This image from the FindAccountingSoftware’s daily lead report is a pretty accurate representation of 95% of web leads who contact consultants “looking for a quote”.

These are not requests for quotes – they’re requests for free consulting and invitations to undercut an existing provider without the ability to know the background of the customer.

• Already have a quote from a provider
• Looking for a second/third/fourth bid
• No budget for any type of discovery – expect VARS to quote blind despite complexity
• Have a third party – IT manager, outside consultant – playing gatekeeper
• Stringent requirements, unrealistic budget, unrealistic timeframe
• Not interested in an ongoing consulting relationship

A story out yesterday describes an Epicor customer who is suing over a $70,000 software purchase.

Although I do not know the circumstances of this particular case – my bet is that most of these types of ERP problems start off with a free demo and free analysis.

Who is ultimately to blame if a customer purchases ERP software and subsequently (as the story infers) refuses professional implementation services.

As professional service providers do we not have a duty to first diagnose before prescribing. To coin Ed Kless’s phrase – “prescription before diagnosis is malpractice”.

In the “I can get this cheaper on the net” world this type of customer is very common and typical.

Here are their common characteristics:

- has already self diagnosed
- wants your best price based on a list they provide youi
- typically the evaluation is led by IT (biggest red flag in my experience)
- 100% your fault when ERP doesn’t run identically to MS Office

I blame whoever sells the software into these situations without requiring an advance paid analysis. Paid analysis, in my experience, is an ideal way to separate the tire kicking problem customer who may not ever be successful with an implementation. My experience says that problem customers never see a need to pay for advice.

Red flag #1, 2, 3. Three strikes you’re out.

In my opinion, those who sell into red flag problem accounts  deserve whatever they get.

Here’s Ed Kless’s observation on the need for diagnosis before prescription.

Just try going to most doctors today and self-diagnosing any ailment and asking for a prescription without being seen.

Years ago this might have worked in some instances.

Today it almost never works – except in ERP implementations.

I am not saying customers are never dysfunctional (and at least partly to blame) – just the sales process of free demo/free analysis/free price quote is.

Full Disclosure: Ed Kless works for Sage. I represent Sage products (primarily consulting). Epicor is a competitor to Sage in the ERP space. Certainly we are not independent with respect to our opinions in this space though the comments above are meant to reflect my overall observation of the state of the ERP market and not any one particular ERP vendor.

 
Group Manufacturing Services wants its money back, but Epicor says the customer erred by attempting the project on its own

Thankfully there will be a new certification which partners may enroll in to avoid Sage’s upcoming fees for ROR (Reseller of Record) management.

UPDATE: 4-2-2012 – this is an April Fool’s 2012 post.

This new ROR charge (effective 4-1-2012) is to reimburse Sage’s cost of  entering ROR forms into the Atlas portal. The charge  is  the  greater of a $500 administrative fee  (Due when the ROR is filed) or 100% of first year commissions. The new cost is explained as covering only a very tiny portion of Sage’s internal expense  for “figuring out how to enter a   ROR form into the new Atlas partner portal”.

The only way a partner can avoid this fee is to enroll in Sage’s brand new Atlas Certified Partner Optimized Originator  (aka POO certification).

POO certification  is a 7 week off-site, $ 2,000,  intensive education which includes one week at the new Sage POO Academy in Irvine, CA.  After certifying participants will be able to log into Sage’s Atlas portal and manage their own ROR requests to avoid any Sage fees.

Sage notes they will allow partners to use Co-Op funds for up to the full amount of the certification fee. Partners should however expect a minimum six to twelve month reimbursement delay while “Sage searches for the Atlas option to authorize co-op reimbursement”.

Sage have clarified that the new fee-for-ROR policy applies ONLY to non POO certified Partners.

For partners who have not achieved POO certification  , the fee applies ONLY in situations where a customer has elected not to join a new Sage subscription pricing plan at the time they change Sage partners.  When a customer changing partners refuses to also migrate to a subscription plan the fee will apply to BOTH the partner the customer is moving FROM and to the partner that the customer is moving TO.

A Reseller of Record form (ROR) is used to notify Sage when a customer using one of their products has made a decision to change the consultant they use in connection with support and other consulting services. This alignment also affects the payment of future commissions and ability to order new products for the customer.

