Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: conflict

Does Interim Management Ever Make Sense for Tech Companies?

Is there ever a time when hiring an outside senior executive for a  short term assignment in a software or hardware company is the right thing to do? If you’re based in the US, the general answer (at least up until this point) seems to be NO.

Obviously there are many exceptions to this statement. But in the great majority of cases when an executive position opens up, the next person in that role is another permanent executive hire. In the small minority of cases where there is someone designated in the role with an “Interim” tag, it’s usually someone from inside the company. In the case of Interim CEOs, it’s often a current board member. Seldom do you see someone come in from outside the company who is brought in on an Interim basis.

This is very much a US phenomenon, however. In Europe (and in the UK in particular), the use of Interim Executives is a much more common occurrence. Why is there is such a different view of this function between the two main areas of the western business world? The use of Interim Senior Managers is increasing in the US, but at a very slow rate. Past the obvious difference in labor laws which make it much harder to reduce the permanent labor force in Europe, I’ve always assumed there is a cultural reason for the European vs. US gap in Interim usage. But I’m really not sure what other reasons there are for the differences in attitude.

So are US companies missing out on a practice that could in some cases be very beneficial to their business? Let’s look at a few circumstances where hiring a senior Interim Executive might make sense:

Covering Gaps

This is probably the most common reason to retain an Interim C-level Manager. An executive has left the company–whether willingly or not. The team left behind needs leadership. You can attempt to fill this gap by temporarily putting the team under a manager of another functional area, but of course this isn’t optimal. This manager usually doesn’t have the right background to manage the function and besides probably has a full plate managing his own functional area. This is the solution you see most often, but it isn’t generally a great solution. If the time gap between the former executive leaving and the new permanent hire coming on is very short, it might be fine. But if the time period the position is open is lengthy (or worse, you hurry into a very fast new hire) the performance of this functional area can really suffer. Bringing in an experienced Interim can often be a great solution to allow you to keep momentum moving in the right direction in the area of concern, while allowing the company to take it’s time and have a careful, thoughtful hiring process for the next permanent executive.

Agents of Change

There are many different reasons that a company might benefit from utilizing a change agent. One of the more common scenarios is a company undergoing financial duress. It’s often very hard for incumbent management to make the hard decisions required to bring the company back into balance, enabling it to continue as a going concern. While a new permanent hire can take the necessary steps, it can sometimes be beneficial to use a transitory change agent like an Interim Manager to take these steps. An Interim can step in and act quickly, while the right permanent hire might take too long in circumstances where timing is critical. Also, under this approach the new permanent hire, whether a CEO, CFO, etc. can come in with a clean slate and begin his tenure on a more positive note.

Another scenario common in the software and hardware business is a rapid change in technology, or some other massive change in market dynamics. In these instances it can be quite helpful to bring in an Interim specialist in the technology or market style to guide the company through a challenging period.

More generally, while most companies highly value their corporate cultures, if care is not taken there is also a tendency for things to become a bit stale over time and worst-case produce an inbred, group-think approach to business. Sometimes a fresh, outside perspective can inject new energy and innovation into problem-solving and other aspects of the company culture, even if utilized only for a short time.

Lastly, sometimes situation arise in companies where conflict over policy or personality is tearing the company or department apart, impacting the organization’s ability to function as team working toward important common company goals. Sometimes this is a transitory issue but it can also be the result of a toxic corporate culture. In these cases, bring in an Interim Manager with no previous “dog in the hunt” can allow him or her to serve in the role of an unbiased, Honest Arbiter to bridge the divide between the warring parties.

Manage a Special Project

The final common reason to employ an Interim Senior Manager in a tech company is the ubiquitous “special project”. There are many good reasons to bring a temporary senior resource on for special projects. Sometimes a project is very, very challenging, and it makes sense to bring in the most skilled, experience expertise possible to raise the odds of success. In other instances you feel confident in the level of internal expertise to bring the project to a successful conclusion, but the proper internal candidates simply don’t have the bandwidth to serve in the leadership role for the project.

In certain circumstances such as an M&A project, a new market/technology investigation or the startup of a new division you may wish to maintain a certain level of discreetness or confidentiality in the early stages of the project.

In many of these special project cases a more traditional consulting engagement could also serve the needed purpose, rather than a deeper and lengthier Interim Management engagement. The proper engagement method depends upon long and how independent the engagement needs to be.

PJM Consulting provides Interim C-level Management Services to software and hardware companies, in addition to our core Management Consulting Services. Contact us using the information below if you’d like discuss a potential need for an Interim Manager.

These are some ideas on why and when you might want to consider hiring an Interim Senior Manager.  Space was limited; I’m sure there are many prime areas I left out. Post a comment with your own thoughts on the applicability of using Interim Management in high tech companies.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on June 16, 2012
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Startup/Early Stage, Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Selling SaaS through the VAR Channel

The move toward Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is the strongest trend in the software business in recent memory. It changes the software business model in a number of fundamental ways. For the purposes of this article, I’m assuming the reader has a basic understanding of the SaaS business model. I’m also going to assume a basic understand of what a Value Added Reseller (VAR) is and does. I’ll focus on the fit between SaaS and the VAR distribution channel.

