What CIOs Need to Know About the B2B Buyer Backlash

B2B buyers across a range of industries are pushing back against sales processes that feel generic, slow, and disconnected from their actual priorities. For CIOs and technology leaders, who sit on both sides of this dynamic- buying software and other services as a customer, and often shaping how their own organisation's vendor-facing teams engage prospective customers- research from B2B market research consultancy Adience offers a useful diagnostic.

The findings come from a survey of 350 B2B buyers across the US, Europe, APAC, and Africa/the Middle East, spanning technology, financial services, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing and automotive, and media and entertainment, published in the report The B2B Buyer Backlash: How Vendors Can Break Through in 2026.

Why does this matter to technology leadership specifically?

CIOs are frequently the buyer on one side of a deal and the internal stakeholder shaping vendor selection on the other. That dual position makes this research directly relevant. The report identifies a set of recurring vendor behaviours that frustrate buyers, and a separate set of priorities buyers say actually influence their decisions. Both sets have implications for how technology leaders manage vendor relationships, run RFPs, and evaluate the sales teams they interact with.

The report also surveyed procurement stakeholders specifically (100 of the 350 respondents), alongside 250 non-procurement respondents, which gives CIOs a useful split view of how buying-committee roles differ in what they want from vendors.

What frustrates B2B buyers most?

According to the report, 27% of buyers said vendors focused too heavily on product features rather than business impact. A further 27% said vendors failed to answer all questions in an RFP, and 26% said vendors attempted to bypass procurement entirely, both procedural failures that CIOs running formal vendor evaluations are likely to encounter directly.

The report also flags a frustration directly relevant to any organisation using AI in its sales process: 26% of buyers said the misuse of AI, including a robotic tone, obvious autofill errors, or factual inaccuracies, was among their biggest frustrations with vendors over the past year. Buyers in the US, and in healthcare and life sciences specifically, were the most likely to raise this. For CIOs evaluating vendors who have added AI-generated content to their sales process, this is a useful data point: the technology itself isn't the issue, but poorly implemented use of it visibly damages buyer trust.

What should vendors actually be doing differently?

The report sets out several concrete adjustments aimed at reducing the friction buyers describe:

• Replace generic discovery calls with pre-work-based questioning. Buyers repeatedly cited repetitive or generic discovery questions as a frustration; the report recommends vendors do more homework before the first conversation rather than during it.

• Swap long slide decks for one-page, outcome-focused briefs. The report specifically calls out 30-slide decks as a pattern to move away from, in favour of shorter documents built around the buyer's own success criteria.

• Publish clear evaluation criteria early. The report finds that 36% of buyers want clearer decision criteria and scoring, one of the six most requested improvements to the buying process overall.

• Use AI to accelerate analysis, not replace human judgment. The report is explicit that AI works best when it speeds up research and synthesis ahead of a conversation, not when it substitutes for the conversation itself.

• Simplify the path through procurement. Given how often procurement complexity was cited as a source of friction, the report recommends vendors provide templates and a visible path through legal and compliance review stages.

What skills will buyers expect from vendor teams going forward?

Looking ahead one to two years, buyers surveyed said they want vendor teams who stay current with market trends (34%), interpret and use data to inform decisions (33%), demonstrate deep category knowledge (33%), and understand and apply AI tools appropriately (33%). The report also finds that buyers who explicitly question vendors about their AI use place a markedly higher premium on AI competence, at 40%, and data fluency, at 45%, than buyers who don't raise the topic, who instead lean toward valuing deep category knowledge (36%).

For CIOs building or refining vendor management processes, one reasonable reading of that split is that asking vendors directly about how they use AI internally, and evaluating the quality of the answer, could be a useful addition to existing evaluation criteria. That specific practice isn't something the report recommends outright; it's an inference worth testing rather than a validated finding.

What does this mean for CIOs managing vendor relationships?

The underlying pattern in the report, that buyers reward vendors who reduce friction and demonstrate genuine understanding over vendors who simply increase the volume of outreach, has direct implications for how technology leaders structure RFPs and vendor evaluations. Given that 36% of buyers surveyed specifically asked for clearer decision criteria, CIOs who publish scoring frameworks before opening a vendor evaluation are addressing a documented buyer preference, not just a procedural nicety.

Chris Wells, Managing Director at Adience, frames the underlying shift this way: "Decision-makers are signalling that they want vendors to elevate their skills beyond selling, to help them make better decisions. Vendors need to prioritise clear scoring, earlier engagement, and fewer procedural hurdles, over focusing on closing the deal."

For CIOs on either side of the buying table, that is a useful standard to apply, both when evaluating incoming vendor pitches and when shaping how internal technology and sales functions engage prospective customers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gayathri S.R is the Content Lead at CIO Bulletin, where she oversees the editorial direction of stories covering technology, business, and innovation. With over six years of experience in content creation, Gayathri has developed a signature approach to communication that prioritizes substance over style, ensuring every piece of content provides genuine value to its audience.

Her academic background provides a unique edge to her work. She holds a Master’s degree in Biotechnology and remains a dedicated science enthusiast. This foundation allows her to break down complex technical topics and make them understandable for a wide audience. Writing is a genuine passion for her, and she uses it as a tool to bridge the gap between technical experts and everyday readers.

Beyond her professional life, Gayathri is an avid reader who truly loves books. This lifelong passion for reading allows her to explore new ideas and gain fresh perspectives on the world around her. She is also a passionate cricketer, a sport that reflects her appreciation for strategy and teamwork. Whether she is at her desk or on the field, Gayathri remains committed to clarity and authenticity. She believes the most powerful stories are those that remain simple, grounded, and focused on the facts.