Category Archives: Marketing

The Green Cabbage Grows Another Leaf

When we first invited you to Take a Leaf from the Green Cabbage eighteen months ago, we covered one of the most extensive services-backed indirect-focussed spend analysis players in the market (serving clients like Delta, Home Depot, Dell, Adobe, etc.) with deep support for:

  • SaaS Subscriptions: going well beyond many of the dime-a-dozen SaaS cost analyzers (and there are quite a number of those now, see our coverage of the Sacred Cows), Green Cabbage can unpack the purposely confusing consumption models the big players throw at you (to try and get you to spend more than you need to), do SKU level price comparisons, provide you deep insight into negotiation opportunities, and, through their MITs, provide guidance into how to achieve actual savings
  • Contingent Workforce (CW): detailed insights into over 70,000 position-level-market (geography) combinations for deep negotiation insights across 120 countries
  • Clinicals: deep knowledge and insights into clinical SKUs and sourcing
  • Invari: their Invoice management platform, which allows invoice and payment data to automatically be extracted into the appropriate spend cubes while also providing core I2P capability (and eliminating the need for YAP — yet another platform)
  • MITs (Market Intelligence Theses) across SaaS, CW, and Clinicals: which could be lightweight, comprehensive, or competitive; guaranteed to be completed within 3 days, and usually completed in 1 to 2 days for lightweight and comprehensive
  • Contract Library: Green Cabbage starts by loading your contracts, not your spend data, extracting the key terms and pricing, and then loads your spend data, tying as much as they can to your contracts (for immediate insights into any pricing violations); this is important because this is the foundation for the deep insights they can provide via Elegion, which we mentioned, but didn’t get into as it was in earlier stages at the time

Now, since it’s only been six months, you’re probably wondering how much new stuff could there be that would entice Sourcing Innovation to pen an update after such a short time. Quite a bit actually. There are five improved and new offerings in particular that need to be addressed:

Elegion (formerly GC Legal)

Elegion, their in-depth contract clause repository, contains hundreds of business, commercial, and legal terms; conditions; and standard contract clauses with an explanation of what each term is along with best-in-class definitions of each clause.
The platform makes it a point to call out the highly-relevant “mousetraps” that suppliers will use to (often unfairly) protect themselves through inclusion, exclusion, or modified language. The best-in-class definitions are drafted by licensed attorneys with expertise in the relevant subject matter and areas specifically supported by Green Cabbage (IT, Marketing, and Contingent Workforce). Moreover, the attorneys who drafted these clauses have collectively negotiated thousands of deals from both sides of the table in these areas.

In addition, directly through the platform, via secure end-to-end encryption, users can use their credits* to asynchronously request input on specific clauses in the agreements presented to them during their negotiation with a response guaranteed within 48 hours. Moreover, they can also request synchronous 30 min or 60 min 1-on-1 consultations with an on-staff Green Cabbage Attorney who is an expert in the contract they are currently negotiating. (Green Cabbage‘s top attorneys used to work for the top tech giants and contingent workforce providers.) This service, of course, uses up credits much faster than one-time asynchronous message requests, but can be invaluable when negotiating a multi-million dollar contract. However, the best part of the offering is the deep insight into terms, conditions, clauses, and best language/practice that can allow a buyer to address most of their legal questions self-serve with confidence!

* each subscription comes with a certain number of credits, and clients can always buy more

Better Support for Corporate Hierarchies

As we indicated in our first article, Green Cabbage supports a number of big Private Equity firms, including Private Equity Firms that manage a number of other Private Equity Firms (where each has specialized funds). As such, they have built an infinitely extensible corporate hierarchy with appropriate view and access permissions, that allow an individual, with the right permissions in any department or company, to see all of the spend in all of the departments and companies under their purview down the chain to identify opportunities for contract (re)negotiations through the utilization of a common platform provider, CWM provider, etc. (You may not believe it, but even the mega-corps will respond to a renegotiate now or we stop using you across 10 of our companies … no need to wait for the renewal.) This helps them answer questions like “how much do I spend across my portfolio with supplier S or on category X”, which is very powerful information to have for leverage and can often support contract negotiation at a group or higher level.

Receptio Integration (GPA)

If you’re a large mid-market or Global 3000, you use a lot of tech. These will range from small task/function/department specific small SaaS apps that go on the P-Card to multi-million contracts with the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, or Google. And while there is savings available in virtually every contract in every price range, for a large mid-market or global multi-national, it’s not worth chasing 5K on a 50K contract when there is likely 200K to be saved on a 1M contract. In this situation, you’ll just blindly accept the renewal for the small SaaS app if the price increase is 10% or less, and spend your hours negotiating an extra 10% from the behemoth because that’s big bucks. But what about the mid-range? The 50K to 250K contracts where there’s likely 5K to 50K of savings? That’s nothing to scoff at, but the cost of the effort involved, especially if you need to involve Legal, sometimes negates the value you realize.

