Michael Shields shares practical procurement advice on supplier risk, pricing and negotiation, and helps sales teams understand how buyers evaluate vendors.
Michael Shields is most useful for clear, buyer-centered procurement explanations on supplier continuity, discount logic, and including procurement in sales planning.
Best for
A vendor-risk, supplier-continuity, or procurement-intelligence brand targeting procurement leaders and sales teams.
Not for
A sponsored product-demonstration series needing video, integrations, benchmarks, or verified enterprise procurement director leads.
Key takeaways
A supplier's survival belongs in the buying decision, not just product fit.
A discount should buy a specific concession, not settle the buyer's doubt.
Procurement sees the deal earlier than sales does, and sales planning leaves it out.
Check first: Ask about sponsorship terms, deliverables, delivery history, product demos, and audience composition.
Main ideas
A supplier’s survival belongs in the buying decision, not just product fit · A discount should buy a specific concession, not settle the buyer’s doubt · Procurement sees the deal earlier than sales does, and sales planning leaves it out
Michael Shields shares practical procurement perspectives, especially on supplier continuity, pricing and how buyers evaluate vendors.
Their posts make procurement useful to people outside the function: a vendor’s possible failure becomes a question about hiring plans, financial close or sales forecasts; a discount becomes a negotiation that should be tied to a specific concession; and procurement’s view of buying becomes a reason to include the function in sales training.
Follow them for clear, buyer-centered explanations of these issues and pointers to other procurement educators.
Michael Shields connects procurement principles to decisions and consequences people can recognize.
The supplier-continuity post moves from a company’s disappearance to concrete risks for customers, then notes that procurement teams can overlook whether a supplier will still be operating in a year.
The discount post offers a usable test: identify what the discount is buying—such as volume, timing or a longer term—instead of treating a percentage cut as an unexplained concession.
The sales-kickoff post makes the case for sharing procurement’s perspective on evaluations, pricing changes and renewals with sales teams.
They also point to other practitioners’ charts, templates and frameworks, while declining to settle who the field’s “top” voices are.
Together, these examples show a practical, explanatory approach that treats procurement as a source of insight for buyers and sellers, not just a price-checking function.
Michael Shields writes about purchasing from the buyer’s side of the table.
Read more
One concern runs through most of their posts: deals go wrong when the two sides skip the step of understanding why the other is asking for what they are asking for.
They argue that procurement teams should judge whether a supplier will still exist in a year, that a discount should buy a named concession instead of ending an argument, and that buyers know things sales teams never hear because procurement rarely gets invited into the room.
Together, the posts call for buying logic that is explicit, testable and shared with the people selling into it.
A supplier’s survival belongs in the buying decision, not just product fit
Shields argues that procurement teams score features, expected outcomes, user experience, integrations and cost, but leave out whether the vendor will still be trading in twelve months.
Read more
They describe this as a blind spot they have shared, not a warning aimed only at others. The cost of a vendor disappearing is not the licence fee; it is the work that stops while the buyer finds a replacement.
After recruiting-software company Pulley shut down, Shields wrote that the news shook them even though they were not a customer: the company had looked like a credible alternative. They then worked through three scenarios: a hiring plan stalling for a quarter while a recruiting tool is replaced; an AI accounting system bought by a legacy ERP vendor, raising the question of whether auditors can trust the close process it produced; and a sales-call analysis tool having a rough month before a board meeting that depends on its forecast.
A discount should buy a specific concession, not settle the buyer’s doubt
Writing as “Procurement Guy,” Shields compares discounts to credit cards: useful and sometimes necessary when used deliberately, damaging when they become a habit.
Read more
Most discounts are unreadable to the buyer because a single percentage lumps together the reasons behind it.
An unreadable price makes the buyer push harder rather than commit.
They want each element tied to something the buyer gives in return, such as term length, timing or volume.
They give three ways discounts backfire.
A lower price can confirm the buyer’s suspicion that the first number was never real, widening the gap instead of closing it.
A 35% discount means little when the buyer cannot tell how much reflects volume and how much term length—a sign, they say, that the number was made up.
Sellers also reach for discounts instead of diagnosing the root cause, even though price is rarely the real concern.
Their case is not against discounts: a buyer purchasing more should pay less, but pushing harder should not automatically earn a bigger reduction.
Procurement sees the deal earlier than sales does, and sales planning leaves it out
Shields argues that procurement gets shut out of events like sales kick-offs, and that sellers are surprised by how much applies to their pipeline when procurement does lead a session.
