This is skepticism with a receipt. Somebody championed the last attempt, somebody paid for it, and somebody wore the failure. The pushback isn't about your product; it's about not getting burned twice by the same kind of promise.

It's also the most informative objection in discovery. The story behind it tells you what this deal will actually be judged on, and who'll quietly veto you if you never learn their name.

Resist the urge to differentiate. “We're different” is exactly what the last vendor said. The credible move is curiosity: “What broke?” Asked sincerely, it flips you from seller to investigator.

Run the autopsy in order: what was it, what was it supposed to fix, where did it fall short, who decided to kill it. The answers are better discovery than anything your question track would have surfaced on its own.

Then position against the failure, not the category: “So if the team never adopted it, the bar here is adoption, not features.” You've just let their scar tissue write your success criteria.

“We got burned by a vendor last year.” Even better: a named wound. Ask what was promised versus delivered; the gap is your checklist.

“Leadership is skeptical of tools like this.” The failure traveled up the chain. Whatever you propose now needs an executive-grade answer to why this time is different.

“We built something ourselves instead.” The failure spawned an internal tool. Ask who maintains it and how they feel about that; quiet resentment is your opening.