 The VAR channel has been a major factor in the B2B software business for a long time. There are tens of thousands of VARs, most of them now focused on specific vertical markets. While it is still possible to find a horizontal VAR, in a market of any size you’ll likely find a nice number of VARs specializing on that segment of customers. As a result, anyone who is selling software (whether via traditional licensing or SaaS) would love to have this stable of key market influencers representing their product. Let’s take a look at the situation:

 Major SaaS strengths

  •  Simplicity of startup for the customer – For many SaaS apps, getting started is as simple as signing up, obtaining a user name and password. Contrast this with the lengthy, complex and sometimes extensive setup and configuration period for some B2B apps. (This strength is a potential problem for VARs).
  • Available from any web browser - This is one of the great capabilities driving the SaaS revolution. Of course, traditional apps can have a web-based interface as well, but SaaS apps by definition are web-centric. Browser-based apps can limit functionality in some cases, but is becoming less of an issue all the time.
  •  Simplicity of maintenance for the vendor - This is a big one. With traditional on-premises apps, the vendor has to deal with “pushing” updates to the client, often into wildly varying hardware and software environments. With SaaS, the vendor presses a button and the new version is universally available to everyone. This is a huge advantage leading to reduced rollout costs for the vendor, and less pain for the client. (Also a potential problem for VARs) 
  • Less IT infrastructure required by clients - Theoretically a company could nearly eliminate their IT department by adopting all SaaS apps. As a practical matter, this isn’t happening in companies of any size, and likely won’t. But any reduction in reliance on perennially overworked IT departments is usually seen as a good thing. (Potential problem for VARs, but also an opportunity)

 Major VAR motivations

 Sell Services (not products) – Contrary to the expectations of channel neophytes, VARs are generally seriously interested in products to the extent that they have the ability to generate service revenue for the VAR. (Early SaaS models eliminate many traditional service revenue streams)

 Secure ongoing revenue – VARs don’t own intellectual property(products) to stabilize long-term revenues as a rule, so they’re always interested in ways of “smoothing out” their business with predictable, ongoing revenue streams. (SaaS eliminates much traditional service revenue, but subscriptions open up new possibilities)

 Maintain client control – VARs are very sensitive about retaining control of the relationship with their clients. They view these relationships as hard-won, and without owning the intellectual property, they are probably the most strategic aspect of their business. (VARs shy away from vendors who try to wrest account control from them, and many new SaaS vendors have this “direct-first” mentality).

 The Gap

 The problem as discussed in the above paragraphs is that the ways VARs traditionally make money (installation, training, integration, customization, support, client control) have been eliminated or severely reduced as opportunities by first generation SaaS vendors. Frankly, it’s never been easy for any software vendor to recruit VARs who are “active” with their products. The current situation sets up the typical first generation SaaS vendor as an arch- enemy to VARs. The SaaS vendors aren’t attractive partners due to the lack of potential service revenue (and often aren’t looking to partner), but are targeting the VAR’s customer base. To some, it looks like the end of the VAR channel for anyone running a SaaS-based company. Sound like a caution sign to SaaS vendors, one which makes the vendor focus strictly on direct selling? Maybe–but let’s explore a few ideas for changing the equation.

 Ideas on how to bridge the gap and attract VARs to your SaaS offering

 There are some forward-thinking SaaS who have been able to leverage the VAR channel for their companies. But at this point, they are few and far between. For many of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, there is no established, tried and true model for attracting VARs to a SaaS offering today.

The biggest thing I’d like you to consider with respect to the sentence underlined above, is that when things are least established, there is the MOST opportunity for newcomers. Since there is no established perfect SaaS/VAR cooperative business model yet, no SaaS player is dominating in this still very influential channel. For a newcomer, this creates great opportunity and potential payback for creative approaches. Let’s take a look at a few such ideas to attract VARs:

 Design your SaaS offering from the ground up for easy customization and integration

Unfortunately I don’t see many SaaS vendors considering channel strategy when designing their first product. In the early days of SaaS, enabling customization and integration with other products was tough to do. Now the tools are there to make it very possible, but it’s a lot harder if you try to do it “after the fact”, once your architecture has been set and the first commercial release is done. This one step can be a huge asset when you are later trying to design programs attractive to VARs, and it can of course be a huge advantage with certain end users as well.

 Offer solid upfront margins, but focus on downstream revenue streams for your VARs

I recommend offering competitive upfront-sale margins, but going overboard here can be a waste of resources. Remember that VARs don’t build their business on upfront product sales revenue. Focus on finding ways VARs can make money dealing with you after the initial sale is complete. As an example, how about sharing downstream subscription revenue–but only if the VAR creates X amount of new sales revenue for the year? This is an example of a win/win which could lead to great loyalty to your offerings, tying the VAR’s interest to your business in the long run.

 Instead of building a large in-house consulting team, use VARs to help fill IT gaps for your customers

VARs have a lot of capability to offer services that your end users might require and demand. Rather than competing with VARs (and using scarce capital that could be deployed elsewhere), take a look at creating programs to utilize the best of your channel partners as your outsourced consulting team.

 Create a program to enable the outsourcing of upfront product training to your VARs

Initial product training is a great example of a “consulting service” to outsource to your channel. Most product groups see training as a necessary evil and an afterthought, often giving it away for free–while providing it with insufficient attention from the end user’s perspective. With the right tools, a VAR could turn this into a profit center for their business, reducing your utilization of key resources on a non-core activity, while tying the VAR tightly to your products.

 Be careful to allow your VARs to continue to lead in account management activities

In everything you do, keep in mind that the VAR is paranoid about account control (with good reason, unfortunately). Remember, you are in a business partnership with the VAR, and you need to trust them to do the right things for your joint business interests in the account. If you don’t feel like you can trust a particular VAR in this regard, don’t change your program to wrest account control from your channel. Stop doing business with that VAR.

