Lost customers know why a competitor won the contract, but few have much reason to discuss the decision with the unsuccessful bidder. Companies need a careful approach to securing interviews and turning the findings into better products, pricing and sales practices.<\/p>\n
A financial software provider spends three months negotiating with a private bank. The product demonstration goes well; the technical team approves the software and procurement requests revised terms. The bank eventually awards the contract to another supplier. The sales representative records price as the reason for the loss. Yet the winning supplier may have offered better integration, a shorter implementation schedule or stronger references from other banks. The buyer has little reason to explain every consideration behind the decision. <\/span>Sales reports rarely capture the full purchasing process as Representatives record what customers tell them, usually during negotiations or a final rejection call. Buyers have no obligation to provide a detailed account of the competitors they evaluated or the weaknesses they identified. <\/span>Win-loss research addresses these gaps through interviews conducted after purchasing decisions. The challenge is persuading people who have already rejected a proposal to spend more time discussing it.<\/span><\/p>\n A procurement manager who has spent months evaluating suppliers has other priorities once the contract is signed. Implementation begins, internal teams move forward and another conversation with an unsuccessful bidder offers little immediate benefit.<\/p>\n The invitation therefore needs a clear purpose and a modest request for the buyer’s time. A 20\u201330-minute interview is easier to arrange than an open-ended discussion. The company should acknowledge the purchasing decision, explain that it wants to improve its products and sales process, and confirm that the researcher has no intention of reopening negotiations.<\/span><\/p>\n The former account manager is a sensible person to make the introduction, provided the relationship ended on reasonable terms. An independent researcher then conducts the discussion without the salesperson present.<\/p>\n Buyers are generally more comfortable discussing weaknesses when the person asking questions was not responsible for the original proposal. Independent interviewers also have greater freedom to challenge explanations and explore criticism of the sales process.<\/p>\n Forrester’s B2B Win\/Loss Interview Guide<\/em>, updated in 2025, recommends interviews lasting around 30 minutes. It also discusses financial incentives, typically $50\u2013100 or more, to compensate participants for their time.<\/p>\n In financial services, such payments require care. Banks and larger corporations maintain policies on gifts, conflicts of interest and supplier relationships. A procurement manager may be prohibited from accepting compensation from a bidder, even after the contract has been awarded.<\/p>\n Researchers need to establish what the organisation permits before proposing an incentive. A modest charitable donation may be acceptable in some circumstances, although it does not remove the need to respect internal procurement rules.<\/p>\n Timing also affects the response because buyers remember technical demonstrations, negotiations and internal discussions more clearly shortly after a decision. A brief invitation at that stage, followed by one polite reminder, gives the company a reasonable opportunity to arrange an interview.<\/p>\n Buyers need to understand who is conducting the research and what will happen to their comments. An independent interviewer should explain whether answers will be attributed, how findings will be shared and whether the conversation will be recorded.<\/p>\n In Switzerland’s relatively small financial technology market, anonymising responses requires care. A description of a bank’s size, systems and purchasing requirements may identify it even without a name.<\/p>\n The ICC\/ESOMAR International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics sets standards for voluntary participation, transparency and the protection of research participants. Companies commissioning win-loss interviews need to follow those principles and applicable privacy rules.<\/p>\n A confidentiality promise also determines how the company handles the results internally. If participants agree to speak on the understanding that their comments will be anonymised, sales managers should receive findings that respect those terms.<\/p>\n The interviewer must also keep the conversation separate from business development. An attempt to challenge the buyer’s decision or promote a revised offer will make future research invitations harder to secure.<\/p>\n Asking why a company rejected a proposal usually produces a familiar answer: price, functionality, timing or budget. A better interview reconstructs the evaluation, starting with the original requirement and the suppliers considered. Who prepared the shortlist? Which employees influenced the decision? What changed during product demonstrations or technical assessments? <\/span>A bank may begin by comparing software functionality and subscription prices, then give implementation support greater weight after its IT department examines the proposals. <\/span>The researcher needs to identify when that change occurred and what the competing suppliers offered. <\/span>Specific questions produce better information than general requests for feedback. A buyer may recall that one company answered integration questions immediately while another required several follow-up meetings. Procurement staff might describe unclear contractual terms, while the project manager remembers delays in arranging a technical demonstration. The people involved in the decision will have different views. A procurement manager understands pricing and contractual negotiations but may know little about the technical assessment. Speaking with the project sponsor or the head of operations may provide a fuller account. <\/span><\/p>\n What financial technology suppliers stand to learn<\/span> Switzerland had 225 banks at the end of 2025, according to the Swiss Bankers Association’s Banking Barometer 2026<\/em>. They included 24 cantonal banks, 83 foreign banks and 37 stock-exchange banks. Their technology requirements, internal resources and purchasing procedures differ considerably. A software provider selling across several banking categories needs to understand how those differences affect supplier selection.