Marcos Rivera

Most B2B SaaS leaders build value.
But forget to capture it.

Let me guess:

- You’re guessing your price
- You’re losing revenue
- Scaling feels stuck

What if pricing could drive growth?

Here’s what I help you do:

→ Capture more value
→ Make pricing your edge
→ Build pricing confidence

Why should you trust me?

- 25+ years in tech pricing
- Ex–Head of Pricing at Vista Equity
- Priced 400+ SaaS products
- Author of *Street Pricing*
- Trusted by MBAs and SaaS CEOs

Beyond coaching, 

I’m an:

→ Investor 
→ Speaker
→ Entrepreneur 

passionate about helping businesses unlock their full revenue potential.

Ready to take control of your most powerful growth lever—pricing?

Checkout my featured section.

Founder and CEO

We help growth-stage B2B SaaS companies design the right pricing model to scale up

Ready to shift your pricing from guesswork to framework?

For the first time in my career, I lowered our growth forecast.

A few weeks into 2026, and I made a decision that felt counterintuitive: we're going to grow less this year. On purpose.

Here's my thinking.

I've been watching F1 lately, there's a scene in the new movie where Brad Pitt tells the pit crew: "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."

That line stuck with me.

What got us to 25 people and on the way to $10M bootstrapped isn't going to get us to the next stage. 

We're about to launch our first product. 
We're shifting from pure services to technology-enabled transformation.

That's a pivot. And you can't pivot at full speed.
The sports analogy holds up everywhere. 
Tennis, basketball, skiing, you have to slow down before you change direction. 

Get your balance underneath you. 
Build momentum. 
Then move.

Business is no different.

Here's what slowing down actually looks like for us:
→ Keeping quality at 98% satisfaction instead of chasing volume.
→ Reducing the number of engagement types. Fewer SKUs, less variability.
→ Saying no to projects that don't fit the middle of our fairway, even when the money's good.

Why? Because it's way harder to recover from a quality drop than a revenue dip. 
One bad quarter of delivery can undo years of reputation.

If you're considering a similar move, here's my framework:

1/ Identify the pivot. 
2/ Reduce variability first. 
3/ Protect what got you here. 
4/ Get alignment before you announce. 

The target is lower now. 
Less ambitious. 
But it's more achievable, and it sets us up for what's actually coming.

Sometimes slowing down is the most aggressive move you can make.

What's a decision you've made that felt counterintuitive but turned out right?

CEO of Pricing I/O • Award-Winning Author • Sought after Slayer of Bad Pricing

Everyone told me I was crazy to leave.

High-paying role at a PE firm. 
Direct access to a billionaire's inner circle. 
I was flying to portfolio companies on 24 hours notice, promising boards 18% revenue increase, and delivering.

But I was hitting airline status in two months flat, with a 4-year-old at home and a daughter on the way.

So I walked away and started Pricing I/O with a credit card and my savings.

That was the beginning. 

We're 25 people now, approaching $10M, and I still get a little stunned when I see how many seats we fill at team get-togethers.

I sat down with Mark Osborne, MBA, CEPA® on the B2B Growth Blueprint podcast and got into the full journey—the leap, how we actually scaled, and the leadership framework I use to run the business today.

Watch the full conversation:
→ https://skd.so/kPle2t

Most SaaS companies are pricing blind.

They copy competitors who are also guessing. 

They slap "AI-powered" on the pricing page and hope it justifies a premium. 

They build credit systems because everyone else is doing it, without understanding why credits work for Audible but might destroy their business.

And then they wonder why sales cycles drag, why customers push back on renewals, why the board keeps asking uncomfortable questions about unit economics.

We all have seen this pattern. Right?

→ The CEO who approved a "usage-based transformation" only to watch churn spike 40% because customers couldn't predict their bills.

→ The VP of Product who spent 6 months building an AI feature, then gave it away for free because nobody knew how to price it.

→ The founder who copied HubSpot's model without realizing HubSpot has 15 years of pricing iteration behind every decision.

Here's what I've learned: pricing isn't a simple math problem. 
It's a strategy problem disguised as a spreadsheet.

Is to understand the psychology behind why customers say yes, and structure their pricing to remove friction, not add complexity.

That's why I built this playbook.

