In marketing technology, vendor relationships often fail early. Sales representatives schedule demos with strangers. Pitches emphasize features, not value. Contracts are signed based on promises. Months later, the relationship falters under misaligned expectations.
Kelly Haggard, Vice President of Marketing Innovation at Synchrony, has spent over a decade navigating vendor relationships in a complex, regulated financial environment. Her approach is guided by a simple but powerful analogy borrowed from marketing expert Flint McGlaughlin: building vendor partnerships is like dating, not proposing marriage to a stranger at a networking event. This framework challenges the transactional nature of B2B sales and replaces it with a more sustainable approach: relationships built on mutual understanding, demonstrated value, and patience.
Why the "Propose on Day One" Approach Fails
The standard vendor playbook is broken. Vendors flood inboxes, schedule meetings, present demos, and expect marketing leaders to make six-figure decisions based on limited interaction and generic use cases. Kelly describes the problem clearly: "You're not gonna walk up to someone in a room and say, you're attractive and let's go get married." Yet that's exactly what many vendors attempt to do.
The reality is more nuanced. Marketing leaders aren't looking to replace existing solutions on a whim. As Kelly notes, "If we have a solution in place already doing it, we're not necessarily looking to replace. That's not an innovation to us." Onboarding a new vendor requires cross-functional alignment, legal review, technical integration, and organizational change management. The bar is high and for good reason.
Kelly also emphasizes the importance of existing relationships: "I have an existing vendor, I probably have a relationship with that vendor, and they offer similar products and solutions. Because I already have that relationship, if they offer it and we're not doing it yet, I'm probably gonna work with them first." This means competing vendors need genuine differentiation, not just a slightly cheaper version of the same capability. Without a compelling value proposition and the patience to build trust, most vendor relationships fail before they start.
Building Trust Through Multiple Touchpoints
Dating, in the vendor relationship context, means demonstrating value before asking for anything in return. It means understanding the prospect's goals, challenges, and constraints before pitching a solution.
Kelly offers a clear roadmap: instead of cold outreach with demo requests, start with valuable content. Host webinars addressing real industry challenges. Share case studies demonstrating measurable outcomes, not just product features. At trade shows, focus on sharing relevant information rather than immediately scheduling demos. As Kelly puts it: "If I'm meeting you in person at a trade show, maybe giving me some case studies or some information is more valuable than immediately asking for a demo. What are we demoing? I don't understand."
This gradual accumulation of trust transforms a vendor from a stranger into a partner. The best relationships are built on multiple touchpoints over time: a valuable webinar, a thoughtful follow-up conversation, a case study addressing a specific challenge, a demonstration tailored to the organization's actual needs.
Patience is critical, particularly in regulated industries like financial services. The timeline from initial meeting to contract signing can span months or even years. Vendors that stay engaged throughout - continuing to provide value, sharing relevant insights, and remaining responsive without being pushy - position themselves as long-term partners rather than transactional suppliers.
What's In It For Me: The Only Question That Matters
The dating framework works because it aligns with what marketing leaders actually need: partners who understand their business, not salespeople pushing products. Kelly frames vendor evaluation around three critical questions: "What am I going to be able to bring back to my leaders that I'm either driving revenue, saving costs, or driving customer satisfaction?"
Vendors that can answer this question clearly - with evidence, not speculation - earn consideration. Those who focus on features without connecting them to business outcomes get ignored. This is the fundamental test every vendor pitch must pass: does this solution address a real problem, and can it demonstrate measurable value?
When the dating phase is done well, the marriage phase becomes smoother. Both parties have invested time in understanding each other. Expectations are clear. The vendor has demonstrated value, and the marketing leader has confidence that the partnership will deliver results.
But even after the contract is signed, the relationship requires ongoing investment. When a vendor helps achieve meaningful outcomes, Kelly ensures that success is shared broadly. This creates a virtuous cycle where vendors that deliver results earn not just contract renewals, but referrals, case study opportunities, and loyalty that transcends pricing negotiations.
The Long Game Wins
The dating vs. marriage framework isn't just a clever analogy, it's a practical approach to building vendor relationships that actually work. It requires patience from vendors and clarity from marketing leaders. It demands that both parties invest in understanding each other before making commitments.
For marketing leaders navigating an increasingly crowded vendor landscape, this framework offers a filter: prioritize vendors that invest in the relationship, demonstrate value over time, and understand your business deeply. For vendors, it's a reminder that selling to enterprise marketing organizations isn't about closing deals quickly - it's about building trust that leads to long-term partnerships.
You don't marry a stranger. And you shouldn't partner with one either
Past Episodes
Resources for growing your product