I’m optimistic that adopting a few of these ideas can give you a leg up over the competition in building a productive channel business. I hope that you’ll find this article provocative, if not accurate in your view! This is an emerging, rapidly changing environment. Please post a comment with your own thoughts to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
2 Comments by admin on July 18, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Product Marketing/Management, SaaS, VARs, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Integrating Sales and Marketing at Software and Technology Companies

In some but not all tech companies the Sales and Marketing functions are managed separately. They are separate but closely related functions that some people without a strong background in either function have a tendency to confuse. Normally, there is a VP or Director heading up the Marketing department, and another VP or Director leading the Sales staff. But it is also not unusual to see a VP or Director of Sales & Marketing who leads both functions.

This all seems benign enough, so what’s the issue? The issue comes when actual revenue fails to meet the forecast–that’s when the finger-pointing usually begins. Unfortunately not meeting forecasts is a common event in technology businesses, where forecasting of new software and tech products can be particularly challenging. When that finger-pointing starts, it often breaks out first between the Marketing and Sales departments–here’s how the ensuing “discussion” might go:

SALES: “You haven’t planned products that our customers want to by. You’ve priced them too high. And those leads that you’ve spent SO MUCH money on that you are giving us aren’t qualified and are essentially worthless to us.”

MARKETING: “You’re not selling the right products as we directed, or presenting the positioning of our product line properly. All you do is try to sell on price, constantly discounting and hurting our margins. If you’d follow up on all the leads we gave you, get off of the golf course and work more than 4 hours a day, you’d be well over quota and the company would be doing fine.”

Sales folks and Marketers are different types of people, and tend to view the world differently and from their own selfish perspectives. This often nasty “discussion” as simulated above is far from uncommon, and can get pretty ugly–which can really hurt a company in trying to reach its goals. So what’s the right way to get the Sales and Marketing departments to work together as a team, avoiding all of this counter-productive ugliness?

SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL CONFLICT

The VP of Sales & Marketing
One way to greatly reduce this conflict is to have a common leadership for the Sales and Marketing functions. This usually means having a VP-Sales & Marketing in your organization. If you can find the right person to fill this role, this can actually be an excellent solution. Having a single leader can go a long way toward eliminating or at least greatly reducing this conflict, assuming he has a balanced background and perspective and is fair, not favoring one department over the other.

Good people to fill this role are out there–but are very rare in my opinion. There are far more managers who have been put in the position of VP-Sales & Marketing than there are those who are well suited for the role. Most of the time you end up with a manager that understands one function well and gives short shrift to or completely screws up the other function.  You will often find this combined VP position in companies that are not “marketing-intensive”, where the sales function is the dominant aspect of the job. If the Marketing function is truly less important, a company can get by with this structure, although it usually isn’t ideal. You can read more about the issues with a VP-Sales & Marketing role in a previous article that I’ve written entitled “Big S, little m“.

CEO Demands Communication and Cooperation
If care isn’t taken, the very different personality types in sales and marketing can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I’ve been a soldier, captain and general on both sides in this war–and let me tell you, it isn’t pretty. I’ve also (effectively) filled the role of VP-Sales & Marketing, which is a story for another day. Much like the battles between Marketing and Engineering that I’ve previously written about, I have seen this battle play out regularly in the companies that I have worked for as an employee as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. Things can get out of hand very quickly, and paralyze a company.

In many cases, the key is how the CEO handles the situation. He must go well out of his way to be a fair arbitrator in these discussions. Even the most benign comment can appear to show favor to one side in the eyes of the other.  A CEO can’t ignore or deny the problem or assume it will be handled at the VP level. It is the CEO’s responsibility to prevent, recognize and fix this problem. As a CEO you must also be careful to avoid inadvertently making decisions or setting up policies that reward or tolerate company politics.

Departmental Social Integration
Not everything can be avoided or corrected through traditional management techniques. In this situation relationships are really the key.   I recommend planning social activities which allow sales and marketing department counterparts to get to know each other as “people” outside of their project activities. Since a successful sales/marketing interface relies heavily on relationships, it’s very important to closely monitor the personal relationship between VP-Marketing and VP-Sales. Also, make sure that the VPs are monitoring the counterpart relationships below them. Ensure both VPs are open and honest with about the relationship between departments. Also watch for arrogance (especially from “experienced veterans”) when screening potential new hires for either department that will interface with the other –arrogance often is the trigger which starts the battle between departments.

Integration of Departmental Functions
Encourage the sales department to get marketers in front of their customers. Hire marketing people that have had some sales or business development experience,  who understand dealing directly with customers–and know what’s it like when your living depends upon making your quota. Insist that the marketing department include the sales folks in determining what a “qualified lead” looks like. If you can get agreement on this up front on this important issue, much of the finger pointing goes away when things don’t go as planned.

Joint Goals and Compensation Structure
It currently isn’t common to design department or individual goals which cross marketing and sales functions, but if you can find a way to do this you are structurally setting up the desire and need for close cooperation. Design goals or MBOs to reward the two departments for working together. It’s crucial that you don’t ever allow one department to “get ahead” by blaming the other–tie them together as much as possible in your goal setting.

SUMMARY
To limit issues between sales and marketing functions and ensure that they “sing from the same sheet’, pay close attention to the specific individual departmental activities which can greatly effect the perceived performance of the other department. Optimizing the cooperation between sales and marketing demands an upfront look at things such as the corporate structure at the highest levels, the social fabric of the company, compensation structure and use of targets/goals, as well as formal cross-departmental reviews so each department can influence the other department’s approaches. All too often I see these things aren’t taken into consideration until after the fact–when things have already blown up and there is a mess to clean up.

