A Reluctance to Engage: The Challenge For ITC Vendors in Getting Channel Partners to Co-Market
http://www.computerslive.net/articles/8157/1/A-Reluctance-to-Engage-The-Challenge-For-ITC-Vendors-in-Getting-Channel-Partners-to-Co-Market/Page1.html
Michael J. Kelly
Michael Kelly is the founder and CEO of Ridge Consulting. Ridge Consulting is a Software Marketing Company focused on helping software companies generate new business in Europe and North America. The company provides a range of IT lead generation and IT Pay Per Lead services. Contact: Michael Kelly Ridge Consulting +353 91 444 124 mkelly@ridgebusiness.com By Michael J. Kelly
Published on 03/11/2010
What is the biggest challenge facing channel marketing Director’s today Anecdotal feedback from many indicates that it is the reluctance of channel partners to engage in co-marketing campaigns with them, despite substantial MDF funds being on offer
What is the biggest challenge facing channel marketing Director’s today? Anecdotal feedback from many indicates that it is the reluctance of channel partners to engage in co-marketing campaigns with them, despite substantial MDF funds being on offer.
This article examines some of the key reasons why partners are reluctant to engage in co-marketing campaigns, and what the technology vendors can do to reduce these obstacles.
Objection 1: “We have already committed our marketing budget for the quarter or year”.
This comes down to a lack of planning on the part of the Vendor’s channel team. Most company’s financial year is calendar, so every October and November the Vendor’s channel team should be working with key partners on their joint marketing calendar, including budgets, for the following year.
Events and campaigns should be mapped out, using the Vendors marketing calendar as the basis. Good overlap opportunities for co-marketing events and campaigns should be identified, and nailed down. The entire year’s co-marketing plans will therefore be mapped out before the year gets underway.
Channel marketing teams should remember that they are competing with other Vendor’s for their partners time, resources and budget. The partner only has so many resources to share between IBM, HP and Oracle for example, and the early bird will catch the most worms.
Objection 2: “We just don’t have the time and resources”.
Many Vendors don’t understand how much pressure the smaller partners in particular are under. They have to make a profit every quarter, and have a very limited marketing team, if any. They need to focus on making sales – now. Marketing campaigns need to be simple to prepare, launch and manage.
“Campaigns in a Box” are a great way to get partners marketing joint solutions professionally and efficiently. However, this is only part of the solution. The Vendor has to make it easy for the partner to customise, launch, report and claim back funds on the campaign. Often, the solution is to bring in a third party agency that can hand-hold the partner through all of this, and take over much of the administration.
Objection 3: “The minimum project size is too large.”
Some smaller partners find it difficult to even get on the ladder with co-marketing campaigns. While the Vendor may think that a €10,000 investment is nothing, the partner has to consider that they need four campaigns a year with each of their three strategic vendors. At €10,000 per campaign, this is a €120,000 investment. Depending on the margins, expected sales, and size of company, this simply may not be feasible.
Vendors need to offer a range of campaigns to partners, with the minimum investment closer to €2,000. This means that multiple marketing tactics must be on offer, to scale with the investment available.
Objection 4: “We don’t get enough support from the Vendor”
Part of this can be explained by the fact that many of the Vendor’s channel management teams are currently over stretched. During the downturn caused by the credit crises, channel marketing teams have been decimated at many of the large technology Vendors.
Many of the Vendors are now turning to specialise third party agencies to provide either strategic or ad-hoc support to their channel teams, and also directly to partners. Support ranges from marketing workshops with partners, aimed at making the most of co-marketing campaigns, to administrative support, demand generation and lead management.
Objection 5: “The amount of co-funding is too small / other Vendors co-marketing offers are better, or better funded.”
There is a wide divergence in both the quality of co-marketing campaigns and level of market development funds available from the different Vendors. Some vendors offer 75% funding on co-marketing campaigns, while others offer zero.
Policy is policy, and there is not much channel marketing managers and directors can do about funding levels if the company policy is limited or no co-funding. However, they can increase the quality and support of campaigns. Free marketing workshops, free lead management, free drip-marketing and higher quality leads can all be provided by specialist third party agencies, and all improve the quality of experience and ROI for the partner.
Objection 6: “The Vendors drive peak-and-trough marketing.”
