**3:15 – Ollie (ACME)** Yeah, I’ve been reviewing the proposal — looks solid overall. My only hesitation is the contract length. Three years feels like a lot to commit upfront. **{Objection_detected_low_lift}** **3:28 – Omid (SecondBody)** Totally fair. Most teams start there so they can lock in pricing and continuity for rollout. But we can look at a shorter term if it helps get internal sign-off faster. **3:38 – Ollie (ACME)** Right, I get that. It’s just, with budgets changing every quarter, signing a multi-year deal gets a bit political internally. **{Objection_detected_risk}** **3:47 – Omid (SecondBody)** Completely understand. One option other clients like is a 3-year term with a performance clause — if we don’t meet agreed adoption targets, you can opt out after year one. That tends to de-risk it for both sides. **3:59 – Ollie (ACME)** That’s interesting. If we had that kind of flexibility built in, I think it would calm some nerves on our side. **4:05 – Omid (SecondBody)** Makes total sense. And just to clarify — this contract is really about giving your team stability. The platform’s value compounds over time, so having a longer runway helps us drive consistent ROI. **4:18 – Ollie (ACME)** Sure. My other concern is training — we’d probably only need onboarding for the first group, not continuous sessions every quarter. **{Objection_detected_scope}** **4:26 – Omid (SecondBody)** Got it. We can bundle the onboarding for year one only. After that, your internal champions can run refreshers — we’ll just support on the backend. **4:36 – Ollie (ACME)** That would definitely help. Also, procurement’s going to ask — is there *any* flexibility on pricing? Even a small reduction goes a long way with our CFO. **{Objection_detected_pricing}** **4:46 – Omid (SecondBody)** If we can finalize before the end of the month, I can approve a 5% reduction on year one — as long as we keep the 3-year structure in place. **4:55 – Ollie (ACME)** (chuckles) Always a trade-off, huh? Okay, that’s fair. I’ll run it by finance and see what kind of noise it makes. **5:02 – Omid (SecondBody)** Appreciate that. Once they’re good with the performance clause and year-one discount, we should be ready to move. **5:10 – Ollie (ACME)** Sounds good. If it looks clean on paper, I think I can push it through. **5:14 – Omid (SecondBody)** Perfect. I’ll get the revised version over this afternoon. Appreciate you working through this together — these details are exactly what make long-term partnerships last. **5:24 – Ollie (ACME)** Likewise, Omid. This feels balanced — not just about closing a deal, but about setting it up right.

**3:15 – Ollie (ACME)** Yeah, I’ve been reviewing the proposal — looks solid overall. My only hesitation is the contract length. Three years feels like a lot to commit upfront. **{Objection_detected_low_lift}** **3:28 – Omid (SecondBody)** Totally fair. Most teams start there so they can lock in pricing and continuity for rollout. But we can look at a shorter term if it helps get internal sign-off faster. **3:38 – Ollie (ACME)** Right, I get that. It’s just, with budgets changing every quarter, signing a multi-year deal gets a bit political internally. **{Objection_detected_risk}** **3:47 – Omid (SecondBody)** Completely understand. One option other clients like is a 3-year term with a performance clause — if we don’t meet agreed adoption targets, you can opt out after year one. That tends to de-risk it for both sides. **3:59 – Ollie (ACME)** That’s interesting. If we had that kind of flexibility built in, I think it would calm some nerves on our side. **4:05 – Omid (SecondBody)** Makes total sense. And just to clarify — this contract is really about giving your team stability. The platform’s value compounds over time, so having a longer runway helps us drive consistent ROI. **4:18 – Ollie (ACME)** Sure. My other concern is training — we’d probably only need onboarding for the first group, not continuous sessions every quarter. **{Objection_detected_scope}** **4:26 – Omid (SecondBody)** Got it. We can bundle the onboarding for year one only. After that, your internal champions can run refreshers — we’ll just support on the backend. **4:36 – Ollie (ACME)** That would definitely help. Also, procurement’s going to ask — is there *any* flexibility on pricing? Even a small reduction goes a long way with our CFO. **{Objection_detected_pricing}** **4:46 – Omid (SecondBody)** If we can finalize before the end of the month, I can approve a 5% reduction on year one — as long as we keep the 3-year structure in place. **4:55 – Ollie (ACME)** (chuckles) Always a trade-off, huh? Okay, that’s fair. I’ll run it by finance and see what kind of noise it makes. **5:02 – Omid (SecondBody)** Appreciate that. Once they’re good with the performance clause and year-one discount, we should be ready to move. **5:10 – Ollie (ACME)** Sounds good. If it looks clean on paper, I think I can push it through. **5:14 – Omid (SecondBody)** Perfect. I’ll get the revised version over this afternoon. Appreciate you working through this together — these details are exactly what make long-term partnerships last. **5:24 – Ollie (ACME)** Likewise, Omid. This feels balanced — not just about closing a deal, but about setting it up right.