Anyone who signs off on a B2B purchasing decision risks more than just the budget. They risk their own internal credibility. If the supplier fails, the question you hear in the hallways is rarely about the supplier. It’s about who chose them.
That’s why so many decisions drag on. Decision-makers need to feel that the risk is under control, and they know they’ll have to justify their choice to people who were never even at the meetings: the hidden buyers which Marta Gonçalves analyzed in the article “There are few ideas worth reading about”, published in SOL.
At this stage of the decision-making process, messages are of little help. Every supplier presents itself as reliable, experienced, and customer-focused. What reduces risk are mechanisms that allow the customer to rely less on the supplier’s word. Recent research on strategic communication, which we present in the This Month's #PRExpert, organizes them into three categories. In business terms, these are called “proof,” “commitment,” and “participation.”.
Exercise: Replace adjectives with evidence
Start by listing the factors that carry the most weight in your clients’ decision-making process, such as deadlines, security, return on investment, or industry experience. For each one, ask what the client can verify without relying on your word. Results from previous projects presented with data and authorization from the clients who commissioned them; references that the potential client can contact directly; independent certifications and audits; a methodology explained in enough detail to withstand scrutiny. Any claim that fails this test must either be substantiated or withdrawn.
Commitment: to highlight the cost of failure
A commitment is credible when breaching it comes at a cost to the party making it. Service levels with defined penalties, guarantees with clear conditions, phased contracts with exit criteria, and compensation that is triggered without the need for negotiation. These mechanisms reduce the customer’s risk and convey, without the need for adjectives, the supplier’s confidence in its own ability to deliver.
Participation: Let the customer validate
The third approach removes the need for supplier validation. Success criteria defined jointly, client advisory boards that monitor the service’s progress, audits by independent entities, and shared metrics that the client can view at any time. One of the professionals interviewed in the study by Aviv Barnoy describes this practice precisely: files with the feedback customer data, updated in real time, which the customer can view at any time. Being involved in defining success increases buy-in to the outcome and gives decision-makers the arguments they need to defend their choice internally.
Where to Start
These three mechanisms work best when combined, and none of them requires an immediate transformation. The starting point is an honest assessment: what we claim, what we can prove, what we’re willing to commit to, and where we can open up validation to the customer. Communication plays a central role here, because it ensures that marketing, the sales team, and the operations team are all on the same page and promise only what they can prove.
Start with what your organization can already demonstrate. In many cases, it’s more than what you’re communicating.