Latest / Sales Leadership with Fexingo: Quota Carriers, Sales Managers, and Revenue Teams / How to Sell Against a Competitor Already in the Building
Transcript
- Lucas: You've done the discovery calls, you've built rapport, you've even got a product demo scheduled — and then your champion leans in and whispers, 'Just so you know, Marketing already uses Competitor X. They love it. But procurement might be open to a second source.' Luna: Oof. The incumbent is already inside the building. That's a different game than selling into a greenfield account. Lucas: Completely different. And most reps make the same mistake: they either trash the competitor — which makes them sound petty — or they go into appeasement mode and start discounting. Neither works. Luna: So what's the play when you're the challenger trying to carve out a space against an entrenched vendor? Lucas: There's a framework I've seen work at companies like Salesforce and HubSpot. It's called counter-positioning. The core idea is: you don't try to out-feature the incumbent. You reframe the entire conversation so that the incumbent's strength becomes irrelevant. Luna: Give me a concrete example. Let's say I'm selling a cloud-based endpoint security platform, and the prospect already uses CrowdStrike on the IT side. Lucas: Perfect example. CrowdStrike is great at detection and response — that's their core strength. So you don't go in saying 'We have better detection.' That's a losing argument because their data shows CrowdStrike works. Instead, you acknowledge that: 'CrowdStrike is fantastic for what it does. But the problem your company is trying to solve — lateral movement after a breach — requires a different approach: identity-based microsegmentation.' Luna: So you're not saying they made a bad choice. You're saying the choice was right for a different problem. Lucas: Exactly. That's the first step: acknowledge the incumbent's legitimate strengths. It builds credibility. The second step is isolate the gap — the specific use case that the competitor can't address well. In our example, CrowdStrike doesn't do microsegmentation natively. So you frame your product not as a replacement, but as a complementary layer. Luna: And the third step? Lucas: Build a coalition with the person who invited you in. That champion — the one who whispered the heads-up — is your ally. But you need to help them make the case internally. Give them a one-pager that compares the two solutions on the specific gap, not a head to head feature grid. Show how your product solves a problem that procurement may not even know exists. Luna: What's the typical objection you get when you try this approach? Lucas: The most common is: 'We've already invested six figures in CrowdStrike. We can't just switch.' That's the sunk cost fallacy in action. And you don't fight it by saying 'sunk cost is a fallacy.' You reframe: 'I'm not asking you to rip and replace. I'm asking you to allocate 20% of your endpoint budget to a solution that addresses the specific gap your team identified. That's a pilot, not a migration.' Luna: So you lower the perceived risk. Instead of a full displacement, it's a trial in one department. Lucas: Right. And once you get that foot in the door, you over-deliver on the pilot. Make the champion look like a hero. Then the second phase — maybe six months later — you have data to show that your solution reduces a specific metric. That's when you can talk about expanding the relationship. Luna: I've seen this play out in real time. At a previous company, we were trying to get into a bank that used a legacy mainframe tool. We couldn't displace it, but we found a gap in their analytics pipeline. We pitched a pilot for a single use case. That pilot turned into a million-dollar deal over two years. Lucas: That's the counter-positioning arc: small entry, huge eventual footprint. The key is patience. Most reps want to win the whole deal in one call. But when there's an incumbent, you win by not trying to win everything at once. Luna: You know, this reminds me of something. If these conversations have helped you sharpen your approach even a little, we've got a listener-supported model that keeps this show ad-free. People can support us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a simple way to say the show matters. And honestly, it's what lets us keep digging into these frameworks instead of chasing ads. