Why?

Well, to answer this question lets first address the appeal of a standardized global program: Today's multi-lingual, multi-currency SFA/PRM solutions facilitate a common platform throughout all global territories. The resulting standardization assures that consistency and simplicity program-wide is attainable now more than any other time in the past. What's more, the universal set of program standards and reporting inherent in the design give executives a strong sense of control and empowerment-which feels really good if you're writing the check. It is no wonder that this is the key selling point for system standardization. However, the people writing the check aren't the people that ultimately get the work done.

Very few channel partners indeed have a global trading area. And although the promise of a "Global Village" is nearing every day, I contend that for most of us it is far from a homogenous market. Channel marketing, by definition, implies "creating efficiencies through partnership to delivering products and services to the consumer". When designing a channel program, there is a lot to consider about its application on a global scale because while consumers en mass are indeed global, any one purchaser is local. For a global program to be truly effective, there needs to be common standards across the following: category maturity, channel maturity, regulatory requirements (as to how incentives may earned and paid among them), GTM strategy, solution "mix", value added requirements that must be fulfilled by the channel, distribution strategy, availability of local resources, logistics and fulfillment, culture and language (and its impact on the sales process), business processes associated with program management, marketing mix, pre- post sales training support requirements, customer purchase motivations..........do I really need to go on?

The point is, any difference in any one of these conditions from market to market will require some adaptation of your program. Therefore, the sheer number of conditions that require localized adaptation then multiplied their relative importance to your channel GTM will address the full scope of localization required for your program to be equally effective globally.

The good news is, that there are solutions out there that will allow you to "have your cake and eat it too" through localized flexibility and centralized reporting and control. But no solution is ideal for everyone ("You can please some people all of the time or all people some of the time......"), so it's best to REALLY understand your requirements before you completely push your pendulum from localization to centralization (or visa versa). In closing, I repeat what I stated in previous posts: it shouldn't be a matter of one extreme of the other (as seems to happen), as the ideal global program is likely a compromise between local flexibility and centralized systems. I know we can help you get there.

by Martin McNally

Director of Product Marketing, CCI

Are you taking your channel program global? Or, are you merging multiple existing programs across countries? Either way, congratulations are in order. Godspeed too.

How is your company coverting its program blueprint from a goal to a successful, sustainable reality? How are you reconciling the desire for standardization / normalization of process with local business needs, be they company-driven or regulatory requirements? Regardless of design and objectives, are you ready for extreme change management?

CCI has some thoughts on the matter. Check out the white paper- Financial Considerations for Global Channel Programs and comment below with your own stories. We’d love to keep the conversation going to address and evolve all aspects - including the risks and rewards of each.

So while everyone else has a top 10, I decided to go one better...behold:

The 11 Deadly Sins of Channel Incentive Program Planning

Why to I refer to them as "deadly sins?" Because violating any one of these can diminish the effectiveness of your program and waste time and money. Yet, I often see more than one of these sins violated in the manufacturers rush to put a program in place-and then wonder why the program didn't work as well as they hoped after the fact.

11. Not targeting the right level of the demand chain. Incentive programs can target the consumer, the reseller sales rep (and/or sales engineer), or the reseller entity. Any one or combination of these may be viable depending on your objectives. Targeting any one has different merits, and challenges.

10. Not having the appropriate terms and conditions in place--or, "Ts & Cs" if you prefer. This is an official legal document that defines the eligibility, terms and parameters of the program which participants must agree to early in the process-not merely marketing hype that provides a program overview.

9. Not requiring acceptance and understanding of the aforementioned Terms & Conditions. Such acceptance should be done via positive acknowledgement in advance of participation.

8. Having overly complicated business rules to earn the reward. Like all things in life, "KISS" is the guideline here (Keep It Simple Stupid). Program understanding should be both compelling and easy to understand for those of us with a short attention span.

7. Ambiguous proof-of-performance requirements. In this case, by "ambiguous" I refer to "difficult to validate" through other means. The bigger the reward, the more there should be an audit trail in place that validates the transaction details.

