Establishing productive long-term relationships with vendors and partners is one of the most important aspects of successful retailing. This process has always been challenging as choosing a vendor or solution partner is, in some ways, a leap into the unknown. All vendors emphasize the positive aspects of their products and services, but buyers must often find out the negative side through experience after the contracts have been signed.

To make things even more challenging, the buying landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Twenty-five years ago, most transactions were straightforward “box sales,” involving a single capital expenditure for a product. Today, most solutions involve ongoing subscriptions, server costs, and other recurring fees. As a result, the stakes involved can be much higher.

Given these changes, buyers cannot expect to deal with vendors the same way they did decades ago. The new landscape demands a different mindset and approach. Buyers must be more careful in their negotiations with vendors. Fortunately, the proven techniques associated with investigative interviewing offer a viable solution to this challenge—techniques that are already familiar to many in the loss prevention field.

LP professionals routinely interview witnesses and potential suspects when a theft, fraud, or other security incident occurs. In an interrogation or interview, the goal is to uncover facts and reach the truth, not to “win” against the other person. Interviews can quickly devolve into unproductive adversarial standoffs if we focus too heavily on winning and losing rather than following a fair, established process that yields honest, accurate results.

The same approach can be very effective in negotiating with vendors or anyone for that matter. By appreciating the parallels between these two scenarios, you can apply best practices from one context to another to achieve more effective outcomes.

The Key to Successful Vendor Negotiation

Negotiations should be seen as opportunities for both parties to achieve positive outcomes. Each side has something the other wants or needs, and success comes from finding a mutually beneficial solution. When an interrogation or interview follows a non-confrontational, empathetic framework, the outcome is often greater openness, cooperation, and clarity.

As with a loss prevention interview, doing preparatory research before meeting with the vendor is vital. It’s also important for interviewers to recognize the value of building rapport, clearly explaining both their personal role and their organization’s purpose. Additionally, benchmarking and understanding industry standards play a critical role.

In a negotiation, the seller’s job is to offer a product or solution at a fair price, and the buyer’s job is to acquire that product under conditions that also make sense for them and their organization. Factors like price, quality, and delivery capabilities all matter. The old fashioned “meet in the middle” approach is becoming outdated. Instead, as with a structured, empathetic interview, adhering to a systematic process ensures that all parties arrive at a fair conclusion. Both sides feel respected, and both reach a result that aligns with the facts and the truth of the situation.

Getting Prepared

The importance of expertise and knowledge in acquiring a product or solution cannot be overstated. You may often understand more about the product’s functionality—or at least about your own business needs—than the person selling it. But it’s not always about who knows more; it’s about whether the product or solution truly addresses the problem at hand. Expertise instills confidence in the purchasing process, just as thorough investigation inspires confidence in an interrogation or interview scenario.

In both contexts, a productive exchange involves active dialogue, thoughtful questioning, and attentive listening. When evaluating a solution provider, conducting research, requesting references, and gathering feedback from trusted sources is essential. Similarly, in an investigative setting, you follow a defined process, ensuring you enter the interview with as much information as possible. Although you may never know everything, approaching these situations as a well-prepared expert dramatically increases the likelihood of a positive and successful outcome.

Understanding Behavioral Cues

Prospective vendors will gladly tell you the upside to buying their product or service. But what are they not telling you? It’s vital that you, as the interviewer, learn to identify the weak spots in a vendor’s presentation. This is where understanding behavioral cues becomes invaluable. In the loss prevention sphere, we’ve learned over the years that while behavioral indicators alone don’t confirm dishonesty or honesty, they can be highly informative. The same is true in negotiations. Observing someone’s behavior can’t guarantee a specific outcome, but it can guide you in understanding when a counterpart feels frustrated, uncomfortable, or hesitant. Recognizing these signals might prompt you to ask clarifying questions, reframe the conversation, or adjust your strategy.

During my 20-plus years in retail—both as a buyer and an influencer—I often sensed when a salesperson was avoiding a direct answer or struggling with a difficult question. Fast forward to my current position at CONTROLTEK, where I sometimes find myself in the seller’s role. I recently experienced a negotiation in which the buyer acknowledged that he was pushing too hard. Upon realizing this through our behavioral cues, he conceded that he might be asking for too much. His shift demonstrated emotional intelligence and a willingness to collaborate rather than compete. The conversation moved from a win-lose dynamic toward a more constructive dialogue, ultimately leading to a successful deal.

The same principles apply in investigations. I recall times when asking the same question to a vendor repeatedly only led to deflection. Recognizing the subject’s discomfort or resistance prompted me to step back and try a different approach. By paying attention to behavioral cues—both in negotiations and in investigations—you can identify when someone is uncomfortable or when the process needs to change course. In doing so, you can transform the entire dynamic, ensuring a more productive and mutually beneficial outcome.

