“Thank you for submitting your proposal for our capability development project. We appreciate the time and effort your team invested in preparing the proposal. After careful consideration, we have decided to proceed with another vendor whose proposal more closely aligns with our current needs and strategic direction. This decision was not easy, given the high quality of all the submissions we received.” I have stopped crying now, but this is the response I got from the buyer. Obviously, I have looked back on this deal and have tried to fathom what went wrong. They contacted us, so that means they were a hot prospect looking around for possible providers. I met with them face to face to ascertain what they wanted. This proved to be a little tricky because they were a bit vague on what they actually wanted. As is often the case with HR people, they are casting a broad net to see what they can drag in, because they themselves don’t have a lot of expertise regarding possible content. I duly took copious notes, suggested some things during that first meeting to see if there was any interest. There was interest, but looking back, I wonder now if that was only because they didn’t have a clear idea of what they wanted, so everything sounds good in that case. I didn’t just send them the proposal by email. I organised a second face-to-face meeting to walk them through the proposal, so I could gauge their body language and deal with any issues on the spot if they were unclear or uncertain about the contents. All textbook stuff. I left that meeting feeling like I had the winning formula for them, so I was devastated when I got this rejection. Was it the money? It could have been, because my pricing was 16% higher than what they spent with another company for the previous year’s training. I didn’t think that was outrageously different though, and I tried to assuage the price rise with loading on the value we provide. When the HR people see the training supply as a commodity, however, with no differentiation, then price becomes the easiest tool to wield. I could have just matched the price with what they paid the previous year, but if you believe in what you are doing, you have to defend the quality, the brand, and the differentiation you bring to the equation. It is a risk and in this case, it didn’t fly. Was it the content? This is hard to say because their needs were open and broad. They didn’t really have a clear picture of what they wanted, which was good and bad. Good, because it opened up a lot of possibilities and bad because it opened up too many possibilities. We all have our limitations as suppliers and our areas of strength. We tend to work within certain frameworks, because that is the content we are most familiar with and most confident in. It is always better to have a buyer who is very specific about what they want, and there is the downside that you don’t have it at all. That is okay, because that at least tells you why you failed to get this deal. It is that buyer vagary which is frustrating, because you could have made the deal but you are never really sure at the end as to why you didn’t. Was the chemistry not there with the buyers? I would say in this case I was too confident about the chemistry. I thought I did a good job in both meetings with connecting with the two HR representatives. One of the problems with chemistry, though, is that it isn’t a huge differentiator and it is easy for a rival to match you in this element. Salespeople, by definition, are good with people, good communicators and we are all the same in that regard. Maybe my successful rival was equally charming and engaging and what I was doing wasn’t a big enough differentiator to make a difference in the end. One thing which on reflection may have been a mistake is we spoke in English. We could have chosen either language, but one of them seemed to want to speak in English and the more junior person in Japanese. It may have been better for me to speak in Japanese with them. There were no communication issues with our conversation, but it may be a comfort factor which I could have paid more attention to. This was a multinational company so English is expected by people in their roles, but we are still in Japan. I don’t believe this was a deal breaker at all, but it is something to consider. The argument can both ways also that speaking in English with a multinational company emphasises your suitability for them over a pure Japanese domestic supplier. It is not definitive, but something I will pay more careful attention to going forward. Can I get a clear answer as to why the deal didn’t get done? Basically no. The buyers don’t want to get into justifying their decision for you. They have taken it and they have told you there were multiple options and they chose another one rather than you. In these cases, I just write back ...