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small gesture that goes a long way. And we don't do perks or shout-outs — just the satisfaction of knowing you're part of keeping this resource open. But back to the play: one tactical detail I want to emphasize is how you handle the 'We've already invested too much' line without triggering defensiveness. Luna: Please. That's the moment most reps stumble. Lucas: Here's the phrasing I've seen work: 'I understand. And honestly, that investment is exactly why you should consider a small pilot with us — because if we can prove we reduce your mean time to containment by even 30%, that six-figure investment in CrowdStrike becomes even more valuable. It frees up their capacity to focus on what they do best.' Notice: I'm not saying CrowdStrike is bad. I'm saying adding us makes them better. Luna: That's smart — you align yourself with the incumbent's success. It's almost like a co-opetition framing. Lucas: Exactly. The prospect isn't choosing between you and CrowdStrike. They're choosing between the current setup and a slightly more complex setup that covers a blind spot. Complexity is a real objection, so you need to address it head-on. 'We'll handle the integration. Your team does nothing. We'll even show the CrowdStrike team how our APIs mesh with theirs.' Luna: That removes the friction objection. And it positions you as a partner, not a rival. Lucas: Right. And let's talk about timing. When is the best moment in the sales cycle to use counter-positioning? I'd say it's not the first call. You want to have built enough trust that your champion feels comfortable sharing the incumbent's name. If you try to force it too early, you come off as combative. Luna: So the first call is about discovery and rapport. Second call, you might start probing for competitive landscape. Third call, you counter-position. Lucas: Broadly, yes. But sometimes the prospect volunteers the info early. In that case, you can start the framing sooner, but you still want to validate their choice before you pivot to the gap. Acknowledge first, then isolate. Luna: What about when the incumbent is a free tool? Like a company using a free tier of something — how does that change the play? Lucas: Free is actually easier to displace because there's no sunk cost in dollars. But there's a sunk cost in time and habit. People have built workflows around that free tool. So you need to show that the switching cost is worth it — not just in features, but in time saved. 'I know you've been using Zapier's free plan for a year. But every month you spend five hours building workarounds for the 100-task limit. Our tool eliminates that. You'll save those five hours in the first week.' Luna: So you reframe the cost of staying as higher than the cost of switching. Lucas: Exactly. And you quantify it. Vague benefits don't displace incumbents. Specific numbers do. 'You're spending 60 hours a year on workarounds. That's $3,000 of your time at a $50/hour burden rate. Our tool costs $2,000 a year. You net positive in month one.' Luna: That's a compelling math story. But what about emotional attachment? Some teams love their tools like they love their favorite sports team. Lucas: You don't attack the attachment. Instead, you redirect it. 'I get it — you guys have built a lot of muscle memory around that tool. That's actually a sign of a great team. The question is: is that muscle memory helping you hit your Q4 goals, or is it holding you back from a new capability?' You're not criticizing their choice; you're inviting them to self-assess. Luna: Self-assessment is a powerful framing because it puts the prospect in control. They feel like they're making the decision, not being sold to. Lucas: Exactly. And once they acknowledge a gap, you're no longer a vendor — you're a partner helping them solve a problem they've identified. That's the ideal position to be in. Luna: Alright, so let's recap the counter-positioning playbook for someone who's about to walk into a competitive displacement situation. Step one? Lucas: Acknowledge the incumbent's strengths. Genuinely. 'CrowdStrike has best-in-class detection. That's why your IT team chose it.' Luna: Step two? Lucas: Isolate the gap. 'But your specific challenge — lateral movement — requires a different approach.' Luna: Step three? Lucas: Build a coalition. Give your champion the tools to sell internally — a one-pager, a pilot proposal, a cost-benefit analysis. And help them navigate the sunk cost objection by framing a pilot as low-risk, high-upside. Luna: And always remember: you're not asking them to divorce their current vendor. You're asking them to see you as a complementary partner. That's a much easier yes. Lucas: Exactly. One final thought: this approach works best when you've truly identified a unique gap. If there's no real differentiation, no amount of framing will save you. So do your homework — find the crack in the incumbent's armor. And then make it bigger. Luna: Good luck out there. And as always, we'd love to hear how it goes — what works, what doesn't. That's how the playbook evolves. Lucas: Agreed. Until next time.