Partner programmes promise support and rewards but it’s a fine balance getting the incentives right to appeal to those channel players that will really be an asset
When vendors launch the latest iteration of a channel programme, they often claim to be rewarding partners that deliver real commitment and value-add – but, as many can attest, that’s not easy and can be a real challenge.
To be brutally honest, claims that programmes reward partners that invest in the knowledge, experience and personnel to provide true value-add frequently unravel over time.
We asked a range of vendors and partners for their perspective on the key ingredients for developing programmes that successfully reward partners for adding value. What do vendors need to focus on to ensure they are rewarding channel partners trying to provide value-add to their products and services? Perhaps as importantly, what pitfalls do they need to look out for?
Michelle Hodges, senior vice-president of global channels and alliances at Ivanti, says rewarding partners that provide value-add “requires moving beyond outdated incentive structures like partner tier discounts”. She believes vendors should develop tailored partner incentives that align with customer lifecycle stages and go-to-market strategies.
“[Vendors should] focus on fostering value-driven partnerships that prioritise skills development, expertise and customer success. By doing so, they can effectively reward partners that invest in delivering true value,” says Hodges.
Anton Shelepchuk, vice-president of worldwide sales at Nakivo, highlights the many and very familiar ways in which vendors have sought to fine-tune their programmes to reward value-added activities, including tiered programmes, sales incentive schemes, marketing development funds (MDF) and channel loyalty programmes.
To be successful, he says, programmes need to recognise partners that “go the extra mile” to gain expertise and technical knowledge, but also – and this is the part some vendors might not want to hear – “value-add isn’t just about closing a deal; it’s also about ongoing support to raise customer retention”.
Transparency is important, too. “Partners need clear programme requirements, incentives and benefits so they know exactly what they need to do and what they’ll get in return,” he adds. “If the rules are vague, you’ll end up with frustrated partners that feel like they’re doing the work but not seeing the rewards.”
On the subject of pitfalls, Shelepchuk believes the most common mistake vendors make is developing programmes and reward systems that are too complex. Focusing on revenue-generating partners can be a problem, too, because they miss those who “bring other kinds of value, like technical expertise or customer retention”.
Brent Owens, EMEA channel programmes director at Vertiv, says programmes that “simultaneously enable and reward partners for their technical expertise” are a good example of rewarding value-add. “This works particularly well in an ecosystem scenario where partners with different skillsets and value-add can be introduced to each other via partner programmes, with all parties benefiting,” he adds.
To avoid problems later, he says vendors should review the potential go-to-market scenarios in advance, adding: “This will help to bring together the right mix of partners and capabilities within a programme, so they are supported and empowered to succeed.”
Osca St Marthe, EMEA executive vice-president of pre-sales and sales at SonicWall, notes that successful partner programmes are built on a philosophy of meeting partners where they are on their journey. “This approach recognises that different partners have varying needs based on their stage of development and business focus,” he says.
Startups and new partners, for example, have different requirements than established partners. Nevertheless, programmes face a number of challenges. Loyalty programmes can be complacent, overlooking the market for smaller players. If they haven’t been updated, they can fail to deliver on their promises and attract new partners. They might not take account of the evolving landscape of partners transitioning from value-added reseller (VAR) to managed service provider (MSP) or managed security service provider (MSSP). And like many others, he warns that one-size-fits-all models fail to account for partner diversity.
Seek partner input
To address these challenges, some vendors have adopted an “outside-in” approach, regularly engaging with partners to understand their needs and creating tailored programmes that support their growth potential.
According to Tom Herrmann, global vice-president of channels and alliances at Black Duck, the most critical component of a vendor’s programme “is to create additional opportunities for channel partners to make more money and, more importantly, better serve the end user in the process”. This means enabling channel partners to take on valuable high-margin services that vendors historically have kept to themselves.
Partners need clear programme requirements, incentives and benefits so they know exactly what they need to do and what they’ll get in return
Anton Shelepchuk, Nakivo
“Training partners to deliver those services and allowing them to retain 100% of the margin on those services is key,” he says. “Margin on the resale of solutions is great, but adding services on top of that is where channel partners can differentiate.”
He observes that most programmes “are still too inflexible and rely too much on just key metrics like revenue contribution and number of trained personnel in rigid tiers like gold, silver, bronze, or any other stack ranking of their partner ecosystem”, adding that this isn’t effective because channel partners “vary too much in size and skillsets and are limited by the geography/country in which they operate”.
