71 / 76
value proposition of the service provider. What differenti-
ates this service provider from the competition? I ask
that internally and externally – from partners, customers
and employees. It is a valuable exercise. It is the founda-
tion for the program: Why this service provider?
The why or the value prop is significant. It works
out that organizations with a strong culture have the
why baked in. Simon Sinek and Jim Collins have written
about this extensively. The CEO of Zappos, Tony Hsieh,
built a billion dollar business around his customer ser-
vice culture. So the value prop, culture or the why is an
important ingredient.
Next, I examine the existing partners. I create a
partner profile of the best producers. Or, at the least, I
create a set of criteria for potential partners. With the
criteria, I have a checklist to use to determine who to
look for – and who to decline.
While upper management may agree with a criteria
(as a good idea), in actual practice, upper management
will want to see signed partner agreements (plural,
many). When asked why so few agreements were signed,
the response that most did not fit the criteria is often
met with sour looks.
Upper management wants to believe that everyone
should sell their stuff, that everyone should want to and
be able to. This is the crux of the problem. Most service
providers are not Cisco or Microsoft with a service of-
fering that is a good fit for everyone. Most companies
deliver a service that has a good fit in a specific com-
pany and size (despite the crazed concept of being all
things to all people).
Recently on a panel about “Why unified communica-
tion deployments go bad,” all the panelists agreed that a
majority of the issues with UC deployments were that the
customer was sold the wrong service. The panelists also
admitted that they would never say “No” to a sale, any
sale. Why? They just want to book revenue – even bad
revenue. They really don’t care if the customer is a good
fit (or if the customer is happy) as long as the customer
is paying the bill. It is why many customers bounce at the
end of contracts.
Then there is the flip side of the coin. The channel
executives will wonder why the partners aren’t selling.
What they should be asking is: Why did we sign them
up in the first place? Well, because you have a quota for
new agreements – not new partners, new signed part-
ner agreements.
Signing a partner agreement does not make anyone
a partner. It is just one piece of the puzzle. It is a case of
measuring the wrong metric.
In the VAR world of hardware and software, while any-
one can sign an agreement, committed quota determines
your discount and your support level.
If upper management decides that they need as many
partners as can ink an agreement, well, you just have to
go along. But be warned – programs that involve fog-
ging a mirror as the chief requirement tend to falter. It
is expensive to hire enough partner managers, sales en-
gineers and support staff to manage 500 partners. And
channel managers only can interact with a finite number
of partners per month. They can only provide a finite
number of quotes each day. There is a point when having
too many partners generating activity or needing atten-
tion will impact results.
One partner can generate a lot of work – quotes,
questions, conference calls – but never generate a sale
for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that he
doesn’t trust you or he likes another service provider
better. And let’s not forget the golden oldie: he just
needed three quotes.
The key to recruitment is a Red Velvet Rope Policy. It
is a concept from Michael Port – and any trendy night-
club. A velvet rope only lets in the “cool” people, the
people on the list. Not everyone can get in. It creates
demand and peaks interest. Outback Steakhouse used
to artificially create a line in order to spark demand.
The RBOCs used to do this with exclusivity clauses,
tests and hurdles to joining their program. Today, most
programs just look for the ability to sign the agreement.
If you can keep the pen in your hand long enough to
sign, you are in. But does signing a partner agreement
itself constitute a partnership?
The master agency model is kind of a red velvet rope
policy. Over the years, a few carriers shifted to a master
agency model, whereby only masters were partners; ev-
eryone else would have to go through a master. It formed
a kind of velvet rope. Exclusivity is the velvet rope. If any-
one can get in, it is about as special as McDonalds.
One way that channel managers see interest from
a prospective partner is when there is a suspected hot
deal. The potential partner wants to sign up in case this
hot deal closes. I suggest you start asking some perti-
nent questions.
“Is this a one-time deal or do you see us working to-
gether with many of your customers?”
“How do you see us working together? How do you
see our services fitting into your portfolio?”
In 15 years, only one channel manager has ever asked
me these questions! Ask it and you will stand out, too.
Learn to say “No.” It is liberating. It can morph into
the take-away close – or it frees up your time to work with
partners that will produce results. At the end of the month,
we all have quotas to hit. In sales today, time management
is one of the keys of selling. So any time that you can save
and not waste will be a plus. In other words, learn to value
your time like money.
The success of any program starts with recruitment.
On-boarding is key, but without the proper partners
to on-board, the program’s success will
be limited.
Peter Radizeski is President of RAD-
INFO INC., a telecom strategy and mar-
keting consulting agency.
71
May - June 2015
|
Channel
Vision