The named problem: the uplift you cannot source
Call it the sourcing gap on current cycle behaviour. Pricing evidence is strongest where it is oldest. A signed contract is a fact, an invoice line is a fact, and the transaction record behind our benchmarks is the strongest thing a buyer can put on a table. But a publisher who decides in January to push a mid single digit uplift across the installed base does not appear in signed contract data until the renewals actually land, and by then your own renewal has landed too.
Buyers fill that gap informally. A message in a user group Slack. A quiet question at a conference. A former colleague who now runs IT sourcing at a similar sized firm. The information is real and it is often accurate. It is also unsourced, unrepeatable, and useless in front of a CFO who wants to know how many companies you actually spoke to. We wrote about the same tension in buying blocs, where the value of pooled leverage keeps colliding with the very reasonable refusal to expose your own numbers. Polls are the low commitment version of that trade. You give up one bit of information, whether a named vendor raised your price at your most recent renewal, and you get the aggregate back.
PART TWO
The fourth board, and why the results stay veiled
The trading floor now runs four boards. The newest asks a single question: which vendors raised your price at your most recent renewal? You select all that apply from the 20 tier one publishers, the names that account for the bulk of enterprise software spend and the bulk of the arguments about it. Multi select matters here, because the interesting pattern is rarely one vendor in isolation. It is the buyer who marks four of the twenty and realises their whole estate repriced in the same twelve months.
Ballots are anonymous. Nothing on the board ties a selection back to a company, an account, or a person. The more consequential design choice is the veil. Results stay hidden until your ballot is in. You cannot browse the tally, form a view about what the answer should be, and then vote in a way that agrees with it. That is not a courtesy to us, it is a defence of the data you are about to rely on. Anchoring is the single cheapest way to ruin a crowd signal, and a poll that lets you peek first is a poll that slowly converges on whatever the first fifty voters happened to say.
The cost to you is one click before you get the answer. The benefit is that when the board tells you eleven of the last set of respondents marked a given publisher, that number was not manufactured by people agreeing with each other.
app.isvcosell.com/polls/price-increases
The price increase board, veiled until your ballot is cast.
THE SAME JOB, TWICE
TODAY, BY HAND
Post a carefully worded question in two user group channels asking who has seen an uplift, then wait for replies to trickle in over a fortnight
Build a spreadsheet tab listing the publishers in your estate and hand tally every anecdote you collect, tagging which ones came from a comparable company size
Dig back through last year's renewal letters and order forms in the shared drive to confirm your own baseline before you can claim your increase is unusual
Draft a summary note for the CFO explaining, with appropriate hedging, that you spoke to a handful of peers and the increase appears to be broad
Roughly 9 hours of your own time, spread across two to three weeks, and it expires the moment the cycle turns
WITH ISVCOSELL
Open the trading floor and let the board index take you to the price increase board still waiting on your ballot
Select every publisher in your estate that raised you at the most recent renewal and submit, which lifts the veil
Read the tally against your own selections, then open the vendor portfolio to see which of those names already sit furthest from market
Carry the two or three that matter into the renewal record so the tally is attached to the negotiation, not to a chat thread
About 10 minutes of your attention
What changes: roughly 9 hours becomes about 10 minutes, and the answer is no longer perishable. For a procurement lead costed at, for example, 70 an hour fully loaded, that is about 620 of internal time recovered on a single question. Run the same exercise across four renewal cycles a year and you are recovering roughly 36 hours, close to a full working week, while ending up with a tally you can cite instead of an anecdote you have to defend.
PART THREE
Walking the floor without losing your place
A fourth board makes the floor more useful and also longer. Three changes shipped alongside it to keep the whole thing walkable in a single sitting.
First, a board index. It marks which boards are still waiting on your ballot and follows you as you scroll, so you always know how much of the floor you have actually covered. Before this, the honest failure mode was a buyer voting on the first board, getting absorbed in the results, and never reaching the third. Second, the coverage board's full vendor list is now searchable, with your existing picks pinned above the search field. If you are looking for one specific publisher among a long list, you type three letters instead of scrolling, and you never lose sight of what you already selected. Third, every live board now hands you to the next open one when you finish. Vote, read the tally, continue. The floor behaves like a sequence rather than a page you have to re navigate.
