More partners = more revenue? Not exactly It’s tempting to sign new partners when existing ones aren't delivering as expected. I often see companies pushing their teams to bring in more partnerships - but that’s not always the solution The real issue usually isn’t the number of partners you have, but how effectively they’re activated A partner with a signed agreement doesn’t mean anything until they are fully engaged, enabled, and in sync with your goals Before chasing new logos, dive into your current partnerships. What’s working well, what isn’t, and where are the gaps? Build a strong activation strategy, make sure you have the resources to support your partners, and foster meaningful collaboration. Once you’ve nailed that, go ahead and scale your partner base Because it’s not about having the most partners - it’s about having the right partners doing the right things Feeling overloaded with partners but not seeing results? Let’s talk I'll be discussing this on tonights webinar too! 🔥 #Revenue #Businessgrowth #Partnerships #TechStackSummit
Konnor Andersen
1mo
Signing a partner agreement is day one, not the finish line!! You need to support your partners to be successful!
Paul Way
1mo
"If I had a pound for every time I've heard this partner isn't working but I've found another one who looks really good in XYZ account." 100% agree Eleanor Thompson Setting the expectation across the GTM teams and also ensuring there is ownership and responsibility taken from teams not directly in the Partner reporting line but who contribute to the partner's success is also key.
"existing ones aren't delivering as expected" - expectations will, set correctly, conform broadly to Pareto distribution as long as your expections align with each partners overall total revenue and we're clear on our market dynamics (e.g. if we're talking as tech vendors about services companies, rather than ISV's, or tech companies from a services companies POV (and only if we're talking about tech, and not partners in the Retail + CPG space, or Legal industry for example))). Case Study: I have 3 partners whose total revenue is ~$60Bn, another ~20 with revenue of $10-50Bn, and a much longer tail whose revenue is significantly less. Of (only!) 125 partners, the top 25 is ~80% of total. The other 100 combined are around 20% total ecosystem contribution. I can't expect the same of the smaller companies and, if I start-up focussed on the small companies, my expectations *as a portfolio* have to shift over time. Put simply, I can't expect Microsoft (~$210Bn) + Accenture (~$65Bn) to operate anything like "dtxlr8r" + "ACME DXP Corp."
Aaron Howerton
1mo
I think the challenge often extends to not having proper insight on performance at the partner level. How are they doing in deal cycle? Close Rate? Win Rate? Approval rates? Any champions or specific contacts consistently under performing? Most PAMs I know have to dig for this kind of insight if it's even available, big driver for what we're working on right now.
Anton Silaev
1mo
Great point Eleanor Thompson. I'm totally aligned on the long-tail partners having so much gold in them that just needs to be unlocked. It's also the most efficient way to look at it. Costs way less to re-engage existing partners!
Muhammad Shahbaz
1mo
Agreed Eleanor Thompson
Make partnerships profitable with ops, data signals & tactical playbooks • Advisor • Tech & workflow recommendations • Stop selling on hard mode
1moThis is why I think the 80/20 rule is a straight up mediocre guide. It doesn't diagnose the issue, like you mentioned. Great content!