One of the most persistent mistakes in product and growth strategy is the assumption that the person using the product is the person who matters most in the buying decision. That belief is comforting because it gives teams a clean story. Build something people love, remove friction, improve the experience, and growth will follow.
In many markets, that story is incomplete.
The user may be the visible actor, but the real decision can sit elsewhere. In enterprise software, financial services, security, regulated operations, healthcare, infrastructure, and increasingly in any category touching data or operational risk, the product is often judged by functions that never use it in the way the end user does. Procurement will test commercial discipline. Legal will test exposure and enforceability. Security will test control. Finance will test cost logic, payback, and budget legitimacy. Risk will test survivability under stress. The user may still matter, but the user is no longer the whole market.
This is where many otherwise strong product teams lose strategic altitude. They continue optimising for adoption while the actual buying system is optimising for assurance, control, and budget protection. They interpret slow progress as a sales problem or a messaging problem, when in reality the product has not yet been made legible to the real customer.
The myth of the user led buying model
Consumer shaped thinking has had an enormous influence on modern product practice. It has improved usability, sharpened empathy, and corrected years of enterprise indifference to the people expected to live with bad systems. That was necessary. But it also created a distortion. Too many teams now behave as though user love is sufficient to unlock commercial success in markets where institutional buying logic still dominates.
It rarely is.
A product can be intuitive, elegant, and strongly demanded by an operating team and still fail to move forward. Not because the value is weak, but because the organisation buying it is asking a different set of questions. Can this vendor be governed properly? Are the contractual terms survivable? Does the pricing model create long-term exposure? Will this product introduce regulatory ambiguity? Are the data rights acceptable? Is the implementation risk worth the return? Does this purchase create new headcount, hidden cost, or architectural dependency? These are not marginal questions asked on the side. They are often the core questions.
Also Read: Your customers are not buying your product, they are buying a better version of themselves
The product is not being evaluated only for usefulness
Most teams understand the need to show product value. Far fewer understand that value is being assessed through different lenses by different internal audiences. The user is asking whether the product helps them do something better, faster, or more effectively. Procurement is asking whether the commercial structure can be managed without regret. Legal is asking whether the downside is bounded. The CFO is asking whether the economics are credible and whether this deserves capital ahead of other demands on the budget.
None of these perspectives is irrational. They are performing their roles exactly as they should. The problem arises when product leaders treat them as obstacles rather than as customers in their own right.
Procurement is often about buying risk shape, not just price
Procurement is routinely misunderstood by product teams. It is seen as the function that arrives late, pushes on price, and creates delay. That is a shallow reading of what is actually happening.
In serious buying environments, procurement is not only about negotiating cost. It is testing whether the vendor behaves with discipline, whether the deal structure is coherent, whether commitments are clear, and whether the organisation is about to enter an arrangement it will later struggle to unwind. Procurement is often less interested in your product narrative than in whether your commercial model creates hidden expansion, ambiguous service scope, unbounded support expectations, or contractual lock-in without reciprocal protection.
A team that has only learned to sell value often struggles here because procurement is examining maturity. Loose packaging, vague service descriptions, inconsistent pricing logic, missing governance terms, and fuzzy implementation commitments all signal future pain. Even a strong product can start to look risky if the commercial architecture around it feels improvised.
Legal is evaluating future failure, not present excitement
Legal does not buy possibilities. Legal models fail. That distinction matters.
When product teams present a new capability, they often describe what the product can do at its best. Legal is usually concerned with what happens when it does not. What if the data flows are disputed? What if a regulatory complaint is raised? What if the service fails during a critical period? What if an automated output creates harm? What if an external dependency breaks? What if customer information is retained too long or used in a way that exceeds consent? What if an internal team relies on a claim that later proves indefensible?
This is not cynicism. It is the institutional function responsible for asking what others are tempted to postpone.
Also Read: The agent as customer: Jensen Huang’s trillion-dollar bet on AI’s next era
The CFO is not buying features; the CFO is buying economic confidence
Perhaps the biggest mismatch in modern product storytelling is with finance. Product teams often believe that if user demand is visible enough, budget logic will follow. In practice, the CFO is often evaluating a completely different object.
The CFO is not buying your roadmap. The CFO is buying confidence in the economic shape of the decision. That includes the direct cost, the total cost, the speed of value, the certainty of value, the downside if adoption underperforms, and the extent to which this spend displaces something else with a clearer return. Even where the numbers appear favourable, finance will still ask whether the value is measurable, durable, and attributable enough to deserve investment.
This is where many good products become strategically weak. They talk in terms of empowerment, efficiency, collaboration, and innovation, while finance needs to understand cost avoidance, revenue protection, compliance reduction, productivity recovery, margin impact, capital discipline, or risk containment. The product story may be true, but it is not yet in a language that capital allocation can trust.
The internal sponsor is often carrying too much of the load
One of the most overlooked signs of strategic weakness is when a product depends too heavily on an internal champion to do all the translation work. The user or business sponsor loves the product, sees the value, and wants the deal to happen. But they are left carrying the burden of explaining security posture, financial rationale, implementation risk, legal safeguards, and commercial structure to functions that were never part of the original product conversation.
That is not a sales inconvenience. It is a design failure in the route to market.
A strong product organisation does not simply create demand in the user base. It equips the buying system. It gives the sponsor material that travels across functions. It anticipates objections that are not really objections but legitimate decision criteria. It understands that internal advocacy has limits, especially in large institutions where each function is being judged on whether it prevented the wrong kind of decision, not on whether it accelerated the exciting one.
If your deal advances only when a heroic sponsor spends political capital carrying you through the organisation, your model is less scalable than it appears.
—
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.
Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.
The post Your real customer might be procurement, legal, or the CFO, not the user appeared first on e27.