--- title: "Summer 2026" id: "18396" type: "page" slug: "summer-2026" published_at: "2026-09-04T10:32:22+00:00" modified_at: "2026-09-04T10:33:02+00:00" url: "https://kulapartners.com/industrial-buyer-pulse/summer-2026/" markdown_url: "https://kulapartners.com/industrial-buyer-pulse/summer-2026.md" excerpt: "PublishedAugust 2026 Respondents280 North American decision-makers Presented byKula Partners Research partnerInnovateMR Dear reader, This Industrial Buyer Pulse arrives at a moment when industrial buyers are, by their own account, spending with more conviction than they were in the prior wave..." --- # Industrial Buyer Pulse **Summer 2026** ### A quarterly research initiative capturing the evolving perspectives of industrial buyers across North America. [Download the PDF](https://kulapartners.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Buyer-Pulse-Summer-2026-Report.pdf) Published**August 2026** Respondents**280 North American decision-makers** Presented by**Kula Partners** Research partner**InnovateMR** ## Dear reader, --- This Industrial Buyer Pulse arrives at a moment when industrial buyers are, by their own account, spending with more conviction than they were in the prior wave — even as they grow harder to reach and quicker to cut a supplier that fails them. That combination sets the tone for this wave. Fielded in July 2026 among 280 senior North American industrial decision-makers, this wave’s data shows budget confidence firming rather than cooling. The Budget Confidence Index — our recoded measure of expected six-month capital-expenditure change — reads 0.51, up from 0.47 in the prior wave and back in line with where the program began. Confidence is not evenly held: it rises sharply with seniority and sits materially higher in Canada than in the United States. Where a buyer sits in the organization now predicts how bullish they are, how they buy, and how much of their research they have handed to software. The purpose of this program has not changed. The Industrial Buyer Pulse is a buyer-first study — we ask the people who actually approve, source, and switch, not the marketers who sell to them. Every wave rests on four fixed pillars: Buyer Confidence, Research & Selection, Digital Buying Enablement, and Supply Chain Health & Risk. To those anchors we add a small set of rotating questions built to test the argument of the moment. This wave, that argument is contestability — how much category business is genuinely open versus locked to the incumbent, and what gets a supplier eliminated before a single conversation takes place. The respondents behind these numbers are operations and plant leadership, engineering and technical buyers, and procurement professionals at organizations of 250 employees or more, split roughly three-to-one between the United States and Canada. They are senior: a quarter of the sample hold C-level or VP titles, and better than six in ten are directors or above. Inside, you will find that pre-contact shortlisting has continued its slide — 71% this wave, extending a decline that began in the prior wave and now stands well below the low-eighties readings that opened the program. You will find incumbents winning without a competitive look better than four times in ten, and a missing certification doing more to disqualify a supplier than a thin website or a slow reply. You will find AI research adoption still the majority behaviour but no longer near-universal, and pricing transparency on a supplier’s website treated as a genuine advantage by better than eight in ten buyers. And you will find a market plainly in motion: three in five buyers have replaced a primary supplier in the past six months over delivery, quality, or reliability failures. Beginning with this wave, we are moving the Industrial Buyer Pulse to a three-times-a-year cadence, fielding every four months rather than quarterly — a rhythm that better matches how readers are putting the research to work. As always, this is meant to be a decision-grade readout you can act on now, not a retrospective. If any of what follows sharpens a question you are working through, we would welcome the conversation. Sincerely, **Carman Pirie** Principal, Kula Partners ## Key Findings --- 1. **Budget confidence firmed this wave.** The Budget Confidence Index rose to 0.51, up from 0.47 in the prior wave and effectively back to where the program began. The reading is solidly expansionary — the average industrial buyer expects to spend more on capital over the next six months, not less. 2. **Confidence is a function of seniority.** C-level and VP buyers post a BCI of 0.71, directors 0.50, and managers 0.39 — a gap wide enough to be statistically decisive (p<0.001). The most senior buyers are markedly more bullish than the managers who often run the day-to-day of a purchase. 3. **Canadian buyers are more confident than their US counterparts.** Canada’s BCI of 0.62 sits well above the US reading of 0.48 (p=0.015). The optimism in this wave is not evenly distributed across the border. 4. **Pre-contact shortlisting continued to slide.** 71% of buyers placed at least one supplier on a shortlist before any live conversation — down from 76% in the prior wave and below the low-eighties readings that opened the program. The behaviour is still the majority, but the trend line is now pointed down for a second consecutive wave. 5. **The incumbent frequently wins without a fight.