A single page with the frameworks we actually use when we're in the trenches with B2B SaaS clients.

It's dense, but I can send you the high-res version. 
Comment "playbook" ↓

Today Satya Nadella leads a $3 trillion company with 228,000 employees.
But when he took over in 2014, Microsoft was stuck.

Losing mobile. 
Windows-obsessed. 
Falling behind Amazon in cloud. 
→ Market cap at $300 billion while competitors lapped them.

Most people expected a safe, incremental CEO.
Instead, Satya rewired the culture without burning it down.

Killed the stack-ranking system that turned teams against each other. 

Replaced "know-it-all" with "learn-it-all." 
Bet everything on cloud when Azure was still a distant second to AWS.

That bet alone now generates $75B+ in annual revenue.

But what I admire most isn't the strategy.

Technical depth. Emotional intelligence. Business instinct. 
Most leaders I've worked with have one, maybe two. Satya has all three, and deploys them quietly.

No theatrics. No ego. 
Just calm, steady decisions at a scale most of us can't comprehend.

He turned a legacy software company into the world's second-most valuable business by doing what every great leader must: read the room, commit to the shift, and bring the whole organization with you.

That last part, bringing people with you, is the hardest part of any transformation. Pricing, product, culture, doesn't matter.

I've seen it across hundreds of companies. 
The team leading the change matters more than the change itself.

A decade of selling B2B SaaS to PE firms teaches you something most pricing strategists never learn firsthand.

James joined us as a Pricing Strategist after years on the other side of the table.

If you've ever sold to PE, you know, they understand value as well as anyone, and they're ruthless about ROI.

That experience shaped how James thinks about pricing: always tie it back to quantifiable business outcomes. Never be vague about value drivers. Surface the trade-offs so clients can make better decisions, not just hear what they want to hear.

That mindset is exactly why we wanted him here.

What surprised him most about joining?
"We're a lean organization that punches well above its weight. Everyone on the team is incredibly sharp and moves fast."

He also mentioned being staffed on two client projects in his first week. That's not an accident, it's a vote of confidence in what a sales background brings to strategy work.

His mindset says it all.
Sales and product team alignment is the most crucial step in executing any pricing strategy.

Simple. True. And something most companies underestimate until it's too late.

Oh, and his karaoke song is "Escape (The Piña Colada Song)."

Make of that what you will.

Glad to have you on the team, James.

"Claude, let's code this SaaS, try not to hallucinate this time."

Honestly? We're getting there.

Recently we watched founders spin up products in weeks that used to take engineering teams 18 months.

→ Claude writes the code
→ Cursor ships the features
→ Bolt scaffolds the whole thing

But then the product is live, and someone asks: 
"What do we charge for this?"

That's where the vibe coding stops.
Because pricing isn't a code problem.

It's a "which metric scales with their success" problem.
It's a "what does your customer actually value" problem.
It's a "what does your board need this to say about your business" problem.

I've worked with 400+ SaaS companies. 
I've never seen a model spit out the right answer to those questions.

Not because AI isn't smart enough.

Because the answer lives in your customers, your data, your market, and someone who's seen enough patterns to know the difference between a pricing model and a pricing strategy.

That's still a human job.

If the pricing conversation is already giving you a headache, that's exactly what we do at Pricing I/O.

Let's talk.

undefined undefined

$285 billion wiped from software stocks in 48 hours.
The reason? Investors finally realized what we've been saying for 2 years, per-seat pricing breaks when AI agents replace human users.

Salesforce lost 7% in a day. ServiceNow, Adobe, Workday, all hit.

But here's what's wild: most SaaS companies I talk to are STILL running per-seat models with zero backup plan.

The "SaaSpocalypse" wasn't a surprise. 
It was a pricing model catching up with reality.

If your revenue model depends on headcount growth, and AI is shrinking headcount, and just like that: you have a monetization crisis.

"Rapid pricing experimentation" is dangerous advice.

I keep seeing the same pitch from billing platforms and entitlement tools: configure your pricing, launch a test, learn fast, iterate, repeat.

Sounds great in theory.

If you're selling a $9/month product to 100,000 users? Sure. 

Test away. Change that $9 to $9.99 and see what happens. 
You've got statistical significance and low stakes.

