What a dumb law. I wish I had a dollar for everytime the government tried to stop progress to protect big, archaic businesses (über, sidecar, lyft, Airbnb, you're with me on this one). Anyone smell corruption brewing?
Think about it. How can a government own a car company then legislate against other car companies? I know it's federal gov buying and local gov ruling in this example, but it's a slippery slope nonetheless. It would be like mark Cuban becoming the commissioner of the NBA while still the owner of the mavs. Anyone here think that would end well?
Am I the only founder here who enjoys the challenge of a toxic customer? Make the deal, sign a short term contract, then drop communication. A customer is only toxic when they know they have leverage. My strategy: build up a false sense of leverage during the deal cycle, then at the end DHV and threaten to pull away, close the deal, and make em feel like you did them a favor. Never say no. Never charge a higher price. Get the customer first, and then make them want you, not hate you.
In regards to the specific example of the 80 question doc, I would've simply replied "sorry, I'm not experienced enough to answer these, then tell him to wait to hear from another sales manager, then circle back in 3 weeks seeing if he got his questions answered (even though you know he hasn't). He's happier than getting a "no", and his boss will wonder why the purchase hasn't happened yet. Delay, delay, delay, and let the customer come back to you. That is the filter. No use in prematurely judging a customer and potentially losing business forever. Don't less SaaS economics ruin the salesman's tact. It's all we got left.