For example, programmes might reward partners with high numbers of certified pre-sales engineers, but smaller partners will never be able to achieve that goal. “That creates a scenario where a channel partner may be the best company the vendor could possibly have in that market, and proportionally, that channel partner is doing more than a larger partner with 10 out of 30 sales engineers certified on the vendor’s solutions,” he says. “However, the vendor’s partner programme doesn’t reward the smaller channel partner for their effort because it only deals with absolute numbers in fixed tiers.”
Martin Rutterford, channel director for UK and Ireland at Check Point Software, believes programmes should be created to drive value, reward all partners, and encourage specialisations and competency.
He says vendors should always focus on programmes being able to provide enablement, training and ensure channel profitability, adding that if partners “can provide their value-added services, whether that be consulting, services, and/or support, it becomes a profitable route to market where they can differentiate themselves”.
Incentivising services and offering ongoing renewal protection for subsequent years are also key. “Incumbency should be respected and protected to recognise channel value and effort, and investment with clients that vendors may be parties to,” he argues.
In terms of pitfalls, he highlights offering services directly to clients when partners already do it. Another pitfall is “neglecting the rules that are in place, switching incumbency or, as we are seeing more and more, deals being taken directly by the vendor”. This is a short-sighted, quick-win mentality that will cost the vendor over time because partners “do not forget, and they do respect and appreciate loyalty”.
Incentivise improvement
Infinity Group CEO Rob Young, argues that programmes need to “prioritise clarity and measurable results” with “clearly defined, achievable goals to guide our efforts”.
He adds that a tiered rewards structure is essential for incentivising continuous improvement. “Comprehensive training and support are non-negotiable; we need access to the latest tools and knowledge to be able to share insight with our clients.”
Like Nakivo’s Shelepchuk, Young cites complexity as a major pitfall, stressing that simplicity and transparency are paramount. “We need to understand how rewards are earned and distributed without navigating a labyrinth of rules. A short-term focus is detrimental; programmes should encourage long-term growth and sustained engagement,” he says.
Young says it is critical that vendors listen to partner feedback: “Ignoring our insights is a recipe for failure. We operate on the front lines, and our perspective is invaluable. By addressing these pitfalls, vendors can create robust programmes that truly motivate and reward their partners, fostering a strong and mutually beneficial ecosystem. We value partnerships that are built to last.”
For Ben Allcock, B2B sales director at TP-Link UK, the priority is for vendors to create partner programmes “that offer tangible benefits rather than the same standard incentives seen across the market. Many existing programmes lack differentiation, making it difficult to justify deeper investment”. They should provide exclusive resources that aren’t widely accessible elsewhere.
He advises against creating a partner programme “that feels like just another checkbox exercise”. With so many programmes available, partners are selective about where they invest their time and resources. “If the benefits – such as price support or deal registration – are complicated, long-winded, or difficult to access, partners will quickly disengage,” he adds.
Focus on growth
Vendors should ensure that every aspect of the programme is “practical, easy to navigate, and directly contributes to a partner’s ability to grow their business, enhance their expertise, or improve customer outcomes”, according to Allcock. “A strong programme respects partners’time while offering easily accessible, measurable benefits,” he adds.
Kaseya’s senior vice-president of MSP enablement for EMEA and North America, Greg Jones, says the benefits offered by vendors should be designed to help partners grow their business, expand their expertise and maximise profitability, with it being key for vendors to empower partners so they can stand out and succeed.
A strong programme respects partners’ time while offering easily accessible, measurable benefits
Ben Allcock, TP-Link UK
Vendors need to be careful not to load their partner programmes with rewards focused solely on sales. “I always avoid giving discounts and cashback,” Jones reveals. “A good partner programme should be about true enablement; it is all about helping partners grow and succeed, not just getting them to pedal faster.”
James Neilson, senior vice-president of international at Opswat, highlights the propensity in programmes to reward a partner’s commercial performance, which aligns the business success of the partner and vendor. “However,” he says, “programmes that help partners develop new skills and capabilities to facilitate value creation and support growth are the leading indicators of partner success.”
Value over volume
But Neilson warns that while many vendors’ sales teams focus on revenue, most channel partners are more concerned with profitability. “Vendors would do well to recognise and reward channel partners with margins commensurate with the value they bring to customers and vendors in deals.”
Sat Gainda, data and cloud, head of engineering (AWS) for Version 1, says successful channel programmes are built on rewarding partners that provide value-add beyond simple reselling. Programmes that focus on learning, collaboration and strategic alignment empower partners to deliver greater customer impact.