So what’s the answer? Pre-negotiated Terms and Conditions from specialized GPOs that specialize in the best rates, on average, from these providers by bringing these, usually smaller, providers more business volume than they’d get on their own. That’s Receptio — an integration platform that connects you to Green Cabbage‘s Group Purchasing Arm partners that can get you better deals from many SaaS providers and Contingent Workforce providers than you can get on your own when your needs fall into the mid-range of spending.

Supplier Newstand

What’s the one thing missing from most supplier management and contract management platforms? Supplier Insights that are meaningful at contract negotiation and renewal time. Why is this typically missing? Because it requires scouring the internet to find relevant news that relates to the supplier, pulling in the links and creating summaries (hallucination free), and then tagging the articles to relevant subject matter (ownership, management, product, etc.) to allow a buyer to determine not only the org type and management but whether that’s likely to change (e.g. the organization just brought in an expert consultant on going public, announced a new CEO, etc.).

Green Cabbage recently released the first version (that currently scours over 750 news channels and vetted news sources) of this that allows you to see and search all of the recent news associated with a supplier — including, but not limited to: acquisition/merger activity, pricing changes, layoffs, executive movement, etc. — and is currently working on the next release that will associate these articles with pre-defined tags to provide quick insights.

Marketing Spend Intelligence

This is the newest offering of the Green Cabbage platform — deep, specialized insight into marketing spend. IT Spend may be the biggest at 5 Trillion Spend, but Marketing is no slouch either at an extrapolated estimated value approaching 2 Trillion when you correlate various sources and metrics, with Advertising spending alone topping 1 Trillion in 2024 (with the E&M industry being a 2.8 Trillion industry in the US alone). And, like SaaS, there is a huge amount of overspend in this category as well, especially in the non-creative spend in production and distribution when material and standardized service costs are not analyzed. Moreover, very few spend analysis, procurement software, or consultancies can provide these deep insights and guidance — and fewer still with guidance for marketing professionals with little-to-no Procurement experience. This alone almost warrants an update as market intelligence alone unveils huge opportunities, but, as you just noticed, this is just one of many improvements.

In other words, Green Cabbage has been advancing their offering at a rapid rate, as they also expand globally, with offices in the United Kingdom and India to complement their US office, and expansion into AustralAsia imminent.

Dear Enterprise Software Vendor: Should You Fire Your PR and Marketing?

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!Β  Your mileage will vary!Β  (And not about any firm in particular, as a few non-isolated incidents opened up a whole new line of questioning.)

In response to a post by eCornell (which is/was here), THE REVELATOR wrote this comment (which is/was here) which is repeated here in its entirety in case it gets deleted, since anytime we tried to have a serious conversation around sales, marketing, public relations, and/or Gen-AI with Big X firms and/or (mid-sized) consultancies and analyst firms, they have quickly deleted our comments, and sometimes their entire posts rather than enter into a real conversation on the subject (and now we have developed an implicit distrust any corporate account and keep copies of everything):

NOTE: The following post was inspired by a comment by Paul Rogers

Despite feeling like someone walking the hallowed halls of Cornell University wearing a “Yeah, Harvard University” t-shirt, sometimes you have to say things that need to be said – which is the purpose of sharing this article.

Ask ChatGPT the following two questions:

πŸ€” What is the role of the Public Relations professional?
πŸ€” What is the role of the Marketing professional?

Do you see any mention of end client or customer success as a priority? Whose best interests are PR and marketing professionals focused on? What does the answer to these questions tell you?

Corporate communication has always been about putting a positive spin on business and the brand. It reminds me of the 1986 Richard Gere movie Power – if not a great movie, it is certainly interesting and engaging. Denzel Washington’s role as public relations expert Arnold Billings is worth the price of admission alone.

Unfortunately, beyond the company they represent, are PR and marketing people doing more harm than good?

Thoughts?

To which the doctor responded (which is/was here)

Well, SI, which has repeatedly told companies in our space to fire their PR firms going back to 2008: Blogger Relations, firmly believes that PR firms are doing more harm than good because

  1. you are NOT selling enterprise software to consumers and
  2. it’s not “image”, it’s “solution”!

As for marketing, corporate marketing can be good if it exists to educate and explain, but when was the last time that happened on a regular basis in our space? Over a decade ago … now it’s all AI-this, orchestrate-that, and whatever the bullcr@p of the day is. It’s all buzz, no honey. All show, no substance. All confusion, no clarity. (It’s bad enough that Trump has brought back the Land of Confusion with his populist politics that have taken by storm the first world over, we don’t need it in our workplace!)

So, right now, I’d say at least 6/7, if not 9/10, marketers are doing more harm than good and should be fired with their PR brethren.

