"We already do it in house"
The most common refusal in consulting and software. It does not announce a lack of interest but a decision already taken, and it is the assumptions behind that decision that let the conversation start again.
“We already do it in house” is unusual among objections: it sounds like a door closing, and yet it carries a valuable piece of information. Your contact has just confirmed the need. All they are telling you is that they have already decided how to meet it.
What the sentence actually means
It covers three very different situations, and treating them as one leads straight to the wrong answer.
| Situation | The tell | What can reopen it |
|---|---|---|
| It is true and it works | They name a person, an organisation, some numbers | The hidden cost, and what happens at scale |
| It is true and it works badly | They qualify it, they say “for now” | The tipping point, usually a new hire |
| It is a polite way to end the call | No detail, hurried tone | Nothing on this call. Book another one. |
Why this is not “we already have a supplier”
The distinction decides the whole call, and a lot of salespeople miss it.
Against a rival supplier you are in a straightforward commercial contest: your contact can change their mind without contradicting themselves, because the original decision committed somebody else. Against an in-house setup, you are asking someone to accept that their own judgement call could have been better. That is a conversation of an entirely different order, and it is ego, not budget, that answers first.
Hence the central rule: never set your offer against what already exists. Look instead for what has changed since the decision was made. A context that has moved on allows a choice to be reopened without anyone having been wrong.
The three questions that reopen it
- “How long have you been set up that way?” The most productive of the three. Something put in place before a period of growth, a round of hiring or a change of tooling was sized for a reality that no longer exists.
- “Who looks after it?” This one reveals the real cost. “That’s Emma, in between other things” does not describe an organisation. It describes an invisible workload carried by one person.
- “What do you measure on it?” If nothing is measured, nobody can claim it works. The question opens a gap without ever accusing anyone.
The wording is what makes the difference
None of the three questions challenges the decision. They ask about its context. Your contact can answer them honestly without conceding anything, which is the condition for them answering at all.
A full exchange
Look, thanks, but we already do it in house.
Understood, that’s often the case with teams your size. How long have you been set up that way?
No challenge, no argument. Acknowledge, then put a date on it.
Two years or so, I’d say.
And is the sales team the same size it was two years ago?
No, we’ve gone from four to nine, and we’re hiring three more.
That’s exactly the point. What holds at four rarely holds at twelve, and it isn’t a question of tools, it’s a question of volume. Today, do you measure connected calls per rep?
The change of context does the work. Nobody has been proved wrong.
No, we look at revenue.
Let me suggest twenty minutes, not to replace what you have, but to compare your numbers with what teams of twelve are doing. Thursday at 11, or Friday at 2?
The ask is for a comparison, not for a change. Nothing to disown in order to say yes.
Aim for coexistence, not replacement
This is the most effective reversal available on this objection. For as long as your proposal requires dismantling what exists, it turns the person who built it against you. The moment it sits alongside, it costs nothing to look at.
In practice: offer to equip a single seat, for a short period, next to what is already there. Three weeks of side by side comparison settles the question more reliably than three meetings, and it commits nobody.
What closes the door for good
- “Yes, but we do it better.” You have just told someone their work is second rate.
- “You’re losing money without realising it.” Possibly true, certainly insulting.
- “A lot of our clients used to say that.” Straight out of a sales manual, and recognised as such immediately.
- Going straight into a demo. You confirm that you did not listen to the answer.
Recognising a genuine no
When the three questions come back without any detail, the objection was never an objection: it was a polite way of ending the call. Pressing on produces nothing, except the certainty that your next call will not be answered.
In that case the right exit looks like the one in “you have caught me at a bad time”: leave the conversation with another call still possible, and leave something in writing with the follow-up email after a call.
Frequently asked questions
What should you answer to “we already do it in house”?
Do not challenge it. Ask what assumptions the decision was made on, and when. A choice made two years ago, before a round of hiring or a period of growth, deserves to be looked at again without anyone having to contradict themselves.
Is it a real objection or a brush-off?
Both exist. A brush-off gives itself away by its lack of detail: someone who genuinely does the thing in house can say who looks after it and since when. No answer to those questions signals a polite refusal.
Should you criticise the prospect’s in-house setup?
Never. Somebody built it, often the person you are speaking to. Criticising it turns a commercial discussion into a defence of ego, and that is ground you lose on.
How do you get a meeting despite this objection?
By offering a comparison of numbers rather than a demo. “Twenty minutes to compare your current figures with what comparable teams are doing” asks them to give up nothing.