> This is not true always. Enterprise sales is also made by massaging the ego, or creating false sense of urgency (a 60% discount offer with an expiry deadline

> This is not true always. Enterprise sales is also made by massaging the ego, or creating false sense of urgency (a 60% discount offer with an expiry deadline of 15 days ) of those who hold the purse and does not have common sense. I have seen millions spend this way. Sure. That's not the most successful way though, IME. > These books probably portray humans as logical rational machines who will decided based on some rules. Emotions, alliances, and personal gains are more important to decision makers. That's too categorical a statement. The books absolutely recognize those things, but are about providing techniques to rise above them. It's not always possible, but it's better for everyone if we can. It's also generally harder to maintain a politicized process when transparency is emphasized. I've seen senior customer executives give preference to a large vendor for emotional reasons or perception of personal gain (nobody every got fired for buying IBM), but were forced to change their minds when the transparent process built enough champions to surround them with enough facts that there was a better way. Not saying this is easy, just saying that it is possible to engage in politics in an ethical way. > This paragraph negates itself. If R&D and consulting did not listen to sales. How they were able to keep the customers happy. As a customer if I cannot get what I need in the product, sales will have to lie to me to make a sale. Maybe, but that's not necessary and usually ineffective. Customers generally force the vendor to prove their claims and catch liars. The better way is when sales focuses on the strengths of the product that will have impact. No product is perfect, and all software has flaws. Lots of old software still gets used and sold because it has value in spite of its failings. Of course, this can't last. R&D needs to get its shit together, or the company will gradually lose customers. > This is becoming true with subscription models but there also sales pushes for muti-year deals with minimum spend. In my view, once the contract is signed sales just runs away leaving delivery guys to deal with the customer who expects what product can’t deliver. Any post-sales issue simply becomes delivery team’s problem, customer education etc. Initial deals should not be multi-year, and if they are, that's definitely risky. Maybe the first renewal could be multi-year. Multi-year deals help both sides once they're in expansion mode and the product is installed, the initial post-sales services are complete, and people are getting value out of it. Lower locked in prices for higher term/volume means benefits and stability for both parties. If sales runs away, that means their incentives are poorly structured and not aligned to consumption. It can happen, but it's bad business. I have a big chunk of my variable pay tied to consumption, not just initial sign up and renewal, which keeps me sticking around to keep an eye on post-sales engagements and on support tickets, along with keeping my relationships with the customer active. A massive chunk of my time (as a principal sales engineer that covers country-wide territory) is not spent on working new deals, it's working with existing customers to keep them successful, or I won't get paid on consumption through the year, or renewal when the time comes. And even if it's not for a large deal, there are times to bend over backwards for a small customer to preserve your reputation. I don't deny the bad behaviour, I just don't see it as very sustainable. > This exercise provides a certain level of risk mitigation. However, requirements get modified to clear the POC because customer gets invited to dinner parties, conferences in vegas etc. Usually those invites are about building relationships, education, and trust. POC requirements tend to be a pretty transparent negotiation, if they're not, that's a problem. I can see cases where requirements are particularly onerous that there might be some give and take, but I don't see this as a ploy rather than an exercise in containing scope and risk. Like if a feature is young and buggy, why not say "this is young and buggy, are you really going to use this in year 1? Let's defer evaluating that.". That might disappoint someone who really values that feature in the customer, but it's also trying to be honest about a situation. > You are right this system exists for a reason and it can’t be fixed. However, its not all rosy and ethical. In most cases their is so much at stake that unethical behavior creeps in. It is just human behavior and that's the way it is going to remain. You're absolutely right. I am painting a "best case" scenario above with the teams I've worked with. I have seen plenty of unethical behaviour by customers and vendors. I'm just trying to say, it's generally easier and leads to more success if you don't engage in that. All IMO.