Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Fri, Jan 30, 2009 12:49 EST

|
Posted by: Thomas Wailgum in Best Practices Topic: ApplicationsBlog: Enterprise Software Unplugged
Current Rating: |
So much for that whole "We want to be a trusted partner" line from enterprise software vendors. Forrester Research's star ERP analyst Ray Wang recently blogged about software vendors' latest licensing tactic.
In talking with clients during the last three months, Wang says, he has heard about "egregious" new license practices by software vendors. Namely, the vendors are attempting to impose "gag rules" in contracts to limit their customers' use of third-party contract advisers. What's worse, Wang writes, some of these vendors have succeeded.
Here are two specific areas where vendors have asserted these new stipulations:
Limits on third-party negotiation support. "Licensees [are] limited in their ability to discuss contractual terms with others," Wang says. "On top of this, discussions of contractual details require the vendor's written permission."
The impact, Wang writes, is that legal advisers, contract specialists and other interested third parties must obtain permission. "A vendor recently banned a licensee from working with a contract specialist, citing confidentiality," he adds.
Restrictions on freedom of speech. "One vendor had the audacity to include legal language to restrict a client from disclosing details about bugs, defects and contractual breaches with the press, peers and user groups," Wang writes.
The effect: customers will be prevented from working with peers and others in the software company's "ecosystem" to help with technical issues or compare pricing options. "In addition," Wang adds, "the customer now lacks the proper checks and balances in pressuring a vendor to deliver on promised capabilities or address severe security issues, and cannot go to the media as a last resort, if needed."
Vinnie Mirchandani, a former Gartner analyst, blogger and founder of consultancy Deal Architect, which helps companies negotiate software contracts with vendors, writes in an e-mail that "no vendor will make such a request if the deal is competitive. So every company should, during the evaluation, state they will have advisers and attorneys over the course of the procurement."
"If a vendor has a problem, they can disqualify themselves," Mirchandani writes. "Trust me, they will not."
As to vendor concerns that advisers such as Mirchandani will spill the beans about the contract and information obtained during negotiation process, he says that every adviser signs a non-disclosure agreement with the technology buyer. "That should provide vendors some comfort," he notes.
In addition, Mirchandani says, customers should turn the tables on the vendors and ask them "if they have advisers and consultants," he adds. "Believe me...there are lots of advisers on the other side."
For more advice on how to deal with this tactic—especially because software vendors have lost a lot of their negotiating power due to the economy—see Wang's insightful blog.
Good luck and let me know if you've come face to face with these tactics recently.
Great post. Absolutely remarkable that they try this, but I'm certainly not surprised if you look at the track record of a lot of enterprise software. If you build software that breaks all the time, and make additional money on fixing it, (and then having it break again), it's no wonder they don't want their customers to talk about that process with other colleagues in their respective industries or (worse) the press or bloggers. But assume for a second they are building good software, wouldn't they have such confidence in it that they'd want you to spread the word about your experience not only buying it, but maintaining it as well? It's so short-sighted. In the end, they could end up losing potential business because of such gag orders.
Those that get squeezed/screwed are the smaller companies with little leverage. The vendors are no where near as likely to budge on their "so-called" requirements.
Who says that small companies have no leverage? Small companies have MORE leverage over software vendors, because the cost to switch products is lower. There are a number of FREE high quality, fully-featured ERP products out there. If your vendor gives you unpalatable conditions, threaten to go with a free product. You might even want to evaluate it, to show them you're serious.
Cheers,
-Josh
Very nice post, Thomas.
In a blog entry today (http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1502-When-your-vendor-tells-you-to-shut-up), I elaborated on the importance of community participation for buyers. But also discussed turning the tables: buyers should not unduly gag vendors...
This is seriously old news. PeopleSoft was putting these kinds of terms in their contracts in the mid-90's, more than 10 years ago. In their heyday, no one could argue with them, even in an initial sales negotiation, because they would rather give up a sale than lose control of the customer. They had clauses to prevent customers from developing configurations and tools for sharing in user communities, etc.