That’s my view on this all too common–but not often discussed–conflict. What has been your experience in this area? Post a comment and begin a discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
4 Comments by admin on December 11, 2008
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Marcom, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, enterprise software, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Integrating the Marketing and Engineering Functions at Technology Companies

In most tech companies, Product Marketing and Product Development/Engineering are managed separately. There is usually one VP over the Product Development function and another VP over the overall marketing function, which usually includes future product marketing/planning.

While this is certainly an appropriate way to organize a tech company, there is a great danger in one are when it comes to these separate operating “silos”: the planning of new products.

I have a particularly strong opinion on this topic, with an extensive product marketing background and also having worked as a product developer earlier in my career (albeit in a non-tech business).

With respect to current products, the silo approach isn’t much of an issue. The day-to-day activities of the marketing and engineering departments are very different, and can be managed separately quite successfully.

It’s in the future product area that things can get messy. Product Marketing and Product Development both have a key role to play here, if the company is to optimize the process of planning, developing and introducing the best new product possible. The problems is that at every level, from the VP-level down to the engineering project managers and marketing product managers, the product marketing and engineering functions are often staffed by individuals with very different world outlooks when compared to their direct counterparts in the other department.

Inevitably, if care isn’t taken, these very different personality types can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I’ve been a soldier, captain and general in this war–and let me tell you, at times it isn’t pretty. The battlefield often is the company’s strategic plan, which ends up in a trampled mess. I have seen this battle play out all too often in the companies that I have worked for as an employee, as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. It sometimes gets so ugly it paralyzes a company, putting it at a severe disadvantage vs. competitors who have less conflict.

THE “WRONG” WAYS TO HANDLE THIS POTENTIAL PROBLEM

Unfortunately, most CEOs that I meet are not all that tuned in to how damaging these conflicts can become.

Often they will ignore or deny the problem, thinking it is a responsibility to be handled at the VP level.

Another strategy that I have seen companies put in place is to extract the product planning function from the marketing department, and put it under engineering. This will often greatly reduce or eliminate the conflict, but it is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I said earlier, both marketing and engineering have a key role to play in product planning. This strategy effectively removes the voice of the customer, which is a key role that the marketing department should be playing in any successful software or tech company. As much as product developers think it looks easy, they seldom have the mentality or experience to accurately read markets or customers. Almost no one is great at everything; monitoring and reading markets and technical product development are two very different skill sets. Having both mentalities involved in a positive way via both departments leads to far better products in the end.

Finally, if they happen to have come from one side of the battle or the other, CEOs sometimes “take sides” in the battle–predetermining the winner. The problem is there is never any real winner in this battle–and the only certain loser is the company and its shareholders.

A CEO can choose to let Marketing have the upper hand–and this may work out adequately in commodity products where there is very little engineering differentiation. In any other circumstance, results will likely be sub-optimal.

Or he can let Engineering win and dominate the planning process–which is a very common occurrence in early stage, technically-driven software and hardware companies. But this generally only works well for products made by engineers, built for engineers (the early days of Hewlett Packard are an example of this strategy working successfully). For every company that has used this approach successfully there are probably hundreds or thousands that failed in large part because of it.

Ultimately, to make sure that this conflict and its dire consequences are avoided, there is one key thing that needs to happen:

IT IS THE CEO’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT, RECOGNIZE AND FIX THIS PROBLEM

So what steps can a software or hardware CEO take to be on the lookout for this problem–and more importantly, what can they do to prevent it from developing?

  • It’s all about relationships: closely monitor the personal relationship between the VP-Marketing and VP-Engineering
  • Make sure that the VPs are monitoring the relationships below them
  • Make sure they are both VPs are open and honest with you about the relationship between the departments
  • Plan activities which allow engineering and marketing counterparts to get to know each other as “people” outside of their project activities
  • Be careful that you don’t inadvertently make decisions or set up policies that reward or tolerate politics
  • Design goals and MBOs to reward the two departments for working together
  • Don’t ever allow one department to “get ahead” by blaming the other–tie them together as much as possible
  • Hire marketing personnel that can talk the language of engineers
  • Screen product development hires who will interact with Marketing without the not-uncommon attitude that engineers are “superior” human beings
  • Encourage the marketing department to get product developers in front of customers
  • Watch out for arrogance when screening potential new hires for either department that will need to interface with the other –arrogance is often the trigger which starts the battle rolling

SUMMARY

Marketing/Engineering conflict over the product planning process is a common problem that is often overlooked by tech company CEOs. A certain amount of creative tension can exist between the two departments and be totally healthy. All too often, though, this tension turns into a bloody fight which is destructive to the company’s prospects. It is not “fait accompli”, however. It can be minimized and even prevented by a watchful and proactive CEO.

That’s my take on a common issue which is rarely discussed out loud. Have you had your own issues in this area? Post a comment below to add to this discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on July 8, 2008
filed in General Management, Operations, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Channel Pricing Strategy for Software and Hardware Products

Pricing software products is always a difficult exercise. With high product development costs, but near zero costs of goods sold, there are many different strategies that people have followed successfully (and not so successfully!) over time. Pricing hardware products is a bit simpler because there is generally a significant cost of goods sold that acts as a governor on pricing behavior. But even with hardware, technology markets are dynamic and fast moving. And it’s a complex enough topic when all sales are going direct–once you bring channels into the picture, it only gets worse.

CHANNEL CONFLICT
The biggest concern most companies have when pricing for multiple channels is channel conflict. I have seen many companies who actually AVOID selling through channels for fear of the pricing implications it brings. They are afraid of a channel undercutting their direct sales force in price, and channel conflict in general, which arises as a result of different prices being presented to customers from representatives of different channels. But this doesn’t have to be so with a savvy understanding of the implications of pricing actions. This comes from both experience, and “paying attention to what actually HAPPENS in the marketplace. If you price properly and run your channel programs well, you can sell successfully via multiple channels–with these channels living in relative harmony.

