Talent Supply

Real-world Copilot experiment · 21 Aug 2026

Same Copilot. Same prompt. One difference: context.

I wanted to test a practical question for procurement professionals who cannot choose or upgrade the AI tool their organisation gives them: can better context materially improve the output of a basic Copilot?

So I ran the same procurement thought-partner prompt twice. One run had no additional organisational context. The second had a structured procurement context file. Below are the actual outputs.

Run A

Copilot Basic + same prompt + no context

vs

Run B

Copilot Basic + same prompt + structured context

One run per condition. Real outputs, reproduced without content editing. This is an illustrative field test, not a statistical benchmark.

Experiment setup

Same tool, same model environment, same procurement scenario and the same prompt. The only intended variable was the context supplied alongside the question, built with the Procurement Context Playbook.

  1. 01

    Same tool

    Copilot Basic

  2. 02

    Same challenge

    Prepare for a stakeholder meeting about marketing spend

  3. 03

    Same prompt

    Exact wording shown below

  4. 04

    One intended variable

    Organisational / procurement context

The prompt, identical in both runs
“I'm preparing for the meeting with key stakeholder in marketing category. Help me to find my potential blind spots.”

What changed?

Without context, Copilot gave a good generic stakeholder checklist. With context, it started reasoning about the meeting inside the organisation's procurement reality.

The first answer covered outcomes, incentives, constraints, political dynamics, customer insight and stakeholder expectations. The contextual answer retained that logic, but connected it to procurement-specific issues such as M&A-driven agency duplication, tail-spend fragmentation, legal-review friction, supplier dependency, technology spend and future sourcing demand.

Side by side

The two answers compared across the dimensions that matter for a real meeting.

Core orientation

No context

Stakeholder and business coaching

With context

Procurement stakeholder coaching inside a specific organisational environment

Company-specific facts

No context

None

With context

M&A growth, tail-spend programme, SAP Ariba/S4HANA, legal-review bottleneck, supplier exposure and regulatory environment

Procurement specificity

No context

Moderate

With context

High

Examples of issues surfaced

No context

Incentives, blockers, politics, untested assumptions, future priorities

With context

Agency duplication after acquisitions, fragmented marketing tail spend, procurement bypass, legal/onboarding friction, agency KPIs, supplier dependency, technology spend

Meeting usefulness

No context

Strong general checklist

With context

More targeted agenda and procurement questions

Weakness / risk

No context

Generic by design

With context

Longer and occasionally extrapolates beyond what the context itself proves

The two answers

These are the actual Copilot outputs from the two runs. Content is unedited. Formatting has only been cleaned up for readability.

No context

What it focused on

A structured guide to running a better stakeholder conversation: outcomes over outputs, incentives, constraints, politics, untested assumptions, customer insight and expectations of you.

With context

What it focused on

The same stakeholder logic, framed as a procurement meeting: agency duplication after acquisitions, fragmented tail spend, procurement bypass, legal-review friction, agency KPIs, supplier dependency, technology spend and compliance.

No contextCopilot Basic · 21 August 2026 · unedited

If you're meeting a key stakeholder in the marketing category/product management space, the biggest risk is not missing what they say. It's missing what they assume you already know.

Here are the common blind spots people walk into these meetings with:

1. Confusing outputs with outcomes

Stakeholders often talk about campaigns, launches, content, events, and assets.

The real question is:

“What business outcome are you accountable for?”

Try to uncover:

  • Revenue growth
  • Pipeline generation
  • Customer acquisition
  • Retention
  • Product adoption
  • Brand awareness
  • Market share

A useful question:

“If we met again in six months and this was a huge success, what would have changed?”

2. Not understanding their incentives

Product managers and category marketers may appear aligned but often optimize for different things.

Examples:

  • Product Manager → adoption, usage, roadmap priorities
  • Category Marketing → positioning, messaging, demand generation
  • Sales → quota attainment
  • Finance → efficiency and ROI

Ask:

“How is success measured for your team?”

This often reveals hidden priorities.

3. Ignoring constraints

Many stakeholders don't need more ideas. They need constraints removed.

Look for:

  • Budget limitations
  • Resource shortages
  • Approval bottlenecks
  • Data quality issues
  • Technology gaps
  • Skill gaps

Ask:

“What's preventing your team from moving faster today?”

4. Missing political dynamics

A critical blind spot.

Try to understand:

  • Who influences decisions?
  • Who blocks decisions?
  • Who owns budget?
  • Which teams are difficult to align?

Questions:

“Whose support is most critical for this initiative?”

“Where do alignment challenges typically arise?”

