I never expected to write about vendor relationships, but here we are.

For most of my career, I actively avoided vendor conversations. Even after spending time on the vendor side myself—working in consulting and professional services—I found the dynamic uncomfortable. I’d sit through pitches knowing I had no budget authority. I’d feel guilty saying no. Worst of all, sometimes I’d just… ghost them, because I didn’t know how to gracefully end conversations that weren’t going anywhere.

Looking back, my discomfort came from a fundamental misunderstanding of what these conversations could be.

The Conversation That Changed My Mind

A few years ago, we were re-evaluating our SAST/DAST/SCA stack. This was one of those rare moments where we had real budget, clear requirements, and actual decision-making authority. We ran several proof-of-concepts with different vendors, put in the work to evaluate them properly, and made our choice.

Here’s where I did something that apparently isn’t standard practice: I reached out to every vendor we’d worked with to explain our decision. Not just “we went another direction,” but the actual reasoning—what we valued, where their solution fell short, what sealed the deal for the vendor we chose.

I expected pushback. The sales objections. The “but our tool can actually do that too if you just…” attempts to keep the deal alive.

That’s not what happened.

Instead, I got appreciation. Genuine appreciation. They valued having concrete feedback to take back to their product teams. They were grateful we didn’t just disappear after weeks of working together on a PoC, leaving them wondering what went wrong or if we’d even made a decision yet.

That’s when I learned: ghosting vendors after proof-of-concepts is apparently common practice in our industry.

It shocked me then. It still shocks me now.

Why This Matters More Than You Think

This industry is smaller than it appears. The vendor account executive you’re talking to today might be:

• Your peer at a security conference next year
• A hiring manager for a role you’re interested in
• A founder or early employee at the next hot startup you want to work with
• Someone who remembers you treated them professionally when they needed customer feedback

Maintaining relationships costs you nothing. Burning bridges, even unintentionally through ghosting, can limit your options in ways you won’t see until much later.

I’m not suggesting you should buy tools you don’t need or waste time on conversations that aren’t valuable. I’m suggesting that professional courtesy and direct communication serve your interests better than avoiding what you think may be a hard conversation (this is true in so many additional contexts as well).

What I’ve Learned From Weekly Vendor Conversations

Fast forward to today: I talk to vendors almost every week. Sometimes multiple in a single week. And I’ve learned far more than I expected about the security market, product development, and strategic thinking.

Early-Stage Vendors Will Often Build With You

This one surprised me most. If your use case is compelling and aligns with their vision, many early-stage vendors are willing to evolve their product based on your feedback. You’re not just evaluating a static tool—you’re potentially shaping it.

I’ve had conversations where vendors have said, “We don’t do that today, but if you’d be willing to partner with us on development, we could build it in the next quarter.” Sometimes that makes sense. Sometimes it doesn’t. But having that option changes the dynamic entirely.

Larger, more established vendors rarely have that flexibility. They have established roadmaps, competing customer demands, and organizational inertia. Early-stage companies can pivot faster, especially if you represent the type of customer they want to serve.

The key is being clear about what “partnering on development” actually means. Are you willing to provide detailed requirements? Test early versions? Give feedback on iterations? If yes, these relationships can be incredibly valuable. If no, don’t waste anyone’s time pretending otherwise.

A Quick “No” Is a Gift

This took me years to internalize, but it’s true: if you know there’s no fit, saying so directly is more respectful than dragging out the conversation.

| “We don’t have budget for this right now.”

| “This doesn’t align with our current priorities.”

| “We’re not experiencing the pain point your tool solves.”

| “We’ve already committed to a different solution in this space.”

These are all perfectly acceptable responses. They’re not rude. They’re not burning bridges. They’re treating the vendor’s time as valuable, just as you’d want yours treated.

What is disrespectful: scheduling calls you know won’t go anywhere, asking for PoCs you won’t seriously evaluate, or ghosting after weeks of back-and-forth.

I’ve started being radically direct in early conversations. If a vendor reaches out about a space where we have no current pain or planned spend, I tell them that in the first exchange. Often, they appreciate knowing immediately rather than investing hours into discovery calls that won’t lead anywhere.

Some vendors still want to talk anyway—maybe to understand our environment for future reference, or because they think they can uncover latent pain points we haven’t recognized. That’s fine. But everyone enters the conversation with clear expectations.

Multiple Vendor Conversations Reveal the Landscape

This is where these conversations became unexpectedly valuable for strategic thinking.

When you talk to five vendors in the same space, you start to see patterns:

• Different schools of thought about what the “real” problem is
• Competing philosophies about the right solution approach
• Trade-offs between comprehensiveness and ease of use
• What features are table stakes versus differentiators

Early-stage companies are especially revealing here. Many founders started their companies because they experienced firsthand the limitations of existing “good enough” solutions. They’ll tell you exactly what frustrated them, what they wish existed, and why the incumbent approaches fall short.

That context is gold for strategic thinking.

When you’re evaluating your security program, understanding the range of possible approaches—not just the one or two tools you’re actively considering—helps you make better decisions. You understand what you’re trading off, what might be possible in the future, and where the market is heading.

This is market intelligence you can’t get from Gartner reports or product documentation. It comes from conversations with people actively building in the space.

The Unexpected Strategic Benefit

Here’s what I didn’t anticipate: these conversations have made me better at strategic thinking about security architecture.

Understanding how different vendors approach the same problem—what they prioritize, what they’re willing to compromise on, how they think about integration with existing tools—gives you insight into the actual trade-offs in security tooling.

You start to develop opinions about what matters and what doesn’t. You can articulate why you’d choose approach A over approach B. You can spot bullshit faster because you’ve heard enough pitches to know when someone’s overselling capabilities or underselling complexity.

This isn’t about becoming a better buyer (though that’s a side effect). It’s about becoming a more sophisticated thinker about the security landscape.

How to Actually Do This Well

If you’re going to engage with vendors, do it professionally:

Be clear about your situation upfront. Do you have budget? Decision-making authority? A genuine pain point? Say so. If the answer is no to all three, explain why you’re still taking the call.

Respect their time. If you schedule a demo, show up prepared. If you commit to a PoC, actually evaluate it. If you say you’ll get back to them by a certain date, do it.

Give real feedback when you can. If you chose a competitor, explain why. If their product missed the mark, tell them how. Most vendors would rather hear hard truths than polite nothings.

Don’t ghost. Just don’t. If you need to end the conversation, end it explicitly. “We’ve decided not to move forward” is a complete sentence.

Remember it’s a professional relationship. You don’t have to be friends. You don’t owe them a sale. But you do owe them the same professional courtesy you’d want if the roles were reversed.

Final Thoughts

Vendor conversations don’t have to be adversarial or transactional. They can be professional exchanges with people solving real problems, often bringing fresh perspectives to spaces where we’ve accepted “good enough” for too long.

The key is approaching them honestly: clear about your constraints, respectful of everyone’s time, and open to learning even when you’re not buying.

I still don’t love every vendor call I take. But I’ve stopped dreading them. And I’ve learned far more than I expected.