Objections and procurement pressure: honest answers

A sales objection tells you what this deal is still missing for this buyer. Arguing with it before you understand it is the classic trap: a prepared counter-argument answers the objection you imagined, not the one the buyer has.

Two moves work for almost any objection:

1. Ask what it's compared with, or what's behind it. "Too expensive" can mean a cheaper quote, a fixed budget, or doubt that the problem is worth solving. Each needs a different answer.
2. Answer with a fact or a trade, or say plainly that you're not the right fit. No arguing, no bluffing.

So the best first reply to "800 UAH a lesson is too expensive" is a question: "Fair question. Too expensive compared with what: another offer, last year's budget, or the cost of the problem?" Superlatives ("our tutors are the best") and "everyone pays that" are claims you can't show, and a same-day discount teaches the buyer that objections pay.

Once you know what the price is compared with, answer with what each option includes. Orchid's HR compared Klasna's 800 UAH a lesson with a cheaper freelance tutor.

Running down the freelancer ("unreliable, you'll regret it") is a claim you can't know about this person. Instead, show what the 800 includes for a team: a tutor replaced within a week, lessons around their shifts, attendance reports for HR, data handled to IT's standards, one invoice a quarter. Then let the buyer judge.

And if none of that matters to Orchid, say so: for a few people with flexible hours, a freelancer may truly fit better. An honest "we're not the best choice for this" costs one deal and builds trust for the next one, for example when Orchid's head office needs a whole team trained.

What not to do: match the freelancer's price (margin given for nothing) or invent a price rise next month (a fake deadline).

"We already have a provider" sounds like a wall, but it's useful information: the buyer already pays for this kind of service, so the need and the budget exist. The questions are whether it's working and when they could change.

Ask three things:

• What works well with the current school?
• What doesn't? Let the buyer describe it in their own words.
• When does the contract end, and what notice does it need?

Cobalt, the IT services company, is unhappy with its school but under contract until 31 March 2027. That date shapes everything: there's no point pushing for a switch before it.

Two rules. Never criticise the other school: you don't know the details, and the buyer chose it. And offer something small that fits their contract, such as a sample lesson for one team, so they can compare when the decision comes.

Each common objection has a question behind it, and the first response should ask that question instead of arguing:

• "It's too expensive." → "Compared with what? Another offer, the budget, or what the problem costs?"
• "We already have a provider." → "What works well with them, what doesn't, and when does the contract end?"
• "Just send a proposal." → "Happy to. What should it help you decide, and who will read it?" Often this request is a polite way to end the call. If they can't answer, what you'd send is a brochure, not a proposal.
• "Not now." → "What would need to change, and when should we talk again?"

The pattern is the same each time: find the comparison, the gap, the decision or the condition behind the words. Only then answer, with a fact or a trade, or say honestly that Klasna isn't the right fit.

When a deal reaches procurement, expect a request for better terms, not a signature on the first quote. Procurement teams are measured on what they save, so asking for a discount and longer payment terms is their job. It isn't personal, and it doesn't mean the deal is in trouble.

Veloria's procurement asked for 20% off and 60-day payment terms, "or we'll compare you with the other two offers". That's a normal opening, and Pavlo had warned that procurement compares three offers.

What it needs is a calm, factual answer, not panic and not tricks. Tempting bluffs, such as "our director forbids discounts" or "prices rise in January", fail when they aren't true: invented bosses and fake deadlines get found out, and then procurement distrusts every number you send.

Start from the facts: what you can accept as it is, and what each concession would cost Klasna.

Before answering a discount request, work out what Klasna keeps per lesson at the lower price. The costs that come with each lesson don't shrink when the price does.

At full price: 800 − 430 (tutor) − 31 (video and AI) = 339 UAH of contribution.

At 20% off: the price is 800 × 0.8 = 640 UAH, and the contribution is 640 − 430 − 31 = 179 UAH.

Two tempting wrong answers: "20% less than 339, so 271" (it treats contribution as if it shrank in proportion) and "339, because costs don't change" (it forgets the price did). The whole discount comes out of contribution, because the tutor's 430 and the 31 stay the same.

That's why a discount is traded, never given: the buyer sees 20%, Klasna loses far more of what it keeps. The full arithmetic of discounts, including how much extra volume would pay for one, comes in the next module.

Compare the contribution before and after the discount as a share, and the size of the problem becomes clear.

At 800 UAH Klasna keeps 339 a lesson; at 640 it keeps 179. The loss is 339 − 179 = 160 UAH, and as a share of what Klasna kept before: 160 ÷ 339 = 47.2%.

So a 20% cut in price removes about 47% of contribution. The reason is leverage: the price includes 461 UAH of costs per lesson that don't move, so every hryvnia off the price comes straight out of the 339.

This is the number to keep in mind when procurement says "it's only 20%". To earn the same total contribution at 179 a lesson, Klasna would need almost twice the lessons (339 ÷ 179 ≈ 1.9 times). The next module works through when volume or commitment can justify a discount, and how approvals work.

The answer to procurement is a trade: any concession comes with something in return.

• Accept what has really been approved. Teams' standard is 30 days to pay, and anything longer needs Hanna's approval. She approved 60 days for Veloria at the full price, so they can be agreed without a price trade.
• Lower the price only for something worth it to Klasna: a twelve-month commitment instead of a quarter, more learners, a quarter paid upfront, or permission to publish the results as a case study.
• State real approval steps. "Any price change needs approval from the head of Teams; I'll bring her the options" is fine, because it's true.

What doesn't work: "Fine, 20% off, as long as you sign" (a giveaway that teaches procurement to ask for more), an invented ban from the CEO, or an invented price rise on 1 January. Keep margins out of the reply: they're Klasna's business.

How it fits together: find what's behind each objection, answer with facts or trades, admit a poor fit, treat procurement as a trade. Next lesson, the module's case: Cobalt's learning lead went quiet, and you write the next three messages.