** When a new need arises in a category where a supplier already exists, 43% of buyers say the incumbent usually or almost always wins the business with no competitive evaluation. Roughly a quarter (26%) run a competitive look regardless. 6. **A missing certification is the fastest way to be eliminated.** Asked what most often removes a supplier from consideration before any contact, buyers named the absence of relevant certifications or compliance documentation first, at 28% — ahead of negative reviews (23%) and a slow or generic response to an inquiry (18%). A thin or outdated website disqualifies almost no one (6%). 7. **AI research is the majority behaviour, but no longer near-universal.** 78% of buyers used AI-based tools to research industrial suppliers in the past 90 days, down from the high-eighties-to-nineties range of prior waves. Adoption remains split sharply by seniority: 96% of C-level and VP buyers use these tools, versus 62% of managers (p<0.001). 8. **Pricing on the website is now a competitive advantage, not a courtesy.** 85% of buyers say website pricing — even a starting-at or ballpark figure — is at minimum a meaningful advantage for the suppliers who provide it, with 19% calling it outright critical to whether they will engage. Only a fraction (0.4%) say it does not matter. 9. **Buyers will transact online at real dollar figures.** 35% of buyers are comfortable placing a single order of US$50,000 or more entirely online, without a sales rep — and comfort climbs with seniority, reaching 48% among C-level and VP buyers. 10. **The supplier base is in motion.** Three in five buyers (61%) have replaced or switched a primary supplier in the past six months over delivery, quality, or reliability failures, and 27% have done so more than once. Over the past year, the most common sourcing shift has been adding backup suppliers for critical items (43%), not consolidating. ## Buyer Confidence --- ### Confidence has steadied. The path to approval has not. Summer 2026 Buyer Confidence Index* Scale: −1 to +1 0.51−10+1 **Budget confidence firmed this wave after three waves of gradual cooling.** The Budget Confidence Index — the mean of expected six-month capital-expenditure change, recoded from −1 to +1 — reads 0.51 this wave, up from 0.47 in the prior wave and effectively back to where the program began. The average industrial buyer expects to increase capital spending over the coming six months. **The headline masks a sharp internal split by seniority.** C-level and VP buyers post a BCI of 0.71; directors 0.50; managers 0.39. The gap is statistically decisive (p<0.001): the further up the organization a buyer sits, the more bullish they are. Geography divides the wave as well. Canadian buyers report a BCI of 0.62 against 0.48 in the United States (p=0.015) — the optimism in this wave is disproportionately Canadian. **Confidence, though, is not the same as an easy path to approval.** Asked to name the single biggest obstacle to getting a major purchase approved internally, buyers pointed most often to building a convincing ROI or payback case (26%), followed by competing internal priorities for the same budget (21%). Risk, compliance, or legal review (15%) and finance or executive sign-off delays (11%) round out the leading barriers; only 7% say they face no significant obstacle at all. The obstacle that dominates varies by company size: at large firms, the ROI case is the leading barrier by a wide margin (37%), while at small firms, risk and compliance review weighs heaviest (24%) — a significant difference across the segment (p=0.003). The further up the organization a buyer sits, the more bullish they are.* 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. ### The ROI case, not the approval process, is what stalls a purchase. When asked to name the single biggest obstacle to getting a major purchase approved internally, respondents answered: | Obstacle | Percentage | | --- | --- | | Building a convincing ROI or payback case | 26% | | Competing internal priorities for the same budget | 21% | | Risk, compliance, or legal review | 15% | | Finance or executive sign-off delays | 11% | | Supplier cannot provide required documentation or guarantees | 11% | | Aligning too many stakeholders | 10% | | No significant obstacle | 7% | Commercial case Process friction Supplier-controlled No obstacle Biggest single obstacle to internal approval ROI case 26%, competing priorities 21%, risk and compliance 15%, sign-off delays 11%, supplier documentation 11%, stakeholder alignment 10%, no obstacle 7%. Building a convincing ROI or payback case 26% Competing internal priorities for the same budget 21% Risk, compliance, or legal review 15% Finance or executive sign-off delays 11% Supplier cannot provide documentation or guarantees 11% Aligning too many stakeholders 10% No significant obstacle 7% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. **The appetite for long paydays is limited.