But if you're negotiating a $150K deal with a CFO at a Fortune 500?

→ Try explaining that your quote from last week was "just a test."
→ Try telling your sales reps that pricing changed again—third time this quarter.
→ Try building credibility when the prospect remembers seeing different prices six months ago.

Expertise over experimentation. 
That's my stance.

I'm not against testing. 
Testing is essential. 

But blind, rapid iteration creates more problems than it solves: internal confusion, external credibility risk, sales teams who don't know what to sell, and customers who don't know what to trust.

The answer isn't more speed. 
It's more intention.

Informed. Measured. Deliberate.

If your team is about to make a pricing decision too fast, that's exactly what we work through at Pricing I/O. Drop a comment or DM me.

Most SaaS companies blame product for churn.
But the data usually points somewhere else: pricing.

3 steps. 10 minutes. 
You'll know if churn is pricing-driven or product-driven.

Segment by cohort. Compare NRR vs. LTV. 
Read churn surveys for the real signals.

If customers say "can't justify cost", that's not a product problem.

2026 is the year the pack separates.
Not with a dramatic crash, more of a slow exposure.

On one side: companies that are deliberate about AI integration, honest about their metrics, and strategic about pricing.

On the other: the copycats. The aimless AI adopters. The ones chasing "Wishful Thinking ARR" with creative revenue definitions and 50x valuations.

The fallout we expected in 2025? 
I think it shows up in 2026. 

Here's why:
→ AI scrutiny goes up (budgets need justification now)
→ Differentiation pressure increases (the checkbox AI gets exposed)
→ Companies under pressure make desperate pricing moves

And here's the opportunity: the smart operators will start picking up technology AND talent from the companies that couldn't adapt.

Acqui-hiring in 2026 is going to be massive.

The question is: which side of the separation are you building for?

The best pricing leaders are readers.
And these are the 12 books every SaaS pricing expert should read.

Save this one to read later ↓

→ Month 1:
Monetizing Innovation
The Pricing Roadmap

→ Month 2:
Street Pricing
Blue Ocean Strategy

→ Month 3:
The Cold Start Problem
Hooked

→ Month 4:
The Go-To Market Handbook
The Lean Startup

→ Month 5:
Influence
Predictably Irrational

→ Month 6:
The Art of Pricing
The Subscription Boom

If you want to go deeper than books, this is what we work on every day at Pricing I/O.
Drop a DM and let's talk.

After working with 400+ SaaS companies, I see three types when it comes to AI integration, and only one of them survives the next 2 years.

Most companies say they're using AI.
Very few can explain why.

The difference isn't budget. It's not talent either.
It's whether AI is a checkbox or a strategy.

Some companies know exactly where AI fits in their pricing, packaging, and go-to-market. 

They've mapped the ROI. 
They've planned the process change.

Others bolted AI onto a roadmap with no monetization strategy behind it, and their boards are starting to notice.

Where does your company fall on this spectrum?

I almost lost myself to AI news last year.
Every day there was something new. 

OpenAI did this. Anthropic launched that. Google's catching up. Startups raising at 50x revenue.

I was reading everything. 
Trying to understand every perspective. 
Watching every announcement.

And then I noticed something: 
I was paying less attention to my team.

The conversations were shorter. 
The check-ins were surface-level. 

I was physically present but mentally somewhere else, chasing the next headline, the next hot take, the next "you need to know this" thread.

FOMO was pulling me away from the work that actually matters.

Here's what I've been obsessing over instead: clarity.

Not mission statements. Not OKRs. 
Actual clarity, where your team can articulate what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how it connects to where you're going.

It sounds simple. 
It's brutally hard.

I've started asking my direct reports one question:
"Do you understand what we're doing and why?"

If they have a different point of view, I want to hear it. 
If they're confused, I need to know. 

A 10-second answer tells me everything: 
"Yes, I get it, I think we're going the right direction." 

Great. But more often, that question opens a door to something I was missing.

Here's my test:
→ If you have 5 direct reports and all 5 say the same thing about your direction—high five, you're leading well.
→ If all 5 have completely different views of what you're trying to do? That's not a them problem. That's a you problem.

People can feel when you're paying attention. 
They can also feel when you're not.

Forget FOMO. Focus.

2026 isn't the year SaaS dies.