VALUE-BASE CHANNEL PRICING
I’ve written about value-based pricing before in the context of the perceived value of a product, as seen by the end-user, being the guidepost for pricing actions. A similar concept exists for channel discounts. Rather than taking a simplistic approach and give the greatest discount to the channel players that move the most product ( a destructive strategy–more on that later), it’s important to measure how much “value” a particular channel provides both you and your end-user customers. Look at things like 24/7 support, inventory & product availability, technical/customization expertise, credit services, and the like. In this case it is helpful to let the cost of delivery of each of these attributes be your guide to the value they provide.

VALUE-BASED CHANNEL DISCOUNT STRUCTURE
For example, you may figure that the cost of a VAR providing 24/7 support to end users (meaning YOUR company doesn’t have to) is equal to 5% of the list price of the product. And the inventory held by a retailer (again, meaning YOUR company doesn’t have to hold it, at a cost) is equal to 2% of the list price. And so on and so forth. Using this value-based method, you can calculate the actual costs borne by your partners in delivering marketplace value, and use this as a guide in building your channel discount schedules for various types of channel partners. This value-based channel pricing approach is not well-known, and seldom considered; most people seem to figure the only value-add worth extra discount is sales volume. If you use a value pricing approach, you actually have a chance to build a multi-channel strategy that “clicks on all cylinders” by providing discount structures that are equitable based upon cost and value associated with each channel.

LIMIT VOLUME DISCOUNTS
If you choose the “more volume=greater discount approach, your multi-channel strategy is a house of cards which will soon collapse around you. One channel will quickly grow to dominate, and the other channel types will soon quit selling on your behalf and wither away. Unfortunately, this is the most common scenario seen in the marketplace for first-time vendors using the channel (and remarkably a lot of experienced practitioners as well).

THE GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE SALES AND PROFITS THROUGH ALL CHANNELS
Again, the key is to not let one channel dominate. Ideally, you would like all channels to be presenting prices to the end customer that are equal. In reality, that pretty much can’t happen without price fixing (which some folks may be able to get away with, but that’s another story….). But you should strive as much as possible to have end user pricing equity for all channels. But this is where the counter-intuitive part of this discussion comes in to play. As discussed above, most people pricing high tech products have a tendency to price based upon the volume of product a particular channel player can move. It seems logical–why wouldn’t you want to incent and reward a partner with better margins if they are selling more products?

While this appears logical, it is actually penny-wise and pound-foolish. In fact, it is usually catastrophic to your plans to maximize sales through multiple channels. Let’s look at a simple case of how this often “breaks” a multi-channel strategy for a common case: a vendor selling through both retailers and VARs.

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Retailers provide a vendor with a point of purchase holding inventory, where their customers can go to immediately purchase a product. VARs often don’t hold inventory, but provide other services important to the vendor and many customers, such as tech support, training, customization and integration with other software and hardware products. Each of these channels may have an important role to play in the overall strategy to maximize vendor sales.

But the retailer will usually be a high volume partner, with the VAR less likely to be a volume outlet (although the VAR CHANNEL, in total, may hold great promise to move volume). If you structure your pricing by volume, the retailer will get better discounts. Because individual VARs generally have higher costs spread over lower product volumes, they actually need HIGHER discounts to stay even or close in pricing potential vs. the Retailer. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that retailers tend to be volume-oriented, usually accepting a relatively small, fixed margin on everything they sell. If you provide discounts based upon the volume that a partner moves, what will happen is inevitable: The retailer will take over your channel business, because the VARs will be “squeezed out” by the relatively low prices charged by the retailer. They won’t be able to make a profit on your products, so they will ignore the business, and you will lose the opportunity to realize significant sales through the large (in aggregate) VAR channel, especially those customers that desire the service and support they supply. I am oversimplifying this situation, of course, because VARs are more interested in the service revenue that a product can pull than they are in product margins. But I have seen this scenario play out many times and kill product sales through VARs channel that might otherwise generate healthy sales. This can be a heavy penalty for naïve technology product managers and other executives who are charged with pricing their products and moving them through multiple channels, but who don’t fully realize the consequences of their actions.

SUMMARY
Pricing seems pretty simple on the surface–it really isn’t and when channels are involved, it’s anything but. It’s important to fully think through the downstream effects of your pricing policies when multiple distribution channel are involved. Let me know if you have questions or post a comment with your own channel pricing stories that you’d like to share.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on November 23, 2007
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Pricing, Product Marketing/Management, enterprise software, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Technology Sales & Marketing-Is a direct or indirect approach best?

A question that often arises when my consulting practice engages with early stage companies is “How should we sell our product? Should we build a sales force, or sell through distributors, dealers or OEM partners?”

The answer, like most topics discussed in this forum, is rarely as simple or straightforward as the question itself. It depends—on a lot of different factors. First of all, if direct, does that mean building an expensive direct sales force, or a marketing driven model with direct sales from a website? If indirect, does it mean distribution through 11,000 mass retailers, or a select few, highly specialized, technical Systems Integrators? There are so many different options within the direct vs. indirect argument. I will tell you upfront that I have a bias toward using multiple channels—direct and indirect—if at all possible. It’s always been my opinion that this is usually the best way of achieving the highest total return from the high product development investments that are typical in the technology industry. But that’s a general rule, and one that won’t always hold up in individual cases. Let’s take a look at some of the things a company should consider in formulating a direct vs. indirect sales and marketing strategy.

How Complex is the Product?