Vendors need to prioritise strategic partnerships, he says, rather than short-term transactional relationships. Like many others, Gainda cautions that treating partners as mere suppliers rather than strategic collaborators can limit engagement and innovation.
I’ve seen reward systems so confusing that partners don’t even bother. If it feels like a maze, they’ll walk away. On the other hand, some programmes are too rigid. They don’t leave room for feedback or adjustment. That’s another mistake
Nicolas De Resbecq, Oppizi
“Additionally, reward programmes that focus solely on revenue generation – rather than recognising contributions such as customer service, training, and product expertise – may fail to incentivise true value-add,” he says.
Rob Mackle, director and co-founder of Assured Data Protection, stresses the need for “clear metrics that reward more than just volume” such as product adoption, successful implementations, and support for innovation. Any tiered system should allow partners to climb through the levels based on their value-added contributions. “This incentivises partners to continually improve and innovate their offerings while making sure their investment in the vendor’s products and services is recognised,” he argues.
Mackle adds that programmes should provide financial incentives that reward partners not only for sales, but also for providing additional services such as consulting, customisation or customer success management. “Partners that go above and beyond in delivering these value-added services should receive a share of the associated revenue,” he says.
Iwona Zalewska, regional director for UK and Ireland, DRAM business manager for the EMEA region at Kingston Technology, says that when executed effectively, partner programmes “create a win-win relationship, ensuring partners receive the resources, pricing and protection they need to deliver value to customers. She points out, however, that “not all companies offer the same benefits – some come with frustrating roadblocks”.
Common pitfalls include inefficient deal registration, weak pricing incentives, inconsistent MDF and incentives, lack of training and resources, poor communication and relationship management, favouring large partners over smaller resellers and cumbersome warranty and RMA procedures.
“By maintaining a balance of attractive incentives, clear communication and robust support, vendors can create a thriving channel ecosystem that benefits all stakeholders,” Zalewska adds.
Deborah Watson, client and solutions strategy director, sales and channel at BI Wordwide, stresses that it’s not just about the value-add, but the value generated beyond those things attached to the transaction such as channel readiness, enablement and even advocacy. “By segmenting your channel partner landscape, you are able to define what behaviours you want to recognise and reward as there are many different types of partners delivering value in an ecosystem today,” she says.
A key requirement, she adds, is to start with desirable outcomes which are measurable and frictionless for a partner “as a programme thrives and delivers results when it is intuitively designed with the partners operational needs in mind”. Vendors should “spend the time on the design process to find out these things from your partners and then pilot and test in a continuous feedback loop”.
According to Watson, moving too quickly for the maturity of a channel “can be very detrimental to vendor/partner relationships and to the success of channel partners” and programmes must be carefully evaluated and planned with the partner landscape in mind.
Distology chief operating officer Sarah Geary says the starting point for a strong channel partner programme is clear parameters on what constitutes value-add, then additional protected margin on these parameters makes a huge difference.
She adds that policing the programme is very important to ensure the investment a partner makes is valued and championed by the vendor. “Any partners that do not keep up programme requirements should be re-tiered appropriately to maintain credibility and trust with those that do,” says Geary.
In terms of pitfalls, she cites frequent programme changes, unclear margins, and a lack of deal registration protection that can create confusion and frustration. “To build a truly effective and engaging programme, vendors must ensure there is a balance between consistency and fairness that results in both incremental growth for the vendor and increased profit for the partner,” she concludes.
CRO specialist at Oppizi, Nicolas De Resbecq, argues that reward systems often miss the mark because they focus on the measurables like sales, instead of the harder-to-see investments that make a difference like training or great customer service. “That’s where these programmes tend to fall apart,” he says.
Like others, De Resbecq spotlights the dangers of making programmes too complex. “I’ve seen reward systems so confusing that partners don’t even bother,” he says. “If it feels like a maze, they’ll walk away. On the other hand, some programmes are too rigid. They don’t leave room for feedback or adjustment. That’s another mistake. Vendors need to listen to their partners. If a system isn’t working, fix it. Don’t wait years to make changes.”
De Resbecq argues that the big challenge for vendors is figuring out how to measure what matters. “How do you reward someone for spending months training their team or helping customers succeed? Sales alone can’t tell you that. Metrics like retention rates or customer satisfaction can help, but they’re harder to track. Still, if vendors want to reward value-add, they need to figure this out. Otherwise, they’re just rewarding whoever sells the most, and that’s not always the partner who’s delivering the most value.”