It's the year people finally realize AI needs SaaS as much as SaaS needs AI.

Distribution, data, workflows, customer trust, none of that disappears because ChatGPT exists. 

But the SaaS companies scrambling to slap "AI-powered" on their pricing page without rethinking what they actually deliver? Those are the ones in trouble.

We've watched this play out across hundreds of companies.

Companies treating AI like a feature are missing the real forcing function, the question they've been avoiding for years: what outcome are we actually selling?

Seat-based pricing made sense when humans were the unit of consumption. 

When AI agents are doing the work, you're not selling seats anymore, you're selling results, throughput, outcomes that scale beyond headcount.

Most SaaS companies haven't touched their pricing model in years. 
AI just made that procrastination expensive. 

→ Boards are asking harder questions. 
→ Valuations are getting squeezed. 
→ And every month without a clear answer is revenue left on the table.

To surf the hype in 2026, get deliberate about monetizing what AI actually delivers.

That's what we spend every day working on at Pricing I/O, and the urgency we're hearing from founders and boards right now is unlike anything from the last few years.

The window to get ahead of this is open. It won't be for long.

I had to look in the mirror and ask myself a hard question.
Am I drinking my own Kool-Aid?

I've sat in rooms with founders who had their goggles on. 
Convinced they're smarter than everyone. 
Convinced the market is theirs for the taking.

And I've watched them fail.

Smart. Ambitious. Dedicated. Motivated.
Still failed.

So when I started building our new product, I made myself three promises:

1/ Assume there won't be a warm reception.
2/ Assume my assumptions are wrong.
3/ Assume this is a longer journey than I think.

Mike Tyson said it best: 
"No plan survives the first punch in the face."

We're going to get punched in the face. 
Every product does.

The question isn't whether it happens. It's how we react.

So instead of chasing a blowout launch, I'm building systems. 

Feedback loops. 
Prioritization frameworks. 
Quick cycles to learn and pivot.

How do I figure out how to figure out stuff?

That's the real question.

If we get a blowout launch? Hallelujah.

But I'm planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

Building something new is freaking hard. 
And it's full of trapdoors.

What's one assumption you're making about your business that might be wrong?

I think Mark Benioff is overrated.
I'll say it out loud.

Look, Salesforce is the godfather of SaaS. 
Many people give it that title, and it's earned. 

They pioneered cloud software. Built a $40B+ company.

But I think that was more Mark's team and the great people he had around him than Mark himself.

He's good at sales. He makes smart decisions. He’s a pioneer.  
I'm not saying he's bad.

But I lost a lot of respect for him when he said AI would be easy. 
That he could sell the world on his AI overnight.

That's obnoxious.

AI isn't easy. Anyone who's actually building with it knows that. 
Anyone who's helping companies integrate it knows the complexity, the change management, the friction.

Saying "AI is easy" tells me you're selling, not building.

I'd rather follow leaders who are thoughtful than leaders who are loud.
Give me Satya Nadella's calm over Benioff's bravado any day.

Pricing for the wrong thing is one of the most expensive mistakes I see.
(And still most companies miss this completely)

In a PLG motion, pricing does the heavy lifting early. 
→ It's the packaging, the free tier boundary, the upgrade trigger that converts users before a human ever gets involved.

In a sales-led motion, pricing shows up late. 
→ It's a negotiation lever, a discounting battlefield, and often an afterthought bolted onto whatever the rep promised on the call.

I've seen 400+ SaaS companies try to use the same pricing playbook for both motions. 

It doesn't work, because the moment where pricing creates or destroys value is fundamentally different.

The consequences cascade:
→ Your packaging
Does it need to sell itself on a webpage, or does it need to survive a 6-month procurement process?

→ Your discounting exposure
PLG has almost none. Sales-led can hemorrhage 20-40% if there are no guardrails.

→ Your expansion path
PLG expands through usage and upgrades. Sales-led expands through rep-driven upsell conversations.

→ Your pricing team's focus
Optimizing conversion rates vs. optimizing deal structures.

Neither is wrong. 

Your go-to-market motion dictates where your pricing has leverage.

If you're not sure your pricing is built for your motion, that's the first thing we diagnose at Pricing I/O. 

To book a free discovery call drop me a DM.