Read more
Buyers are not smarter, they say; the buying process has moved ahead of where sellers assume it starts. People inside that process hold information sales teams could act on across many deals at once.
They list what procurement could bring to a sales organisation: insight into the buying process before a seller is contacted, how AI is changing evaluation, how the business weighs pricing-model changes, how new business and renewals are treated differently, and what reviewers examine beyond price during options and proof-of-concept stages.
Their suggested next step is modest: one hour on the kick-off agenda.
If nobody else is available, they invite people to ask them to join.
Credit other practitioners and refuse to rank them
Shields uses their own audience to point to other people’s work rather than positioning themself as the answer.
Read more
The value to the procurement community, they argue, lies in the free templates, charts and frameworks practitioners share. A ranking would turn that shared effort into a contest.
Shields names Tom Mills, Tanya W. and Simon Frost for turning tested concepts into short, actionable material and giving much of it away, with one example of each person’s work.
They met all three at a procurement event in Amsterdam.
Rather than call them the top three voices in the field, Shields notes that such debates never reach consensus.
This is the clearest statement of how Shields frames supply chain risk: name the failure mode, then trace its downstream operational consequence for the buyer.
Read more
A newcomer can see their method and subject matter in one post.
Shields reacts to recruiting-software company Pulley shutting down by naming a risk procurement teams often skip: the chance a supplier will not exist in a year.
The post walks through three scenarios — a recruiting tool going dark mid-hiring plan, an AI accounting system acquired by a legacy ERP vendor, and a sales-call analysis tool having a rough month — and asks what each would cost the buyer.
They admit to personally underweighting this risk and argue that teams score product fit, expected outcomes, user experience, integrations and cost, but forget to analyse vendor survival.
For brands planning a campaign
A vendor selling into procurement could adopt this framing and lead with continuity assurances — funding, roadmap, acquisition posture — instead of product features. It also offers a content angle: what buyers should ask before signing a multi-year contract with a young supplier.
This is the most concrete negotiation piece in these posts.
Read more
It answers “How does Shields approach pricing conversations?” with a test readers can apply to their next deal.
Shields argues that discounts are not automatically bad but are often applied without logic.
They identify three failure modes: conceding a discount confirms the buyer's suspicion that the first price was inflated; a lump-sum percentage hides which concession it actually buys; and discounts become a seller's crutch, substituting for diagnosing the real concern.
They want each discount tied to a specific give — term, timing or volume — and say pushing harder should not automatically mean a bigger discount.
For brands planning a campaign
Revenue and sales-enablement teams can borrow the framework for discount-approval guides or negotiation training, while procurement audiences get plain-language ammunition for internal pricing reviews. A campaign could pair seller-side and buyer-side explanations of the same three failures.
It answers “What does Shields want sales teams to understand about buyers?” and explains a structural gap they see between procurement and sales.
Read more
It also shows how they turn an observation about procurement into an actionable suggestion for another team.
Shields notes how rarely procurement is invited to events like sales kickoffs, and how surprised sales teams are when a procurement session proves useful.
They list what procurement sees earlier or differently from sales: the buying process before a seller is involved, how AI is changing evaluation, how the business assesses pricing-model changes, how new business and renewals are handled separately, and what is reviewed beyond price during pilots.
They call sharing that knowledge at scale a potential competitive advantage and suggest an hour on the agenda — or an invitation sent their way.
For brands planning a campaign
This is a ready-made argument for a co-hosted enablement session, podcast episode or sales-kickoff slot featuring a procurement guest. A brand could build a series around what sellers get wrong about how buyers evaluate.
It shows who Shields learns from and points to, and how they connect their profile to other practitioners rather than positioning themselves as the only source.
Read more
For a reader mapping the procurement creator scene, this is an introduction map written by someone inside it.
Shields names Tom Mills, Tanya W. and Simon Frost as people who turn tested procurement concepts into actionable charts, templates and frameworks, and give much of that work away.
They link an example from each and describe meeting all three at a procurement event in Amsterdam.
They decline to claim these are the top three voices in procurement, noting that such debates never reach consensus; the point is what they contribute to the wider community.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for understanding Shields's network and adjacent voices. A brand planning a multi-creator programme could treat this as a starting roster; a partnership with Shields could plausibly involve these other practitioners.