** A majority of buyers will accept a payback period of up to three years — 26% cap it under two years and 31% at two-to-three years — while only 9% will routinely approve a payback horizon beyond five years. Larger firms are the most willing to wait: 18% of large firms accept a payback of more than five years, against just 1% of small firms. Implications for Marketers - **Confidence is real but seniority-gated.** Lead with the most senior buyer you can reach; the BCI gap says the manager in the room is materially more cautious than the VP. - **Your ROI case is the approval bottleneck**, especially at large accounts. Arm the buyer with the payback math before finance asks for it. - **Payback tolerance is short.** Frame value inside a two-to-three-year window; a five-year story loses most of the room. ## Research & Selection --- ### Fewer buyers shortlist before contact each wave, incumbency blocks the rest, and missing proof is what gets you cut. **The program’s flagship behaviour continued to weaken.** 71% of buyers placed at least one supplier on a shortlist before any live conversation this wave — down from 76% in the prior wave and below the low-eighties readings that opened the program. For a second consecutive wave, pre-contact shortlisting is declining. The behaviour still describes the majority of buyers, but the direction is now the story. **That shortlisting behaviour is strongly stratified by seniority and geography.** 86% of C-level and VP buyers shortlist before contact, against just 55% of managers (p<0.001). And Canadian buyers shortlist far more than US buyers — 89% versus 66% (p<0.001). The pre-contact research window is widest at the top of the organization and north of the border. Shortlisting before contact varies sharply by seniority and country When asked if they placed any supplier on a shortlist before speaking with them live, respondents answered: | Segment | Percentage | | --- | --- | | C-Level or VP | 86% | | Director | 76% | | Manager | 55% | | Canada | 89% | | US | 66% | Pre-contact shortlisting by seniority and country By seniority: C-Level or VP 86%, Director 76%, Manager 55%. By country: Canada 89%, US 66%. By seniority C-Level or VP 86% Director 76% Manager 55% By country Canada 89% US 66% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. **This wave tested a harder question: how contestable is the business once a buyer already has a supplier?** The answer is that incumbency carries real weight. When a new need arises in a category with an existing supplier, 43% of buyers say the incumbent usually or almost always wins with no competitive evaluation; 30% put it at about half the time; and 26% run a competitive look regardless. Incumbent lock-in rises steeply with seniority — 61% of C-level and VP buyers say the incumbent usually or almost always wins, against 34% of managers (p=0.003). ### The higher the buyer, the safer the incumbent When a new need came up in a category with an active supplier, we asked how often the incumbent won. Respondents answered: | Seniority | Usually or almost always wins | About half the time | Never or rarely wins | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C-Level or VP | 61% | 20% | 20% | | Director | 40% | 37% | 22% | | Manager | 34% | 30% | 35% | Usually or almost always wins About half the time Never or rarely wins Incumbent win rate without competitive evaluation, by seniority C-Level or VP: 61 percent usually wins, 20 percent half the time, 20 percent never or rarely. Director: 40, 37, 22. Manager: 34, 30, 35. C-Level or VP 61% 20% 20% Director 40% 37% 22% Manager 34% 30% 35% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding. **For the challenger trying to get in, the fastest way to be cut is documentary, not cosmetic.** Asked what most often eliminates a supplier from consideration before any contact, buyers named the absence of relevant certifications or compliance documentation first at 28%, followed by negative reviews or reputation (23%) and a slow or generic response to the initial inquiry (18%). Notably, an outdated or thin website disqualifies almost no one (6%), and being hard to find in search barely registers (7%). The disqualifier is proof, not polish. ### A missing certificate kills you faster than a bad website. When asked which factor is most likely to eliminate a supplier from consideration before any contact, respondents said: | Disqualifier | Percentage | | --- | --- | | No relevant certifications or compliance documentation | 28% | | Negative reviews or reputation | 23% | | Slow or generic response to the initial inquiry | 18% | | No pricing information available anywhere | 10% | | No proof or case studies relevant to my industry | 9% | | Hard to find them at all when searching | 7% | | Outdated or thin website | 6% | Documentary proof Reputation and response Pricing opacity Findability and site quality Most likely pre-contact disqualifiers No certifications 28%, negative reviews 23%, slow response 18%, no pricing 10%, no proof 9%, hard to find 7%, outdated website 6%. No relevant certifications or compliance documentation 28% Negative reviews or reputation 23% Slow or generic response to the initial inquiry 18% No pricing information available anywhere 10% No proof or case studies relevant to my industry 9% Hard to find them at all when searching 7% Outdated or thin website 6% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. Implications for Marketers - **The shortlist is forming before you know the buyer exists** — and it is forming for fewer of them each wave. Your digital presence has to earn the shortlist slot unassisted. - **Incumbency is the wall.