Hospitals are reporting a growing frustration when it comes getting what they need from reps who – at times – can make supplier negotiations painfully difficult. Working with uncollaborative reps can be frustrating for many reasons, especially when it comes to staying within budget or meeting deadlines. But what are you going to do, right? The supplier has something you need, and the best you can do is to keep sending emails, making calls, and hoping for the best. But actually, there’s a much more powerful way to make sure you get what you need from suppliers.
Say “no” when you need to. Instead of tolerating the non-responsiveness of reps in supplier negotiations, use a strategic “no” to reset expectations and help your suppliers understand what you need from them. Saying “no” can include not buying the supplier’s product, buying from a different supplier, buying used instead of new, or simply cancelling the deal and making do with the equipment you currently have. It’s hard if you don’t have a plan, so make sure that you have options ready with alternate suppliers when necessary and be prepared to act on them. A little healthy competition never hurts – and as long as your rep continues to win, you’re simply prolonging your frustration.
Recently, a Miga hospital client was waiting for a quote and shipping timing from an OEM rep for some modules needed to complete a patient monitoring upgrade. But after complete silence from the rep, despite four follow-up emails and six missed calls over the course of three weeks, the hospital said “the heck with it” and bought from a different supplier instead. Not only was the new supplier far more responsive, but they also delivered the modules within a week for 27% less than the original price ($9,000 savings). But that wasn’t all: when the rep learned that his slow response had cost him a sale and that the hospital was willing to look elsewhere, he went out of his way to make it up to them – securing a 19% price cut on all computer monitor purchases for the coming year (an estimated savings of $433,000). And all it took was the hospital being willing to say “no.”