There are over 666 companies in our space, and way too many pandering any type of solution you can think of. While we need at least 3-5 in each industry group – market size – geo region – module focus you can think of for competition, we don’t need 30+. Most are not going to survive, especially when most of these don’t have solid solutions built from years of experience that solve real customer problems (as opposed to just offering some shiny new tech that looks good but doesn’t solve the majority of pain points in real organizations).

This means that companies need to focus less on marketing and selling and more on:

  • market research, especially listening to what the real pain points are of the customers they want to sell to (and they need to focus in on a customer group here, you can’t be everything to everyone in our space and any company that thinks it can is the first company you should walk away from)
  • solution (not product) development — not shiny new tech, tried-and-true tech that works
  • market education, explaining what they do, how they do it, and why it solves real pain points after building a solution that solves the pain points they identified in their research

Which means, especially if money is tight, they should forget the marketers and instead focus on hiring researchers and educators. People are getting tired of the 80%+ tech project failure rates. They’d welcome some real insight and real focus on real solutions. If only the market would wake up and realize this!

Dear Marketer On a Budget …

It’s never quantity, it’s quality.

And audience matters!

  • The majority of people who follow a celebrity aren’t following because they want pitches.
  • The majority of people who follow a major influencer aren’t following because they jive with that influencer.
  • And those that follow a minor influencer are following for a reason and are generally of a certain consumer class (based on the common reason). Don’t ask a fashion influencer for low cost apparel to sell a high end luxury watch, and in our space, don’t ask an influencer whose only use for tech is to make brainless content for followers to consume to sell an enterprise product.

These are hard truths that have been the case since even before influencers, so the following linked post from Phoebe Sophia Russell from “In the Style” (on how 150,000 on a celebrity Instagram post only produced $800 in sales) didn’t surprise me. It’s like the new startup that forks over 100K for a big bash at ISM only to come back surprised when they didn’t even manage to get a single follow up demo scheduled.

Think back to the days when Oracle, SAP and IBM (and almost no one else) used to advertise everywhere, but see almost nothing for their stadium sponsorships, airline magazine ads, etc. All it bought them was name recognition — which was important IF you could get in front of a client who’d seen your business name (repeatedly) and not your competitors (and then instinctively thought of your company as successful), but they still had to get those RFPs and meetings, which means investing in traditional sales channels that would enable that. But that’s not a strategy the vast majority of companies can afford!

SI, which has been giving away free marketing advice (including great advice from Pinky and the Brain#) since it began (because 𝘡𝘩𝘦 π˜₯𝘰𝘀𝘡𝘰𝘳 has no intention of being a marketer … but still knows what works*), including this piece on Marketing 101 which appeared with the FAQ in 2007, always advocated for intelligent spending for smaller companies which focussed on publications (on & offline), events, and thought leaders who had the necessary audience, even if it was small. 100 buyers who actually want the type of products covered by the publications, events, and thought leaders is better than 100,000 individuals who have zero interest.

And the good news is that, even though many marketers during the heyday of free money would say I was off my rocker, the best marketers today pretty much agree with me, include the Marketing Maven Sarah Scudder who has teamed up with Dr. Elouise Epstein (in their DualSource Discourse podcast) to help educate you.

(Which is great since there aren’t many of us left trying to … going back to when I started, it’s just Jason Busch, Jon W. Hansen, Peter Smith, and Pete Loughlin who haven’t given up. Fortunately, we were joined by Kelly Barner and Philip Ideson of Art of Procurement and now we have David Loseby, Tom Mills, JoΓ«l Collin-Demers, and James Meads as well … )

Focus, Audience, and Education matter!

* Every single sponsor of SI before 𝘡𝘩𝘦 π˜₯𝘰𝘀𝘡𝘰𝘳 joined Spend Matters in ’16 (to ’22) [and suspended sponsorships] was acquired by ’19.

# The Brain Gives Pinky a Marketing Lesson
# Where Pinky and the brain devise a plan to market their strategy

The Procurement Space is Filled with Hogwash! It’s Time We Start Calling It Out!

Not that long ago, Jon THE REVELATOR noted that nothing matters more than getting your messaging right in an article over on LinkedIn. Quoting a piece from 2010 where, in the colliding worlds of traditional and social media, the line of distinction is not as clear. Even though there are no real technological boundaries to limit the number of blogs, websites, and news sites, it is only a matter of time before the over-abundance of writers will manifest itself in the form of Aldous Huxley’s greatest fear and lament that truth would somehow β€œbe drowned in a sea of irrelevance.” If not irrelevance, then one of information overload.

His lament echos that of Sarah Scudder who notes to ProcureTech brands that when we look at your website, we have NO idea what you do. You confuse us and say the same thing as the other 23+ brands in your space. Your platform is AI enabled/AI backed/AI enhanced/AI driven but what problem are you going to solve for me?! That the majority of marketing is the exact same messaging with no actual meaning.