It’s always important to start with the product in considering any aspect of your sales and marketing strategy. Is the product complex to sell? Is it complex to install? If a typical installation is highly complex and customized for the client, there may be a high level of services required that can only be delivered by experts within the company. If this is the case, a direct model usually work best. If there is what I would term a “medium” complexity to the product, this often lends itself to the utilization of VAR and System Integration partners. This class of partners is attracted to products that allow them to bill configuration, customization and service hours, which is really how they make their money. This key here is that the product isn’t so complex that the partners can’t be reasonably trained on the product to deliver these services somewhat independently in the field, with a minimum of hand-holding by the vendor.

The last case is a product which is very simple and standard, or has minimum customization that can be performed by the end user. This level of product complexity usually lends itself to multiple distribution channels, including direct and mass market channels, which provide great distribution breadth, but minimal support. VARs and Integrators may also sell products of this nature, but they won’t put much focus on them, since they don’t drive service revenue. VARs will essentially “take orders” for this type of product as a convenience to their clients. They won’t be a “strategic” channel for this type of product, but since they are a large channel, the sales can still add up to a substantial total—so you shouldn’t ignore them if they are appropriate.

How High is the Product Price?

A high price can lead you in two different directions: Direct-only, or to a VAR/Systems Integration distribution strategy. If you’re selling an Enterprise Software Product into a narrow niche with an average deal size of $2M, you’re probably going to end up selling the product direct. If, however, you selling a $5-100K average sized deal, and the addressable market is a bit larger and more well-defined, it’s very possible that the VAR/Integrator channel may provide real leverage. For products that fit into the $9.95-$995.00 range, a multi-channel marketing and distribution model may once again be your best bet. Products in this price range usually are very standard or have user-customizable features, and lend themselves to “sales-intensive” distribution channels, rather than support/customization intensive. This could mean a focused direct marketing model with a SaaS-based model, direct downloaded software sales from a website, or sales through computer retailers or mass market stores.

What does the Promotion Mix look like?

High priced, directly distributed products tend to have very simple promotion plans. The reason for this is that high priced products typically have small focused markets, so it’s pretty simple to get your marketing message to the customer. The simplest promotion strategy is what I call “Door to Door marketing.” Door to Door marketing means relying on the sales force exclusively to promote your product—with little or no investment in marketing programs. Or maybe due to limited resources, your promotional budget only allows a monthly Ad in a highly targeted trade journal. These aren’t strategies that I generally recommend, but for narrow markets, it is sometime appropriate. Bottom line, simple promotional strategies are generally only advisable for direct distribution approaches and niche markets.

If on the other hand, you have available to you a large budget and a wide variety of promising promotional programs that often is coupled with a broad distribution strategy. If you’re promoting in many different places, that may drive demand in a variety of different channels. In general, I say use them all.  I’m also rarely a proponent of selling “indirect only”—you tend to lose valuable information without a direct link to the customer. You will also leave money on the table by giving up margin on customers that would prefer to buy direct. But occasionally companies are so dependent upon channels, that it doesn’t make sense to manage the channel conflict and deflect the ill will that selling direct can generates within a channel.

What Channels are available to you?

Oftentimes, the decision on how to sell is made for you. If your company is in a missionary situation where you are creating a new market, or you are in a very narrow niche, you usually don’t have any choice but to sell direct. If it’s a new market, channels might develop later. But in most cases selling direct initially, either solely or in conjunction with channels, is highly advisable. There is no channel in the world that will be able to figure out how to sell a product—that the company itself hasn’t figure out how to sell itself. It’s always good to conduct trial and error marketing/sales campaigns directly, and then transfer that knowledge gained to your channels. If you have a product that is broadly attractive to a variety of channels, and you have the resources to promote and sell effectively through all of them, I say go for it. As I stated early on in this article, it’s my belief that this is the best way to optimize your return on assets. The only caution is to make certain that you have the necessary resources, and are in a position to support all channels. If not, it’s better to “go slow” and add channels one at time—if you alienate a channel, they have a very long memory and it will be hard to get back in their good graces.

One type of partner we haven’t discussed yet is the OEM. In some cases, there may be a large, dominant player in your business that you are tempted to pursue as an OEM channel partner. While occasionally this leads to making the principals of a small company quite rich, I’ve found in many cases it’s fools gold. No one sells your product like you do. OEM deals that I see often end up with revenue levels in the range of 5-10% of the small company’s initial expectations. This can still be a substantial, important source of revenue. But the message I’ll leave you with is that I prefer early OEM deals to be non-exclusive, rather than exclusive. The exception is for a product that fits in a new market you don’t plan to participate in directly. Too many times I’ve seen clients “bet the farm” on one major OEM early in their development, and the company was either killed or severely wounded by the experiencence. Pursue OEMs, but it is usually best to do so as part of an overall, comprehensive distribution strategy.

How does the customer want to buy?

Finally, the most important question to consider is “how and where does the customer want to buy?” One of my most closely held beliefs is that you maximize revenue by offering the customer a product that is priced, packaged and sold via the channel he is most comfortable with. So if your prime prospect is a direct buyer, sell direct. If it’s a diverse audience that has a number of preferences on where to buy, strive to be in all of those channels. This may be the most important advice that I can provide.

That’s my review of the Direct vs. Indirect Sales & Marketing decision. I’m sure there are a lot of different experiences out there on this topic—what’s your experience been? Post a comment or contact me directly using the info below. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
4 Comments by admin on January 11, 2006
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Online Marketing, Pricing, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, Retail, Startup/Early Stage, VARs, enterprise software, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Channel Conflict

In my consulting practice I do a lot of work with software and hardware companies in channel development.  One of the hardest things to manage while growing a channel business is the inevitable conflict between all the players throughout your various distribution methods, including your direct sales force.