5. Assuming the current strategy is working

Many teams continue activities because they've always done them.

Ask:

“What assumptions are we making that haven't been validated?”

“If you were starting from scratch, what would you do differently?”

6. Not understanding the customer deeply enough

Category marketers often have strong market insights.

Explore:

  • Customer pain points
  • Competitor threats
  • Buying process
  • Lost opportunities

Ask:

“What customer insight do you think the rest of the organization underestimates?”

7. Focusing only on today's priorities

Good stakeholder conversations uncover what's coming next.

Ask:

“What is keeping you up at night for next year, not just this quarter?”

This often reveals strategic priorities before they're formally announced.

8. Missing expectations of you

One of the largest blind spots.

Clarify:

  • What do they need from you?
  • What do they expect you to influence?
  • How do they want to engage?

Ask directly:

“What would make me a valuable partner to your team?”

Quick stakeholder map to leave the meeting with

By the end, try to know:

  • ✅ Their top 3 objectives
  • ✅ Their success metrics
  • ✅ Their biggest obstacle
  • ✅ Their key stakeholders
  • ✅ Their upcoming priorities
  • ✅ What support they need from you
  • ✅ One quick win you can help with

A powerful final question

Before ending, ask:

“What's the one thing you wish more people understood about your business or category?”

I've found this question often surfaces the most valuable insight of the entire meeting because it gets beyond status updates into what truly matters to them.

With contextCopilot Basic · 21 August 2026 · unedited

For a procurement stakeholder meeting in the marketing category, the biggest risk is often not what you know about suppliers and spend, but what you don't know about the business objectives driving the spend.

Given your organisation's context (aggressive growth, M&A activity, category strategy refresh, tail-spend rationalisation, data-driven culture, SAP Ariba/S4HANA environment), here are the most common blind spots procurement professionals encounter when meeting marketing stakeholders.

1. Focusing on cost before understanding growth objectives

Marketing leaders are usually measured on:

  • Lead generation
  • Revenue growth
  • Brand awareness
  • Market share
  • Customer acquisition cost (CAC)
  • Campaign ROI

A procurement discussion that starts with savings targets may immediately create resistance.

Blind spot to avoid:

  • Assuming lower spend = better outcome.
  • Treating marketing as an overhead instead of a revenue-enabling function.

Better question:

“Which marketing activities create the highest business value, and where do you feel current suppliers are helping or limiting performance?”

2. Not understanding the impact of M&A

Your company follows an M&A-led growth strategy.

Marketing may currently be struggling with:

  • Brand harmonisation
  • Agency duplication
  • Different digital platforms across acquired companies
  • Multiple media buying contracts
  • Overlapping creative agencies

Blind spot to avoid:

Looking only at supplier cost and not supplier consolidation opportunities.

Explore:

  • Number of agencies currently used.
  • Legacy contracts inherited through acquisitions.
  • Opportunities for volume leverage.

3. Missing tail-spend opportunities

You already have a tail-spend rationalisation programme.

Marketing categories often have:

  • Small creative agencies
  • Event suppliers
  • Promotional material vendors
  • Local digital marketing specialists
  • Graphic design freelancers

Many stakeholders underestimate how fragmented this spend becomes.

Questions:

  • Which suppliers are used only once or twice per year?
  • Are there categories where stakeholders bypass procurement?
  • Are POs consistently used?

4. Ignoring stakeholder pain points

Many procurement meetings become supplier discussions rather than stakeholder discussions.

Potential pain points:

  • Slow onboarding
  • Legal review delays
  • Slow contract turnaround
  • Slow purchase approvals
  • Difficulty accessing preferred suppliers

Given your organisation's known legal-review bottleneck, this is especially important.

Ask:

“What causes the most frustration when you need to engage a marketing supplier?”

The answer may reveal more value than a spend analysis.

5. Not understanding agency performance metrics

Procurement often tracks:

  • Spend
  • Savings
  • Contract coverage

Marketing tracks:

  • Conversion rates
  • Cost per lead
  • Reach
  • Engagement
  • Speed-to-market

Blind spot:

Evaluating suppliers without marketing performance criteria.

Ask:

  • How do you define a high-performing agency?
  • Which KPIs matter most?
  • How is agency performance currently measured?

6. Overlooking supplier dependency

While organisationally you have low single-source exposure, marketing can still have hidden dependencies.

Examples:

  • One agency controls all brand assets.
  • One media agency owns key campaign data.
  • One technology partner manages all digital marketing tools.

Questions:

  • Which suppliers would be hardest to replace?
  • Where is critical marketing knowledge concentrated?

