A composite drawn from mid-size UK resellers we have analysed. Names and vendors withheld.
The year, across the vendors in scope
Composite · approximate figures
A composite of mid-size UK resellers we have analysed. Approximate figures.
~1,000 people and ~£110m of resold vendor product across ~40 vendors, with a long tail of smaller ones. ~12,000 vendor deals a year.
~1,000 people. ~£250m turnover, of which ~£110m is resold vendor product and licences across ~40 vendors with a long tail of smaller ones. ~12,000 vendor deals a year at an average of ~£9,000. Two CRMs following an acquisition, with a move to one under way. A registration team logs deals for the largest vendors; sellers and product specialists cover the rest.
The business
Names and vendors withheld
One quarter of closed deals for the highest-volume vendor, the programme document and the statement. More than half the qualifying deals had never been registered.
Asked for the registration rate on their top vendor, the alliances director's answer was a range from 60% to 90%. Each alliance manager reported on their own vendor from the portal. The largest vendor paid one quarterly sum and finance booked it. A missed registration surfaced only when another partner appeared on a renewal. The fight to get it back had been lost twice in the previous year.
The team was not careless. Forty portals, forty rule sets and a process that depended on who picked the deal up.
They sent a quarter of closed deals for their highest-volume vendor, the programme document and the statement. Measured registration rate: 48%. Of the deals that qualified, more than half had never been registered and a further group had been registered under a promotion that paid less than the programme they qualified for. The statement reconciled to deals for the first time and came in short.
Qualifying deal value: ~£76m.
Incentive at the 48% registration rate: ~£730k.
Incentive with every qualifying deal registered: ~£1.5m.
Missed in a year: ~£790k.
Extra sales needed at 10% margin to make the same profit: ~£8m.
A read-only connection to both CRMs and the vendor spreadsheet. The registration team released each submission at first, then the first ten went fully automatic.
Week one: read-only connection to both CRMs, the vendor spreadsheet shared, the first ten vendors live with the registration team releasing each submission. Weeks two to four: the remaining vendors added as the spreadsheet filled in, the first ten switched to fully automatic. By the end of the quarter, claims were being filed inside each vendor's window and the first statements had been reconciled to deals.
Going live
Registration team releasing at first
After the first quarter
Across the vendors in scope
Every deal under the programme that paid most, claims filed inside the window and each statement matched to deals.
Registration rate measured by vendor, team and seller, with close to 100% of qualifying deals registered.
Every deal registered under the programme that paid most, not the first one found.
Claims filed inside the window on the vendors that need one.
Each statement matched to deals, with an evidence pack for every gap. Two vendors found to be paying below the published rate; both disputes evidenced and settled.
The registration team's time moved from typing into portals to handling exceptions.
The additional incentive landed on deals already sold, so it went to EBITDA with no change to how the team sold.
Each page answers one question buyers ask, so you can send it to whoever needs it.
Every other question is answered on the questions page.
See every questionNo. The gap exists wherever deals are registered by people in portals, from ~100-person MSPs upwards. What varies is the size of the gap, which is why we measure it on one vendor first.
Send a quarter of closed deals for one vendor and we will measure your registration rate, the same way.