How the teaching is built: analogies, numbered examples, and direct asks4
Supplier continuity risk and vendor viability1
Procurement at the sales table1
Discount discipline in negotiation1
Amplifying other procurement practitioners1
Supplier continuity risk and vendor viability
Shields argues that buyers score product fit, expected outcomes, user experience, integrations, and cost, but often skip one question: will this supplier still exist in twelve months?
Read more
Pulley's shutdown shook them even though they were not a customer: the company had looked like a strong, legitimate alternative, then disappeared almost overnight. They ask what happens to a hiring plan, an accounting close, or a sales forecast if the tool behind it goes dark, and admit they have made the same omission themselves.
Michael Shields makes the case through concrete business-function scenarios rather than abstract risk language: recruiting stalls, auditors receive numbers from a system whose owner changed hands, and a board hears that the forecast is less reliable than it was a quarter ago.
Michael Shields frames this as an underweighted risk, not a doomsday prediction, and says the Pulley wind-down at least spared customers the worst outcome.
For brands planning a campaign
Cite this post when a procurement leader wants to justify adding continuity or vendor-viability scoring to a selection process. Brands selling supplier risk, due diligence, or procurement software can partner around the theme, but should expect argument-first commentary with no product mention in the source post.
Shields says it surprises them how rarely procurement is invited to sales kick-offs, and that sellers respond with surprise at how insightful procurement sessions or Q&As can be.
Read more
They list what buyers are weighing: the research that happens before a seller is contacted, how AI is reshaping the process, how the business factors in pricing model changes, how it thinks about new business versus renewals, and what it looks for beyond price in options and POCs. Sharing that information at scale with a sales team, they say, could be a real competitive advantage.
Shields makes a direct ask to a defined audience during a known planning moment. They name the calendar hook (SKO planning season) and the action: invite your procurement person, your CFO, or themself to take an hour on the agenda.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for brands whose audience includes revenue or enablement teams, and a natural anchor for co-produced session content or a joint procurement-plus-sales segment. The closing invitation signals potential availability, but is not a booked or paid engagement; ask about availability.
Writing under the "Procurement Guy" framing, Shields compares discounts to credit cards: useful and sometimes necessary when used strategically, dangerous when they become a habit.
Read more
They give three worked examples.
A discount can backfire by confirming the buyer's suspicion that the original number was never real, widening the gap instead of closing it.
A lumped 35% discount means little unless each portion is tied to a specific give such as volume, term, or timing.
Discounts can also become a crutch that sellers reach for instead of finding the root cause, which is rarely price.
One central analogy, then three short examples, each ending in a buyer or seller consequence. Shields closes by acknowledging that pushing harder should not mean a bigger discount, even though it often does.
Michael Shields explicitly says discounts are not bad and that a buyer purchasing more should get a better price, so this is not a blanket anti-discount position.
For brands planning a campaign
Strong fit for negotiation training, pricing, or deal-desk content aimed at buyers or sellers who want the buyer's reasoning made explicit. Seller-side tooling brands should note that the argument openly sides with the buyer's logic, which shapes how a sponsored angle would need to be framed.
Shields names Tom Mills, Tanya W., and Simon Frost as people who break tested concepts into bite-sized, understandable, actionable material, praising their charts, templates, and frameworks and noting how much they give away free to the procurement community.
Read more
They link one example from each, say they met all three at a procurement event in Amsterdam, and thank them for their leadership and selflessness.
Shields builds the post around credit rather than argument, with a short rationale for each person and a pointer to a specific piece of their work.
Shields rejects the ranking frame, declining to call them the top three voices and noting those debates never reach consensus.
For brands planning a campaign
This shows a community-recognition habit: Shields uses their own reach to direct attention to other practitioners' free resources. A brand planning curated roundups, community programs, or practitioner spotlight content can align with that style, but should not expect to shape who gets named.
How the teaching is built: analogies, numbered examples, and direct asks
Across the four posts, a consistent pattern emerges: a plain-language claim, an analogy or hypothetical that makes it concrete, then a short set of numbered examples, often followed by a direct invitation.
Read more
Shields writes as "Procurement Guy," addresses sellers and sales leaders rather than an abstract market, and closes several posts with an explicit next step, such as booking an hour on an agenda or inviting them.
The recurring structure is a claim, an analogy or named scenario, examples with consequences, then an action for the reader.