Sage indicated to us that the processing fee is meant to align “value received”  and the new Atlas internal processing system “would not allow an ROR  change without also requiring a new partner certification or somehow reducing partner margin”.

By training Sage partners to become POO specialists Sage allows them to avoid these new ROR fees entirely by “entering their own ROR into the portal”.

When reached for comment one Sage executive speaking anonymously said:

We are as shocked and upset as anyone to discover that Atlas allows us to make positive changes to customer policies without any added fee,  but changes to partner policies require a fee or margin reduction. Obviously this is something we missed when evaluating portal options and we hope to fix this sometime after our financial year closes in 2018 or ‘whenever we find the damn option’

For partners not POO certified , Sage will announce Easy Pay financing enrollment as a requirement of continued partnership. Future ROR fees will be drafted automatically from non-certified partner’s accounts.  A credit application will shortly be mailed to partners to re-verify eligibility for Easy Pay. More details at the link below or watch for the announcement shortly from Sage.

Expect another Sage announcement on Monday about a slightly lower level of certification, SHART (Subscription Help And Reseller Transfer), which will not require academy attendance and is for partners who try really hard but can’t make  POO.

More Info

Sage today sought to calm channel nerves by announcing updates to their self-proclaimed transformation journey which include changes to their subscription pricing sales goal measurements.

Instead of measuring the new subscription pricing sales achievements by the quarter – Sage announced that they will measure them by the half year. Sales goals become more flexible too – changing from one per quarter to two per half year. Rock on.

March 1, 2012 is the time that has been announced for completion of initial certifications with renewals of Sage 100 ERP ongoing certifications due by April 30, 2012.

To make matters more confusing – these certifications have also been broken down into sub-components whereas before there was one certification to pass.

Now some partners must take six or more tests just to continue to earn a living.

No certification – no support.

There is this other  April 30, 2012 deadline which someone pointed out is still displayed in certain areas of the certification portal.

I stand by my prediction that the eduction department will largely be unreachable for a month or three as partners call in a panic to understand exactly what competencies are required.

Sadly there was no clear roadmap sent to partners – just an early warning that testing costs will rise absurdly if not purchased by an early deadline.

The next time a prospective customers asks if the software is easy to use –  mention that not only is it simple – but you took 6 separate certifications to learn how the basics worked.

They claim it should only take 15 minutes to complete. They appear to be looking for a lot of information on how they can better sell software and what type of customer buys their software.

They’d like to know,  among other things,  what are the typical characteristics of my customer.

What’s strange however is the wording. Recently  this publisher started calling my customer –  THEIR customer – except in situations (such as this) when they’re asking for free help or dodging a sketchy technical problem – then it’s my customer.

And while I’m at it could I tell them what other financial solutions I’m working with as an independent VAR, whether I’m still working with these solutions —  and exactly how do I think my customers will purchase software in the future.

No Mas.

Click. Delete.

In the past they would have gotten a completed survey – plus a good 6 to 8 paragraphs of recommendations.

No Mas.

Forepoint, Inc in November 2010 sold their Sage ERP Accpac practice to East Coast super-VAR Net@Work.

 
BCS PROSOFT TO TAKE OVER THE DELTEK VISION PRACTICE OF FOREPOINT, INC.

It’s almost a certainty that these are some financial types either doing due diligence or writing a research paper that they’ll re-sell.

I’ve never found a way to properly charge for “brain picking”. They all want to pay for an hour or two of services — however in the back of my mind I know that the value goes far beyond the hour or two that they offer – yet they almost always disappear at any suggestion beyond them paying you for an hour of your time (which they usually value at the lowest rate that they’ve offered the guy mowing their lawn someone doing this type of work on the side — aka about $25/hr is deemed “fair”)…

Here’s what the request looks like.

Hi Wayne,

I’m in the process of doing some general research on the fixed
accounting software space and, in particular, Sage Software and their
position in this market. I came across your review of fixed
accounting software on The Progressive Accountant web site and thought
you might be able to help me.