6. Not validating that the program is actually "legal" in all the jurisdictions targeted. Many countries and even some states regulate how program may be conducted (or not). This topic could fill a book. If you're planning a global program, this can get real complicated in a hurry.

5. Not targeting the right channel segment or partners. Surprising as this sounds, I can't tell you how many programs "required the ‘buy-in' from X partners" to be successful, only to find after the fact that those very partners don't sell the particular product or the program didn't correlate with their go-to-market strategy. Many resellers may not even permit vendor-developed SPIF programs as it interferes with their own sales policies and practices.

4. Not considering advanced registration. If it is expected that more than one claim may be submitted by any one participant, then pre-registration offers many advantages. Among them, advanced registration provides metrics on participation levels early in the program period, and streamlines the claiming process for the user by not having to re-key personal information with each transaction among them.

3. Stacking incentive programs. A lot has been written about how many vendor companies have as much as 40-50 different promotions and incentive programs targeting the same partners concurrently....need I say more to justify why this qualifies as a "deadly sin?"

2. Thinking short-term and not optimizing your investment. Many programs are launched to attain a tactical need supporting a short term sales goal. Websites are built, infrastructure is put in place. The program is then dismantled after the program period is over in a few months. Then, six months later, the whole thing has to be rebuilt when a new tactical need is established. This lengthens time to market, is inefficient, and often doesn't leverage any of the key learnings from the prior program. It's most efficient to construct a single conduit that may conform to your promotional needs as they occur.

And the #1 reason why incentive programs fail.....

1. Ill-conceived communications strategy.....yep, you heard it right. As hard to believe as it is, in the post program analysis we conduct we find that the number one reason participants don't support the program is that they didn't know the program existed or didn't effectively understand the program attributes and how it fits with their business model. So, for instance, it's not enough to tell your primary contact about the program when it's a SPIF program targeting reseller sales reps, you have to make sure the reps themselves know about the program and understands the benefits to them.

So, these are the facts kids---I can't make this stuff up. Each one has enough content behind it to support an article on its own. In the meantime, if I've missed one or if one of you would like to share your horror stories, we'd love to hear it.

Craig DeWolf is Vice President of Sales and Marketing for CCI.

Craig's extensive experience spans over 20-years, across a variety of industries and distribution models. This background has given Craig an excellent perspective of the issues facing marketers and their distribution partners, and the solutions that will make them mutually successful.

by Dale Taormino, CCI

One of the most common - and age-old - challenges in international business management is finding the right balance between global objectives and needs and local (regional) objectives and needs. This is a particularly acute issue when it comes to channel management and channel marketing programs. Given that the needs and objectives to consider are not just those of your own global organization - but those of the multitude of partner organizations whose engagement and commitment is needed to achieve your organizations goals.

In the 15+ years that I've worked internationally, I have rarely seen an organization find true balance. Like a pendulum swinging, we tend to ere on one side or the other. In one case I witnessed 6 separate partner co-op programs designed and executed on an individual country basis. The localization of these programs into 30+ languages resulted in significant inefficiencies. And then on the other extreme-a one-size-fits-all approach that resulted in a ‘USA only' fit and usage.

There can be advantages to each:

GLOBAL
• Centralized platforms
• Roll-up reporting & ROI measurement
• Consistent branding & messaging
• Better goal alignment
• Program admin efficiencies & economies of scale

LOCAL
• Greater partner awareness
• Higher adoption rates
• Tied to local market challenges & opportunities
• Targeted branding & messaging
• Local/Regional program ownership
• More flexibility & speed in making program changes

So what's the right balance? First, look to the program objectives and timeframe. Second, look at the program elements themselves and how they touch and impact your partners.

Partner Programs with their longer lifecycles and key objectives of being a framework your partners operate within can ere on the Global side. However, as you dive into the specific program elements - partner education for example - regional needs become increasingly important.

Shorter-term SPIF programs are a good example of where to ere on the Local side. Short term incentive programs typically require higher engagement and responsiveness by partners and must be closely tied to local market conditions, behaviors, etc. However, even with such programs there are elements that can be global - payment processing or the back end platform that manages claims for example.

