Industrial Buyer Pulse
Q4 2025
A quarterly research initiative capturing the evolving perspectives of industrial buyers across North America.
Dear reader,
Industrial markets rarely stand still, but the last year has felt like an inflection point. Capital budgets remain largely expansionary even as headlines turn cautious. AI has moved from experiment to everyday tool in the hands of buyers. Self-serve experiences now shape shortlists long before sales is invited into the conversation. At the same time, supply chains—while more stable than in the immediate post-pandemic period—are still being rewired through freight strategies, regulatory adaptation, and near- and re-shoring initiatives.
At the center of all of this sits the industrial buyer. Their expectations continue to evolve. They are working across more complex buying groups, leaning heavily on digital research and AI-enabled summaries, and demanding clearer proof of reliability—through live lead-time visibility, performance data, and third-party certifications—before they commit. Relationships still matter, but they increasingly begin and are validated online. And while incumbents remain powerful, our latest data shows that new suppliers are winning a meaningful share of major purchases, particularly where executives and supply chain leaders are driving the decision.
The Industrial Buyer Pulse presented by Kula Partners was created to help manufacturers navigate this shifting landscape with a consistently buyer-first lens. This Q4 2025 edition is especially important: it will be the reference point for many organizations in the middle of their annual planning cycle. In this wave, we continue to trend our anchor KPIs—covering Buying Confidence, Research & Supplier Selection, Digital Buying Enablement, and Supply Chain Health & Risk—while layering in fresh questions about where 2026 investment will flow, how open buyers are to switching suppliers, and which kinds of reliability proof and human expertise matter most as they move from research to commitment.
The findings you’ll see in the pages that follow are based on 258 North American decision-makers across the manufacturing landscape, including operations leaders, engineering and technical buyers, and procurement and supply chain professionals. While individual percentages will move from quarter to quarter, the core lens does not. Our intent is to separate signal from noise by tracking a stable set of indicators over time, and to translate those indicators into actionable guidance for marketing and sales teams who are trying to align their plans, programs, and investments with how industrial buyers actually want to buy.
This Q4 report is intentionally oriented toward planning decisions. We highlight where budget confidence is holding up, how and when shortlists are formed, what self-serve capabilities buyers now treat as table stakes, and where human expertise is still non-negotiable in the journey. We also examine how logistics disruption and near-/re-shoring are reshaping supplier expectations, and which reliability signals are most likely to win trust in the year ahead.
Our aim remains simple: to provide an always-current, decision-grade readout of industrial buying behaviour that helps manufacturers focus resources where they will matter most in the coming year. We welcome your feedback and collaboration as we continue to evolve and deepen the Industrial Buyer Pulse in future waves.
Carman PiriePrincipal, Kula Partners
Carman PiriePrincipal, Kula Partners
Key Findings
- Budget confidence cools slightly but remains strongly positive.The Q4 Budget Confidence Index stands at 0.48, down slightly from 0.52 in Q3 yet still firmly in “growth” territory. Canadian respondents are notably more optimistic than their US peers, and senior leaders remain considerably more bullish than managers.
- 2026 spending priorities tilt toward automation and production equipment.Nearly six in ten buyers expect to increase investment in automation/robotics (58%), with strong intent also behind production equipment (49%).
- ROI and delivery guarantees are the two big “green buttons” for accelerating deals.When forced to choose a single factor that would accelerate approval for a planned investment this quarter, buyers split primarily between proven payback/ROI (34%) and supplier delivery guarantees (29%), with financing, regulatory drivers, and references playing secondary roles.
- Shortlists are still built before sales is at the table—and this behaviour is intensifying in Canada.Across North America, 83% of respondents placed at least one supplier on a shortlist before any live interaction, up from 82% in Q3. In Canada, this rises to 92%, compared to 77% in the US, reinforcing the primacy of digital and peer channels in early-stage evaluation.
- Phone and email dominate the “first live touch”—with notable differences by role.The first live interaction with the eventual supplier is most often a phone call (31%), followed by email threads (22%) and in-person meetings/events (20%). Executives skew heavily to phone, while managers are far more likely to begin over email, hinting at different preferences for how relationship-building begins.
- One in three recent wins went to a new supplier.Despite narratives about incumbent lock-in, 33% of respondents say their most recent significant purchase was awarded to a supplier they had not worked with in the prior 12 months. New-vendor win rates are highest among medium-sized firms.