In the ITC sectors, many solutions have a six to eighteen month sales cycle (at least). Partners can become overwhelmed with the volume of leads from once-off campaigns that quickly generate lots of leads, and then no leads at all until next year. Partners simply do not have the resources to handle the peak, and do not have professional lead management and “drip-marketing” systems to nurture longer term opportunities over time.
Vendors need to take a longer-term view on co-marketing campaigns. The objective should be to provide partners with a steady stream of qualified opportunities, with quantities matched to partner resources. The Vendor, either directly or using a third party agency, should also provide lead management and nurturing support so that return-on-investment is maximised through closed sales from both near-term and long-term sales opportunities.
This article examines some of the key reasons why partners are reluctant to engage in co-marketing campaigns, and what the technology vendors can do to reduce these obstacles.
Objection 1: “We have already committed our marketing budget for the quarter or year”.
This comes down to a lack of planning on the part of the Vendor’s channel team. Most company’s financial year is calendar, so every October and November the Vendor’s channel team should be working with key partners on their joint marketing calendar, including budgets, for the following year.
Events and campaigns should be mapped out, using the Vendors marketing calendar as the basis. Good overlap opportunities for co-marketing events and campaigns should be identified, and nailed down. The entire year’s co-marketing plans will therefore be mapped out before the year gets underway.
Channel marketing teams should remember that they are competing with other Vendor’s for their partners time, resources and budget. The partner only has so many resources to share between IBM, HP and Oracle for example, and the early bird will catch the most worms.
Objection 2: “We just don’t have the time and resources”.
Many Vendors don’t understand how much pressure the smaller partners in particular are under. They have to make a profit every quarter, and have a very limited marketing team, if any. They need to focus on making sales – now. Marketing campaigns need to be simple to prepare, launch and manage.
“Campaigns in a Box” are a great way to get partners marketing joint solutions professionally and efficiently. However, this is only part of the solution. The Vendor has to make it easy for the partner to customise, launch, report and claim back funds on the campaign. Often, the solution is to bring in a third party agency that can hand-hold the partner through all of this, and take over much of the administration.
Objection 3: “The minimum project size is too large.”
Some smaller partners find it difficult to even get on the ladder with co-marketing campaigns. While the Vendor may think that a €10,000 investment is nothing, the partner has to consider that they need four campaigns a year with each of their three strategic vendors. At €10,000 per campaign, this is a €120,000 investment. Depending on the margins, expected sales, and size of company, this simply may not be feasible.
Vendors need to offer a range of campaigns to partners, with the minimum investment closer to €2,000. This means that multiple marketing tactics must be on offer, to scale with the investment available.
Objection 4: “We don’t get enough support from the Vendor”
Part of this can be explained by the fact that many of the Vendor’s channel management teams are currently over stretched. During the downturn caused by the credit crises, channel marketing teams have been decimated at many of the large technology Vendors.
Many of the Vendors are now turning to specialise third party agencies to provide either strategic or ad-hoc support to their channel teams, and also directly to partners. Support ranges from marketing workshops with partners, aimed at making the most of co-marketing campaigns, to administrative support, demand generation and lead management.
Objection 5: “The amount of co-funding is too small / other Vendors co-marketing offers are better, or better funded.”
There is a wide divergence in both the quality of co-marketing campaigns and level of market development funds available from the different Vendors. Some vendors offer 75% funding on co-marketing campaigns, while others offer zero.
Policy is policy, and there is not much channel marketing managers and directors can do about funding levels if the company policy is limited or no co-funding. However, they can increase the quality and support of campaigns. Free marketing workshops, free lead management, free drip-marketing and higher quality leads can all be provided by specialist third party agencies, and all improve the quality of experience and ROI for the partner.
Objection 6: “The Vendors drive peak-and-trough marketing.”
In the ITC sectors, many solutions have a six to eighteen month sales cycle (at least). Partners can become overwhelmed with the volume of leads from once-off campaigns that quickly generate lots of leads, and then no leads at all until next year. Partners simply do not have the resources to handle the peak, and do not have professional lead management and “drip-marketing” systems to nurture longer term opportunities over time.
Vendors need to take a longer-term view on co-marketing campaigns. The objective should be to provide partners with a steady stream of qualified opportunities, with quantities matched to partner resources. The Vendor, either directly or using a third party agency, should also provide lead management and nurturing support so that return-on-investment is maximised through closed sales from both near-term and long-term sales opportunities.