They bought from us. But why did they buy the rest of what we had elsewhere?

The opportunity followed from the observation. A perceived product gap was turned into a conversation to drive adoption and expansion. This increased revenue by 5x without displacing any competitor.  

The account at a glance before anything changed
5x YoY revenue growth
$20k → $100k contract sum in 12 months
One integration project with multiply product and service lines,
Zero competitor products removed.

The account was almost two years old, not troubled and looked healthy, at least from the available data. This was a mid-market customer with predictable orders, few escalations, a solid relationship with the main contact person, and a promising outlook. 

From our wide range of stock, we supplied them with products A, B, C, and D. They however used a fifth product, E, which was complementary from another vendor. We had this product, but they chose each time to buy it elsewhere, not occasionally. The customer knew product ‘E’ was not a gap in our catalogue. And yet, their decision was consistent: purchase from a different vendor. 

A customer purchasing the same product on your catalogue from a competitor, continuously is not an accident. It’s a deliberate decision that requires investigating what is driving it.

The Observation

It’s easy to assume this purchasing decision was driven by pricing, an old relationship, or simply, inertia. Fortunately, all these assumptions satisfy the behaviour, hence it would have been easy to accept the status quo to close the topic.

The most useful insight from the observation was what they were doing with product E after purchase. It was combined with our products for a predetermined output. The combination was not an isolated move: it was important to them and constituted a complete system.

Now, we had product G which offered superior output when combined with E. The result was a more polished output than what products A, B, C and D generated in combination with E. The thing is, the CS team had yet to run the numbers, thoroughly explored how product combinations mattered to the customer, and inform them about all they could do with product G, if budget was not a constraint.

This observation led to the conversations that shaped the future. 

The conversation and the hidden opportunity

The intention was not to remove the competitor. Framing mattered here: it was presented as an avenue to learn what the customer produced with the product combination A, B, C, D, E, and how we could augment the output. It’s worth stating the customer had previously been offered pricing for product G, but no real conversations had followed afterwards.

There was nothing to hide in the conversation. The customer knew about G, but had never used it and did not have capabilities to deploy the same.
The opening line was direct: “You have since the beginning of our relationship ordered products A, B, C and D from us, and combined it with product E from another vendor. Setting cost aside, we believe there’s a combination which will produce a better output. We would be happy to show you what that looks like.”

This transparency was welcomed as both sides of the aisle knew the facts. It addressed the core of their operations and not introduction of something new. 

To drive expansion, start with the existing problem the customer is trying to solve. The pitch worked because it tied into what the customer was already building and not what we were selling. 

The integration and adoption initiative

Once both parties were aligned on next steps, what followed was a series of tests on products G and E. The primary goal was to confirm compatibility of product G with their existing technical operations. The secondary objective was to drive adoption of product G combined with E. In this project, success was clear and easy to determine: a seamless product integration, and superior output compared to the results of combining A, B, C, D, and E. 

Though the customer always purchased E from a different vendor, the supplies for all the tests were done with our stock for ease of access and convenience. To burden share, the customer agreed to absorb the shipping cost for all successful tests for quality inspection and approval. With stoic commitment, we supported the project with documentation, technical coordination between us and the customer, and ran several iterations until the desired result was achieved. 

For integration projects of this nature, usually a commitment is required from the customer as well as some commercial guarantee must be established. Knowing what we were about, we supported the project through:

• Time: not only meetings and email exchanges, but adjusting work hours with their operations
• Patience with a customer who wanted to see results before making a buying decision, expending our resource in the process
• Technical documentation generated for their specific scenario based on our industry and product knowledge. 

The success in this integration did not mean abandoning the earlier product combination. It provided an added stream of revenue for us through adoption while offering a better output for the new system. 

Most CS teams approach expansion conversations in very transactional terms: a product, a proposal, or a price requiring a “yes or no” response. This approach demanded we work without a guaranteed return in sight. Occasionally, it’s the only rational way to work expansion. 

The visible movements

This account had experienced steady increment since it was signed. The year-on-year revenue moved from $20,000 to approximately $100,000, a 5x fold jump. The growth from the expanded adoption of product G was not forced. It was inextricably linked with the customer’s expectations. What’s more, product G had worked in combination with other higher priced products and services to achieve the quality of output desired. 

This growth was neither birthed from discount nor contract renegotiation. It followed naturally from an operational standpoint as the integration had proved successful, the commercial case had no contention. 

Revenue from genuine improvement is durable. Revenue from discounts largely do not stand the test of time.

Outstanding Issues

The purchasing decision on product E did not change. The customer still received supplies from the other vendor. The integration was a success. The proof of the business case was undisputed. Revenue growth was secured, but the decision on product E remained unchanged despite offering competitive pricing. 

Further, product E from this external vendor sometimes presented issues. These affected our customer’s operations and how our products worked with the same. We were however always available to support if at all possible. There was no pretense. No name calling or shaming. There was work to be done, and the focus never shifted from that. This positioned us as a trusted partner to navigate the different situations along the way. 

At a certain point, it’s worth identifying that nothing more can be done about a particular situation, and this is one of them. Our customer’s relationship with the supplier of product E went beyond price and product quality. Let’s call it a calcified relationship that any attempts at disrupting this buying behaviour in the short term could create unnecessary friction for the significant milestone achieved.  

Lessons from this account

A few things are true about this account that are worth sharing.

Expansion was driven by observation, not prospecting
The order pattern screamed the existing opportunity. Was anyone paying attention enough to see it? 

The pitched more closely to their work
The conversation centered on what they were building. The framing allowed us to focus on optimizing current output and placed the product second. This is the correct order for any expansion attempts that can last. 

The project had no initial commercial guarantees - this may be a deterrent for most salespeople
Signed commercial commitment precedes integration projects. This was not the case for this customer with untapped opportunities. Once management saw and approved the potential in the business case made internally, it was easy to rally support for the other moving parts. This was more a sound judgment call from understanding the data than a replicable playbook step.  

Preserve what’s built. Accept what you genuinely cannot change
Purchasing product E from another vendor did not change. Continuing to push for a switch may dramatically destroy the relationship. Learning to read the room helps to preserve gains achieved. This is not failure.