- AI adoption for supplier research is now near-universal.Overall AI usage for supplier research climbed to 92% of respondents in Q4, up from 85% in Q3. In Canada, that figure reaches 99%, and 100% of C-level respondents report using AI tools in the past 90 days. Operations remains the lagging group, with nearly one quarter still not using AI in this context.
- Buyers are completing an average of two complex buying tasks without sales involvement.Half of buyers report using digital tools for availability and inventory checks (50%), instant price/lead-time quotes (45%), and configuration (41%)—with an overall average of 2.1 self-serve tasks completed in the past 90 days. Directors and executive leadership teams lead the way, with higher “DIY” scores than managers.
- Human expertise is still non-negotiable at key points in the journey.Although digital self-service is now entrenched, respondents still expect humans at critical decision steps: final configuration validation (52%), pricing and commercial terms (51%), and compliance/quality documentation review (50%) all show strong demand for supplier-side human involvement.
- Near- and re-shoring is no longer hypothetical. Most buyers have shifted meaningful spend.Nearly 70% of respondents report shifting at least 10% of their critical spend to near- or re-shored suppliers in the past 12 months, with about one in five moving 25–49% of such spend.
Buyer Confidence
Capital budget outlook: still bullish, but with more nuance
The Budget Confidence Index for Q4 stands at 0.48, only slightly below Q3’s 0.52 and still strongly positive on the underlying −1 to +1 scale.
- This indicates that, on balance, most plants expect capex budgets to grow in the coming six months, even as macroeconomic headlines remain mixed.
- The small drop versus Q3 suggests that buyers are perhaps more selective and targeted about where they will spend, but they are not retreating.
Confidence varies by country, role, department, and size
The averages mask meaningful segmentation:
- Country: Canadian buyers are more optimistic than US buyers (0.53 vs 0.44, p=0.031).
- Job title: C-level and VP respondents show the strongest optimism (0.61), followed by Directors (0.56), while Managers are materially more cautious (0.29, p<0.001).
- Department: Supply chain and logistics leaders report the highest confidence (0.64), with executive leadership close behind (0.55). Operations is more muted at 0.41 (p=0.020).
- Company size: Medium and large firms are more bullish (0.54 and 0.51) than small firms (0.37, p=0.001).
Implications for marketers
- C-suite bullishness: they are more confident and more likely to champion forward-looking initiatives.
- Managers and operations teams may require more conservative, risk-reduction messaging and clearer payback narratives.
* To quantify respondents’ expectations regarding their capital expenditure over the next six months we’ve translated the original five-point Likert scale into a numerical index ranging from negative one, indicating a significant decrease, to positive one, indicating a significant increase, with zero representing no change. By averaging these values, the index provides a straightforward measure of overall sentiment, where a positive score suggests optimism and a negative score suggests pessimism.
Where the money is going: investment priorities
When asked which areas are most likely to see increased spend in the next six months, buyers highlight a broad modernization agenda:
| Category | % Expecting Increase |
|---|---|
| Automation/robotics | 58% |
| Production equipment/lines | 49% |
| Maintenance & MRO | 38% |
| IT/OT infrastructure | 37% |
| Safety/environmental | 33% |
| QA/test & inspection | 31% |
Segment differences sharpen the picture:
- US vs Canada: US buyers are more likely to prioritize production equipment (55%) and IT/OT infrastructure (42%) than Canadian respondents.
- By role: Managers lag executives and directors on automation, safety, and IT/OT—perhaps reflecting differing proximity to strategic roadmaps.
Implications for marketers
- Automation and production assets should anchor campaign themes and thought leadership heading into 2026.
What accelerates approvals: green-light triggers
When forced to select the single factor most likely to accelerate approval for a planned investment this quarter, respondents say:
| Factor | % Selecting |
|---|---|
| Proven payback/ROI case | 34% |
| Supplier delivery guarantees | 29% |
| Regulatory requirement | 14% |
| Financing/terms | 13% |
| Peer/customer reference | 5% |
| Executive mandate | 3% |
Implications for marketers
- ROI stories are non-negotiable. Case studies, calculators, and TCO models should be easy to access and tailored to specific applications.
- Service-level commitments can be as powerful as price incentives.
- Regulatory and financing levers matter, but they are secondary to hard numbers and operational assurance.
Research & Selection
Pre-contact shortlisting remains the norm
Segment differences underscore the importance of context:
- Job title: Executives and directors are highly likely to shortlist pre-contact (around 89–91%), while managers are markedly less likely (70%; p<0.001).