As a result of this, and THE REVELATOR‘s comments, the doctor was forced to note that he’s getting fed up with the use of the word “content“. The Oxford dictionary defines content as “information made available by a website or other electronic medium”.

The Oxford diction then defines information as “facts provided or learned”.

There are NO facts in most of the hogwash these marketers are pushing onto the market. Therefore it is NOT content. Let’s start calling it what it is: HOGWASH! (And refer to our recent piece where we demystify the marketing madness for you for some of the more common, and more egregious, examples of this Hogwash!)

Content must be informative (precisely what you sell, precisely what it does, precisely how it helps the customer, and precisely what results the customer will get). Otherwise, it’s just HOGWASH!

As the doctor has said before, there’s a reason SI hasn’t returned to sponsorships [yet] (and that the doctor hasn’t authored any public papers/books for anyone in quite a while) — and it’s because almost none of these companies truly care about their customers anymore, once they take the (Investor/Angel/VC/PE/Wall Street) money, it’s only “sell, sell, sell“).

(If these companies did care, they’d be lining up asking us for the EDUCATION the doctor and THE REVELATOR used to provide, that, in the doctor‘s case, helped every single sponsor get the exit they weren’t even necessarily looking for at the time … because, even if it sounds plain vanilla, there’s nothing [potential] customers value more than the education and insights they need to do their jobs that their employer, who cut the training budget years ago and used the bonus money for a defective “chat, j’ai pΓ©tΓ©”-bot, won’t provide).

So, dwelling on this, it leaves the doctor with a question. Should we start calling out ALL the HOGWASH as we see it? Could we even keep up? Or should we stick to the HOGWASH of the week?

Have We Been In The Dank Basement So Long That We Don’t Care If the Fish Stinks?

the doctor has to ask because when Jon The Revelator asked if you would eat a piece of fish that has been in your freezer for 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? not many of you spoke up and it seems you are quite okay with old, smelly fish, which, in this case was a metaphor for provider case studies, as this was a follow up to The Revelator‘s post that asked Should Solution Provider Case Studies Have a Best Before Date.

A question, which was in turn sparked from a comment by Duncan Jones to his preceding inquiry on what can 2005 tell us on why most AI initiatives fail in 2024, which is a question that was partially sparked off of a post the doctor himself made on how we need to hasten onshoring and nearshoring — the drivers will pound those who don’t into the ground! (Part 2).

While this sounds like a long, meandering, pointless introduction, it’s exactly the opposite. The purpose is to demonstrate that not only are many parts of Procurement and Supply Chain connected, but they are connected in complex ways that require sufficiently broad, as well as sufficiently deep, solutions that address the complexities being experienced by the organizations a vendor is trying to sell to.

Furthermore, this means that for an organization, or a consulting partner, to select the right solution, they need deep information on what the solution does, where it’s been used, and what it has been proven to do. Traditionally, this would mean that they would require product sheets and demos, customer references, and case studies to make a good decision.

However, centering in on this last requirement, not all case studies are created equal, and not all are even “case studies” at all. What once was the domain of third party analysts, consultants, and professors (who would do proper due diligence, data collection, and impartial write-ups for educational and investment purposes) has now become the domain of marketers who get happy customers, often still wearing the rose-coloured glasses that came free with the install, to tell a story that they write-up and promote using very little, and often unverified, data. Those are not useful at all. Furthermore, if you don’t know what version of the software, what stack the customer ran on, and/or, and sometimes most importantly, when the study was done (and the time period it was done over), is it even still relevant at all?

This prompted the critical question from The Revelator about whether or not studies should have a best before date. the doctor leans towards no on best before date, because just like different types of fish have a different shelf life, different case studies will have a different shelf life, but votes a most definite yes on a packaging date.

To elaborate on the comment he made when asked, the following is absolutely critical to be included in the case study:

  • when the case study was written (packaging date)
  • the time period it was over (processing dates)
  • the precise metrics that were tracked and how they were computed (labelling compliance)
  • the extent of organizational data that was used (ingredients)
    [as well as the full extent of data available (may contain)]
  • the products, and versions, that were used (processing)

In other words, a feel-good story with a few random numbers is not case study! (the doctor would say any marketer trying to pass such off as one should be ashamed, but any marketer who did would obviously be without shame, so there’s really no point in saying it.) A case study has rigour in definition, methodology, data collection, and exposition and contains all the information that would be needed if a third party wanted to repeat it. (The same way a scientific study provides enough detail for an independent team to verify it.) Anything less should be considered unacceptable.

And, most importantly, since business processes, products, systems, and stacks continually change, a study (processing) date and a publication (packaging) date MUST be included so that a buyer can make an informed decision as to whether that study is still relevant to them (as they decide just how much stink they are willing to tolerate).