So what's the answer, Go Glocal!

by Craig DeWolf, CCI

Global channel programs...I've been in the Channel Marketing Business for over 25 years now and have seen the pendulum swing several times from a decentralized to a centralized structure-often within the same company.

Companies migrating to a decentralized structure (providing greater autonomy for global sales regions) are moving the control of program design and implementation strategies to the local level. The goal is to equip local managers with the means quickly make and execute business decisions that will give them a competitive advantage in those markets.

Conversely, companies moving to a centralized structure do so because they feel a need for greater control over the brand and sales process, access to more information, and lower costs through economy of scale.

The decision to change from one approach to the other are often associated with some economic trigger-such as the one the world is currently experiencing. Interesting to me is the fact that while some clients have moved from a centralized to a decentralized channel program, still other companies are making the opposite move. Clearly, it's a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the hill" as global marketers get fed up with the shortfalls of one approach as they discover the remedy is found in the attributes of the other.

It has been my privilege throughout my career to have maintained many of the same clients for 5 to 10-years, or even more. I have seen the pendulum swing back and forth within many of these same clients so often it makes me dizzy. Like the proverbial pendulum which finally settles in the middle, today I am seeing a more compromised approach to global channel marketing. Because of the software available for program management today, marketers can finally "have their cake and eat it too". Using a common global infrastructure to manage common programs such as training, sales tools, MDF/Co-op management, brand management, incentive management and more, today's global channel marketer can benefit from the efficiencies of a common infrastructure and centralized reporting, yet provide each region with the autonomy they need to tailor the program as needed to drive immediate bottom line impact. Ahh, what a wonderful time we live in, this is.

While this might seem like the panacea global marketers' have been truly seeking all these years, it also creates new challenges that catch many marketers by surprise:

• No one system really does everything well in terms of managing all the programs your channel partners need to successfully sell and promote products on a global scale-even Salesforce.com (despite their claims). This means that, for now at least, delivering a truly state-of the-art channel infrastructure will require integrating a desperate set of applications from a variety of providers-often in mixed environments (including both hosted and SaaS applications) to form one cohesive experience for your channel partners across a diverse multi-cultural, multicurrency environment.
• Not all systems are created equal: Make sure your program is well defined, before you select the enabling software. Clearly identify your requirements in advance of selecting your application. Software isn't an end-game, it's only an enabler. Your program is still the "steak", the software you select to run it on is only the "sizzle" (caution, it's not the other way around).
• Keeping tabs of all the legal, financial, and cultural implications of a global program requires more effort that anyone thought. CCI is not a law firm, yet clients expect us to understand legal and cultural impact of how a given incentive program will "play" with partners in Xpendastan (you know, just north of the Retalistan boarder). Well, if the laws changed yesterday impacting incentive payments to reseller sales reps, I'm not sure how we (or anyone) would know that. Even if we did-news flash-the program design, and the legal implications, are responsibilities of the global marketer. Keeping up with this might actually provide a worthwhile career for all the attorneys out there.
• Disparate systems mean disparate information. The challenge for marketers will be information overload, and identifying meaningful correlations from all the data gathered across the breadth of programs offered will keep your (or our) analysts busy. Imagine that, TOO much information! Our advice: be clear as to what your metric requirements are from onset, and those metrics align with your business drivers. Make sure the systems you are considering provides the information you need to simplify and facilitate key business decisions. When engaging new clients, we often START with the reporting requirements to make sure the appropriate information is captured at key points in the process. It's often too late to do this once the system is deployed without wasting time or money.

There is enough content in these four points to justify its own blog topic or whitepaper. Hmmmmm, maybe we'll have to do just that.

Stay tuned.

Craig DeWolf is Vice President of Sales and Marketing for CCI.

Craig's extensive experience spans over 20-years, across a variety of industries and distribution models. This background has given Craig an excellent perspective of the issues facing marketers and their distribution partners, and the solutions that will make them mutually successful.