When a Vendor Is Being Deceptive

Identifying potential deception in vendor presentations involves paying close attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues, as well as the structure and content of the information provided. While none of these indicators are definitive proof of dishonesty, noticing patterns or clusters of such behaviors can help guide you toward asking more probing questions or seeking clarification. Some key areas to watch include:

1. Inconsistent or Evasive Responses

Deflection: The presenter avoids giving a direct answer, frequently changes the subject, or uses vague language rather than addressing specific points.

Overuse of Fillers: Repeated use of noncommittal phrases (“maybe,” “possibly,” “you know”) or unnecessarily complicated jargon can signal discomfort or a lack of substance behind the claims.

Changing Stories: Details of their pitch or explanations for capabilities and pricing shift from one meeting or conversation to the next.

2. Overemphasis on Credentials Without Substance

Name Dropping and Credentials: Constantly citing brand names, awards, or certifications in place of showing tangible results or data can be a distraction tactic to appear more credible than the evidence supports.

Lack of Supporting Data: If they repeatedly claim market dominance or unparalleled quality without offering verifiable metrics, case studies, or reference contacts, it may signal they’re inflating their capabilities.

3. Nonverbal Signs of Discomfort or Uncertainty

Shifts in Body Language: Sudden changes—such as leaning away, crossing arms, touching the face (especially nose or mouth), or fidgeting—when certain topics arise can indicate unease.

Facial Expressions: Forced smiles, rapid blinking, or inconsistent eye contact when answering tough questions can signal nervousness or uncertainty.

4. Inconsistent Tone and Cadence

Rushed or Hesitant Delivery: Speaking too quickly when discussing complex details or hesitating significantly when asked for specifics may indicate uncertainty or an attempt to gloss over weak areas.

Forced Enthusiasm or Defensive Posture: If the presenter becomes overly defensive or too cheerfully insistent after being challenged on a point, they may be compensating for a lack of solid evidence.

5. Resistance to Third-Party Validation

Avoidance of References or Demos: If they deflect requests for customer references, testimonials, or live product demonstrations—especially after initially agreeing to provide them—it can be a red flag.

Hesitation on Proof of Claims: Lack of willingness to provide documentation, test results, or objective benchmarks suggests the story may not match reality.

6. Mismatched Details or Lack of Internal Consistency

Contradictions in Information: Presentations that contain contradictory statements about features, timelines, or total cost of ownership may indicate rushed or fabricated claims.

Unrealistic Promises: Overly optimistic delivery schedules, unusually low pricing without a clear rationale, or claims of “the perfect solution to every problem” should prompt further scrutiny.

7. Difficulty Handling Probing Questions

Shifting Blame or Responsibility: If they sidestep direct accountability (e.g., blaming the market, unnamed partners, or vague supply chain issues) when asked about failures or known industry challenges, it can be an indicator they’re not forthcoming.

Emotional Responses: Becoming overly irritated, dismissive, or confrontational when asked to clarify important details may be a sign of discomfort with the truth.

While no single behavior is a sure sign of deception, noticing multiple, consistent indicators can prompt you to dig deeper. It’s wise to follow up with more direct questions, request supporting evidence, and consult objective references or industry benchmarks. Over time, your keen observation and informed questioning strategy will help ensure you separate well supported claims from those that may be misleading.

At the same time, it is important to realize that individuals can behave in ways that seem suspicious but are simply expressions of their unique personalities. As the following section explains, there are reliable ways to recognize that.

Establishing a Baseline

When behavior analysts work with patients, they typically begin by establishing the patient’s behavioral baseline. Through multiple interactions, they can determine the frequency, duration, and intensity of behaviors that are deemed problematic, enabling them to measure their progress after treatment begins. In our interviews with a potential vendor, we’re not trying to change the person’s behavior, but we can still benefit by creating a baseline behavior assessment. This is simply a broad understanding of how the person typically behaves. Then, when they deviate and respond in a way that seems out of character, it could indicate that they’re hiding or avoiding something.

During my career, I’ve conducted well over a thousand interviews. Two examples from my experience can highlight the importance of recognizing baseline behaviors—and not jumping to wrong conclusions.

Example 1: The Stoical Interviewer. While working in retail, I once joined my boss, the company vice president, in a meeting with a young salesperson who was presenting a solution to us. My boss was an industry veteran with a reputation for being stoic, reserved, and detail oriented. The salesperson was visibly nervous. He faced a leader who rarely spoke unless necessary and barely displayed emotion. But at the end of the presentation, the vice president simply said, “Great. When can we get started?”