The pattern is not uniform. The Pulley post leans on personal reaction and a chain of hypotheticals; the practitioner post offers thanks and credit rather than a framework.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand evaluating Michael Shields for sponsored thought leadership should plan for short, opinion-led text posts where the argument leads. Ask for dated samples if you need to assess how the style or subject matter has shifted over time.
Michael Shields writes from the buyer's side of a deal: supplier risk, discount logic, and the gap between what sales teams assume and what procurement actually does.
Read more
Four posts make a useful starting set, best read by theme rather than in sequence.
For negotiation, start with the discount piece: one analogy (discounts as credit cards) and three worked examples show why a percentage untied to a named concession makes buyers push harder instead of committing.
For supplier selection, a post on a vendor shutdown argues that whether a supplier will still exist in twelve months belongs in the decision alongside fit, integrations, and cost.
On the sales–procurement relationship, the kick-off post lists what buyers weigh before a seller is ever contacted and asks sales leaders to put procurement on the agenda.
The fourth post points to other practitioners' templates, charts, and frameworks rather than Shields's own, and declines to rank them.
Readers looking for more on these subjects can follow the tags below.
The similar creators section offers three writers whose work overlaps on negotiation, discount reasoning, or procurement education, and explains what sets them apart.
Both write for procurement professionals on LinkedIn and teach through numbered, structured frameworks rather than opinion alone.
Read more
Each addresses how the buying process is changing: Frost through AI agents and the skills-versus-knowledge question, Shields through what buyers weigh before contacting a seller. Both use short, concrete examples practitioners can act on.
Frost focuses on AI in procurement: what agents can do, build versus buy, and where human judgement still wins, with a training academy attached. Shields stays closer to the negotiation table, covering supplier-continuity risk and why a discount should buy a specific concession; this material includes no comparable course pitch.
Both look at procurement from the buyer's negotiating chair and treat price as rarely the real obstacle.
Read more
Etkin's account of a deal where a vendor stopped moving, and the extra savings that followed from reading the situation correctly, makes the same argument Michael Shields makes: a discount should answer the buyer's doubt rather than end the conversation. Etkin also names them as a co-host, a direct working link between the two.
Etkin writes as a procurement-software vendor, publishing customer stories and event sign-ups tied to a commercial product.
Their focus is AI and token spend as a recurring cost to manage.
Shields's posts carry no product pitch and stay on the reasoning a buyer or seller uses in the moment.
Miz reaches a conclusion close to Shields's on discounts: putting a discount in the wrong place teaches a ready buyer to wait and costs more than it gives.
Read more
Both build the case from one plain example and one analogy (Miz's "discount tax"), then show the result in numbers.
Miz writes for DTC and ecommerce email marketers, focusing on automation flows and revenue per email for consumer brands, and closes with a lead-capture prompt. Shields writes for B2B buyers and sellers about negotiation and supplier decisions, with no marketing tactic on offer.
For a VP of Procurement evaluating Michael Shields for thought leadership on supply chain risk and negotiation strategy, the follower count offers a reach check, but audience fit is unconfirmed.
Read more
Their LinkedIn following was about 27,000 as of October 8, 2026.
Four posts from late September to early October 2026 discuss supplier continuity risk, procurement’s role in sales kickoffs, discount strategy, and practical procurement education.
Ask for recent LinkedIn analytics for comparable posts, follower demographics, and any documented audience survey covering role and seniority.
For sponsored campaigns, request past delivery results by topic and format.
Michael Shields posts original procurement analysis and commentary on LinkedIn, covering supplier continuity risk, the cost of undisciplined discounting, why procurement should be in the room at sales kick-offs, and recommendations of other procurement educators.
Read more
The posts do not mention sponsorships or partnerships, and none has a rate card, media kit, sponsor policy, or disclosed paid arrangement.
One post names and praises three practitioners—Tom Mills, Tanya W., and Simon Frost—and shares examples of their free charts, templates, and frameworks.
It presents this as recognition but does not state whether there is a commercial relationship.
For a brand planning a campaign, there are no published formats, specifications, or operational requirements to plan against, and no dedicated partnership or sponsorship inquiry route.
The only contact point is their LinkedIn profile, a general professional profile rather than a partnership channel.
Ask directly whether they accept sponsorships and what formats, specifications, and requirements they offer.
A vendor-risk, supplier-continuity, or procurement-intelligence brand wants procurement leaders to add a vendor-viability question to their selection scorecards—and wants procurement practitioners and sales teams who shape deal structure to hear the argument.
