How special is your specialisation?
In this column last week, I focused on the growing shift in partner programmes beyond the point of transaction, as identified by Rachel Brindley, senior research director at Omdia. According to Omdia’s research, over 400 programmes were no longer purely transactional. “A new paradigm has emerged,” she exclaimed.
Omdia observed that a points-based approach based on gaining specialisations and demonstrating support of the customer through the product or service lifecycle was becoming the norm.
I have no doubt that it is – or at least it should be. But Brindley also warned that partners weren’t exactly rushing to embrace this new model.
Why ever not?, you might ask. Well, the simplest answer is probably that a new paradigm is usually accompanied by birthing pains that can be quite stressful for those trying to make the transition from the old one. If your business model is based on one way of working that has, to all intents and purposes, served you well for several years, it’s quite hard to just change it to something else in a very short space of time.
As I alluded to in the previous column, the nature of any specific change doesn’t always turn out the same as originally promised. If you want to sell change and enthuse people to make the leap, you have to promise much but there’s always the danger that you end up delivering less.
That’s not to say that the model currently being promulgated by the vendors as the way forward for their partners and customers isn’t the right one, but the results might not be exactly as they predicted.
Consider specialisation, for example. What does that mean exactly? Is the intention for partners to develop expertise in a specific technology area, such as cloud, cyber security or networking, or in a technology area as it relates to their preferred vendor’s range of products and services? There are times when being a specialist in a specific vendor’s cyber security products and services, for example, may not be exactly the same as specialising in cyber security.
When or if that happens, how is the customer supposed to know how ‘specialist’ the partner’s specialisation is?
This might seem an extreme example, but if a vendor is encouraging a partner to adopt a specialisation, it’s not unrealistic to presume the vendor expects the partner to concentrate on its products and services. Otherwise, it’s more of a ‘generic’ specialisation and it’s hard to see the value for the vendor in helping to fund and support that.
On the other hand, a wide-ranging specialisation that is vendor-neutral is clearly far more attractive at first sight for partners and their customers. The only reason why it wouldn’t be is if vendors had engineered their products and services to require additional expertise to create value.
I use the words ‘create value’ because essentially that’s the main driver for differentiating products and services. After that, it’s up to all parts of the chain (vendor, partner and customer) to agree that value has been created and that it’s worth paying for.
But what if the value customers desire is be ease of use, connectivity and integration with other platforms, products and services in the same technology area? Where’s the specialisation there? Should it really be a point of pride to have a plaque or certificate that lets customers know that your expertise is making everything work together the way they assume it should when they buy a product or service from you?
This is why, as I argued last week, the longstanding trend of packaging bundled technology solutions specifically for SMB customers is as effective a model for moving beyond the transactional as anything currently being promoted through these ‘new paradigm’ programmes.
If you’re a partner selling bundled products and services that work together because the vendors have developed them to do exactly that, you are the specialisation. You are the value. Your expertise is in developing and growing the relationship with the customer and helping their business. In most instances, the technology you use to achieve that ought to be a matter of no great significance.
It says something about vendors, partners and customers alike, that such a simple model is still hard to put into effect. It makes me wonder if, perhaps, our understanding of value is somehow skewed when customers are more comfortable trying to add in ‘value’ from somewhere else rather than view technology as a tool that can bolster their own inherent value.
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers