Affordable Cost Reduction Starts by Proving What You’re Already Paying For

The Most Expensive Vendor Is Often the One You Never Question

When organizations think about cost reduction, they tend to focus on new vendors, new technologies, or new initiatives. What rarely gets examined is the most entrenched cost of all: the status quo vendor.

In highly commoditized categories like print, telecom, and internet, the goal inside most organizations is simple—make sure it works. When the copier copies, the phones ring, and the internet connects, those line items quietly fall to the bottom of the priority list.

They are paid.
They are assumed.
They are rarely benchmarked.

And that is exactly why they become expensive.

Why Commoditized Services Create Cost Blind Spots

Print, telecom, and connectivity are not strategic differentiators for most organizations. They are utilities. As long as they function, they are treated as “done.”

But commoditization cuts both ways.

When services are interchangeable, pricing and contract terms—not brand loyalty—are what determine value. And yet, most organizations never test whether the pricing they are paying today still reflects the market they are buying from. Instead of objective comparison, these categories are allowed to drift—unchecked and unquestioned.

This is precisely where technology expense management becomes essential—introducing structured benchmarking, independent validation, and ongoing visibility into spend categories that are otherwise treated as “set and forget.”

In practice, the only benchmark many teams rely on is their own historical spend. Last year becomes the baseline. The year before that becomes confirmation. No external data enters the equation. No market signal is introduced.

That is not benchmarking.
That is inertia.Print, telecom, and connectivity are not strategic differentiators for most organizations. They are utilities. As long as they function, they are treated as “done.”

There Is No Natural Trigger to Reassess the Incumbent

One of the most persistent myths in cost management is that inefficiencies reveal themselves. In reality, they almost never do.

Organizations do not re-evaluate incumbent vendors because:

• There is no service failure
• There is no shared pricing intelligence
• There is no internal incentive to reopen a “closed” category
• Renewals happen quietly, on vendor-controlled timelines

Research and advisory firms like Gartner consistently point out that organizations lacking formal vendor benchmarking tend to overpay simply because historical spend becomes the default reference point.

Most IT and finance professionals are not calling peers to compare copier pricing or telecom contracts. Once these decisions are made, they are rarely discussed again.

In nearly every engagement we see, reassessment only happens when an external, independent review forces the comparison.

What “Hidden Cost” Actually Looks Like in Practice

When people hear “cost reduction,” they often assume marginal savings—single-digit percentages, billing clean-ups, or one-time credits. That is not what we consistently see in long-tenured vendor relationships.

A realistic example from print and copy environments:

• Monthly spend reduced from approximately $24,000 to just over $4,000
• Device count reduced by roughly 50% (from ~200 devices to ~100)
• Output and service levels maintained—or improved
• Savings achieved through consolidation, rationalization, and renegotiation

Importantly, in most cases the same vendor remains in place. The value is not created by switching for the sake of switching. It is created by forcing the pricing and structure to reflect reality.

Loyalty Is Not the Same Thing as Value

Many organizations hesitate to challenge incumbent vendors out of a sense of loyalty. They know the rep. They know the technicians. They know the environment.

That familiarity feels safe—but it is not the same as being competitive.

Across our engagements, approximately 85% of clients ultimately stay with their existing vendor. The difference is that they stay with:

• Market-validated pricing
• Rationalized footprints
• Terms that reflect current usage, not historical assumptions

Vendor logos and brand names matter far less than:

• Technician density in the field
• Service response times
• Installed base support
• Operational coverage

A strong relationship should withstand an objective review. If it cannot, the relationship—not the review—is the problem.

The Standard Justifications for Doing Nothing

When organizations defend the status quo, the explanations are remarkably consistent:

• “There’s risk in changing.”
• “Pricing is fine.”
• “We don’t have the time.”
• “They know our environment.”

These are human responses, not irrational ones. But none of them answer the only question that matters:

Is this deal objectively good today?

A bad deal does not mean someone failed. It often means circumstances changed, markets evolved, and contracts did not.

Structural Constraints, Not Organizational Failure

Cost inefficiency in these categories is rarely the result of negligence.

It is structural:

• Lean IT teams focus on uptime, not contract optimization
• Lean finance teams focus on variance, not vendor anatomy
• Purchasing authority is fragmented across departments
• No single owner has full visibility end-to-end

Without independent benchmarking and forensic review, inefficiencies persist by default.

Brokers, Agents, and the Comfort of Familiarity

Relationships matter in business. They always have.

But relationships can also insulate pricing from scrutiny—especially over multi-year contracts. Over time, familiarity can replace validation.

A simple test applies:
If the deal becomes thin, does the relationship still hold?

True partnerships survive objective review. Weak ones depend on avoiding it.

The Real Cost Is Opportunity Cost

The most damaging impact of status quo vendors is not waste alone—it is what that waste prevents.

Every dollar locked into an inefficient contract is a dollar unavailable for:

• Strategic initiatives
• Technology modernization
• Mission-critical investments
• Staff, programs, or growth

This is classic opportunity cost, a concept frequently highlighted in executive and board-level strategy discussions by publications like Harvard Business Review, where the emphasis is not just on saving money, but on reallocating capital toward higher-value outcomes.

In one nationwide nonprofit healthcare engagement, a single tranche of review generated approximately $400,000 in savings—without changing vendors. Those savings preserved an additional $75,000 contribution to support the organization’s mission.

That is not theoretical value. That is operational and mission impact.

Affordable Cost Reduction Starts With One Question

Affordable cost reduction does not start with ripping and replacing vendors.
It starts with asking one disciplined question:

Can the status quo prove it is optimal?

This is the core principle behind technology expense management—a structured approach to continuously validating vendor performance, pricing, and utilization across commoditized services. The objective is not disruption for its own sake, but evidence-based confirmation that what you are paying for today still aligns with the market you are buying from.

If the incumbent is truly competitive, an objective review will confirm it.
If it is not, you deserve to know before another three- to five-year term locks you in.

For many organizations, the hesitation is not about whether a review makes sense, but uncertainty around engagement models and economics. Understanding how much cost reduction services cost is often the first step in determining whether an objective, performance-based review aligns with internal expectations.

Either outcome creates leverage.
Only one creates blind risk.

Before your next renewal locks in another three to five years of assumptions, validate what you are already paying for. If the incumbent is competitive, the data will confirm it. If it is not, you deserve to know while you still have options.