I imagine this is not a normal request for your services but I’d like
to get 1-2 hours of consulting time to give me a primer on FAS
software packages, the competitive landscape in this market, trends
and opportunities, and opinions on Sage as a company and a player in
this space. I’m hoping to conduct this overview by phone, ideally
sometime within the next two weeks, with any supporting or reference
materials sent by email.

If this is something you would consider please let me know a time when
we can have a brief call to discuss pricing and other specifics. Feel
free to reply by email or call my cell at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you.

On the surface it looks like an easy way to make a few bucks. Assuming these folks want to pay (which in my experience of dealing with about a half dozen of them – they don’t).

In prior years I’ve replied with a fixed price for consulting research assistance. That either results in (insert sound of crickets chirping) or a reply  for me know to teach them how I came up to the price I proposed to charge since it’s substantially higher than what their lawn guy charges other contacts charge.

Who knows what they’re really looking for. Writing research papers for customers who’ve paid them big bucks, due diligence for acquisitions, reviewing systems for a relative as a favor?

I’m never entirely sold I’ve gotten the full story. In most cases I assume these are disguised pleas to “pick someone’s brain” for free ( and I’m assuming that most people on the other end of the phone line don’t know enough to charge in advance for a “quick call”).

I just know my rate is worth more than their lawn guy and I’m retired from the business of educating analysts on value.

Yesterday’s news of Jodi Uecker-Rust’s departure as the leader of Sage Business Solutions in North America didn’t really come as a total shock.

Surprise? Yes. Shock? No.

Prior to joining Sage in February 2009 Jodi had spent her career first at Great Plains and then led a division at Microsoft (after they acquired Great Plains for $1.1 Billion in 2001) playing a key role in the Navision acquisition.

By my personal observation during her tenure at Sage North America she was all but invisible to most VARS while Paul Johnson, Executive VP, served as the public face of Sage and emceed many events including the Sage Presidents Circle in Phoenix.

When the announcement arrived yesterday that Jodi was leaving for what were described as personal reasons there were several things that stood out to me.

First, the surprise announcement came from two people who either reported to Jodi or were below her on the organizational chart.

The announcement of Jodi Uecker-Rust’s hiring came from Sage North America CEO Sue Swenson. It seems that the departure announcement should have too.  Instead the notice that Jodi was leaving came from two people below her in the organization chart.

When asked-  Sage public relations explained that the two people who made the announcement, Paul Johnson and Tom Miller, were considered to ” have been the principal senior-level communication links”.

Partners in the Sage channel who hadn’t previously followed and known about Great Plains and their outstanding management team likely had no idea who Jodi was. Jodi was never the primary channel communicator at Sage. That’s one possible reason behind her departure.

There were VARS who knew of Jodi from Great Plains. And those who knew her had nothing bad to say. The problem seems to have been that somewhere Jodi’s talents where squandered in an office either in California or Fargo (where I’ve been told she was commuting from).

Back in December 29 2009 I made 10 predictions for Sage. Number 4 on my list was that Jodi would take a greatly expanded and more public role in the channel. That expanded role never occurred – at least  visibly to the channel. And if there were signifiant changes Jodi spearheaded they weren’t noted in any of the departure announcements.

I’m also told that the lengthy Fargo to California commute might have been a key reason for this departure. Perhaps that’s true however at President’s Circle Jodi described how she moved her entire family overseas to quarterback the Navision acquisition –  which doesn’t make me think she’s a person who avoids  travel.

Second, the announcements contained no list of accomplishments during Jodi’s nearly 1.5 year tenure. There was only vague re-assurance that Sage is committed to the partner channel. As most of these types of departure letters go – this one was no different and reads like a generic press release.

The letter that Jodi penned to announce her departure makes vague reference to Sage’s channel commitment and fails to mention the people remaining who will be leading the channel or any reasons to have faith that they’d continue.

Taken together this sudden departure is a big change for a few people:

- Jodi recruited many former Microsoft executives. Tom Miller – the VP of Channel Management was reportedly lured to Sage primarily at the request of Jodi. Since then Sage has hired several former Microsoft executives (Robert Deshaies, Jon Witty).  I’m sure the behind the scenes communication network at Sage is buzzing like crazy.

