Posts Tagged ‘Chapter 11: Outcome Credibility Markets’
ACT II. How Value Actually Forms, Drifts, and Becomes Credible
Topics in this chapter: Vendor accountability (3) · Supplier performance (2) · Board oversight (1) · Business cases (1) · Request for Value (1) · Value realization (1)
Analyst Ratings Rank Vendors on Criteria You Didn’t Choose
Market ratings are getting better at telling buyers which providers deliver. None of them can tell a company whether its own purchase did what it was bought to do.
Read MoreAccounting Rule Makers Are Cutting a Test of Whether Deals Worked
The International Accounting Standards Board proposed that companies disclose whether an acquisition met the targets they set on the day they bought it, and that is the line now proposed for removal.
Read MoreBritain Made Buyers Publish a Verdict on Their Suppliers
The Procurement Act 2023 now makes public buyers assess their suppliers and publish the verdict. The statute never says the verdict has to be about the value the contract was bought for.
Read MoreBuyers Judge Vendor Claims by Size and Ignore the Track Record
Credit markets price the credibility of a promise, so a weaker record costs the issuer. Enterprise buying compares claims on size alone, which is why the largest claim keeps winning.
Read MoreBuyers Skipping the Sales Rep Say Reps Never Helped Them Decide
When buyers remove the seller from the room, they are deleting activity that never improved the decision. The rep-free preference is not a channel problem. It is a verdict on value.
Read MoreOnly the Biggest Firms Can Afford Vendors Who Answer for Results
Embedded outcome accountability is priced for the Fortune 50. The mid-market buyer is being sold a model its vendors cannot fund, because the reference case behind the pitch is one company’s cost structure.
Read More