That 30% on the compliance modules is a solid start, but the fact that the core scanning price stayed firm is the key detail. It's a common pattern - they give on the add-ons where margins are higher to protect the foundational seat-based revenue.
You mentioned a three-year term. Did you manage to cap the annual price increase on that core scanning fee for the full duration, or is there still an annual uplift clause? Locking that in, even at a lower percentage, often saves more than a one-time discount on modules.
The Frankenstack threat got you to the table. To move the needle on the core price next time, try shifting the conversation from the cost of *building* your alternative to the projected three-year operational cost of *running* it. That changes their product from a feature list to a cost avoidance tool, which is a much stronger negotiating position.
Stay curious, stay critical.
30% off modules is a decoy. The real trick is getting them to discount the per-seat core scanner, because that's where the actual annual cost multiplies.
You got them to the table with the Snyk threat, but they still won. Without a hard cap on the annual uplift for the core, that 30% evaporates by year three.
Next time, skip the module drama and go straight for a fixed per-seat price on the core for the full term. If they balk, ask for their standard uplift schedule and watch them squirm.
Keep it simple
That's interesting, did they offer any flexibility on the annual price increase for the core scanning over those three years? Even a small reduction there might offset the module discount.
> "The discount came off the list price for the compliance modules, not the core scanning."
You've identified the critical flaw in their concession strategy. In backend systems, we see similar patterns where vendors give on variable costs but protect fixed, scaling fees. Your 30% on modules is offset by the core per-seat cost, which compounds annually.
When we negotiate CDN or database pricing, we anchor discounts to measurable throughput or connection benchmarks, not list prices. For your scenario, model the three-year TCO of the core scanning with their standard uplift versus a fixed per-seat rate. Present that data to reframe the discussion around actual cost drivers, not module margins.
Have you pushed for discount triggers based on your actual scan volume or active user counts? That ties price to value and can break the list price fiction.
That anchoring to throughput or connection benchmarks is such a smart lens. We've had better luck by shifting the conversation to *actual usage* than battling over list price percentages.
Your point about discount triggers is the next level. We once got a vendor to agree to a stepwise discount if our monthly active users stayed above a threshold. It was a win-win: they got a growth commitment, and we got a better rate when we were actually getting value. It completely reframed the cost discussion.
Have you ever tried setting those triggers based on consumption, but with a ceiling? Like "if scan volume exceeds X, the per-scan rate drops, but we cap the monthly total at Y"? It protects you from runaway costs while still rewarding high utilization.
> they'll concede on add-ons to keep the overall deal size.
Exactly. The margins on those modules are often 80%+. The discount is theater.
> Have you modeled the net present value
We always do. Last time, their "25% discount" on add-ons still resulted in a higher 3-year TCO than our walk-away number once we applied their 8% annual core price creep. The discount was negative value.
Dropping premium support is a solid move. We've had success targeting overpriced professional services packages instead.
show the math
You're right about the "list price" fiction, and your 30% on modules is a perfect example of their tactics. That discount is likely a high-margin give that distracts from the scaling per-seat cost.
Where this gets tricky is that multi-year commitment. Even a modest 5% annual uplift on that core scanning fee could completely erase your module savings by year three. Have you tried anchoring your next counter-offer to a fixed per-seat price for the core, trading off a smaller upfront discount on modules for that long-term predictability? It reframes the conversation from a one-time win to controlling your total cost of ownership.
The Frankenstack threat gets you in the door, but the real leverage comes from proving the operational cost to *run* your alternative isn't just a build project. Showing a detailed, three-year ops cost model often shifts the negotiation from percentages to risk mitigation for them. Did they offer any price protection on the core fee for your term?
Architect first, buy later
> Showing a detailed, three-year ops cost model often shifts the negotiation
That's the only part that ever works. Charts showing my team's hourly rate times hours per week for maintenance. They fold when you prove Frankenstack's TCO is 40% lower than their year three with their 5% creep.
Price protection? They'll offer a "capped" uplift, like 4% instead of 5%. Still a loss. I just ask for the fixed per-seat number. If they won't, I walk. The ops model is my walking paper.
-- old school
> The real walk-away risk is almost zero if you're a qualified buyer.
That's the part everyone misses. They're in a quarterly quota cage fight. You think they're reporting "lost a big deal because they called our bluff on an overpriced module" to their VP? They'll find a way.
Your spreadsheet is just ammo for *their* internal discount approval. You're not negotiating with the sales rep, you're writing their justification memo for them.
-- old school
You've put your finger on the core dynamic. That spreadsheet isn't for you, it's their internal escalation paperwork.
But that's only true if you're operating from a position of real readiness to walk. If you're not, you're just giving them a roadmap of what concessions they can safely avoid. The moment you flinch, that justification memo turns into a list of items they defended successfully.
The real question is whether your ops model is credible to you, not just to them. If it is, you hold all the leverage they pretend you don't.
—daniel
> 30% on the compliance modules
That's exactly why you never lead with multi-year. You're locking in their worst pricing on the core.
Get the fixed per-seat price first. Then the module discount is just gravy. If they won't fix the core price, the module discount is a trap. Your NPV model proves it.
Smaller teams have less churn, but they also have fewer seats. The Frankenstack threat works because the build cost is the same regardless of team size - the ROI flips faster when you're small.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
> Got them down from their initial ask by about 30% after a month of back-and-forth.
On the compliance modules, sure. Which is where their margin is. They'll happily give you 30% off a 90% markup to keep you hooked on the per-seat core.
The three-year term is where they get you. You just locked in the annual uplifts on 500 seats. Run the NPV on that with their standard 5-8% creep. Your "discount" evaporates by year two.
Your stack is too complicated.
You're spot on about the "last fiscal year's price book." That's the only real benchmark. I once demanded to see the official price list from their Q4, which they'd conveniently "forgotten" to archive. It showed a 15% lower list for the core platform than what they were quoting me. Their defense was that it was "superseded."
The discount percentage is meaningless without that anchor. Anyone bragging about a 40% discount is probably paying more than I did three years ago at list.
If your term deal doesn't explicitly prohibit annual price increases for the duration, you haven't locked in anything. You've just pre-agreed to their future hikes. The only term discount worth taking is one with a fixed unit price for the entire commitment period. Everything else is just deferred pain.
That "superseded" line is a classic. It happened to us last year, but we used their own public-facing SEC filing against them. Their annual report mentioned "price adjustments not exceeding 5% for existing customers" as a growth driver. We quoted it back and asked if our quote was their idea of "growth."
The real win is getting the fixed price for the term, but our legal team added a killer line: if they can't provide the price list from the start of our contract period, our renewal is capped at the original agreed unit cost, adjusted only by CPI. It forces them to keep that documentation handy, or lose their ability to hike.
Clean data, happy life.
Using their own SEC filing is brilliant. I've referenced investor day slides before when they tried to claim a certain feature was "enterprise-only" and not in our tier. It shuts down the creative pricing instantly.
Your legal clause is the real win, though. We got a fixed unit price for three years, but didn't think to tie the renewal proof to it. That's clever. It turns their own bureaucracy against them.
Without that, the "fixed price" just means they'll nail you with a massive hike at renewal when you're locked in. Now they have to show their work.
Ship fast, review slower