MARKET SHARE / B2B
The customer already has a supplier. What would make them switch?
How we would approach winning customers in a B2B market where existing suppliers already hold relationships and contracts.
PLEASE NOTEConceptual scenario for an industrial maintenance provider. Companies, contracts, and situations are fictional. No client results are presented.
The situation we would examine
An industrial maintenance company has available capacity and several stable relationships. It wants to grow in a region where factories already use familiar suppliers. Campaigns bring visits and price inquiries, but few discussions progress to a serious evaluation.
We assume the service is competitive for a particular equipment category and that technical documentation supports the offer. We need to understand when a buyer would consider an alternative and what would help them manage the change.
Which market we want to win
We would define the category, equipment types, eligible factories, region, and period. Value share would require the supplier’s category revenue divided by total spending on comparable services in that defined market.
We would not automatically use competitors’ total revenue, which may include other services and regions. Nor does the number of contracts won alone reflect market value, because contract sizes differ.
If total spending cannot be estimated credibly, we would track penetration of the eligible account list, competitive wins, and relevant revenue. These provide evidence of commercial progress. Market share remains an objective requiring a verifiable denominator.
What we would investigate
We would examine won, lost, and deferred contracts, documented reasons, and buying roles. We would speak with technical teams, procurement, and the people who bear the consequences of unsuccessful maintenance.
We would look for review moments: contract expiration, new equipment, factory expansion, or a need the current supplier cannot cover. We would not assume every account is ready to switch in the same month.
Switching costs would include evaluation time, supplier approval, service continuity, and demands on the customer’s team. A seemingly cheaper proposal can be difficult to accept when these issues remain unclear.
Working hypotheses
The company may be unfamiliar to the right people. Its technical difference may be poorly explained. Or buyers may understand the difference but lack an acceptable path to evaluate an alternative.
We would connect each hypothesis to a check. For example, if meetings happen but progress stops at qualification documents, the next step may require operational and commercial work before more media investment.
The proposed concept
We would build a bounded entry into the relationship: a needs assessment or a customer-approved technical pilot where the supplier can demonstrate competence. Acceptance criteria, responsibilities, continuity, and exit conditions would be clear before the pilot starts.
| Customer stage | What we would prepare | What we would verify |
|---|---|---|
| Researching alternatives | An application page, capabilities, and relevant documentation. | Does the customer understand where the supplier fits? |
| Assessing compatibility | Technical questions and a conversation with the right person. | Is there a real need and the capability to meet it? |
| Seeking internal approval | A clear proposal, conditions, and responsibilities. | Can users, procurement, and management make a decision together? |
| Testing the relationship | A bounded pilot and acceptance criteria. | Do the result and effort justify the next stage? |
| Expanding the relationship | A transition plan and confirmed capacity. | Can the promised service level be sustained? |
A different next step for each buying stage
Choose a fictional account situation. The next step depends on readiness and evidence, not just whether someone clicked an ad.
Fictional data and situations.A local demonstration, without client results. Your choices do not send data, inquiries, or bookings.
Not reviewing suppliers
The current supplier is meeting expectations and the contract is not under review.
Share relevant technical information when useful and agree on whether a later conversation makes sense.
What needs checking
Look for a real review date or unmet need. Do not treat interest in content as intent to replace a supplier.
Read all variations
Not reviewing suppliers
Customer situation: The current supplier is meeting expectations and the contract is not under review.
A step to evaluate: Share relevant technical information when useful and agree on whether a later conversation makes sense.
Check: Look for a real review date or unmet need. Do not treat interest in content as intent to replace a supplier.
Comparing alternatives
Customer situation: The customer is examining technical fit and service continuity.
A step to evaluate: Prepare application-specific documentation and a conversation with the people responsible for technical and commercial approval.
Check: Confirm equipment, qualification requirements, available capacity, and evaluation criteria before proposing a pilot.
Can approve a pilot
Customer situation: An authorized customer contact can approve a bounded technical evaluation.
A step to evaluate: Agree on scope, responsibilities, acceptance criteria, continuity, and exit conditions. A pilot is not a confirmed long-term contract.
Check: Technical and commercial teams validate the conditions. No proposal is sent and no commitment is made by this demonstration.
What we would build
We would organize accounts by fit and buying stage, develop positioning by application, and prepare evaluation materials. We would build pages, approved technical content, campaigns, and follow-up steps for the sales team.
The CRM would distinguish replacement of a supplier, a secondary supplier relationship, and new category demand when the customer confirms the information. We would not classify a sale as a competitive win merely because a competitor was mentioned.
NOT MORE. could lead research, messaging, experience, and marketing execution. The client’s technical and commercial teams would validate feasibility, the pilot, the offer, and transition terms.
How we would measure
We would track eligible opportunities, their progress, and activated contracts. Win rate would use competitive opportunities closed as won or lost; no-decision cases and open opportunities would be reported separately, with consistent rules across periods.
We would examine revenue from the target category, contribution after selling and delivery costs, and retention after activation. We would also track growth in existing accounts without confusing share of one customer’s budget with share of the entire market.
Where enough comparable accounts exist, we could introduce the campaign in stages. With a small sample and infrequent contracts, we would document progress and alternative explanations without automatically attributing all revenue to a campaign.
What could change the recommendation
If the company fails technical qualification, that becomes the priority. If it cannot support contract transitions, we adjust the pace. If the current supplier performs well and there is no reason to change, we build familiarity for the right moment, with investment proportionate to the opportunity.
What would a customer need to verify before trusting you with work someone else does today?