How Mystery Shopping Exposed a SaaS Competitor’s Sales Approach
A SaaS platform in the training sector wanted to learn how its main rival sold against it. The client needed clear evidence on pricing, product packages, contract terms and sales messages. Desk research could not answer these questions, so Octopus Intelligence used B2B mystery shopping to examine the competitor’s sales process.
Background
This context set the stage for the client’s challenge. As the client sold workforce training and certification products to regulated industries, it began to see Competitor A in many of its target deals. With strong brand equity and a broad product range, Competitor A was an imposing rival. While the client had some wins, they often lost without knowing why and needed a better understanding of the competitor’s commercial model.
What Was Happening
To clarify how the competitive landscape was evolving, it is important to understand Competitor A’s positioning. Competitor A positioned itself as a broad training supplier, not just an LMS vendor, telling buyers it could handle compliance, food safety, industrial maintenance, and workforce development through one relationship. This appealed to buyers tired of managing several training vendors, making the competitor appear bigger and broader on paper, and able to use that advantage.
Key Questions
With this market dynamic in mind, the client identified urgent questions: What were Competitor A’s core products, packages, and pricing model? Which features were standard versus extra-cost? How did their value proposition and sector adaptations work? What was the sales process, and how did they address switching costs? What defined their brand architecture and go-to-market strategy? And what discounts, contract incentives, weaknesses, and resulting gaps could be observed? These insights ultimately helped shape a stronger approach to marketing roi optimization by aligning competitive intelligence with measurable growth strategies and performance-driven decision-making.
What We Did
To answer these questions, Octopus ran a structured mystery shopping engagement. Our analysts entered the sales process as prospective buyers in a relevant sector that was a core target market for Competitor A. We collected product collateral, service package details, and pricing benchmarks directly from the sales team. Then we conducted secondary research to verify and contextualise the findings from the sales calls.
The Results
Our investigation revealed several important findings. Competitor A was not selling one product. Instead, it offered a multi-part commercial solution:
- Content libraries
- An LMS platform
- A specific software product
- Paid managed services
Pricing was proposal-led and negotiable, with no public list pricing. The live proposal included a 24-month contract with an 8% annual price increase.
Managed services were a significant upsell, priced around £5,000 to £10,000 a year before higher tiers. Competitor assessments and the specific product—sold as a separate platform outside the core LMS—were additional paid features.
Two major gaps emerged from the calls. Competitor A confirmed it did not offer XXX training. Buyers needing that certification would require a second vendor. The platform was browser-based only, with no offline course delivery. XXX workers without reliable connectivity could not access training.
The sales process was consultative and controlled. Discovery questions focused on specific requirements, current LMS use, offline needs, user mix, pilot scope, and rollout timing. The rep showed room to negotiate on price, structure, and implementation fees. The strongest pricing lever was competitive bids.
Our Recommendations
With this commercial and competitive information, we recommend that the client focus on simplicity and fit, rather than competing with Competitor A on breadth. Specifically, the client should ask buyers whether they really need the broader platform, service stack, or multiple adjacent products. If buyers do not, then offering a wider range becomes a source of cost and complexity risk rather than a strength.
When XXX General Industry certification is required, directly emphasise that only your client provides it in-house. In deals involving distributed or field-based teams, call out Competitor A’s lack of offline capability as a key differentiator. Present these points clearly during the sales process as critical benefits for buyers.
Reinforce the client’s simpler, cost-effective offering by guiding buyers to compare total contract burden. Rather than just features. Also stress that Competitor A’s expansive approach can drive up costs and complexity, while your client provides a clean, directly scoped alternative.
Conclusions
In summary, Competitor A is commercially aggressive. Its breadth is a selling point for buyers seeking vendor consolidation, but it also adds commercial layers and complexity. The client wins when buyers prioritise strong content, clear outcomes, and a straightforward commercial model. With the right intelligence, that is a winnable position.
For a wider view of SaaS competitor analysis, see how Octopus Intelligence helps software companies understand competitor pricing, positioning, products and sales activity.
We are Octopus. The Global People-Powered Competitive Intelligence Agency.
Outsmart your competition. Make the unknown known. Octopus helps you gain clarity in complex markets. With clients and tentacles around the world, we deliver sharp, actionable competitive intelligence through a blend of deep primary (HUMINT) and secondary research. If you’re looking to make smarter decisions, beat the competition, and reduce uncertainty, we’re the partner you want on your side.
