Buyers rarely abandon a position because a seller proves it wrong; they abandon it when someone they trust admits they held the same position and changed their mind. Escalation of commitment is why. Once a person has invested time, budget or reputation in a course of action, new evidence against it feels like a threat to them, not information about the project. The harder you push, the harder they defend.
The idea comes from organisational behaviour research, most associated with Barry Staw's work in the 1970s, and it shows up everywhere from public projects to product roadmaps. In sales it matters more now than it used to. Buyers first contacted sellers about 61% of the way through their buying journey, down from 69% a year earlier (6sense, 2025 Buyer Experience Report, Nov 2025). By the time you arrive, most buyers have already built a position, and in a buying group of 10 or more people, several of them have said it out loud.
The four drivers, and what counters each
| Driver | How it shows up in a deal | What a seller's challenge does | What a trusted peer can do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sunk cost | Months of research, a pilot with a competitor, an internal build already underway | Implies the investment was wasted, so the buyer protects it | Say they spent the same effort, and that stopping early was the cheapest part |
| Self-justification | The champion recommended the current approach to their boss | Makes the champion look wrong in front of the people who backed them | Offer a face-saving story: new information, not a bad call |
| Social consistency | The committee already told finance which direction it is going | Asks the buyer to reverse publicly, which is the most expensive move of all | Show that a respected peer reversed and was credited for it |
| Project momentum | Budget allocated, a partner engaged, a timeline announced | Looks like a threat to delivery dates | Suggest a small, reversible step instead of a full switch |
Why a direct challenge backfires
Most sales methods teach reps to reframe the buyer's problem. Done well, that is valuable. Done head-on, against a position the buyer has already committed to, it tends to trigger defence. Corporate Visions' own research with the Florida State University Sales Institute found that in lost deals, buyers and sellers disagreed on the core problem 77% of the time. Reframing did not close that gap; in many deals the gap simply stayed open until the deal was lost.
The buyer is not being irrational. They are protecting their standing. A seller has an obvious interest in them changing course, so anything the seller says is discounted. That is the messenger problem at the centre of messenger credibility, and it is why status quo bias and escalation of commitment usually travel together.
The de-escalation play
- Diagnose the driver. Ask who made the commitment and what they have invested: money, time or reputation. The counter depends on which one.
- Separate the person from the decision. Frame any change as a response to new information, so the original decision still looks reasonable for its time.
- Find a peer who held the same position. Someone who ran the same internal build, picked the same incumbent, or backed the same approach, and then changed. "We started there too" disarms in a way no slide can.
- Route the peer to the person who committed, not the whole committee. People reverse more easily in private than in a meeting.
- Make the next step small. A scoped pilot, a phase, a side-by-side test. Reversible steps lower the cost of admitting a change of mind.
Finding that peer is a relationship problem, not a messaging one. Boomerang maps your executives and employees, investors, advisors and board members, customer champions and partners against more than 80 relationship signals, scores each path as capability times willingness, and proposes who inside your company should make the ask. Board and investor asks route through the CEO or chief of staff; customer asks through the CSM or the executive with the most meetings on the account. Each of them approves and sends from their own account.
Sellers escalate too
The same bias works on your own team. A rep who has spent a quarter on a deal keeps it in commit long after the signals turned, adds another demo, offers another discount. Managers do it too, because pulling a deal from the forecast admits a miss. Watch for these signs in deal review:
- The close date has moved more than once with no new stakeholder engaged.
- The case for keeping the deal is how much work has gone in, not what the buyer has done.
- The rep is still talking to one person, and that person has stopped introducing anyone new.
- Every next step is something the seller does, not something the buyer does.
The fix is to agree requalification criteria before the deal starts, so the decision to walk away is a rule, not a confession.
Worked example
A VP of Operations has sponsored an internal build of the tool you sell. It is behind schedule, and her team is stretched. The rep's instinct is to show why the build is failing. That would put her on the defensive in front of the CFO who funded it. Instead, the rep asks who in the company's network ran an internal build of the same kind. A board member did, at a previous company, and later bought instead. With the rep's approval, the ask routes through the CEO to the board member, who sends a short note from their own account: they tried the build route too, here is what they learned, and they are happy to compare notes. The VP gets a private conversation with a peer, a face-saving reason to revisit the plan, and a small next step.
Bottom line
Escalation of commitment means the harder a seller argues, the more a committed buyer defends. You cannot out-argue it, but you can go around it: separate the person from the decision, bring in a peer who held the same view and changed, and make the next step small. For the wider case on who should carry the message, read Why change, why now, who asks.
Frequently asked questions
What is escalation of commitment in sales?
It is the tendency to keep backing a decision after evidence says it is not working, because of what has already been invested in it. Buyers defend the research, incumbent or internal build they have committed to. Sellers do it too, keeping dead deals in the forecast because of the effort already spent.
Is escalation of commitment the same as the sunk cost fallacy?
They overlap. Sunk cost is one driver: past investment makes stopping feel like waste. Escalation of commitment is broader, and also includes self-justification, the wish to look consistent after taking a public position, and project momentum once budget and timelines are set. In a buying committee the social drivers are often stronger than the cost.
How do I sell to a buyer who is committed to a competitor or internal build?
Don't attack the decision. Separate the person from it by framing change as a response to new information, find a peer who made the same choice and later changed, and let that peer talk to the person who committed, privately. Then propose a small, reversible next step instead of a full switch.
Why does challenging the buyer backfire sometimes?
Because a buyer who has publicly committed to a direction hears the challenge as a threat to their judgement. The seller also has an obvious interest in the buyer changing course, so the argument is discounted. The same point from a trusted peer, who has nothing to sell, is heard very differently.
How do I spot escalation of commitment in my own pipeline?
Look for close dates that keep moving with no new stakeholders, deals defended by effort spent rather than buyer actions, single-threaded contacts who have stopped introducing anyone, and next steps that are all on the seller's side. Agree requalification rules before deals start, so walking away is a rule, not an admission.
Can a warm introduction help de-escalate a buyer?
Yes, when it comes from someone who held the same position and changed. Boomerang finds who in your network fits, proposes who inside your company should make the ask, and drafts it. The relationship owner approves and sends from their own account; Rudy never sends on anyone's behalf.