"A poll that lets you peek before you vote is a poll that slowly converges on whatever the first fifty voters happened to say"
PART FOUR
Where this sits in the renewal workflow
Polls are not a replacement for benchmarks and should never be used as one. They sit earlier, at the point where you are deciding how hard to push and what story to tell internally. The sequence that works is roughly this. You see a renewal approaching. You cast a ballot on the price increase board and read the tally to understand whether the uplift you have been quoted is a base wide move or a move aimed at you specifically. Those two situations call for completely different tactics, and until now you were guessing which one you were in.
If it looks base wide, you pull the benchmark and argue about where you sit in the distribution, because arguing that the increase should not exist is a losing position when the publisher has already applied it to thousands of accounts. If it looks targeted, you go looking for what changed on your side, and the year on year compare usually finds it. Either way the poll result is a routing decision, not the argument itself. Pair it with Terms Watch and you get both halves of the picture, what the published list did and what buyers actually absorbed.
app.isvcosell.com/portfolio
The portfolio ranked by distance from market, read against the board tally.
1 You get a current cycle read, not a historical one. Signed transaction data is the strongest evidence available and it is also the slowest. The board tells you what buyers are experiencing in the cycle you are currently negotiating in, which is the one question your benchmark cannot answer yet.
2 You find out whether you were singled out. Marking your own vendors and then seeing the tally reframes the conversation immediately. A publisher raising almost everyone is a market event. A publisher raising you and few others is a relationship event, and it is negotiable on entirely different grounds.
3 You see your estate's exposure in one view. Selecting all that apply across the 20 tier one publishers surfaces something a single vendor conversation hides, which is how many of your major contracts repriced in the same window. That is a budget conversation, not a vendor conversation.
4 You spend one click instead of two weeks of asking around. The informal peer network still works. It is just slow, unrepeatable, and impossible to put in front of a finance committee. The board compresses it and makes it citable.
5 You cover the whole floor in a single sitting. The board index, the searchable coverage list with pinned picks, and the automatic hand off to the next open board mean the marginal cost of answering all four boards is now measured in seconds rather than a decision to come back later that never happens.
PART FIVE
Honest limits, stated plainly
This is self reported sentiment from a self selected group, and you should treat it that way. Four limits are worth naming before you rely on it in a negotiation.
It is directional, not quantitative. The board asks whether a vendor raised your price. It does not ask by how much, on which product line, or against what baseline. A buyer who absorbed a two percent uplift and a buyer who absorbed twenty percent both register as one mark. If you need the magnitude, that is what the benchmark record and the comparable deals behind a given analysis are for. Do not quote a poll where a percentile belongs.
Participation skews. People who just got hit with a large increase are more motivated to vote than people whose renewal was uneventful, which pushes any tally upward. Read the shape of the result rather than the absolute count, and be more interested in the gap between two publishers than in either number on its own.
Sample size varies by vendor. The tier one publishers with the widest install bases will accumulate ballots quickly. A specialist name in the same list will move slowly, and a tally built on a small handful of responses is a conversation starter, not evidence. The board shows you the count. Use it.
And a mark on the board is not a like for like comparison. A renewal that repriced because the publisher moved its list is not the same event as a renewal that repriced because the buyer added seats, changed metric, or walked into a co term that removed their leverage. The poll cannot tell those apart. You still have to read your own paper.
None of that makes the signal worthless. It makes it a first instrument rather than a final one. Cast your ballot on the trading floor, read the tally against your own estate, and then go get the numbers that will actually sit in the counter offer. The board tells you which fight you are in. The benchmark tells you how to win it.
About the author
Fredrik Filipsson, Cofounder, ISVCOSELL
Fredrik has spent more than twenty years in enterprise software, with time at Oracle, IBM, SAP, and Salesforce before moving to the buy side. He structured and priced the kind of large agreements most buyers only see once or twice in a career, which taught him where the leverage sits and how far a vendor will actually move. He started ISVCOSELL to hand that knowledge to every sourcing team.
More posts by Fredrik Connect on LinkedIn →
FREE TRIAL · FULL PLATFORM · NO CARD REQUIRED
Cast one ballot, see what your peers are paying for
The free trial opens the benchmarking database, 1,483 vendors deep, plus the negotiation guides, playbooks, and talking points for your own renewals. No card needed, a corporate email is all it takes.
Start your free trial → Or decode a contract free, no account
Free for 30 days, no card needed. Your data stays isolated at the database, and you can export or delete it any time.
V ISVCOSELL
A ISVCOSELL product · © 2026
PLATFORM Benchmarking Negotiations Contract management AI workflows Document search Renewal calendar
PRODUCT Use cases Features Security Pricing Deployment options About
RESOURCES Getting started ROI calculator Agent protocol FAQ Blog Request access