- Department: Procurement and supply chain functions are almost universally pre-contact (92–100%), whereas operations sits at 67%.
Implications for marketers
- For procurement, supply chain, and executive buyers, your brand and digital footprint must do most of the work before sales is aware of the opportunity.
- For operations and managers, there is still room for live engagement to shape the shortlist, but it often happens against a backdrop set by digital research completed by others.
First live touchpoint: how relationships begin
When a supplier finally does enter a live conversation, the first contact is most commonly:
| Channel | % |
|---|---|
| Phone call | 31% |
| Email thread | 22% |
| In-person meeting or event | 20% |
| Video meeting | 19% |
| Live chat | 8% |
Preferences vary meaningfully:
- Executives over-index on phone and in-person engagement.
- Managers rely more heavily on email for that first interaction.
- Medium-sized firms report a higher incidence of in-person meetings as the first touch than small or large companies.
Implications for marketers
- Ensure that phone and email-based experiences—from call routing to email templates—are as well-designed as your website.
- Sales enablement should equip teams to handle first-contact calls where buyers are already well-informed and expecting deep, context-rich discussions.
- Consider tailoring outreach channel mixes by role and company size—more phone for senior roles, thoughtful email sequences for managers.
New-vendor openness: incumbents do not always win
For their most recent significant purchase:
A negligible share were unsure or working with multiple suppliers.
New-vendor win rates are highest among medium-sized companies, where 43.5% report selecting a new supplier.
Implications for marketers
- Challenger brands should prioritize executive- and director-level plays and mid-market accounts, where openness to switching is greatest.
- Incumbents need proactive renewal and expansion motions—especially with executive sponsors—to avoid being displaced.
Digital Buying Enablement
AI usage: from early majority to near-universal
- Canada: 99% usage vs 88% in the US (p=0.001).
- Job title: 100% of C-level and VP respondents, 95% of directors, and 83% of managers report using AI tools.
- Department: Procurement and supply chain are essentially universal adopters (99–100%), whereas operations lags at 77%.
Implications for marketers
- Treat AI tools as primary research surfaces, not edge cases. Your content must be structured, machine-readable, and concise to perform well when summarized by LLMs.
Self-serve tasks completed: quantifying digital DIY
Respondents report strong usage of self-service tools in the past 90 days:
| Task | % Completing |
|---|---|
| Availability/inventory check | 50% |
| Instant price/lead-time quote | 45% |
| Configured product/solution | 41% |
| Compliance document download | 32% |
| CAD/BOM download | 28% |
| Sample request | 11% |
| None of the above | 9% |
On average, buyers completed 2.06 distinct buying tasks without sales involvement, with:
- Directors and executive leadership scoring higher than managers, and
- Medium and large companies slightly more self-sufficient than smaller firms.
Implications for marketers
- The typical buyer journey now includes multiple high-value actions—quoting, configuring, checking availability—before sales is involved.
- For marketers and product owners, this is the business case for integrated CPQ, availability, and document workflows that are intuitive and well-integrated into the website or portal.
- Track and score these digital behaviours as pipeline indicators, not just “anonymous activity.”
Human-required steps: where digital stops being enough
When asked which steps still require a human from the supplier for them to proceed confidently, respondents emphasize three phases:
| Step | % |
|---|---|
| Final configuration validation | 52% |
| Pricing & commercial terms | 51% |
| Compliance/quality documentation review | 50% |
| Solution scoping/requirements | 38% |
| On-site assessment | 23% |
| None—digital is sufficient for all steps | <1% |
Executives and directors are especially likely to want human support for scoping and config validation, while demand for on-site assessments is highest among larger companies.
Implications for marketers
- Digital experiences should be designed to hand off gracefully into human expertise at clearly defined points:
- Application engineering for final configuration
- Commercial teams for complex pricing and terms
- Quality/Regulatory specialists for compliance
- For high-value segments, consider “human-in-the-loop” journeys—for example, digital configuration followed by automatic scheduling of a consultation.
Supply Chain Health & Risks
Logistics disruptions: a broad but evolving pattern
Buyers were asked which up to three logistics-related challenges caused the most disruption to their operations in the past quarter. The leading issues:
| Disruption | % |
|---|---|
| High freight costs | 54% |
| Customs & border delays | 49% |
| Carrier capacity shortages | 47% |
| Regulatory changes | 37% |
| Port/rail congestion | 33% |
| Geopolitical risk | 9% |
Implications for marketers
- Reliability stories must address cost, timing, and compliance together rather than focusing narrowly on any one dimension.
