Vendor Exclusivity Doesn't Pay, VARs Say

Page 1 of 3

Exclusivity doesn't pay.

That's the word from solution providers who say chaining their fate to a single technology provider is folly. They say the benefits of specialization in one vendor's technology are more than offset by the lack of flexibility such exclusivity yields.

The exclusivity question arose anew recently as Infor, a $2 billion provider of ERP and supply chain applications garnered via complex acquisitions, told solution providers affiliated with its latest buyout that they would have to be exclusive to Infor or leave.

The deadline, as previously reported, was Dec. 1. Several of these partners talked to CRN in advance of that date about their quandary. A couple characterized themselves as "lifestyle" solution providers, able to make good money supporting legacy accounts on older technology now owned by Infor, but also wanting to offer newer products such as SAP Business One, Microsoft Axapta or Navision.

Infor says only 17 partners were affected by this mandate, and of those, only two decided not to re-up.

One of the affected partners weighed the move and stuck with Infor, but now has his regrets. "Every partner goes through these things, and it's gut-wrenching. On the other hand, you got to do what you got to do," the partner said.

Several other Infor partners did not return calls for comment.

Many vendors have tried to demand partner exclusivity over the years, and it hasn't worked out, partners say. Even now, technology vendors that do not require exclusivity favor partners who put more time and resources into their offerings over competitive wares.

That's a no-brainer, according to solution providers, but does it ever make sense to be true blue to only one vendor?

NEXT: VARs weigh exclusivity pros and cons.

1 | 2 | 3 | Next >>

Tweet

   

More Applications & OS