A customer judges you on the outcome regardless of who caused it. Explaining a supplier failure is fine as information and reads badly as an excuse, and the difference is whether you also say what you are doing about it.

The customer's position

They hired you. They did not choose your supplier, they have no relationship with them, and they cannot act on information about them.

Which means an explanation naming a supplier answers a question they did not ask. What they asked was when the work will be finished.

That is not an argument for hiding it. It is an argument for the order in which things are said.

The sentence that goes wrong

Leading with the cause.

The supplier let us down, so we cannot finish this week, sounds like a defence and reads as somebody positioning themselves before the customer has reacted.

The version that works reverses it. State the effect, state what you are doing, and give the reason afterwards as information rather than as justification.

We will not finish Friday, we have found the part elsewhere and expect Tuesday, and the delay came from a supplier issue on our side. Same facts, different reading.

The phrase on our side is doing real work there. It keeps ownership while still explaining.

What the customer actually needs

  1. The new date, or when you will know it.
  2. What it changes for them, practically.
  3. What you are doing about it.
  4. Whether it costs them anything, which it generally should not.
  5. How you will keep them updated.

The fourth is where a supplier failure becomes your problem in a real sense. A delay caused upstream is not the customer's cost, and absorbing it is what separates a business that owns the outcome from one that passes it along.

The subcontractor case

Different, and it is the one that damages reputation most.

Where work you brought in was done badly, the customer sees your name on the contract and your business in the review. Distinguishing yourself from the person you hired does not work publicly and rarely works privately.

What works: fixing it, at your cost, quickly, and dealing with the subcontractor separately. The customer's experience is of a business that stood behind the work.

What does not: explaining that the tiler was independent, which is technically accurate and reads as evasion.

This is also the argument for being selective about who you bring onto a job, since you are absorbing their quality risk with none of their control.

When to be specific

There are cases where naming the cause is genuinely useful.

Where it affects their decision. A material discontinued by the manufacturer means they must choose something else, and that is information they need.

Where it is verifiable and general. An industry-wide shortage, a manufacturer recall, or a shipping disruption they may have read about.

Where it explains a genuine limit. Telling somebody a specialist part has a stated lead time from the manufacturer is a fact, not an excuse.

What distinguishes these is that the information changes what the customer does. An explanation that only changes how they feel about whose fault it is is not for their benefit.

The public version

Where a review results, the rules tighten considerably.

Do not name the supplier or the subcontractor publicly. It reads as blame-shifting to every reader regardless of accuracy, and it may expose you to a dispute with a business you named.

The reply that works acknowledges the outcome, states what was done, and offers to resolve anything outstanding. The cause belongs in a private conversation if anywhere.

Readers are assessing how you handle failure, and a business explaining that somebody else was responsible has answered a question they were not asking.

What to change afterwards

The part that stops it recurring, which matters more than the individual apology.

Where one supplier causes repeated problems, the answer is a second supplier rather than better explanations. Businesses tolerate an unreliable supplier for years because switching is inconvenient, while absorbing the cost in delays and reputation.

Worth tracking, informally: which supplier caused each delay. After a year that list frequently identifies one relationship producing most of the trouble.

Also worth building in: quoting lead times that reflect reality including the supplier's usual slippage, rather than their stated times. A schedule built on optimistic supplier promises fails predictably.

The standard worth holding

The customer's experience is of your business, entire, including every part you subcontracted or ordered.

That is inconvenient and it is also the position that produces the reputation. Businesses that own the whole outcome are the ones customers recommend, and the internal arrangements that caused a problem are genuinely not the customer's concern.

Settling those arrangements in advance, including who bears what when something fails, is what makes absorbing it survivable, which is covered in working with another business without a mess.

Frequently asked questions

Should I tell the customer a supplier caused the delay?

As information rather than as a reason, and after stating the effect and what you are doing. Leading with the cause reads as a defence.

What does the customer actually need?

The new date, what it changes for them, what you are doing, whether it costs them anything, and how you will keep them updated.

Who absorbs the cost of an upstream delay?

You. A delay caused by your supplier is not the customer's cost, and absorbing it is what separates owning the outcome from passing it along.

What about poor subcontractor work?

Fix it at your cost and deal with the subcontractor separately. Explaining that the trade was independent is technically accurate and reads as evasion.

When is naming the cause useful?

When it changes what the customer does: a discontinued material, a verifiable industry shortage, or a stated manufacturer lead time.

What should I never do publicly?

Name a supplier or subcontractor in a review reply. It reads as blame-shifting to every reader and may create a dispute with the business you named.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Same supplier causing the same delays?

We usually find the answer is a second supplier rather than a better explanation, and quoting lead times that reflect what actually happens.

Start a Conversation