MSPs agree vendors need to do more but opinions differ on what ‘more’ looks like, says Billy MacInnes
Blogs
Looking around for something to write about that wasn’t on the subject of AI or the latest instalment in Downfall: TechBros & The Collapse of US Civilisation (an unloveable story replete with a cast of completely unsympathetic characters), I sighed in heartfelt relief when I spotted an article on the CRN website that asked MSPs what they needed most from vendors.
Two responses in particular drew my attention. The first was from Luis Armendaris, CEO at Gordon Lewis Group, who argued it was “critical for vendors to create tools and solutions that are simpler to deploy and manage” because of rising personnel costs that made it hard for MSPs to compete with large corporations for highly skilled technical talent.
“By reducing the expertise required to operate their products, vendors can help MSPs remain competitive with smaller teams, allowing key personnel to oversee operations while the rest of the environment becomes easier to manage,” he stated.
That seemed, to me at least, to be very relevant to the Irish market where local channel businesses are often competing against much larger organisations, frequently non-indigenous with much deeper pockets, for the same skilled technical talent.
Anything to ease the requirement for channel businesses to rely so much on skilled workers would clearly be highly beneficial. There is, however, a potential cause for tension here because, at the same time, there needs to be some level of expertise or skill required in deploying and managing those tools to justify the role of the channel partner in the first place.
True, they might have a role to play anyway because most of their clients are not disposed to devote the time and resource to deploy and manage these tools themselves. But as with most things, the simpler they become to use in the business, the lower the margin you can charge for them.
Just rewards
The second comment came from Kathy Ireland, CEO at CB Technologies, who replied with commendable bluntness to the question of what her company needed from vendors as follows: “It’s the same thing that we’ve always asked and wanted – reward those of your partners that invest in ensuring that they have the knowledge, experience and personnel to provide true value-add.”
In itself, that’s not especially out of the ordinary but what she said next strayed quite far from the usual bland corporate-speak responses we’ve come to expect. “We’ve always been told throughout the last decade (or two) that vendors were trying to figure out programmes that would reward those who did exactly that. All have struggled to deliver anything close.”
Notice she doesn’t say “some”, she says “all”. When you stop to think about it, that’s quite a powerful statement because so many vendors have so regularly expressed their commitment to rewarding partners over the years that it’s almost become an article of faith. It would appear, however, that they haven’t exactly been following through on that commitment – or at least not to the level that might be expected.
Ireland accepts that there are challenges, but stresses properly rewarding partners that invest in the knowledge, experience and personnel to provide true value-add “would go a long way to helping the fact that few VARs can invest in becoming specialised considering there’s little upside with vendors”.
The responses from Armendaris and Ireland appear to be at odds with each other. As such, they represent, to some extent, conflicting approaches to how vendors should support and strengthen their partnerships with MSPs. One argues for reducing the investment and skills burden needed to deploy and manage tools while the other believes vendors need to offer greater rewards for partners that invest more in their products or services.
But this is also emblematic of the breadth and depth of the channel and the challenges that vendors face in developing and delivering programmes that satisfy all of their partners. Simply put, it’s almost impossible to do so. But this is also a matter of setting and managing expectations.
What that means is letting all the partners know that you can’t give all of them what they want all the time but you can give all of them some of what they want all of the time. And that’s probably the best anyone can do.
