Closing the Deal with Fexingo · 2026-07-02 · 9 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
61 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
When prospects say they're 'close' but nothing moves, the instinct is to push harder: another check-in, a discount, an executive escalation. This episode unpacks a counterintuitive alternative: asking the buyer to do the competitive comparison themselves. The rep in this story - selling a project management platform to a director of operations at a logistics firm - sent a simple email with a blank spreadsheet template. He invited the buyer to define the evaluation criteria and score all three final-round vendors. The buyer completed it, discovered that while his product lost on price and integration speed, it dominated on workflow customization, reporting depth, and post-sale support - the dimensions her steering committee actually cared about most. She returned the grid, he used it to pivot his follow-up toward those strengths, and two weeks later she closed the deal at full price. The psychology here is self-persuasion: buyers are more convinced by conclusions they generate themselves than arguments a vendor makes. This only works if you're genuinely competitive on something that matters, and the tactic is most effective in complex B2B deals with buying committees where price isn't your advantage. The rep had to tolerate vulnerability - handing the buyer permission to score him lower - but it shifted the conversation from 'why us?' to 'how can we help you win on what matters?'
Send a simple email saying you know they're evaluating options and you've created a template to save them time - ask them to define the criteria that matter to their team and score each vendor, adding 'I'd love to see the results even if we don't come out on top, because it helps me improve.' That last phrase signals you're learning, not just trying to win.
Don't argue with the data. Instead, use it to make a targeted follow-up focused on the dimensions where you are strong, and offer to go deeper on those areas for their team - or if you're losing across the board, you have clear signal to pivot or walk away rather than spend more time on an unwinnable deal.
No - the opposite. Buyers are more persuaded by conclusions they generate themselves than by vendor-made arguments, so when they write down that you win on customization or reporting, they own that conclusion. Pre-filled comparison charts trigger skepticism; buyer-defined criteria feel credible.
In complex B2B deals with buying committees and formal evaluation processes - especially when you're mid-priced and not the cheapest option, so the grid lets you shift focus from price to value-based criteria where you're strong.
Yes, because seeing the results lets you understand what the buyer truly values and use that information to pivot your follow-up messaging toward your winning dimensions and strengthen your internal selling position with her team.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode contains one solid, actionable insight about the psychology of self-persuasion and competitive positioning via buyer-generated criteria grids. However, much of the runtime is spent repeating the same core idea, explaining the psychology multiple times, and dwelling on meta-commentary about the show's ad-free model rather than packing in additional hard-won insights. The substance is front-loaded.
The rep didn't tell the buyer 'we're better on customization.' The buyer told herself that, because she wrote it down. And once she wrote it down, she owned it.
By asking the buyer to define the criteria, you make the comparison credible. And you also learn what the buyer truly values - which is gold for positioning.
The core idea - having a buyer articulate their own decision criteria rather than pushing pre-built battle cards - is genuinely counterintuitive and runs against typical sales playbooks. However, the psychological principle of self-persuasion is well-established and the execution is relatively straightforward. The framing is fresh for a sales audience, but the underlying thinking isn't particularly novel or contrarian.
By asking the buyer to define the criteria, you make the comparison credible.
Most reps try to control the comparison. They hand the buyer a pre-filled comparison chart showing their product winning on everything. But buyers are skeptical of that.
The guest (unnamed rep) appears to be a mid-market SaaS sales professional who executed a single deal with a positive outcome. While this is a practitioner with real-world execution, there is no indication of scale of impact, number of deals closed, team leadership, or broader pattern validation. The anecdotal quality and lack of naming or credentials limits caliber assessment.
The rep told me he only tried this because he knew his product had two or three clear strengths.
He also said the hardest part was the vulnerability - handing the buyer permission to score him lower on some things.
The episode provides concrete details about the deal structure (eight weeks, six-figure deal, 800-employee logistics firm, three vendors, mid-market SaaS PM tool), the exact email template the rep used, and specific scoring dimensions (workflow customization, reporting depth, post-sale support vs. price and integration speed). However, no actual numbers or metrics are shared - no revenue figures, no actual scores from the grid, no quantified lift from the tactic.
Mid-market SaaS company selling a project management platform. The buyer is a director of operations at a logistics firm with about 800 employees. Three vendors in the final round.
He said: 'I know you're evaluating multiple options. To save you time, I've attached a simple scoring template. Please fill in the criteria that matter to your team and score each vendor. I'd love to see the results even if we don't come out on top - it helps me improve.'
The hosts trade conversational turns smoothly and ask clarifying questions ('What exactly did he write in the email?' and 'When does this tactic work best?'). However, questions tend to be predictable and leading rather than truly probing or challenging. There is minimal push-back or real disagreement - the hosts mostly validate each other's points. No skepticism is voiced about sample size, survivorship bias, or when the tactic might backfire beyond brief mentions.
