The conflict of interest in the incumbent advisor was usually structural rather than personal, and the advice bent toward whoever was paying for it
Both sides can be competent. The difference is who pays, and when the advisor is paid by the party across the table the benchmark quietly becomes their quote.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 19, 2026 · Competitive advisory reviews. 40 to 50 engagements reviewed, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
Reseller pull: advisors paid by vendor margin steered clients toward commitments 15 to 30 percent above need. Not through bad faith, through economics.
Audit asymmetry: firms that also delivered vendor audits could not credibly defend the same client against the playbook they sell elsewhere.
Renewal anchoring: vendor aligned advice treated the vendor quote as the baseline rather than the market, which moves the whole negotiation before it starts.
The deeply embedded advisor delivered terms 15 to 25 percent worse than market in roughly 6 of 10 competitive reviews. Access is not leverage.
What actually separates the two?
Who pays. One is paid only by the customer and carries no vendor margin, referral fee or resale relationship. The other earns from the vendor, through resale margin, audit fees or partner incentives.
Competence is not the variable
Both can be entirely competent. The difference is structural alignment, and when the advisor is paid by the party across the table the advice bends toward that party over time, even with good intent on all sides.
Three questions that settle it
- Pay source: does the customer pay 100 percent of the fee?
- Resale: does the firm earn margin on any product in scope?
- Audit work: does it run vendor audits as well?
Where do the conflicts actually surface?
At renewal and at audit, which are the two moments the advice matters most. A firm that resells has a reason to grow your commitment; a firm that runs audits cannot fully defend you against the same playbook.
| Dimension | Buyer side | Vendor side | What it changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paid by | The customer only | Vendor margin or fees | Whose interest the advice serves |
| Renewal stance | Right size to need | Grow the commitment | The direction the number moves |
| Audit role | Defends the buyer | May deliver the audit | Whether the defense is credible |
| Benchmark | Market price | Vendor quote | Where the negotiation starts from |
Why the audit role matters most
Vendors run formal license reviews through dedicated teams, such as the published license management functions, and the compliance framing is set out in material like the industry compliance reports. An advisor partnered with those teams faces a divided loyalty; a pure buyer side firm has one client in the room.
The benchmark is the quiet one
Renewal anchoring does not look like a conflict. It looks like pragmatism: treating the vendor quote as the baseline and negotiating down from it, rather than starting from what comparable buyers actually paid.
Baseline the estate before you judge the advice
See where your current position sits against market, independently of whoever produced it.
Open the check →What 40 to 50 competitive reviews showed
Across roughly 40 to 50 engagements where Morten Andersen reviewed prior advisory work between 2024 and 2025, the conflict of interest in the incumbent advisor was usually structural, not personal. Three patterns recur.
- Reseller pull: advisors paid by vendor margin steered clients toward larger commitments 15 to 30 percent above need.
- Audit asymmetry: firms that also delivered vendor audits could not credibly defend the same client.
- Renewal anchoring: vendor aligned advice treated the vendor quote as the baseline rather than the market.
When the advisor is paid by the other side of the table, the benchmark quietly becomes the vendor quote.
- Percentile standing for your exact deal size and industry, from real closed transactions
- Your agreements decoded into plain English before the auditor interprets them for you
- A ranked savings queue with dollar values, not license counts
What should a buyer side advisor actually deliver?
Leverage and price discipline grounded in market data rather than in the vendor quote. Three outputs, and all three are checkable.
Benchmarks, position, defense
- Benchmarks: what comparable buyers actually paid.
- Position: the levers and the timing that move price.
- Defense: entitlement proof assembled before any audit opens.
The same discipline, aimed the other way
The asset management practice described in vendor published guidance is sound method. The difference is that a buyer side firm applies it against the vendor rather than for it, and the neutral ground both sides should respect is the asset management standard.
Judge it on outcomes, not on warmth
Benchmarked results are the test. How warmly the vendor greets the advisor in the room is a measure of the relationship the advisor is protecting, which may not be yours.
How should a buyer choose between them?
By putting the incentive in writing. Everything else is inference; this is evidence.
Ask for the clean statement
Request a written statement that the firm takes no vendor margin and no audit work on the products in scope. If the firm cannot sign it, you have your answer without needing to argue about intent.
Can one firm be both?
Not credibly on the same engagement. A firm that resells or audits a vendor cannot also defend you against that vendor, and the conflict does not resolve by being disclosed.
The cleanest signal is the invoice
Who pays it tells you whose interest the advice serves, which is why the pay source question comes before the capability questions rather than after them.
Where the common advice on choosing an advisor is wrong
The standard advice is to hire the advisor with the deepest relationship inside the vendor, on the theory that access wins better deals. We disagree.
Access to the vendor is not leverage over the vendor
In roughly 6 of 10 competitive reviews run, the deeply embedded advisor delivered terms 15 to 25 percent worse than market, because the relationship it protected was its own rather than the client's.
The buyer side move is to hire the firm whose only revenue is your fee, get the no margin and no audit statement in writing, and then judge it on benchmarked outcomes. The wider practice sits in procurement consulting.
What the reviews measured, 2024 to 2025
Two cuts of the review file, and both describe a gap rather than a failure of competence.
Where the advisor earned vendor margin, steering clients toward larger commitments than the requirement supported.
Across the competitive reviews run, measured against what comparable buyers actually paid rather than against the quote.
Neither figure implies bad faith. Both are what happens when the economics point away from the client over a long enough period.
Your first five moves
- Ask who pays 100 percent of the fee, before any capability question, because the pay source is what decides whose interest the advice serves.
- Ask whether the firm earns margin on any product in scope, since reseller pull steered commitments 15 to 30 percent above need in the reviewed file.
- Ask whether it delivers audits for the vendors it advises against, because a firm running that playbook cannot credibly defend you from it.
- Get the no margin and no audit statement in writing, and treat an unwillingness to sign it as the answer rather than as a negotiation.
- Judge the firm on benchmarked outcomes, not on vendor warmth. The spend health check establishes where your position actually sits against market first.
Frequently asked questions
What separates the two kinds of advisor?
Who pays. One is paid only by the customer with no vendor margin, referral fee or resale relationship; the other earns from the vendor through margin, audit fees or incentives.
Is one more competent than the other?
No. Both can be entirely competent. The difference is structural alignment, and advice bends toward whoever is paying for it over time even with good intent.
How do you tell which is which?
Read the revenue. Ask whether the customer pays the whole fee, whether the firm earns margin on any product in scope, and whether it runs vendor audits.
What does reseller pull look like?
Commitments 15 to 30 percent above need. A firm that resells a vendor has a structural reason to grow your commitment rather than right size it.
Why does the audit role matter?
Because a firm that delivers vendor audits cannot fully defend the same client against the playbook it sells elsewhere. That is divided loyalty, not a disclosure problem.
What is renewal anchoring?
Treating the vendor quote as the baseline rather than the market. It does not look like a conflict; it looks like pragmatism, and it moves the whole negotiation.
Does deep vendor access help?
Not in the reviews run. In roughly 6 of 10, the deeply embedded advisor delivered terms 15 to 25 percent worse than market, because the relationship it protected was its own.
What should a buyer side advisor deliver?
Benchmarks of what comparable buyers actually paid, the levers and timing that move price, and entitlement proof assembled before any audit opens.
Can one firm be both?
Not credibly on the same engagement. A firm that resells or audits a vendor cannot also defend you against it, and disclosure does not resolve the conflict.
What is the cleanest test?
A written statement that the firm takes no vendor margin and no audit work on products in scope. If it cannot sign that, you have your answer.