Of course, my colleagues in the channel might say you can limit this conflict by using the channel exclusively. That is the nature of channel conflict—all parties want the business for THEMSELVES. Much smoke is always blown by the various interested parties about what is right and fair, and commitments that were made and so on, but let’s face it—it’s basically self interest. They just want the business for themselves.

So what’s a company to do? Just sell direct, or just sell through VARs, or just sell through retail? Unless you have strict exclusive territories throughout your distributions system, problems will still arise. You’ll always have some kind of conflict (two direct reps or two resellers fighting over who should have an account), but at least you would eliminate cross-channel conflict, which can be particularly complex and nasty.

Limiting yourself to a single channel focus certainly may make your life less complicated, and less rife with conflict. But unfortunately, in most cases, you’ll be leaving a lot of money on the table. If you rule out any natural channels that can sell your product, you won’t be maximizing your return on your heavy investments in product IP, which should be one of the fundamental concerns of any business.

HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO

So I say, sell through every channel that makes sense. If done poorly, it can and almost certainly will, be very messy. You’ll be sorry you did it, and probably become a convert to a single channel, or at least less complex, distribution model. But it doesn’t have to be so. Yes, you CAN have your cake and eat it, too.

There are many potential channels for your products: direct, OEM, one-step through VARs, 2-step through distributors/VARs, retailers, independent sales reps, strategic partner referrals, affiliates and more. In extreme cases, ALL of these potential channels may be appropriate ways to deliver your product to the market. The question I am often asked by clients is “How do you make it all work without it blowing up in your face?” The way you can do this is to live by two very simple rules:

1) DON’T EVER SCREW A REAL BUSINESS PARTNER

It actually sounds pretty simple and easy. Yet humans can be greedy creatures, and just a little greed in partnering can quickly ruin reputations for a long time. There’s the greedy VAR who thinks he deserves a piece of every deal with any customer within a 500 mile radius of his office—a customer he might have only sent a piece of mail, or cold-called a year before.

Just as seriously, it only takes one weak-willed sales manager at a manufacturer or software developer, trying to make quota or maximize his income, to cause real havoc. If he attempts to cut a channel partner out of a deal that they drove, or had legitimate influence on—this is a mortal sin. Your channel partners will be outraged, and they will spread the word and not soon forget. Your reputation has been tainted, and that crucial trust that is necessary to make any business relationship work is now gone. Everything becomes harder. Partners become unwilling to share information about what’s going on in accounts—maybe even withholding names on potential new deals. A struggle for account control, rather than teamwork, becomes the rule of the day.

So if it is a REAL partner, one who is trying to drive business to your mutual benefit, do whatever it takes to make it right. Give up short-term profitability to maintain a long-term profitable relationship. Don’t ever, ever screw a partner in the name of short-term gain. It can ruin your channel business long term.

2) DO ALLOW BUYERS TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT FROM WHOM THEY WANT TO BUY IT

If you are honest and fair with people, potential channel conflict shouldn’t unnecessarily stop you from maximizing revenue by using multiple methods of delivering your product to the market. There is a range of customer profiles in the market.

Some want to buy everything through their trusted VAR/Integrator, who helps give them a third party evaluation of the product’s virtues. Others want to deal directly only with the manufacturer or developer of the specific product they are purchasing. A third category of buyers likes to buy as much as possible through their favorite large manufacturer—this is a great reason to OEM your product to the IBMs of the world. In each of these situations, the channel that is best positioned, via relationship or type of support, should and usually will get the deal. If your product isn’t available in that particular channel, you may NOT get the deal.

The last category of buyer, however, is different. This is the bargain basement buyer, the one who couldn’t care less who he buys from, as long as he gets the lowest price. These are the people that can wreak havoc on a multi-channel distribution system, if you aren’t careful in how you structure your channel business.

BEWARE THE BARGAIN BASEMENT BUYER

It’s this price-conscious buyer that will often bring cross-channel conflict to the forefront. Since they are seeking the lowest price, they end up shopping the purchase across many potential sources for the product, creating great price competition among your channel partners. This is where conflict is often born. There are many tactical mechanisms to limit these situations (such as deal registration), which I won’t delve into. The main thing to have thought out is where these customers should end up buying. There are two basic approaches:

1) Tell your value-added channels that this price conscious buyer, who isn’t looking for any added value, isn’t going to buy from them. You might decide that this buyer is going to find the lowest price at retail (if that’s one of your channels), or maybe direct if they buy in volume. In this case, it’s important to set those expectations up front when you recruit channel partners. Let potential partners know where they fit, and where they don’t. They can walk away if they don’t like it; otherwise they’ve been warned. This is being fair and honest. Before potential partners invest in selling your products, they should have the real picture of what they’re getting into.

2) Conversely, you should also strive for street price equity between channels. This gets tougher to do the more channel types you have, and also the larger your channel is in general. But it can be done. The main thing here is to avoid giving incremental channels discounts based upon volume. If you do, incentives are created for a channel player to discount to achieve volume—thereby lowering their costs, so they can win more business via even more aggressive discounting. This leads to a continuous downward spiral in your street price, and to unhappiness and channel conflict to such a degree that will drive you to drink, or at least a career change. It will get ugly. But if you limit your channels to those that truly are strategic for your product, and which add real value, it can be managed. The key is to set partner discount schedules based upon value-add and associated costs, rather than revenue or unit volume.