Most companies wait until something breaks to revisit pricing. 
Here are the 7 signals it's time to take a closer look.

In this video I'll talk you through:
→ Triggers that indicate pricing needs attention
→ Why "not the right time" is costing you money
→ Common patterns from 400+ SaaS companies

#saas #pricing

When people ask who I'm being inspired by, I don't have a good answer.

I never looked for figures to follow.
No heroes. No role models I'm trying to copy.

Just me, trying to make more good decisions than bad decisions. 

Keep learning forward. 
Treat people right.

That's it. That's the whole philosophy.

I like outside perspective. I get inspired by others. But what works for them doesn't necessarily work for me.

And I think that's okay.

Not everyone needs a leader to chase.

Some of us just need to stay honest with ourselves about where we're strong and where we're not.

Be introspective. 
Be blunt with yourself. 
Make trade-offs intentionally.

In the end, business is all about getting people to do stuff for you. 

→ Engineers to build for you
→ Employees to work for you
→ Customers to buy from you

Once you figure out how to do that, there's really no limit to what you can do.

No heroes required.

SaaS Founder: Stop copying competitor pricing pages.

That pricing page you're copying was built for a completely different business.

Here's how to fix it.

Watch more pricing insights here https://skd.so/E9ur5M

I am committed to building the reputation and value of procurement in the Tech sector.  I launched a respected procurement organization at Qualtrics by leveraging my global procurement experience from different industries.  I hire great leaders and collaborate with business partners to source and deliver innovative solutions that creatively solve business problems, mitigate risk, improve supplier performance, and make significant contributions to the financial health and performance of the company.

Michael Shields

I'm actually very embarrassed to write this.  

Years ago, and long before she was my wife, Katherine and I worked at the same company.  She was the EA to the CEO.  I was an ambitious procurement guy.  We came up with and executed on an idea that save the company quite a bit of money (by removing a wasteful initiative).  

To my everlasting shame, I did what so many others before me have done.  

I took most of the credit for myself. 

Katherine and I didn't talk to each other after that for several years.  

It wasn't the first time I had a big mistake in my professional career. 

Nor will it be the last.  

Despite the plenty of bumps in my career, I've tried to learn from them.  I'm genuinely proud of the 16 years I've been a procurement guy.  And unsurprisingly, the past few years have been some of the best learnings, and most successful.  

A lot of the credit goes to Katherine.  

Sure she's a supportive spouse.  But more than that, she's challenges my thinking and isn't afraid to tell me about my blind spots (which I have plenty).  She listens to my ideas and then elevates them to a whole new level.  

The bottom line is that I know I'm a much better professional and person because of her. 

P.S. It was fun celebrating her birthday yesterday.... hence the inspiration for the post.

Vice President of Procurement @ Tropic | Spend Management Enthusiast | Speaker | Advisor | Professor. On a mission to change the perception of Procurement. In tech and beyond.

I'm not typically a fan of company swag.  

(and as a procurement guy, I've bought plenty of it for the company). 

But I'd LOVE to know what has landed well with you. 

In my opinion, good swag is something I would wear regularly, whether I'm working or not.  

Some ideas from me: 

I've seen some pretty cool personalized shoes.  

I still have a patagonia jacket that has a very subtle company logo.  I've been rocking that thing for 5+ years.  

My go to suitcase is a branded TUMI.  Love that thing.  

When my company went public, they gave people apple watches with a cool band.  

I'd argue most swag is low-quality and possibly even wasteful.  Hence I'll decline a lot of it.. even if it has my own company's logo on it. 

But there are exceptions. 

What are those for you?

I’m honestly shocked that it feels like not many seem to be talking about this: 

As incredible as AI is, it is already having quite the impact on the environment. 

I used Claude to dig into this (and yes, the irony is not lost on me here). 

The data appears to be quite alarming:

Carbon emissions are considerable.  Energy used per query is as much as 10x that of a google search.  

Corporate pledges are being adjusted.  Apparently Google experienced a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to AI growth (causing it to miss key goals from its net-zero plan). 

Water Consumption - companies like Microsoft increased water consumption dramatically (Claude cited Wikipedia and put the figure at 34%). 

Delayed coal plant closures - I need to dig into this some more but apparently coal plants in my area near Salt Lake pushed back retirement by up to a decade. 