** Challenging for business held by another supplier means giving the buyer an explicit reason to run an evaluation they would otherwise skip. - **Publish the certifications and compliance proof prominently.** A missing credential eliminates you faster than anything else — and faster than a bad website. ## Digital Buying Enablement --- ### Buyers research, price, and purchase without ever asking a rep. **AI-assisted supplier research remains the majority behaviour, but this wave it stepped back from near-universal.** 78% of buyers used AI-based tools — chatbots, generative summaries, comparison agents — to research industrial suppliers in the past 90 days. That is the majority, but below the high-eighties-to-nineties range of prior waves. The adoption gap by seniority is stark and significant. 96% of C-level and VP buyers used AI research tools in the past 90 days, against 82% of directors and just 62% of managers (p<0.001). The pattern is consistent with prior waves: the most senior buyers are the most digitally forward, and managers lag. Nearly every executive buyer is researching you with AI When asked if they had used any AI tools in the past 90 days, respondents said: | Seniority | Percentage | | --- | --- | | C-Level or VP | 96% | | Director | 82% | | Manager | 62% | AI research tool usage in the past 90 days, by seniority C-Level or VP 96%, Director 82%, Manager 62%. C-Level or VP 96% Director 82% Manager 62% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. **Website pricing has become a competitive lever.** Asked how important it is that pricing — even ballpark or starting-at figures — is available on a supplier’s website before making contact, 85% of buyers rate it at least a meaningful advantage for the suppliers who provide it, and 19% call it critical to whether they will engage at all. Only 0.4% say it is not important. The expectation strengthens with company size: 28% of large-firm buyers call website pricing critical, versus 9% at small firms (p=0.012). The bigger the account, the higher the cost of withholding a price. **Buyers will also transact online at figures that would once have demanded a sales call.** 35% are comfortable placing a single order of US$50,000 or more entirely online — 27% in the US$50,000–$250,000 band and 8% above US$250,000. Only 10% say they would not place an order online at all. Comfort rises with seniority: 48% of C-level and VP buyers are comfortable at US$50,000 or more, against 25% of managers (p<0.001). ### Seniority decides how much a buyer will spend without a rep. When asked for the largest online order value they would place without speaking to a representative, respondents said: | Seniority | Would not order | Under $10K | $10K–50K | $50K–250K | Over $250K | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C-Level or VP | 3% | 9% | 41% | 41% | 7% | | Director | 9% | 21% | 34% | 25% | 11% | | Manager | 16% | 31% | 28% | 19% | 6% | Would not order online Under US$10K US$10K–50K US$50K–250K Over US$250K Largest comfortable online order without speaking to a representative, by seniority C-Level or VP: 3 percent would not order, 9 percent under 10K, 41 percent 10 to 50K, 41 percent 50 to 250K, 7 percent over 250K. Director: 9, 21, 34, 25, 11. Manager: 16, 31, 28, 19, 6. C-Level or VP 3% 9% 41% 41% 7% Director 9% 21% 34% 25% 11% Manager 16% 31% 28% 19% 6% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. Implications for Marketers - **Assume AI is in the room during research** — for most buyers, and nearly all senior ones. The content that machines can read and summarize is now first-line sales collateral. - **Put pricing on the page.** For 85% of buyers it is an advantage and for one in five it is a precondition to contact; withholding it is a self-imposed handicap. - **The high-value online transaction is normal, not exotic.** A third of buyers will commit US$50K+ without a rep — build the self-serve path to match. ## Supply Chain Health & Risks --- **Logistics pain remained concentrated in cost and cross-border friction.** Asked which up to three logistics challenges caused the most disruption in the past quarter, buyers named high freight costs first, at 67% — the persistent number-one concern across the program. Customs and border delays followed at 56%, regulatory changes at 44%, carrier capacity shortages at 40%, geopolitical risk at 21%, and port and rail congestion at 24%. **Geopolitical risk held roughly steady at 21% this wave, in line with the prior wave** — it did not normalize back toward the single-digit readings of a year ago. Carrier capacity concerns divide sharply by geography: 44% of US buyers cited them against 25% of Canadian buyers (p=0.005). **The supplier base is visibly in motion.