I want the exact phrasing.
Let's talk about when this tactic works best. I'm guessing it's not for transactional deals under ten thousand dollars.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Episode 88 of Closing the Deal with Fexingo dives into a counterintuitive sales move: asking your prospect to compare your solution against the competition - on the record. Lucas and Luna break down a real case from a B2B SaaS rep who, facing a stalled deal, handed the buyer a blank spreadsheet and asked them to score each vendor across six criteria. The buyer's own grid exposed that the rep's product actually won on the dimensions that mattered most to the internal stakeholders - something the rep's own pitch had been getting wrong. The episode walks through the exact script, the psychological principle of self-persuasion, and why this tactic works best when you're not the cheapest option. Also: a brief note on why the show stays ad-free and how listeners can support that choice at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. #Sales #Negotiation #ClosingTechniques #B2BSales #CompetitiveAnalysis #BuyerPsychology #SelfPersuasion #SalesTactics #RevenueGrowth #DealClosure #EnterpriseSales #SalesProcess #BusinessPodcast #FexingoBusiness #SalesReps #ObjectionHandling #NoPressureClose #SalesTraining Keep every episode free: buymeacoffee.com/fexingo
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Lucas: So you're eight weeks deep into a six-figure enterprise deal. You've done the demo, the proof of concept, the reference calls. The buyer keeps saying 'we're close' but nothing moves. Sound familiar?
Luna: Very familiar. That's the twilight zone of B2B sales - where nothing is wrong, but nothing is done. Lucas: Right. And most reps try to push harder - another check-in, a discount, an executive call.
But the rep in today's story tried something different. He asked the buyer to do a competitor comparison. Luna: Wait - asked the buyer to compare him against competitors? That seems like you're handing them reasons to pick someone else.
Lucas: On the surface, yes. But the psychology runs deeper. And before we dive into the case, I want to mention something. This show - all three hundred Fexingo shows - we deliberately run zero ads.
No sponsors, no pre-rolls, no mid-rolls interrupting the story. Luna: Yeah, and we hear from listeners that it makes a difference. Just a clean conversation, no selling you something while we're talking about selling. Lucas: Exactly.
If that approach matters to you, and you want to help keep it that way, the simplest path is buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No subscription, no recurring thing - just a one-time gesture if the show's moved your work forward in some way. Luna: Alright, back to the story. So this rep is staring at a stalled deal - what's the context?
Lucas: Mid-market SaaS company selling a project management platform. The buyer is a director of operations at a logistics firm with about 800 employees. Three vendors in the final round: our rep's company, an incumbent they already used, and a newer all-in-one tool. Luna: So he's not the incumbent, not the shiny new thing.
He's the middle option. Lucas: Right. And the buyer kept saying they needed to 'align internally.' Classic stall.
So the rep sent a very simple email. He said: 'I know you're comparing us against other options. I'd like to make that easier. Here's a blank spreadsheet with six rows - pick the criteria that matter most to your team.
Score each vendor one to five. Send it back to me, even if I don't come out on top.' Luna: Huh. So he's basically asking the buyer to do his competitive analysis for him.
And the buyer actually did it? Lucas: She did. And here's the fascinating part - the rep's product didn't win on every criterion. It lost on price, and it lost on integration speed.
But it dominated on three things: workflow customization, reporting depth, and post-sale support. Luna: And those were the criteria the buyer's internal stakeholders actually cared about most, not the ones the rep had been leading with. Lucas: Exactly. The rep had been pitching integration ease and total cost of ownership - the things his product was weaker on.
The buyer's own grid showed him where he should have been focusing all along. Luna: So the grid became a mirror. The buyer saw that on the dimensions her team really valued, this vendor was the clear winner. She took that spreadsheet to the steering committee and closed the deal two weeks later.
Lucas: Closed at full price, by the way. No discount needed, because the rep never argued about price. The buyer's own criteria made price a lower priority. Luna: There's a psychological principle at work here - it's called self-persuasion.
People are more convinced by arguments they generate themselves than by arguments someone else gives them. Lucas: Exactly. The rep didn't tell the buyer 'we're better on customization.' The buyer told herself that, because she wrote it down.
And once she wrote it down, she owned it. Luna: But this only works if you're genuinely competitive on something the buyer cares about. If your product is weak across the board, this exercise is just a faster way to lose. Lucas: Totally.
The rep told me he only tried this because he knew his product had two or three clear strengths. He also said the hardest part was the vulnerability - handing the buyer permission to score him lower on some things. Luna: So the script matters. What exactly did he write in the email?
