Thursday, January 08, 2004
TACTIC: Up the Ante on Channel Programs
Despite the investment, channel programs fail to differentiate vendor offerings. Worse, they may not build community or loyalty. In a recent review (Dec. 2003) of program offerings, we found that program documentation lacked any significant differences. Each program offered the usual array of CAMs, technical support, allocation, issue escalation and BDF. If the official spin on the program benefits has no visible differentiating feature, how much actual differentiation will be produced in the field?
Look at any comparison of channel programs and you see a glaring lack of creativity. Why is it that so many well meaning channel managers and directors fail to drive meaningful change into the channel they inherit?
Sometimes it is lack of experience. I am amazed at how companies will assign multi-million dollar budgets and responsibility for billions in sales to people with no channel background. "Hey, its only channels, how hard can it really be?"
Sometimes it is lack of resources. The program looks fine on paper, but support is inefficient and slow. New products do not get into the hands of the capable, motivated provider. Field personnel stretch to cover too many accounts. Distribution fails to cover existing demand.
Most often it is lack of accountability. Real performance is not measured well in channel programs. Ineffective Marcom is created and distributed because someone was given the job rather than because it was used by providers. Obsolete programs continue much like government entitlements. Field personnel are given vague MBOs due to the lack of POS data.
Last year’s (or even last decade’s) promotions are recycled and served up like cafeteria leftovers just because they exist, not because they are desired. Effective programs must be custom designed from scratch.
Scott Karren, The Channel Pro
Despite the investment, channel programs fail to differentiate vendor offerings. Worse, they may not build community or loyalty. In a recent review (Dec. 2003) of program offerings, we found that program documentation lacked any significant differences. Each program offered the usual array of CAMs, technical support, allocation, issue escalation and BDF. If the official spin on the program benefits has no visible differentiating feature, how much actual differentiation will be produced in the field?
Look at any comparison of channel programs and you see a glaring lack of creativity. Why is it that so many well meaning channel managers and directors fail to drive meaningful change into the channel they inherit?
Sometimes it is lack of experience. I am amazed at how companies will assign multi-million dollar budgets and responsibility for billions in sales to people with no channel background. "Hey, its only channels, how hard can it really be?"
Sometimes it is lack of resources. The program looks fine on paper, but support is inefficient and slow. New products do not get into the hands of the capable, motivated provider. Field personnel stretch to cover too many accounts. Distribution fails to cover existing demand.
Most often it is lack of accountability. Real performance is not measured well in channel programs. Ineffective Marcom is created and distributed because someone was given the job rather than because it was used by providers. Obsolete programs continue much like government entitlements. Field personnel are given vague MBOs due to the lack of POS data.
Last year’s (or even last decade’s) promotions are recycled and served up like cafeteria leftovers just because they exist, not because they are desired. Effective programs must be custom designed from scratch.
Scott Karren, The Channel Pro