Later, the salesperson confided in me that he found the interaction nerve-racking. He couldn’t “read” us, and my boss never even smiled. I explained the importance of understanding who he was dealing with. My boss, although quiet and reserved, was one of the warmest people I’d ever worked for—but the salesperson’s assumptions led him astray. He was thrown off by a communication style he didn’t recognize and ended up misinterpreting the behavior.

Example 2: The Presumptuous Presenter. In another instance, when I was serving as a buyer, I dealt with a very assertive salesperson who bluntly stated that he could tell I wasn’t interested because I wasn’t making direct eye contact. What he didn’t know was that I have a significant visual impairment. If someone is more than a few feet away, I have trouble focusing on their exact position. Not only was this embarrassing, but then I felt the need to explain myself because of his aggressive stance. I pointed out that if he hadn’t been sitting fourteen feet away at a large conference table, I could have made better eye contact.

Unfortunately, the damage was done. The conversation took a downturn as everyone else in the room was put off by his approach. If he had taken a moment to understand my baseline—a visual challenge that affected my gaze—he might have interpreted my behavior differently.

These examples underline why understanding baseline behavior matters. Studies show that behaviors aren’t always accurate indicators of deception. You never know what factors might be influencing someone’s demeanor. They may be introverted, feeling unwell, having a bad day, or dealing with a disability that affects their eye contact. Any of these could lead you astray if you rely too heavily on reading behavior instead of following a sound, established process. Then, when we notice deviations from a person’s baseline behavior, that can be a cue to inquire further.

Using a Proven Process

In a multi-month negotiation or a long-term professional relationship, you may learn enough about a person to recognize their “normal” behavior. But in many negotiations, you don’t have that luxury. If you don’t have time to establish a baseline or truly understand someone’s communication style, it’s best to rely on a proven, structured process. For interviews and interrogations, methods like the Wicklander-Zulawski non-confrontational approach are effective. Similarly, proven negotiation strategies can help you remain grounded, confident, and focused on the facts rather than assumptions.

In short, while paying attention to behavior can be useful, overanalyzing it or relying on it alone can derail both interviews and negotiations. Understanding someone’s baseline, when possible, and consistently following a well-structured process will guide you toward more successful outcomes.

Being Relatable—And Professional

Building rapport is the process of establishing a relationship based on trust, understanding, and mutual respect. In professional settings—such as negotiations, interviews, or client meetings—it’s essential to create a positive connection without becoming overly familiar or losing sight of your role and responsibilities. Balancing approachability with professional boundaries can lead to more productive conversations, smoother negotiations, and better decision making. Key elements include the following:

• Respectful Communication: Use clear, considerate language and demonstrate active listening. Show that you value the other party’s time and opinions by acknowledging their points, asking clarifying questions, and carefully considering their perspective before responding. Tone of voice, body language, and attentiveness all convey respect and build trust.
• Empathy and Understanding: Empathy doesn’t mean abandoning professional objectivity; rather, it means recognizing and validating the other person’s feelings or concerns. By signaling that you understand the challenges they face—even if you don’t share their viewpoint—you establish a foundation of goodwill, making the other party more receptive to your own points.
• Professional Boundaries: While warmth and relatability foster rapport, it’s essential to maintain an appropriate level of formality. Avoid personal disclosures that may distract from the professional context or imply favoritism. Consistency in demeanor, adherence to established protocols, and the use of polite, professional language all reinforce the sense that you are reliable and even-handed.
• Clarity and Transparency: Being straightforward about goals, processes, and expectations helps preserve professional distance and credibility. Openness about what can and cannot be achieved reduces misunderstandings and ensures that the rapport you build is based on honesty rather than hollow promises.
• Focus on Mutual Interests: Highlighting common objectives—such as solving a problem, reaching a fair agreement, or improving efficiency—fosters a “we’re in this together” mindset. This shared sense of purpose encourages cooperation while maintaining the roles and responsibilities that define each party’s professional standing.
• Consistency and Follow Through: People trust those who do what they say they will do. Following through on commitments, meeting deadlines, and upholding standards all reinforce a sense of professionalism. By consistently acting with integrity, you encourage the other party to engage with you on the same terms, solidifying rapport without blurring boundaries.

Building rapport while maintaining professional distance is an art that involves balancing warmth with reserve, empathy with neutrality, and friendliness with firmness. By treating people respectfully, communicating with clarity, and honoring the structures that guide professional interactions, you cultivate productive relationships rooted in trust—without compromising the integrity, objectivity, and authority that define your professional role.

These techniques, proven effective in loss prevention and law enforcement, can be used successfully in negotiation with vendors. And when they lead to mutually profitable relationships, the benefits to all parties will be long-lasting.