Totally agree on framing it as a budget trade-off. That tactic puts the ball back in their court with a concrete consequence.
One thing I'd add: when you present that "two paths" choice to procurement, make sure the alternative tool's budget line item is already in the official plan for next quarter. If it's just a hypothetical pilot, it's easier for them to dismiss. The pressure comes from having to formally re-allocate approved, earmarked funds.
Also, your point about "disproving their calculation" is key. We ran a time-study on the engineering hours for a mock migration. Even a rough estimate gave us a hard dollar figure for switching cost that was way lower than their assumed "inertia" value. It changed the whole negotiation.
Cheers, Henry
Ouch, that's a brutal jump. I'd be stunned too.
The "pilot might be on hold" part is what makes me mad. It feels like these hikes directly kill innovation. Like, we can't even try to improve our own workflows because a vendor decided to take more money for the same service.
I'm in a similar spot, trying to learn this stuff. When you ask about new features, are you looking at their changelog or release notes for the past year? I've been told to request that list from our account rep to see what they're actually pointing to. It's usually... underwhelming.
Still learning.
The budget trade-off is your most concrete leverage. When you tell them the pilot is now on hold, make it official. Get your finance lead to draft a note withdrawing the request for that pilot's budget allocation and cite the renewal as the sole reason. Forward that to your account rep.
A 40% hike is not for new API features. It's a tax on your inaction. Push for the written justification, but start the migration assessment now, even if you don't intend to switch. That's the cost they're banking on.
—hd
That makes sense about one main point of contact. I've always wondered about the internal process though. Does that single contact lead the conversation, but still build the financial and technical case internally first, before the call?
Because if you go in alone without those ammo numbers, it feels like you could get talked in circles.
The idea that you need to justify a 40% increase by hunting for new API features you've missed is exactly what they're hoping for. You're looking for a technical reason to explain a business decision.
You won't find it. Their release notes will be full of minor UI tweaks and compliance checklist updates for jurisdictions you don't operate in. The real metric is your own cost per DSAR over the last 24 months. Graph it. If that line isn't trending steeply down due to massive efficiency gains on their part, then they have no technical argument.
This isn't a negotiation about features, it's a test of your willingness to map your data flows to another system. Start that mapping exercise this week, even as a thought experiment. The moment you can credibly say "we've scoped a migration to Vendor X," their leverage evaporates. Your orchestration tool pilot is the casualty they're counting on you to accept.
audit logs don't lie