- Sage Business Partners – The next leader of Sage Business Solutions will provide big hints on where the division is going. If it’s a sales oriented leader (as I believe it will be) expect to see more of full course direct sales effort. If the leader is someone with a strong channel management background then expect a continued commitment to the channel.

- Taylor Macdonald. For those who don’t know Taylor was the head of channels for Sage and one of the energizing forces behind growing Sage’s channel management efforts. When Taylor left in a management shakeup there were many VARS who followed him to his next efforts at Deltek. Now Taylor’s at Intacct managing their reseller channel. If he had trouble getting phone calls returned from Sage VARS before Jodi’s departure –  he’s likely not having that problem now.

Overall I don’t think Jodi’s departure means that Sage will sell around or eliminate their channel. Rather what’s more likely to happen is the channel approach is restructured to focus on large firms (much as Microsoft has done in the last few years) and to more directly service the smaller software customers.

All we can do is wait for the appointment of a new leader for the division. Who do you think that might be? I have a few suggestions/guesses that I’ve set up on Quora where you can weigh in with your ideas as well.

Who will be the next President of Sage Business Solutions?

First thing this morning I skipped over to take a look. Sure enough it seemed to be a relatively new blog cataloging news items in the SaaS industry.

The Internet is ripe with sites that spring up overnight with posts populated by RSS feeds from other blogs (aka SPLOGS or Spam Blogs). In general these SPLOGS seems to exist to try to game the system and earn both ad revenue and perhaps measure search visibility for a particular domain.

At first I suspected that’s what this site was. However after looking for a minute it didn’t seem to be your typical SPLOG. There were links to industry analyst blogs.  The articles seemed relatively current and topical.

The it hit me as I read the bottom of the blog. There was an entire row of posts sponsored by only one SaaS/Cloud publisher. I took a quick look at the Network Solutions Domain Name Lookup. Sure enough the site is hosted on the server of what seems to be the only sponsor.

Based on a quick review it looks like Acumatica (a provider of SaaS ERP solutions) is hosting the blog – at least according to the data provided by a domain lookup done this morning at Network Solutions. A quick Traceroute which shows the Internet path that your browser follows to find the server seems to back this up.

So what’s my point in all this?

First, there’s nothing wrong at all with publishers using blogs to promote their services or their products. However there’s a great potential that a user will be misled into thinking that the blog is an objective source of information – when it really can’t be if it’s backed by a publisher.

If you’re blogging for your own company – take great care to go overboard and disclose any and all bias. This will help form a greater trust with your reader.

What I thought was especially creepy – and prompted me to write —  is this post from the ERPCloudnews site. Notice how they disclaimer indicates that the post is sponsored by Accumatica? That’s good. But why is there a disclaimer “may not reflect the views of ERP Cloud News.” if as I suspect ERPCloudNews is hosted and sponsored by the publisher?

Second, you should have an “About” section that identifies you and provides enough information so the reader can know if the site might have any bias (whether intended or unintended). As a matter of practice whenever I comment about anything related to Sage Software, MAS 90 or MAS 200 (of which I have consultant affiliations as noted on this page) I go out of my way to state that “I am not independent with respect to my comments”. Blogs should make any potential bias clear as well.

From the screenshot below you’ll see the ERPCloudNews affiliation isn’t totally clear. Kudos for disclosing that the authors behind the site are a media firm (fancy name for Public Relations aka Advertising). Not so cool that they fail to disclose the fact that this site appears to sit on an Acumatica server.

What’s the point to all this?

When you blog – fully disclose your bias. If you resell a product you’re not independent. If you derive revenues from a product you’re writing about then you’re not independent – use the “About” section of your blog to make this  lack of independence clear. Better that you point it out than to have your reader figure it out and then disregard everything they find on your website as un-trustworthy.

Be careful when reading blogs online. They’re not all as independent as they may seem. Use the information you find combined with your own research to form conclusions. Just as online reviews of books, software and restaurants can be easily gamed by organized groups of individuals  - so can blogs.

I’m using one site – erpcloudnews.com – as an example. I’m sure there are many more where affiliations aren’t clearly stated on the blog. There’s nothing technically wrong here – unless your reader starts to sense that there could be the potential for bias in the bog. And if that happens all your goodwill and hard work creating your blog could gradually erode.