<\/span><\/p>\n Consider a company supplying portfolio-reporting software to private banks and independent asset managers. Sales representatives repeatedly hear that its subscriptions are too expensive. Interviews with unsuccessful prospects may identify a different concern. Buyers may have doubts about transferring historical data, connecting several custodian banks or obtaining support during the annual reporting period. <\/span>A lower subscription price would leave those problems unresolved. More detailed migration plans, evidence from completed implementations and clearer support commitments would address the concerns raised during the evaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n Cybersecurity providers face questions about certifications, compatibility with existing systems and responsibility for ongoing security operations. Companies supplying transaction-processing infrastructure encounter buyers concerned with performance, reliability, integration and commercial terms.<\/p>\n Some findings lead directly to changes in marketing. Product descriptions may need clearer technical information, while sales presentations require stronger evidence or more relevant customer references. Others involve the product itself. Repeated complaints about missing functionality, implementation times or service arrangements require attention from engineers and management.<\/span><\/p>\n Research limited to the largest lost contracts gives a narrow account of the market. Companies need to examine different customer groups, deal sizes and sales representatives. Successful customers belong in the research programme as well. Their experiences provide a comparison with rejected proposals and help identify which strengths influence purchasing decisions. <\/span>Choosing the right participant is equally important. The person who arranged demonstrations may not have influenced the final decision. Interviews should involve employees with direct knowledge of the evaluation and its outcome.<\/span><\/p>\n Participation introduces another limitation. Buyers who maintained good relationships with the unsuccessful supplier may be more willing to speak than those who had a poor experience. Researchers should record declined invitations and avoid treating the resulting sample as representative of the entire market. A small company could begin with ten or fifteen carefully selected interviews, depending on participation. Such a programme offers qualitative evidence about individual purchasing decisions, though it cannot establish how the wider market behaves. <\/span>Repeated findings across different buyers deserve closer examination. One complaint about a salesperson may describe an isolated incident. Similar complaints from several customers suggest a problem with the sales process.<\/span><\/p>\n Research findings need to reach the departments responsible for the problems identified. If buyers repeatedly criticise implementation information, product management and marketing can prepare clearer deployment plans. Sales teams may need to involve technical specialists earlier in negotiations. Complaints about limited customer references warrant a review of how the company documents completed projects. <\/span>Other findings demand more investment. Buyers may prefer a competitor’s integration coverage, support arrangements or pricing model. Marketing departments cannot solve those problems through revised website copy.<\/span><\/p>\n A win-loss programme therefore needs someone responsible for collecting findings, identifying recurring issues and assigning work to the relevant teams. Subsequent purchasing decisions provide evidence of progress. After improving implementation materials, for example, a software company can examine whether buyers continue to raise the same concerns and whether more product evaluations lead to contracts.<\/span><\/p>\n The willingness of buyers to participate also deserves attention. Customers who receive a respectful invitation and a professional interview may remain on good terms with an unsuccessful supplier. Poorly handled research, especially attempts to reopen negotiations, risks damaging that relationship.<\/p>\n Approach the right person.<\/strong> Identify someone involved in the purchasing decision. Where the relationship allows, ask the former account manager to introduce an independent researcher.<\/p>\n Contact buyers promptly.<\/strong> Send the invitation soon after the decision, once the procurement process has concluded. Respect any restrictions on post-tender communication.<\/p>\n Keep the request manageable.<\/strong> Propose a 20\u201330-minute conversation and explain the subjects the interviewer wants to discuss.<\/p>\n Explain the purpose.<\/strong> Tell participants that the research concerns products, pricing and the purchasing experience. Confirm that the company will not use the interview to reopen negotiations.<\/p>\n Use an independent interviewer.<\/strong> Select someone who was not involved in the original proposal. External researchers are worth considering for sensitive commercial relationships.<\/p>\n Clarify confidentiality.<\/strong> Explain who will see the findings, whether comments will be attributed and how recordings or notes will be stored.<\/p>\n Check incentive policies.<\/strong> Establish whether participants’ employers permit compensation. Never link an incentive to the answers provided.<\/p>\n Ask about the decision process.<\/strong> Examine the shortlist, evaluation criteria, product demonstrations, competitor comparisons and changes in requirements.<\/p>\n Include successful customers.<\/strong> Compare reasons for winning and losing contracts across similar customer groups.<\/p>\n Act on recurring findings.<\/strong> Assign issues to sales, marketing, product management or senior leadership and review subsequent purchasing decisions.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Interviews with lost customers reveal why competitors win and where companies need to improve.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-e-commerce-analytics"],"yoast_head":"\nWhy rejected customers agree to interviews<\/h2>\n
Confidentiality is central to the conversation<\/h2>\n
Find out how the purchasing decision developed<\/h2>\n
<\/span><\/p>\nChoosing which customers to approach<\/h2>\n
Turning interviews into commercial changes<\/h2>\n
Exporis Insight: How to Get Lost Customers to Participate<\/h2>\n