Qualify Build-vs-Buy Before Pitching AI Gateways
- Cormac Repman
- 10 minutes ago
- 2 min read
We tracked a pattern across calls this week that's shifting how we qualify prospects for AI gateway solutions. Multiple reps connected with engineering teams at scaling companies. Some booked meetings. Some asked for follow-ups instead. The deciding factor: whether they had a current solution, were committed to building one, or had no urgent need at all.
Here's what we observed. A VP of Engineering at a company handling 24 billion annual emails took our call about token costs and data privacy at scale. His team doesn't have a gateway solution yet. They're absorbing the costs and risks right now. No DIY project in progress. Call length: 22 minutes. Outcome: meeting booked same call.
Same week, another engineering leader told us his team was exploring building a routing layer themselves to manage costs. Different response. We scheduled a follow-up, but he didn't convert to a meeting. He's committed to the DIY path, at least for now.
A third prospect, an infrastructure hire, spent 10 minutes asking how our platform compared to Open Router and Databricks. Those are existing gateway platforms, not internal builds. He's evaluating options, not committed to building. Still booked the meeting because he's actively shopping.
The pattern is becoming clear. Prospects lacking any solution entirely and feeling current pain book meetings. Prospects actively evaluating existing platforms still engage. Prospects committed to building internally without acute pressure rarely show up to demos. And prospects who haven't defined the problem yet don't book at all.
So we changed our qualifying approach. Before explaining features, we ask one version of this question: What's your current approach to managing AI costs and model routing? This surfaces three things at once. It reveals whether they have acute pain or are exploring casually. It shows whether they're in "we'll build this ourselves" mode or "we need to buy something." It screens for real urgency.
Prospects lacking and feeling impact book immediately. Prospects evaluating existing platforms book with interest. Prospects committed to DIY builds without urgent pain ask for follow-ups instead. We ran 5 calls this week. 2 qualified instantly (lacking entirely, acute pain). 2 engaged but soft (actively evaluating platforms). 1 disqualified (no stated need). Only the first group moved to confirmed meetings.
The shift is tactical but it saves cycles. Ask build status upfront. Qualify on pain intensity before feature talk. Skip the DIY-committed prospects without urgency. You'll book higher and spend less time in discovery with people who won't buy.
Comments