So there you have it. Sell through all the channels your product belongs in. Be honest and fair with you partners. Strive as much as possible for equity in street pricing between partner types. Sounds pretty easy to me–of course it isn’t! Add your own thoughts on selling through multiple channels and managing potential conflict-post a comment below to add to the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
7 Comments by admin on July 31, 2005
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Retail, VARs
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIG S, little m

Don’t worry; this isn’t going to be an article about Sado-Masochism! Well, come to think of it, that term may apply to what some founders and senior managers in startups are doing to themselves and their companies. What I’m referring to is the VP who gets hired to manage both the Sales and Marketing functions. Oftentimes this turns out to be a job we call “VP-SALES & marketing”. Thus the phrase “Big S, little m”. The position is usually offered to a crack sales guy or gal, who also happens to have a marketing title somewhere in their job background.

JUST GO GET THE ORDERS

To high tech insiders the meaning is clear. The anointed candidate will be expected to go out and beat the bushes for customers, and bring in new orders quickly. Oh, and by the way, Mr. VP, you’ll also be in charge of producing data sheets and attending a few trade shows. You know, all that marketing stuff!

In most of these cases, I would recommend that anyone being approached for a job like this run in the other direction as fast as possible. These positions are usually classic “traps”. The attitude is “We’ve got a great new technology; all we need is someone to go knock on a few customer’s doors and bring the purchase orders back to headquarters”.

Hopefully, most  will recognize that this is a recipe for a very unhappy outcome. The founders and senior management will be unhappy with revenue and profits, the VP will be unhappy because he’s likely to get fired in 9-12 months. The other employees will be depressed and talking about how “Sales & Marketing” is the weak link in the company. And the investors, of course, will be very, very cranky.

Why does this occur? It often occurs when the key senior decision makers (CEO, CFO, Founders, etc.) don’t have a background or appreciation for the difficulty of the sales function. And it’s even more likely to happen when there is no key decision maker with a background in Marketing. The decision maker’s attitude also often includes an over-confidence in the role that superior technology plays in the overall success of a company.

IS TECHNOLOGY ENOUGH?

Certainly having a defensible technological advantage is a major factor in the success of a high tech company, especially when that company is in startup mode. The problem arises when management believes this by itself is enough to “win”. How hard is cold calling and knocking on doors for a sales force with an unknown company name? Not to mention an unproven product, which may solve a problem the customer may not yet know exists? I’ll give you a hint—it’s really, really hard!

Likely there is a lack of understanding of the crucial role marketing plays in establishing a new product in the marketplace. There may be a view that marketing is some theoretical, squishy function that is a waste of money, or maybe something that has value but the company just can’t afford. Management thinks we’ll introduce the product, sell a bunch and build the marketing function later. Unfortunately, that thinking is as backwards as can be, and will usually lead to the unhappy results discussed earlier in this article.

Why IS marketing so important, and why is it such a critical mistake if it isn’t a major part of the new product process? It’s because marketing is crucial in every phase of introducing and growing the revenue of new products, from conception until end-of-life. In the beginning, an engineer may come up with a great new technology that appears to allow someone to do an existing task better. Or maybe it allows someone to do something that wasn’t even possible before. But that’s really just the beginning of the product development process. Product engineers aren’t trained to closely match customer needs with the features of this whiz-bang new technology. Often they think it’s easy – you just go ask the customer what he wants! But customers often don’t tell you the truth;  sometimes they lie, and sometimes they don’t even know what they really want. And even if they tell you the truth, it’s important to make sure that what these customers are telling you is representative of your entire target market segment. This is a task that looks intellectually easy on the surface, but for a lot of reasons, it’s very difficult to get right.

Sometimes companies do get it right even without an experienced, professional marketing function in place. Let’s assume for a moment that they do. There’s still a very long way to go before those purchase orders start pouring in. The product must be positioned properly, relative to the direct and indirect competition in the market. It needs to be priced so that the market is willing to take a close look, but not so high or low that it retards the product’s long-term profit potential. Will it be distributed only through the company’s direct sales force, or should we court VARs, distributors, retailers or OEMs? What kind of pricing can we offer those partners without creating gray markets or channel conflicts? And please, let’s not forget about creating a bit of demand for those poor guys and gals in the sales force. Cold calling really does suck! It’s not good for anyone, the sales reps or the company’s profitability, if cold-calling is going on the majority of time. It will “burn out” your sales force in no time.

Marketing programs that generate hot leads, or even complete sales, are much more cost-effective than relying on highly paid (but beleaguered) sales reps to do their own inefficient “door to door” marketing. And how should we generate those leads? Via PR, Advertising, Direct Marketing, Partnering, Search Engine Optimization, Paid Search Engine Ads, Trade Shows? The Marketing folks are the strategic quarterbacks of the organization who should be driving the answers to these questions—as well as executing the strategy within the required parameters.

IT MIGHT WORK—BUT DON’T BET ON IT

So does “BIG S, little m” NEVER work? Well, in some cases it not only works, it is even appropriate. Take the example of a semiconductor company selling a very niche chip to a vertical segment. They might have only 50 potential customers. In this case you REALLY CAN go ask the customer what he wants, and easily ask enough of them that you will end up building products that will apply to your entire target segment. With respect to lead generation, the target market is so small that traditional outbound marketing programs don’t make sense anyway, and that “door to door” marketing by your sales force might work just fine.

But I propose to you that this example scenario is the classic “exception that proves the rule”. In many, if not most cases, “BIG S, little m” will lead to failure – or at the very least, suboptimal performance. That’s my view—as always I’m very interested in hearing yours–post a comment!

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
4 Comments by admin on June 2, 2005
filed in Distribution Channels, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, VARs, enterprise software, hardware, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,