Intel Channel Exec Explains New Program

The revamping of Intel's channel program has broad implications for systems builders and solution providers alike. Shirley Turner, Intel's director of North American distribution and channels, answered some key questions about some of the changes.

VB: What is the intent of the new program?
Turner: We've had the existing program for about 11 years, and from a worldwide perspective every geography had a different name. This worldwide program is a cohesive one. In the Intel Channel Partner Program, our communications and messaging is crisper to channel partners worldwide. From a North American perspective, we had already been offering many of the benefits.

VB: On the systems-builder side, how does this break down?
Turner: The levels are now Registered member, Associate member and Premier, bottom to top. Before, we had 325 Premier partners, about 10,000 what we call Active Intel members, and 35,000 Registered, which meant they didn't buy the 10 unit-per-quarter requirement. If they bought a lot, they were Premiers.

VB: Are you changing the criteria for membership in these programs?
Turner: The biggest criteria change is for Premiers; we actually have a criterion now that's transparent. Before, Premier was by invitation only by field sales reps -- now the criterion is on the Web. It's based on desktop, server or mobile business. Someone can easily track their business and see what they need to do. It's very transparent.

VB: Do you see this reducing or increasing the number of Premier partners you have?
Turner: They will keep their existing status until the first of the year, so nothing is changing immediately. I don't know if this will incent people to want to move up more or if some will drop off. If we were to drop today, it may be 70 members that would drop off. Will those 70 members say, "Here's what I have to do to stay premier," and step it up? We are hoping they will. There will be others who are at the top of the Active [now Associate] range who say, "If I sell a little bit more, I can get into Premier." Also, it doesn't have to be a mix across the board of servers, mobile and desktop. The other point is 70 percent of that integration has to occur. In other words, the business has to be integrated, they just can't buy product and broker it out.

VB: What are the implications for Active members? Do they automatically become Associate members?
Turner: Yes.

VB: Do they have to reapply?
Turner: Before, it was only Premiers who were badged. Now there's the Intel Channel Partner Program Associate member programs that are available for all those members, so we are actually expanding that visible alignment with Intel to all of our buying members. For that they need to sign their Ts and Cs. That's required for any time using the Intel logo.

VB: Is it going to be more difficult for Associate members to re-sign?
Turner: Their criteria is 50 units per year; it was 10 units per quarter. It does have to be CPUs. It really hasn't changed that much. But they can buy 50 and be set for the year, too.

VB: Though it does require them to buy a bit more.
Turner: Yes, but that hasn't been that big of a hurdle in the past.

VB: How about the changes that now are in the Technical Track? Are the changes as significant to traditional VARs, solution providers and ISVs?
Turner: There's no impact at this point other than coming under the same umbrella from a naming perspective and the fact that there will be a badge Intel Channel Partner Program. It's a first step in bringing our channel partners together as one.

VB: You say first step, but what is the ultimate goal?
Turner: The ultimate goal is just one channel program. We are trying to simplify the process of partners doing business with us who need to reach out across different parts of Intel. When it's under one umbrella, they can get access to other pieces of information.

VB: How long do you see that taking to play out?
Turner: I am hoping we'll have it done in a couple of years; it takes a lot of work, and we've been working on it for a year. We've seen more need on the VAR side, and we're trying to toggle between consolidating the programs to beefing up the Technology Provider program because we need to do that.