I am glad to learn about justifiers.
These are that little something that suppliers of non-strategic items must show can happen beyond the mere performance of the product to smooth the purchasing decision their way.
Typical justifiers feature extra service lengths that can be gone to.
I particularly like the distinction between this and strategic buying. They compare deal winners;
Value Selling requires Quantified Value Of Offering – The offering provides quantifiably higher value than that of competing offerings, which more than compensates for its higher price
Tiebreaker Selling needs a “justifier” – The supplier offers an extra that the customer finds valuable without analysis and that shows the purchasing manager’s contribution to the business
Knowing your “noteworthy difference” in this regard is vital when buyers who’ve shortlisted you are being primed that they must then think of;
“Going back to the finalists to ask, ‘Is there something more that your business might do for us, other than what we’ve asked for?’
It seems that justifiers incorporating expertise may be more sustainable than justifiers that add simple operational efficiencies.
The researchers highlighting this also provide delicious quote fuel;
“We did not hear a single purchasing manager in our research say they wanted the lowest price”
Which in part leads us onto what appear to be the two big mistakes made after a tiebreak request;
Don’t focus doggedly on their offerings’ distinctive features even when customers don’t want or need them.
Don’t offer price concessions that customers don’t want.
Your tiebreaker justifier(s) ready to go?