- Consider using segment-specific examples (e.g. border-clearance strategies for cross-border buyers, capacity buffers for operations) while maintaining a message that “we design for disruption.”
Near- and re-shoring: mid-range shifts are the norm
Asked about the share of critical spend shifted to near- or re-shored suppliers in the past 12 months, respondents report:
| Spend Shift Range | % of Respondents |
|---|---|
| None | 3% |
| Less than 10% | 25% |
| 10–24% | 49% |
| 25–49% | 21% |
| 50% or more | 2% |
Implications for marketers
- Near- and re-shoring are now baked into the planning cycle, not speculative scenarios.
- Manufacturers and distributors with regionalized footprints should elevate this in their messaging and provide case examples of risk reduction and lead-time improvement.
Reliability proof: dashboards, data, and certification
When evaluating a supplier’s reliability, buyers say they are most influenced by:
| Signal | % Most Influenced By |
|---|---|
| Historical on-time % by SKU | 47% |
| Third-party certifications/audits | 44% |
| Live lead-time dashboard | 43% |
| Customer references in my industry | 35% |
| Public incident/recall history | 5% |
Implications for marketers
- Reliability messaging must be data-backed and visual:
- Share historical on-time performance at the SKU or category level.
- Offer live or near-real-time lead-time views where possible.
- Promote audit/certification achievements alongside customer stories.
- Traditional references still matter, but they are no longer the sole or even primary proof point; buyers want system-of-record evidence.
About this Study
The data presented in this Buyer Pulse survey was collected in November 2025 via an online survey administered by InnovateMR, which implemented the following data quality measures in collection:
- Panel controls: fraud-prevention, digital fingerprinting, geo-verification, attention checks, and speed-trap removal.
- Screening: respondents confirmed (a) involvement in evaluating or purchasing production-critical goods/services in the prior 12 months and (b) familiarity with current supplier selection processes.
- Cleaning: de-duplication, straight-line and inconsistent-logic removal prior to analysis.
- Weighting: results are reported unweighted unless noted; small imbalances by role/industry were reviewed and deemed immaterial to the directional conclusions.
Respondents were selected via a double-opt-in B2B panel with the following profile:
- Role/Function: senior practitioners with direct influence over supplier selection and purchasing decisions, including Operations/Plant leadership, Engineering & technical buyers, and Procurement/Supply-Chain managers.
- Industry: North American manufacturing (e.g., industrial equipment, automotive, aerospace, food & beverage, specialty chemicals, metals, electronics).
- Company size: mix of small, mid-market and enterprise manufacturers (sub-US$100M to 1B+ revenue).
- Geography: United States and Canada.
All responses are aggregated and anonymized. No personally identifiable information (PII) or company-identifying information is disclosed. The study adhered to applicable standards for research privacy and consent, including panel partner policies and relevant data-protection regulations.
With a total sample size of 258 respondents, there is a 95% chance that the real value is +/- 5.98% of the measured value (assuming p=.6).
The survey was administered in English and took approximately 10–12 minutes to complete. The instrument combined trended anchors with a small set of rotating spotlights to keep the pulse fresh while preserving comparability wave-over-wave.
Anchors (tracked every wave)
- Buying Confidence
- Change in 6 Month Capital Expenditure Budget = 5pt Likert scale of decrease to increase, with no change in the middle.
- Research & Selection
- Pre-contact Shortlisting = % who placed any supplier on a shortlist before live contact.
- Digital Buying Enablement
- AI-Assisted Research Adoption = % who used AI/chatbots/agents during supplier research (past 90 days).
- Supply-Chain Health
- Logistics Pain-Point Heatmap = % selecting each disruption factor (multi-select).
Additional KPIs reported this wave
CapEx Categories Most Likely to Increase, Green-light Triggers, First Live Touchpoint, New-Vendor Openness, Self-Serve Actions Completed, Human-Required Moments in the Journey, Near-/Re-shoring Activity, Reliability Proof Most Valued.
Things to note when reading this report
- Rounding: Data are shown to one decimal place where relevant; columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding and multi-select questions.
- Totals and bases are indicated on charts and tables where space allows.
- Segment cuts (e.g. role, industry, company size) are provided where statistically robust; smaller bases are noted.
For questions regarding methodology or custom segment analyses, please contact research@kulapartners.com.