Read more
This is the strongest fit: the strongest post already makes that case in Shields’s own words.
The continuity post names a risk most buyers skip, then traces it through three concrete downstream costs: a hiring plan stalling when a recruiting tool goes dark, an audit close resting on numbers from a system whose owner changed hands, and a board hearing that the forecast is less reliable than it was a quarter ago.
They also admit the omission was theirs, making the piece a self-critical argument rather than a vendor lecture.
That is the shape a risk brand needs: readers accept the problem before hearing a product name.
The other posts offer two supporting angles.
The sales-kickoff post makes the case for putting procurement on a sales agenda, giving a brand selling to procurement and enablement audiences material for a co-hosted session, not just feed posts.
The discount post gives sellers a pricing and deal-desk hook, though it takes the buyer’s side; a seller-side brand would need to frame around that rather than present it as neutral ground.
Before planning a campaign, ask about sponsorship terms, deliverables, delivery history, product-demonstration options, and audience composition.
The posts do not mention a product, so commentary would carry a sponsor’s framing unless a different format is agreed.
The LinkedIn profile shows roughly 27,000 followers as of 8 October 2026, but provides no data on roles, employers, seniority, or geography.
The fit is therefore based on topic and format, not a guaranteed procurement-decision-maker audience.
When to choose a specialist
A software vendor wants a sponsored product-demonstration series—long-form video walkthroughs, integration deep dives, and benchmark data on close rates and cycle times—aimed at verified enterprise procurement directors in North America, with a quarterly target of 500 marketing-qualified leads.
Read more
The posts provide little basis for that campaign.
They comprise four text posts on LinkedIn, with no video, webinar, newsletter, article, podcast appearance, or third-party coverage to establish a track record in video or long-form production.
They cover no integrations, product capabilities, or implementation—the substance of a demo series.
The only audience figure is about 27,000 LinkedIn followers, observed 8 October 2026; there is no data on roles, employers, seniority, or geography to verify reach into enterprise procurement directors.
Nor do the posts report sponsored results that could inform a lead target.
A campaign that depends on Shields ranking tools or vendors is also a poor fit.
The practitioner post explicitly declines the ranking frame, saying those debates never reach consensus, and instead gives credit to named people.
A brand seeking a comparative endorsement or a ‘best platforms’ placement would be asking for a format the posts avoid.
Before reconsidering the campaign, ask for published commercial terms, examples of hosted or produced formats, audience analytics, and prior sponsored results.
Without them, the campaign is not supported by the available evidence—not necessarily unworkable in principle.
A worked campaign example
Worked campaign angle for the vendor-risk platform campaign: a third-party risk platform wants procurement leaders to add a supplier-viability question to their selection scorecard within two quarters.
Objective.
Get the continuity question into real evaluation templates and have procurement practitioners repeat the argument to their own leadership.
Measure how widely the argument spreads, not demo requests.
Angle. ‘The question your scorecard skips.’ The campaign builds on Shields’s argument: teams score product fit, expected outcomes, user experience, integrations, and cost, then leave out whether the supplier will still exist in twelve months. The brand supplies the working tool; Shields makes the case.
Three posts plus one session.
Post one states the gap and uses the source post’s three downstream costs: the stalled hiring plan, the audit close on a system that changed hands, and the board meeting where the forecast is suddenly less reliable than it was 90 days ago.
Post two turns the argument into a checklist of questions to ask a young supplier before signing a multi-year contract, covering continuity assurances such as funding position, roadmap, and acquisition posture.
Post three takes the sales-facing angle from the sales-kickoff post—why the buying side should be in the room early—and ends with an invitation to a co-hosted session.
The 45-to-60 minute session could run at a sales kickoff or procurement team offsite, with the checklist as the takeaway.
Assets.
Build a downloadable, one-page scorecard question set jointly, with ownership and approval agreed in advance.
The four posts are text arguments with links, not downloadable templates.
Disclosure and tone.
The posts include no product mentions, so keep sponsor framing in the introduction and checklist attribution rather than inside the argument.
Agree in advance how the brand is named in Shields’s commentary and whether the session is presented as co-hosted.
Ask about sponsorship policy before scheduling any deliverable.
Measurement.
Ask for LinkedIn impressions and comment activity broken down by job title where available, session attendance, and checklist downloads.
Avoid qualified-lead or pipeline targets: the posts provide no audience demographics, engagement data, or prior sponsored results to establish a baseline.
