Is BEA's Alfred Chuang A Supporter Of The Need For A Strong Channel?
Let's face it, actions always speak louder than words. When a company's top channel executives can't get out the door fast enough, it's a darn good bet that the thinking inside of the organization is a bit challenged concerning channel direction. Very specifically, it signals that top management may not believe in building a strong, viable indirect sales channel.
In April 2002 I wrote a column that talked about the 12 steps necessary to build a successful channel program. Alfred Chuang, BEA's chairman and CEO, should read that list before his company's investment in the channel is completely lost.
Rule No. 1 in that column was "Enlist Executive Support." So why are channel executives leaving BEA faster than part-time workers in the mailroom?
BEA, founded in 1995 by Bill Coleman, Chuang and Ed Scott, built its channel when Coleman was chairman and CEO. It was Coleman who brought in former channel chief Rauline Ochs, who was instrumental in building an impressive channel for the young startup. But all that is history. Coleman is now running another software startup; Ochs left more than a year ago; and her replacement, Morris Beton, recently bailed out.
Just last week CRN reported that BEA slashed its channel support staff and is shifting most channel business development to the field sales team.
In my opinion, nothing is more disruptive to a channel program than to put direction and engagement in the hands of the field sales organization. When there is no strong central organization overseeing channel strategy, it can only lead to a breakdown in coordinated channel efforts.
It is also a recipe for channel conflict, because usually a field sales organization's compensation structure is in conflict with channel sales goals. That may not be the case with BEA, but unless its field salespeople are compensated in a fashion that makes them want to do more business through solution providers, there will be problems.
Point No. 5 in my April 2002 column talked about not "sabotaging your channel program." By that I meant management needs to consider both direct sales and channel goals and make sure that programs, plans and marketing don't favor one approach over the other. Is there a possibility that can happen consistently when channel efforts are put in the hands of field salespeople?
Point No. 9 in that column talked about the need for vendors to set guidelines for their direct sales forces through clear rules of engagement. If BEA is dismantling its corporate channel management team, who will dictate and enforce those rules of engagement? In addition, will those rules be different in every territory? If you are a solution provider who operates in more than one of those territories, will the rules be different from area to area?
One other key point I made back in 2002 was that every company needs to listen to its channel partners to understand what is working and what is not. Solution providers' reactions to BEA's recent moves indicate that there are real concerns about the company's channel commitment.
Channel sales will decline because of BEA's actions, and then those declining sales will be used as an excuse to push more sales direct. In the end, BEA will be the loser, and you will need to think about finding a better vendor partner.
Make something happen. I can be reached at (516) 562-7812 or via e-mail at rfaletra@cmp.com.