Fortunately, it’s not very often you get to conduct win/loss programs during a global pandemic - but doing so has uncovered interesting new dynamics and overnight shifts in priorities and perceptions.

The business environment remains fraught with uncertainty. Millions of people are out of work. And while the stock market’s rise since March has highlighted a number of SaaS winners, many technology businesses are still looking for a path forward - particularly those who service industries that have felt the biggest impact such as travel and hospitality.

With B2B SaaS and technology companies now cautiously looking ahead, everyone is expecting a “new normal”. But the outlines of what that new normal will look like still aren’t clear. There are still so many unknowns. We’re in the early stages of resurgent first wave of the virus in new parts of the United States. Will the potential second wave return to other parts of the world in the fall? How will business react in either case? And how quickly, if at all, will certain industries bounce back?

With that in mind, we thought it would be helpful to share some common macro themes we’ve picked up while conducting hundreds of Win/Loss interviews for our clients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. If you have questions about our findings, please reach out!

Buyers are Prioritizing Technology Closest to Revenue

Almost every investment is linked to driving more revenue, but some technology is more directly correlated and its impact more measurable than others. Some solutions are monetized and it doesn’t get closer to revenue than that. Others, like CRM or a marketing automation platform fuel daily operations. But many solutions nibble at the edges, a few steps removed from direct revenue impact.

Perhaps the biggest shift we heard in interviews as the lockdown started was the perception of what defined mission critical technology.

Any buying cycles for technology that is core to the business remains unchanged. If the software is driving day-to-day business operations, or the hardware underpins the product offering itself, the buying dynamics are relatively consistent.

In some instances, where an upgrade or “rip and replace” of a competitive offering is under consideration, you’ll likely find buyers pausing their efforts unless they were already deep into their evaluations. The appetite for “doing more” has been replaced with “making do” with what they have for the time being. More recently, some evaluations of new core technology are picking up where they left off, but the overall approach to doubling down or overhaul is one of caution.

Other internal initiatives, such as those driving analytics and business intelligence efforts, or additional “nice to have” tools in the sales and marketing stack are on indefinite hold. While these initiatives were intended to help extend a business’s understanding of their market, create new efficiencies and nibble at the edges, many prospects (and more specifically, leadership and finance teams at these companies) now view these as investments that land too far away from revenue. Measuring the immediate impact and ROI is too nebulous, and budgets for these items has been frozen.

Brand Perception 

Buyers that previously may have been willing to take a chance on an upstart company before the pandemic are more cautious about which horse to bet on. Concerns about the longevity of the vendor themselves is playing a bigger role, with some buyers worried they may invest time and money in a company that goes belly up, leaving their solution suddenly unsupported and siloed. Some buyers express concerns about smaller companies getting acquired and consolidation being an outcome of an uncertain economy. Most buyers view acquisitions as a net-negative for product innovation, consistency and quality of service - and this perception has led more buyers to think twice about what brand they are buying into.

More buyers suggested financial and long-term viability has become a bigger part of their criteria, with many wanting to understand the finances, leadership stability, and roadmap for the vendors they are evaluating.

We have also perceived that buyers have stronger reactions to sales engagement. No one likes being “sold to”, and the “end of quarter deal” has never been popular because it puts the needs of the seller above that of the buyer. But in these times, buyers are especially sensitive to this. More than a few people we’ve spoken to suggested they had written off a vendor forever based on a tone-deaf interaction.

Buyers with stalled projects or tighter budgets suggested that now is the time to listen, understand their business needs, and respect the fact that there may not be an immediate deal. But what you do now for prospects will strengthen relationships, your brand, and long term results.

Payment Terms

Cash is king in a crisis, but we have found that the answer to which pricing model and what type of payment terms are best suited for this economic climate is a resounding “it depends.” You might assume an Opex subscription model is viewed more favorably than a large upfront Capital expense when budgets are tight. However, many buyers expressed little change in their approach to getting the best value for their money, and a clear understanding of what the total cost of ownership would be. For some this actually meant a desire for a lower upfront expense and avoiding an ongoing subscription, which was perceived to carry a premium over the life of the product.

More than anything buyers appreciated vendors that were willing to work with them on pricing terms. Positive feedback was given to those vendors that offered extended POC and product trials, or offered more flexible net-payment terms. The key here is that vendors who changed their approach to benefit the customer were viewed much more favorably than those who did so to benefit their own quarterly results. Offering a “quarter end deal” almost never goes over well, pandemic or not -- but the contrast appears particularly egregious when a competitor takes a wholly different tact of offering net-90 payment terms that help the customer work around budgetary restrictions.

Win/Loss Always Matters

One thing that is clear is that B2B businesses that already had an edge in their market, aren’t taking their foot off the gas. They are focused on understanding their buyers. Many of these buyers are the same as before Covid-19 but with some shifting priorities. New buyers have also come into focus (Healthcare and Financial companies have more data requirements than ever). And many tried and true buyer segments are unlikely to be buyers again for some time. Change is the one constant, and while there has certainly been a lot more of it in 2020, what’s been so interesting is that the companies who ran consistent Win/Loss analysis before the pandemic are the ones who kept it running this year. The companies with the edge maintain it by listening to their buyers.

Over the years, we’ve found the attitude many companies have towards an ongoing Win/Loss program is that it would be a nice-to-have, but often stayed on their “should do” list. With big budgets it’s easy to hit revenue targets by casting a wide net and using a lot of time, people and money. These are all much more finite resources now, and ensuring that you’re placing your bets with the right product for the right prospects is critical. Knowing who the right prospects are and what their current priorities are requires talking to them.

In the middle of a pandemic, it makes sense to batten down the hatches and weather the storm. AND it’s the perfect time to conduct win/loss analysis so that you can run a smart, efficient business today, which is also positioned for rapid growth when you and the broader market are ready to hit the gas again.

How have your prospects’ priorities changed in the last 6 months?