Draft hook for post one: ‘We score product fit, expected outcomes, user experience, integrations and cost. We almost never score whether the supplier will still be here in twelve months.’
Next step. Send a direct inquiry to establish whether a sponsored arrangement is available, then agree on scope, disclosure, asset ownership, and the measurement set above.
If the campaign shifts from supplier continuity to AI adoption, Simon Frost is the closer starting point.
Read more
Frost's posts offer a ready-made teaching structure, not just a topic list: a five-question agent framework covering what an agent is, what it can do in procurement, whether to buy or build, what it needs in data, context and permissions, and how much autonomy to allow.
The skills post adds a second structured lesson: a poll showing procurement readers ranked category-management skills over category knowledge 81 to 19 percent, followed by the argument that AI closes knowledge gaps while stakeholder engagement, commercial judgement and critical thinking become more valuable.
A brand selling AI procurement tools or running enablement sessions for a buying team can use the two posts as a session outline.
Frost is also the better choice when the campaign needs a named training offer to attach to: the skills post closes on the Procurement Adventurer Academy and a February 2027 cohort.
A brand assessing vendor-viability risk gets an AI-and-skills curriculum instead.
Frost's agent post raises questions — buy versus build, autonomy versus oversight — rather than taking a position on screening, so a continuity argument would need to be rebuilt, not borrowed.
The material also points to a paid course, putting a sponsor in competition with an existing offer for the same readers; the closing enrollment link makes the commercial call to action clear.
A better fit when the same procurement audience is being sold on AI cost governance rather than supplier continuity.
Read more
Etkin's posts make a concrete operating argument: AI spend behaves like raw-material spend because token usage moves daily and pricing changes can outrun a two-to-three year renewal.
Procurement therefore belongs in a role where engineering owns usage, finance owns the forecast and procurement owns the price.
That is a sharper fit than Michael Shields for a brand selling procurement intelligence, price benchmarking or contract software, and for a campaign aimed at a team adopting a cost-visibility routine rather than a scorecard question.
Etkin also offers something Shields's posts do not: a worked customer story with a number attached — Carta's procurement team finding an incremental 21 percent of savings after a vendor stopped moving — usable as a proof-shaped asset.
The material is closer to vendor-shaped marketing.
The Carta post names the intelligence platform doing the work and includes a customer quote, so a brand buying the same slot would be using a proof format that already points to a named supplier.
It argues for an inside-procurement operating role, not a supplier-risk screening position, so a continuity-risk campaign would lose its spine.
Where Shields acknowledges a gap in their own practice, Etkin's posts assert that buyer leverage is finite and a tool can close it — a more promotion-ready stance a sponsor should expect to work with rather than around.
Only when the campaign shifts from B2B procurement to consumer-side pricing.
Read more
Dave Miz's posts cover the same subject — discounts — at a different level of the funnel.
For a DTC or ecommerce brand deciding where an offer belongs in a lifecycle email sequence, the welcome-discount argument is directly usable: placing a discount in the first email teaches a ready buyer to wait, while moving it to the fourth email and limiting it to non-buyers lifted revenue per email from $361 to $473 in one client's case.
The post walks through a named brand's welcome flow as the example.
That tested claim, with a before-and-after number, is a stronger asset for a campaign aimed at discount strategy than anything in the Shields procurement posts.
The audience changes completely.
Miz writes for operators running email programs for consumer brands, not procurement leaders scoring suppliers, so a brand buying both would be buying two unrelated audiences under one name.
Miz's posts also include a business and life update: an exit from a seven-year agency, stated revenue and team figures, and a new leaner model with no partners and no large team.
That leaves current commercial capacity unclear; ask about it before booking.
The discount post also ends in a comment-gated lead-capture ask, so a sponsor should expect that mechanic as part of the format.
Read in full: four LinkedIn text posts from Michael Shields's profile — on supplier-continuity risk after a vendor shutdown, procurement's absence from sales kick-offs, discount discipline in negotiation, and credit to other procurement educators.
No dates appear on the posts, so no chronological order is claimed.
The similar-creators section also draws on full posts from Simon Frost, Justin Etkin, and Dave Miz.
No articles, newsletters, video, third-party coverage, sponsorship offer, audience demographics, or earlier body of work appear here.
The posts do not establish whether a book, show, business, or prior career is central to Michael Shields's public identity.
