Vendor Refusals Signal Quality in Learning Tech Purchases

When buying learning technology, a vendor’s refusals can be more revealing than their promises. A sales demo where every question is met with a “yes” may sound appealing, but it could be a red flag.

A writer who attended such a demo last year found that the vendor agreed to every request, from handling legacy SCORM files to white-labeling the product by the next quarter. In hindsight, this was a warning sign. A vendor who knows their product well should be able to identify its limitations.

The Value of a “No”

In contrast, a “no” requires a company to have established boundaries, documented them, and empowered their sales team to respect these limits, even if it means losing revenue.

A Pattern Across Industries

This pattern is not limited to learning technology. In the digital PR and link-building industry, an analysis of Canadian link-building prices revealed that publishers who refused to carry legally restricted content charged a median price of $1,110 for ordinary content, compared to $610 for those who accepted restricted content. This gap held across all categories, indicating that a willingness to decline certain requests is often associated with higher quality.

In learning technology, vendors often compete on metrics like course library size, number of integrations, and badge counts. However, these metrics have been optimized to the point where they no longer differentiate between good and mediocre products. Refusals, on the other hand, have not been optimized, making them a more reliable signal of a vendor’s quality.

For instance, a vendor who says, “We will not be your system of record for that” demonstrates an understanding of their product’s role in the existing stack. Similarly, a vendor who acknowledges the limitations of their AI features or describes an integration as “fragile” provides valuable insights into their product’s capabilities and limitations.

To get a vendor to refuse something, ask about their product’s limitations, what they turned down in the past, and which features their team recommends against using. Also, include an impossible requirement in your brief to see how they handle it. A governance-based refusal will come with a reason and an alternative, while an evasive refusal will likely change the subject.

For example, a vendor who states, “We cannot commit to that timeline,” is more likely to be honest during the implementation phase, where transparency is essential. A vendor who acknowledges the fragility of a particular integration demonstrates a deeper understanding of their product’s capabilities and limitations.

The same writer who tested this approach by including an impossible requirement in their brief found that the vendor’s response was informative, regardless of whether they could meet the requirement. This strategy helps buyers distinguish between vendors who are honest about their limitations and those focused solely on closing a deal.

A vendor who says, “Your requirement is unusual, and we would rather not build it,” demonstrates a commitment to maintaining product quality and integrity. While this may cost them short-term revenue, it builds trust and credibility with buyers who prioritize honesty and transparency.

A writer who made a significant personal change in 2023 might appreciate a vendor who refuses unrealistic commitments, understanding that transparency is key in any industry. By prioritizing refusals over promises, buyers can build more reliable partnerships with vendors committed to quality and integrity.

Authority Scores and Pricing in the Canadian Market

An analysis of the Canadian market revealed a peculiar trend in authority scores and pricing. Sites with scores between 30 to 39 and 50 to 59 quoted similar prices, around $550. Interestingly, the middle band was slightly cheaper than the one below it.

Price differentiation only occurred at the top end of the market, where audience size seemed to influence pricing. This suggests that authority scores may not be a reliable indicator of pricing across the entire market, particularly in the middle range.