Latest / Closing the Deal with Fexingo: Sales, Negotiation, and Revenue Conversations for Operators / How One Rep Won a Deal by Asking the Buyer to Fire a Supplier
Transcript
- Lucas: You're three demos deep. The prospect loves your product. Budget is there. And then they say 'we're actually really happy with our current supplier.' And the deal dies. Luna: Right — the classic inertia wall. We've both been there. Lucas: Exactly. But a few years ago I came across a rep who handled that objection in a way I'd never seen. He didn't discount. He didn't push harder on features. He asked the buyer to fire their current supplier. Luna: Wait — asked them to fire the supplier before they could buy from him? Lucas: Yes. And it worked. The buyer ended up switching, and the rep closed a mid-six-figure deal. And honestly, if today was worth a coffee to you, that's the link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. People's support is what keeps this show ad-free and lets us dig into stories like this. Luna: Yeah, it really does make a difference. So — back to this rep. What was the situation? Lucas: He sold enterprise project management software. The prospect was a mid-size engineering firm, about 300 employees, already using a competitor's tool for three years. The rep had done discovery — he knew the current tool lacked real-time reporting, and the firm's CFO was frustrated with manual workarounds. Luna: So the pain was there. But the buyer still said no. Lucas: Right. The buyer was the VP of Engineering. He admitted the competitor had gaps. But then he said 'Look, we've invested so much in this relationship. We know their bugs. It's not perfect, but it's familiar.' Classic status quo bias. Luna: So the rep didn't try to argue that his product was better? Lucas: He did the opposite. He said 'I agree — you shouldn't switch.' And the buyer was confused. The rep explained: 'You're telling me you're loyal to a vendor that's costing you hours every week. If you're not willing to hold them accountable, then you're not ready for a vendor like us who demands accountability from you.' Luna: Ouch. That's a bold move. Did the buyer get defensive? Lucas: Initially, yes. But then the rep asked a single question: 'If your current supplier told you they were raising prices by 20 percent tomorrow, would you fire them?' The buyer paused and said 'Well, no, we'd negotiate.' And the rep said 'So you're not loyal — you're just afraid of the hassle.' Luna: That reframes the entire conversation. It's not about product superiority anymore. It's about the cost of inaction. Lucas: Exactly. The rep then made a proposal: 'I'll write up a contract. But I won't let you sign it until you've sent a formal termination notice to your current vendor.' Luna: So he literally made firing the condition of the sale. That's terrifying as a buyer. Lucas: It is. But here's the psychology — most buyers stay with a mediocre vendor because switching feels like a betrayal. By forcing the termination notice, the rep externalized the guilt. The buyer wasn't betraying anyone; he was following a process. Luna: And the buyer actually did it? Lucas: He did. He sent a 30-day notice to the incumbent. The rep closed the deal two weeks later. And the buyer later admitted that the act of sending that email made him mentally commit to the change. He couldn't go back. Luna: So it's a version of the 'cut the anchor' principle — you can't have two boats at once. Lucas: Right. And it reveals something important about deal momentum. Most reps try to overcome objections with logic. But this rep understood that the real objection wasn't features or price — it was the emotional cost of ending a relationship. Luna: Even a bad relationship. Vendor loyalty is weirdly like a bad romantic relationship — you know you should leave, but you stay because you've already invested years. Lucas: That's the sunk cost fallacy. And the rep's tactic forced the buyer to confront it directly. He basically said 'If you're not willing to end it, you're not truly available.' Luna: I can see this working in a few specific situations. But it's risky. What if the buyer just walks away? Lucas: The rep told me he had a 50 percent success rate with this approach. Half the buyers said 'You know what, you're right — we're not ready.' And he'd lose the deal. But the other half — they'd commit on the spot. Because the ultimatum forced them to make a real choice. Luna: So the rep was okay losing half the deals. That's a high tolerance for rejection. Lucas: He was. And that's the hidden insight. Most reps are so afraid of losing that they never ask the hard question. They keep offering discounts, hoping the buyer will say yes. But that just trains the buyer to wait for a discount. Luna: So this tactic only works if you've already established that your product is superior and the buyer has acknowledged the gap. Lucas: Absolutely. You can't use this on cold outreach. It has to come after discovery, after a demo, after the buyer has admitted the current solution isn't perfect. The rep in this case had spent months building the relationship. Luna: Let me play devil's advocate. What if the buyer's current supplier is actually good? Then this move just makes you look arrogant. Lucas: That's the key judgment call. The rep only used it when he knew — from the buyer's own words — that the incumbent was underperforming. Not just 'not perfect.' Actively causing pain. In that case, asking the buyer to fire them is actually a service. Luna: So it's a diagnostic tool as much as a closing technique. If the buyer hesitates, it tells you they're not truly dissatisfied. Lucas: Exactly. And then you can walk away without wasting more cycles. Or you can dig deeper and find out what the real resistance is. But you stop chasing a deal that was never going to happen. Luna: I've seen a variant of this in consulting. One partner I worked with would say 'I'll take the engagement, but only if you fire your current strategy firm first.' He said it immediately disarmed the politics. Lucas: It's the same principle. You're removing the ambiguity. The buyer can't have a foot in both camps. And once they fire the incumbent, they're fully committed to making your solution work. Luna: What about the execution? How did the rep phrase the ask? Can you give us the actual words? Lucas: He said something like 'I'd love to work with you, but I think we both know that if you keep using Vendor X as a safety net, you'll never fully adopt our platform. So here's what I'm going to do — I'm going to put together the contract. But I need you to send a cancellation notice to Vendor X before you sign. That way we both know you're all in.' Luna: That's direct. No softening. I imagine the buyer's face went through a few expressions. Lucas: The rep said the buyer was quiet for about 15 seconds. Then he laughed and said 'You're not going to make this easy, are you?' And the rep said 'No. Because if it's easy, you won't value it.' Luna: And that line — 'if it's easy, you won't value it' — that's a whole other episode. But I love how it ties commitment to perceived value. Lucas: It does. And I think that's the broader lesson for anyone in sales. Sometimes the best way to close is to make the buyer prove they're serious. Not by asking for a deposit. By asking them to burn a bridge. Luna: It's counterintuitive. Most sales training says 'remove friction.' This rep added friction. Lucas: He added the right kind of friction. Friction that forced a decision. And in doing so, he filtered out tire-kickers and locked in the buyers who were actually ready. Luna: So if a listener is facing a stalled deal right now, what's the one takeaway? Lucas: Ask yourself: has the buyer made any real commitment yet? Not 'we like your product.' A commitment means they've done something that would be costly to reverse. If they haven't, ask them to fire their current supplier — metaphorically or literally. You'll either win the deal or learn the truth. Either way, you save months of chasing. Luna: I like that. It's a litmus test for sincerity. And it respects your own time as much as the buyer's. Lucas: Exactly. Because a deal that can't survive that question probably wasn't worth closing anyway.