Source: CRN
Hewlett-Packard scored high on all parameters except channel profitability to win the 2013 Channel Champion crown.
Lenovo came second largely on positive votes from SMB partners and non-partners even while its relationship partners gave it negative votes.
Acer improved its channel preference with a vertical-focused strategy to come third.
FY2011-12 winner Dell was pushed to the last position because it lost focus on the PC business and also because of the exit of some channel managers.
Hewlett-Packard
The PSG-IPG integration seems to have gone well for HP as far as improvement in channel preference is concerned. The company improved its scores on all parameters and was well ahead of its competitors.
Most partners appreciated HP’s handling of the integration as it was smooth; besides, HP was clear and regular in its communication, informing them about the changes in policies and people. Partners in Class B cities appreciated HP’s initiative to hold partner meets after the integration to explain the various changes and discuss product and market strategies.
The integration has simplified the partners’ engagement since they no longer need to deal with multiple channel managers; this, respondents said, has improved decision-making and made the company more aggressive in the marketplace. A single channel manager handling both the portfolios helped them increase their printer business by offering value deals to customers.
However, post-integration, the realignment of channel managers briefly created partner engagement issues. According to respondents, this happened because IPG managers who were now also handling the PC business didn’t know the channel policies and processes of the PC business and vice-versa. Respondents said this created delays and confusion in decision-making, and resulted in loss of opportunities. However, this problem was solved by the end of July 2012 after the managers were trained by HP in policies and processes.
Respondents appreciated HP’s new rebate program launched in November 2012 whereby they got incentives even if they didn’t meet their overall targets. Several HP partners praised the introduction of a new incentive for partners who did consistent and linear business every quarter. They said that an additional 0.5 percent linearity incentive encouraged them to plan their business better.
HP became stringent with user verification (UV) to ensure there was no leakage into the open market of products cleared for special-price deals, and it made account managers responsible for any leakage of such products. While many respondents said that the stringent UV process resulted in delays in getting approvals, others opined that it was the right step because such malpractices were on the rise and negatively impacted the overall market health.
On channel profitability HP scored the lowest. Respondents blamed it on partner over-capacity which resulted in multiple partners chasing the same customers.
Lenovo
Lenovo graduated to the second spot riding on its increased focus on SMB channels. The vendor topped on the price performance and channel profitability parameters. It updated its ThinkPad range twice during the year, and partners said that the brand-pull enjoyed by ThinkPad, especially among the CXO community, helped them to win orders. Lenovo also spruced up its B series with aggressive price cuts.
Respondents praised Lenovo’s increased aggressiveness on pricing for large and SMB deals which enabled them to win orders.
Lenovo came second largely on positive votes from SMB partners and non-partners even while its relationship partners gave it negative votes.
Acer improved its channel preference with a vertical-focused strategy to come third.
FY2011-12 winner Dell was pushed to the last position because it lost focus on the PC business and also because of the exit of some channel managers.
Hewlett-Packard
The PSG-IPG integration seems to have gone well for HP as far as improvement in channel preference is concerned. The company improved its scores on all parameters and was well ahead of its competitors.
Most partners appreciated HP’s handling of the integration as it was smooth; besides, HP was clear and regular in its communication, informing them about the changes in policies and people. Partners in Class B cities appreciated HP’s initiative to hold partner meets after the integration to explain the various changes and discuss product and market strategies.
The integration has simplified the partners’ engagement since they no longer need to deal with multiple channel managers; this, respondents said, has improved decision-making and made the company more aggressive in the marketplace. A single channel manager handling both the portfolios helped them increase their printer business by offering value deals to customers.
However, post-integration, the realignment of channel managers briefly created partner engagement issues. According to respondents, this happened because IPG managers who were now also handling the PC business didn’t know the channel policies and processes of the PC business and vice-versa. Respondents said this created delays and confusion in decision-making, and resulted in loss of opportunities. However, this problem was solved by the end of July 2012 after the managers were trained by HP in policies and processes.
Respondents appreciated HP’s new rebate program launched in November 2012 whereby they got incentives even if they didn’t meet their overall targets. Several HP partners praised the introduction of a new incentive for partners who did consistent and linear business every quarter. They said that an additional 0.5 percent linearity incentive encouraged them to plan their business better.
HP became stringent with user verification (UV) to ensure there was no leakage into the open market of products cleared for special-price deals, and it made account managers responsible for any leakage of such products. While many respondents said that the stringent UV process resulted in delays in getting approvals, others opined that it was the right step because such malpractices were on the rise and negatively impacted the overall market health.
On channel profitability HP scored the lowest. Respondents blamed it on partner over-capacity which resulted in multiple partners chasing the same customers.
Lenovo
Lenovo graduated to the second spot riding on its increased focus on SMB channels. The vendor topped on the price performance and channel profitability parameters. It updated its ThinkPad range twice during the year, and partners said that the brand-pull enjoyed by ThinkPad, especially among the CXO community, helped them to win orders. Lenovo also spruced up its B series with aggressive price cuts.
Respondents praised Lenovo’s increased aggressiveness on pricing for large and SMB deals which enabled them to win orders.