E-waste - already one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world is increasing (Claude cited the Sustainable Agency). 

I am NOT anti-AI.  

Nor have I researched the subject in depth. 

Im simply stating that as someone who loves being in nature, I hope we have more conversations about this. 

Related note: 
It’s hard to beat hiking in February in Phoenix.

No alternative text description for this image

Welcome to today’s edition of “sellers say this, but buyers hear that”

Seller says, "It'll work for companies of any size.”

Buyer hears, “Our ICP is basically anyone we can convince to buy. We’ll gladly take your money whether it’s a strong fit or not. That’s why we have CSMs… to deal with the fall out!”

Seller says, “Let me show you what our platform can do.”

Buyer hears, “I’m going to show you the same demo I’ve shown 5 other prospects this week and I'm hoping something will stick.”

Seller says, “It’s an industry best practice”. 

Buyer hears, “I don't really understand your business but this worked somewhere else so maybe it'll work here too.”

Seller says, “This deal expires on DATE”. 

Buyer hears, "I'm desperate to hit quota and if you push hard enough, I can get additional discounts.”

Seller says, “We helped [Big Company] 3x their [vague metric] in 60 days" 

Buyer hears, “One time everything came together and it was actually really cool…. Although I’m exaggerating the numbers to make them sound better.”

Seller says, “it’s on the product roadmap.”

Buyer hears, “I can’t contractually commit to it because even though the product team has talked about it at least once there are 1000 other competing priorities.  But let’s keep our fingers crossed!”

I’m not trying to beat sellers up. I know selling is hard. Hopefully this is helpful and not critical. What you say (and how you say it) is important!  The trust dividend is real. 

Good luck out there. 

Buyers: what did I miss?

P.S. I saw a similar post a few months ago and liked it. But for the life of me, can’t remember who posted it. Whoever you are, thank you for the inspiration.

Using AI to build your own software and replace that expensive tool is SUCH AN AMAZING IDEA!!!

Except sometimes it's a horrible idea.....

Make no mistake, the build / buy topic is HOT right now. 

I don't use superlatives very often but it seems EVERYONE is talking about it.  

In fact, I was an AI procurement topic this week and there were multiple discussions and presentations around this topic.  

But like many things there are two sides of the coin.  

I’m not pro-build. 

I’m not pro-buy. 

I’m squarely in the “it depends on the situation” camp.  

I saw a stat by Business wire that said, “35% of enterprises have already replaced at least one SaaS tool with a custom build, and 78% expect to build more custom internal tools in 2026.”

Clearly this is a legitimate trend worth acknowledging.  

But here’s the other side of the coin: 

Building can be quick. But it requires constant maintenance. Interestingly enough, there is also a trend of companies scrapping a build. (Not quite as sexy and progressive I know).  

The good news is that you forego the annual uplifts. Sure, but are you also giving up the upgrades and progression of the tool? Maintenance is one thing. Roadmap and expansion is another. I’ve heard from multiple people that building for yourself is a lot easier than building for everyone.  

One CFO that I talked to mentioned that adoption for the built tool plummeted (along with ROI). It was buggy and lacked key features. Said another way, your creation might become something that only a parent could love.  

Yet another procurement leader mentioned she’s frustrated that things have slowed down dramatically because of her company’s “build” initiative. She’s constantly in line for technical resources.  

To be clear, I’m actually not posting this so much as “I know the answer” but more “let’s discuss this” (especially the trade-offs). 

I've spent my career trying to measure the total cost of ownership. Turns out, we buyers might need a refresher course as it pertains to AI. 

If we are completely honest with ourselves, "Why buy when I can build?' Might be the wrong question to ask. Perhaps a better question: ‘what are the total costs of buying vs building over a defined period of time. 

Tl:dr. I’m doing some epic things with AI. Truly. I’m not anti-build. Sometimes building is absolutely the right strategy. And sometimes it might just be moving costs around. Or worse, paying a higher price.  

P.S.  My friend Claude and I spend a TON of 1:1 time together (including yesterday on the airplane).  There's something really gratifying seeing all the code pop up on the right as it codes in real time and VERY quickly.

Right next to my Harvard degree, I'm adding "Guest-writer for Newsletters" to my LinkedIn Profile. 

