors will require you to pay upfront.
Therefore, how do they know how many active users will be using the system?
I can count on my hands three times over to name vendors who invoice each month, and thus active implies – one is Eurekos.
I can count the number of vendors who will offset the cost with a semi-refund, but it goes into the second year as if you are dealing with a telecom.
It’s a shell game.
The idea that every vendor, and therefore the salesperson making this offer, should provide detailed pricing explanations is that they are psychic.
If they are, how come they haven’t won the lottery?
They are not knowledgeable about the active users when you pay upfront.
Too many people believe in focusing on the active user pitch, ignoring the final price they pay.
Did you know that?
Section 7
AI and your system to be or already your partner
Bottom Line
Knowing is crucial today.
A vendor should know what it is selling, how its salespeople are actually presenting it, and ensure that the salesperson is constantly being trained on the system.
For vendors who push the whole assessment piece in their systems or clients who want an assessment component in the platform, I often wonder why they do not test their salespeople on their knowledge of the system and its functionality.
Wouldn’t it be great to see their scores and ratings?
You can view all the salespeople at the company, read about their strengths and areas for improvement, see what content they are taking on product knowledge, and get a score.
Maybe Billy is outstanding in understanding the potential client’s needs and how to present them in a demo.
His score is 4.6
On the other hand, while polite, Steve never has the product team review the information you have presented. Instead, he relies on his gut to determine what is in the system.
Score? 3.5
The downside?
Steve works in your region, so you are stuck with him.
That would be a fantastic way to get to the truth.
And save you
A lot of
Time.
E-Learning 24/7