I want the exact phrasing. Lucas: He said: 'I know you're evaluating multiple options. To save you time, I've attached a simple scoring template. Please fill in the criteria that matter to your team and score each vendor.
I'd love to see the results even if we don't come out on top - it helps me improve.' Luna: That last phrase - 'it helps me improve' - that's the key. It signals that he's not trying to win the comparison, he's trying to learn. That defuses the buyer's guard.
Luna: Did the buyer ever show him the completed grid? Or did she just keep it internal? Lucas: She sent it back. That was part of the deal - he asked her to share it.
And when he saw the scores, he didn't argue. He just said 'This is really helpful. I see we have work to do on integration speed. But I'm glad the customization and reporting are resonating.
Can we set up a deeper walkthrough on those two areas for your team?' Luna: So he used the grid as a springboard for a targeted follow-up, not as a closing argument. That's smart. Lucas: And it changed the conversation from 'why us?'
to 'how can we help you win on the things that matter?' He aligned himself with her internal selling effort. Luna: I've seen a similar tactic in procurement contexts - a buyer once told me she wished more vendors would do this. Because she said most reps just send generic battle cards and never ask what the actual decision criteria are.
Lucas: That's the deeper insight. Most reps try to control the comparison. They hand the buyer a pre-filled comparison chart showing their product winning on everything. But buyers are skeptical of that.
They think 'you cherry-picked the criteria.' Luna: By asking the buyer to define the criteria, you make the comparison credible. And you also learn what the buyer truly values - which is gold for positioning. Lucas: It's also a great filter.
If the buyer refuses to do the exercise, that tells you something. Maybe they're not serious, or maybe they've already decided and don't want to confront the data. Luna: Or maybe they know you'll lose on every dimension. That's the risk.
Lucas: Sure. But if you're going to lose anyway, wouldn't you rather know now than eight weeks later? At least you can pivot or cut your losses. Luna: Fair.
Let's talk about when this tactic works best. I'm guessing it's not for transactional deals under ten thousand dollars. Lucas: Definitely not. This is for complex B2B deals where there's a buying committee, multiple stakeholders, and a formal evaluation process.
Deals where the buyer is already doing some kind of comparison - you're just formalizing it. Luna: And it works best when you're not the cheapest option. Because if you're the low-cost provider, you want the buyer focused on price, not on a multi-criteria grid where you might lose on other dimensions. Lucas: Exactly.
In the case we talked about, the rep's product was mid-priced. The grid let him shift the conversation away from price and toward value. That's the whole game. Luna: One more thing - the rep said the buyer told him after the deal closed that the exercise actually helped her internally.
She used the grid to get buy-in from her team because it felt objective. Lucas: That's the hidden win. You're not just selling yourself - you're giving the buyer a tool to sell you inside their own organization. And that's worth more than any discount.
Luna: So for anyone listening who's stuck in a stalled deal this quarter - mid-July 2026, halfway through the year - try this. Draft a simple email, attach a blank scoring template, and ask the buyer to compare you. Lucas: And if they send it back and you're not winning, you have a choice: fix the gaps or walk away. Either way, you're not spinning your wheels anymore.
Luna: I like that. It's a move that respects the buyer's intelligence and your own time. Lucas: Alright, that's the case for episode 88. Next time we'll look at a rep who closed by asking the buyer to write the first draft of the contract - another counterintuitive one.
Luna: Looking forward to it. Until then, keep closing.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
Boost Product Adoption Like A GoFundMe Pro PMMProduct Marketing Adventures · on Multi-stakeholder buying committees87 / 100
B2B Sales Strategy and AI in Sales: Deal Intelligence That Drives RevenueThe B2B Revenue Executive Experience · on B2B sales strategy80 / 100
Unlocking B2B Sales SuccessTrue Confessions of a Sales Leader · on Multi-stakeholder buying committees75 / 100
#67: CMO Strategies in a Health startup (Dexcare) by Former Microsoft & GE Healtcare (Jamie Gier)Impact Talks · on Multi-stakeholder buying committees71 / 100
Winning Multi-Stakeholder Deals in the Modern Buying JourneyThe Revenue Lounge · on Multi-stakeholder buying committees66 / 100
WHAT ARE YOUR LIMITING BELIEFS AND HOW TO BREAK THROUGH THEMSales Questions Show · on B2B sales strategy40 / 100
The Rep Who Won by Asking for a 20 Percent Price Cut69 / 100How a Rep Won by Negotiating Against Their Own Offer86 / 100The Sales Rep Who Won by Telling the Buyer He Was Wrong72 / 100How One Rep Closed by Asking the Buyer to Fire Their Vendor80 / 100The One Question That Won a Deal by Paying the Buyer70 / 100