(Okay, okay it wasn't a degree. It was a one-day course and they let me print out a certificate at the end.)

But the newsletter thing is legit.  Tanya has an incredible newsletter called The Procurement Blueprint which thousands subscribe and read every week. 

I wrote about a huge issues that I've faced (as well as many of my peers)... getting buy-in across the organization. 

Honestly, it's not a shocker when I think about the approach that we take sometimes.  

Leading with, "we're going to save you money onthis" might not have the intended effect. 

Imagine you are a stakeholder who is not happy with their current supplier.  If I come to you offering to cut costs, you might think, "gosh that sounds like a great way to make a bad situation worse." 

And stakeholders who actually do like their current supplier hear, "we're going to squeeze the people you have a great relationship with.  I'll beat them up and then walk away leaving you to have to work with them."

Also not great...

I break down an alternative approach in the newsletter. 

FWIW, my mom subscribed last night.  And she said that I can quote her.  "It's the best article ever written in any procurement newsletter I've ever read."

So obvs you should check it out.  

https://lnkd.in/exN7Tz6D

I also got a glowing review fro Claude.  I'll include that in the comments if you need yet another endorsement.

Open article: the Procurement Blueprint by theprocurementblueprint.beehiiv.com

As a buyer, optionality is so powerful. 

The problem is that so few put themselves in a position where they have true options. 

Simple real life example: 

I’m often surprised at my options when it comes to ride-sharing. 

I landed in SLC on Wednesday evening at 8:40 and opened up one app. 

$78 to get home.  

(Pricey!)

I open the second app and its $34.

Same destination.  (Not to mention the same hit or miss aspect of driver and car.)

I’ll take it. 

But I’m genuinely curious…. How many people take the 15 seconds to check the second app? 

And in business, how many people truly develop a genuine, comparable and second option?  The answer to both questions is likely, “less common than you think”.  

P.S.  I plugged this post into an LLM and it wanted me to include a line saying:
“A second credible option.  That’s not just comparison. That’s leverage.”  🤢 🤮

This was the biggest unlock for me when it came to improving my prompting.  

(not kidding, in a legit, meaningful way). 

I stopped writing my own prompts.  I'd fire up Claude and have him create a prompt instead. 

"Claude, I need help creating a prompt to do X."  And then I would just start word-vomiting without concern for structure or format. 

And what comes out is a beautiful prompt that I can plug into cowork. 

The prompt is better but then the result ends up being much better.  It has compounding effects. 

Perhaps this is elementary for you AI wizards, but for me it was a catalyst for improving my prompting basically overnight.

Here's something kind of crazy.  As a procurement guy, I've been involved in quite a few buying processes so far in Q1.  I'm talking completely different categories, different products for different stakeholders.  

And (this is the crazy part) somehow many of them are feeling eerily similar.  Like I've heard / seen it before.

(and that's not a good thing).  

Generic outreach.  Standard discovery.  One-size-fits-all demo.  Recycled marketing proof points.  

And then throw in a surprisingly rigid sales motion that seems more intent on solving the sellers problem than ours as the buyer.  

We can spot it right away.  And it kills trust and momentum because we aren't looking for a generic solution.  We are looking for something that will look for us and our unique situation.  

It's the age of the generic sales process (and it's getting worse because of how AI is being used). 

Here's a potential fix:

The sellers use AI to go deeper instead of wider.  They show up more prepared in a way that shows how their solution sovles our problem.  

AI allows for incredible customization and efficiency in a scalable manner. 

Tailored outreach.  Efficient discovery.  A demo that shows parts of the product that are tied to our decision criteria.  ROI stats that are logical, believable and support the demo that was just shown. 

And a sales process that maps to our buying process. 

I saw an example of this in Q1 as well.  It just wasn't as often as the generic versions. 

Generic is easy... but it's less effective. 
Specific is a bit harder but leads to out-sized results. 

In either situation, for us buyers, it's never been easier to spot the difference.

taplio

The Battle

Marcos Rivera

Michael Shields

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreMarcos Rivera's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMichael Shields's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Marcos Rivera

Michael Shields

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Marcos Rivera's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMichael Shields's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreMarcos Rivera's LinkedIn Performance