Respondents also appreciated Lenovo’s focus on SMB partners as it ran several schemes for them during the year. They said that the SMB team, while being pro-active, never allowed channel inventory to pile up, and took aggressive calls on price-cuts to keep partners profitable; they also offered incentives on lower target achievements.
However, the company’s scores were pulled down due to negative voting by many of its large relationship partners who expressed unhappiness over several policy decisions. The first instance happened in early 2012 when 20 relationship partners were penalized for selling in the open market, products cleared for price deals; their penalty was deducted from their rebates and incentives. The partners alleged that they were compelled to resort to such practices by Lenovo’s managers to meet targets.
In Q1FY2012-13 Lenovo introduced a zero-rebate policy on SPC deals. It also reduced program incentives which resulted in dissatisfaction among the large partners who alleged that Lenovo was trying to make up for its loss in the ELCOT deal by cutting their margins.
These partners also rued Lenovo’s decision in the first half of the fiscal to remove the regional partner managers aligned to them. Following this, all decisions were taken by a single national channel manager which led to a decrease in channel interaction and delayed approvals.
However, following the partner uproar, in Q3FY2012-13 Lenovo agreed to resolve all issues and introduced quarterly review meets with its relationship partners in the presence of senior management. After taking partner feedback, in January 2013 Lenovo increased rebates and incentives.
Acer
Beginning in 2012 Acer streamlined its product and channel teams, creating vertical-focused units to target opportunities in the government, PSU, education and BFSI sectors.
Each vertical team was empowered to build its own strategies to win business. In addition, managers were prompt in providing price clearances which led to an increase in business.
Acer continued to be price-aggressive in the PC market, offering the lowest prices among peers. It offered a 5-year warranty on several commercial models, which, respondents said, provided them an edge in selling more, especially to SMBs.
Respondents highlighted Acer’s lack of an AIO range which resulted in losing a few deals. While Acer offers good rebates, respondents complained of significant delays in pay-outs.
Respondents want Acer to introduce an automated deal registration mechanism.
Dell
Last fiscal’s winner Dell was pushed to the last position because the exit of several channel managers threw its channel engagement out of gear.
Partners noted increased conflict with Dell Direct, and complained that in many cases the direct sales team poached customers even after the deal was approved.
Many opined that Dell’s focus on enterprise solutions has led to the neglect of its PC business.
In FY2011-12 Dell offered special pricing on deals as small as five units, but in FY2012-13 respondents noted a lack of market and price aggression.
The company halved its partner incentive during 2012 which impacted partner profitability. Dell’s post-sales support continued to be rated the best among commercial PC vendors.
However, the company’s scores were pulled down due to negative voting by many of its large relationship partners who expressed unhappiness over several policy decisions. The first instance happened in early 2012 when 20 relationship partners were penalized for selling in the open market, products cleared for price deals; their penalty was deducted from their rebates and incentives. The partners alleged that they were compelled to resort to such practices by Lenovo’s managers to meet targets.
In Q1FY2012-13 Lenovo introduced a zero-rebate policy on SPC deals. It also reduced program incentives which resulted in dissatisfaction among the large partners who alleged that Lenovo was trying to make up for its loss in the ELCOT deal by cutting their margins.
These partners also rued Lenovo’s decision in the first half of the fiscal to remove the regional partner managers aligned to them. Following this, all decisions were taken by a single national channel manager which led to a decrease in channel interaction and delayed approvals.
However, following the partner uproar, in Q3FY2012-13 Lenovo agreed to resolve all issues and introduced quarterly review meets with its relationship partners in the presence of senior management. After taking partner feedback, in January 2013 Lenovo increased rebates and incentives.
Acer
Beginning in 2012 Acer streamlined its product and channel teams, creating vertical-focused units to target opportunities in the government, PSU, education and BFSI sectors.
Each vertical team was empowered to build its own strategies to win business. In addition, managers were prompt in providing price clearances which led to an increase in business.
Acer continued to be price-aggressive in the PC market, offering the lowest prices among peers. It offered a 5-year warranty on several commercial models, which, respondents said, provided them an edge in selling more, especially to SMBs.
Respondents highlighted Acer’s lack of an AIO range which resulted in losing a few deals. While Acer offers good rebates, respondents complained of significant delays in pay-outs.
HP became stringent with user verification to ensure there was no leakage into the open market of products cleared for special-price deals. It made account managers responsible for such leakages
Dell
Last fiscal’s winner Dell was pushed to the last position because the exit of several channel managers threw its channel engagement out of gear.
Partners noted increased conflict with Dell Direct, and complained that in many cases the direct sales team poached customers even after the deal was approved.
Many opined that Dell’s focus on enterprise solutions has led to the neglect of its PC business.
In FY2011-12 Dell offered special pricing on deals as small as five units, but in FY2012-13 respondents noted a lack of market and price aggression.
The company halved its partner incentive during 2012 which impacted partner profitability. Dell’s post-sales support continued to be rated the best among commercial PC vendors.
Source: CRN
No comments:
Post a Comment