** Three in five buyers (61%) have replaced or switched a primary supplier in the past six months over delivery, quality, or reliability failures — 34% once and 27% more than once. Only 17% report no such switch and no serious consideration of one. Switching pressure is highest among the most senior buyers: 44% of C-level and VP buyers have switched a primary supplier more than once in six months, against 20% of directors and 23% of managers (p<0.001). Freight cost has been the number-one disruption in every wave of this program. **The direction of sourcing strategy over the past year has been toward resilience rather than consolidation.** The most common shift was adding backup suppliers for critical items (43%), followed by consolidating to fewer, deeper supplier relationships (26%); 21% report no meaningful change and 10% significantly diversified their supplier base. Consolidation is concentrated at the top of the organization — 49% of C-level and VP buyers report consolidating, versus 12% of managers (p<0.001) — and is more common among Canadian buyers (39%) than US buyers (22%) (p=0.014). ### Buyers are widening the bench, not trimming it. When asked how their organization’s approach to sourcing critical components or materials changed over the past 12 months, respondents said: | Seniority | Consolidated | No change | Added backup suppliers | Significantly diversified | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C-Level or VP | 49% | 16% | 28% | 7% | | Director | 24% | 21% | 42% | 13% | | Manager | 12% | 27% | 54% | 8% | Consolidated to fewer suppliers No meaningful change Added backup suppliers Significantly diversified Sourcing strategy change over the past 12 months, by seniority C-Level or VP: 49 percent consolidated, 16 percent no change, 28 percent added backup, 7 percent diversified. Director: 24, 21, 42, 13. Manager: 12, 27, 54, 8. C-Level or VP 49% 16% 28% 7% Director 24% 21% 42% 13% Manager 12% 27% 54% 8% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=280. Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding. ## About This Study --- The Industrial Buyer Pulse is a research program from Kula Partners, fielded three times a year (every four months), tracking how North American industrial buyers actually buy. This wave was fielded in July 2026 through InnovateMR’s double-opt-in B2B panel, in English, across the United States and Canada. Sample 280 senior industrial decision-makers at organizations of 250 or more employees, all employed full-time. Margin of error is ±5.74% at the 95% confidence level, assuming p=0.6. Results are reported unweighted; role and industry imbalances were reviewed and deemed immaterial. Geography United States 78% / Canada 22%. By title C-level or VP 25%, Director 38%, Manager 36%. By department Operations 48%, Executive Leadership 39%, Procurement 11%, Supply Chain & Logistics 2%. By industry Manufacturing 83% / Engineering 17%. By company size Small 25%, Medium 43%, Large 32%. Instrument Each wave pairs four fixed anchors with a small set of rotating spotlight questions, at roughly a 10–12 minute runtime. The four anchors, asked verbatim every wave to preserve trend continuity, are the Budget Confidence Index (A1), pre-contact shortlisting (B1), AI-assisted research adoption (C1), and the logistics pain-point set (D4). The Budget Confidence Index recodes the five-point capital-expenditure expectation from −1 (decrease significantly) to +1 (increase significantly); the mean of that recoded scale is the index. A positive value is expansionary. Additional KPIs reported this wave Maximum acceptable payback period (A14), biggest internal approval obstacle (A15), incumbent win rate without competitive evaluation (B13), fastest pre-contact disqualifier (B14), website pricing transparency importance (C20), largest comfortable online order value (C21), sourcing-strategy shift over 12 months (D17), and primary-supplier switching in the past six months (D18). Reading notes - Figures trace to the survey cross-tabs. Percentages are reported to the nearest whole point except the Budget Confidence Index, which is reported to two decimals. The logistics pain-point question (D4) is multi-select with a maximum of three selections, so its options do not sum to 100%. - Segment differences are reported with their significance level inline (for example, p<0.001). Segment cuts are reported only where the subgroup is adequately populated; the Supply Chain & Logistics department (approximately 2% of the sample) is too small to report as a standalone segment this wave and is excluded from department-level breakouts. - Three questions this wave were fielded with response scales that differ from earlier framing and are therefore not clean trend lines against prior waves: the maximum-payback question (A14) uses an “under two years” lower band rather than the finer one-year bands, so no “under one year” figure is available; the incumbent-win question (B13) is reported in three collapsed bands rather than a five-point scale; and the online-order-ceiling question (C21) evolves the Q3 2025 online-ordering question and is a callback, not a continuation. In addition, the logistics pain-point set (D4) carried an “Other” response this wave (0.7%) that is not part of the frozen anchor option list; it is noted here for transparency and excluded from the anchor trend. For questions regarding methodology or custom segment analyses, please contact [research@kulapartners.com](mailto:research@kulapartners.com) .