When you invest in cybersecurity, the promise is simple: protection. You’re paying for a solution to keep your business safe from threats, prevent attacks, and minimize risk. So why are some Managed Detection and Response (MDR) vendors charging extra when that protection fails? The real question is, should you pay more when your security vendor couldn’t deliver on their promise in the first place?
The Broken Car Scenario: Would You Accept This Deal?
Picture this: You walk into a dealership, buy a brand-new car, and drive off the lot. But just as you leave, the car falls apart. Naturally, you go back to the dealer demanding a fix. But instead of offering a repair or replacement, they say, “Pay us more, and we’ll take care of it.” You’d probably be outraged. No one would accept that in the real world.
So why do businesses tolerate the same approach when it comes to cybersecurity? Why is it acceptable for vendors to charge for incident response after their product has failed to protect you?
The Failure-Based Business Model: Profiting from Vulnerability
Instead of focusing on prevention and protection, the Failure-Based Business Model capitalizes on failure. It’s a system where vendors profit every time their solution falls short, creating a cycle where you’re constantly paying to fix problems that should have been prevented. In this model, the vendor benefits from your failure. Every breach, every incident is another opportunity for them to charge you more. The worse the breach, the bigger the bill. This dynamic ensures they profit from your suffering rather than working to protect you from it.
Now contrast that with a vendor who stands by their product—a vendor who suffers when you suffer. In this model, your security provider is fully invested in keeping you safe because they take full responsibility when things go wrong. If a breach happens, they fix it at no extra cost. They are motivated to deliver the best protection possible because your loss is their loss. This is the kind of partnership that’s built on accountability, trust, and a mutual goal of prevention—not profit from failure.
With the Failure-Based Business Model, the vendor thrives on your vulnerability. But with a vendor who shares your risk, they’re incentivized to protect you, ensuring both sides succeed by avoiding incidents altogether. It’s time to move away from vendors who profit from failure and partner with those who are truly committed to keeping your business secure.
Charging for Failure: A Sign of Insecurity
When a vendor charges for Incident Response (IR), they’re admitting they expect their product to fail. It’s their safety net, not yours, and it shows a lack of confidence in their solution.
Why should you pay twice—once for protection and again when it doesn’t work? That’s not just unfair; it’s damaging.
Don’t Reward Failure—Demand Better
The idea that you should pay extra when security fails is a flawed model. As a business, you deserve a vendor who is proactive in their protection, not someone who profits from their own inability to stop threats. It’s time to stop rewarding failure. When choosing a cybersecurity partner, ask yourself: Are they confident enough to stand by their solution, or are they setting you up to pay more when things go wrong?