7. Failing to discuss future demand

Stakeholders usually care more about next year's challenges than last year's spend.

Explore:

  • New products
  • Expansion plans
  • Major campaigns
  • Rebranding initiatives
  • Digital transformation plans

Ask:

“What marketing capabilities will we need in the next 12-24 months that we don't have today?”

8. Underestimating technology spend

Marketing spend increasingly hides inside technology budgets.

Potential categories:

  • Marketing automation
  • CRM-related services
  • Analytics tools
  • Content platforms
  • Social media management tools
  • AI-enabled marketing solutions

Blind spot:

Looking only at traditional agencies and media spend.

9. Missing ESG and compliance implications

As a chemicals company operating under EU REACH, CBAM, CSRD and CSDDD obligations, marketing activities can carry compliance implications.

Examples:

  • Sustainability claims
  • Environmental messaging
  • Supplier ESG performance
  • Marketing material sourcing

Questions:

  • Are marketing agencies supporting sustainability communications?
  • Are there supplier ESG requirements?
  • Have any compliance concerns emerged?

10. Not positioning procurement as a strategic partner

Marketing stakeholders often fear procurement will:

  • Force lowest-cost suppliers
  • Reduce flexibility
  • Slow campaigns

Your objective should be to reposition procurement as:

  • ✅ Market intelligence provider
  • ✅ Negotiation expert
  • ✅ Supplier performance manager
  • ✅ Risk mitigator
  • ✅ Commercial advisor

High-value questions to take into the meeting

Business priorities

  • What are your top 3 objectives for the next 12 months?
  • Which marketing investments generate the strongest ROI?

Supplier landscape

  • Which suppliers are performing exceptionally well?
  • Which suppliers are causing frustration?
  • If you could replace one supplier tomorrow, which would it be?

Process

  • What procurement process step creates the most friction?
  • Where does speed matter more than cost?

Spend and sourcing

  • Where do you believe we are overspending?
  • Where do we lack leverage with suppliers?
  • What opportunities do you see from recent acquisitions?

Future

  • What capabilities will marketing need over the next two years?
  • How can procurement help you achieve your goals faster?

Final self-check before the meeting

Ask yourself:

  • Do I understand their business objectives?
  • Do I know their major suppliers?
  • Do I know their current pain points?
  • Do I understand how they measure success?
  • Do I know upcoming initiatives?
  • Do I know where supplier risk exists?
  • Do I know where M&A created duplication?
  • Do I have ideas beyond cost reduction?

If you can answer all eight confidently, you'll likely enter the meeting as a strategic partner rather than a procurement gatekeeper.

Artiom Kravchenko

Shall we stay in contact?

I'm Artiom Kravchenko, and I ran this test myself. If you found it useful, join the contact network and I will let you know when the next experiment, tool or event is ready.

Join the contact network

What the context actually added

01

It moved the answer into procurement

The no-context response was primarily stakeholder-management advice. The contextual response immediately framed the meeting around suppliers, spend and procurement's role.

02

It connected the meeting to the organisation

M&A, tail-spend rationalisation, SAP Ariba/S4HANA and the legal-review bottleneck became concrete avenues for questioning rather than background information sitting unused.

03

It generated more targeted hypotheses

Instead of only asking about generic blockers, Copilot suggested testing for agency duplication, fragmented tail spend, procurement bypass, supplier dependency and technology spend.

04

It changed the questions you could take into the room

The contextual answer produced questions that are closer to an actual procurement meeting agenda: supplier performance, volume leverage, preferred-supplier friction, sourcing opportunities created by acquisitions and future capability requirements.

What it did not do

Context did not turn the answer into perfect institutional knowledge. Some recommendations were still generic, the answer became longer, and several points were reasonable inferences rather than facts supplied by the context. Context improves grounding; it does not remove the need for judgement or verification.

Verdict

Context improved the usefulness of Copilot Basic in this test, but the improvement was not “bad AI becomes brilliant AI.” It was “generic useful advice becomes more organisation-aware procurement advice.”

The no-context answer already knew how to structure a good stakeholder conversation. The context-enabled answer knew more about which stakeholder conversation this might be. The most defensible conclusion from this single run is:

Even when you cannot change the model, structured context can materially improve how relevant the model's reasoning is to your work.

A stronger benchmark would repeat each condition several times and score the outputs blind. This page intentionally reports the real single-run result rather than pretending the experiment proves a universal performance uplift.

Final takeaway

You may not get to choose the model. You do get to choose the context.

In many organisations, the approved AI environment is fixed by IT. The practical lever available to an individual user is the quality of the information and operating context they give it.

Build your Procurement Context PlaybookExplore more insights