There is a post on LinkedIn talking about the best salesperson. The author sums it up with calling the best salesperson a Trusted Advisor. We have been doing that in the channel for a while.

The points that are accurate are:

It is pulling instead of pushing.

Asking instead of Talking.

Comments suggest that Sales Engineers are better than Salespeople. In Discovery and Closing, yes, they can be. But that isn’t the whole sales process. And most humans do not have all the sales skills necessary. The author talks about being a Jedi. There were very few Jedi.

There are even fewer organizations that can support the Jedi sales person.

Demos win when the Discovery is done correctly. When the Buyer has been interviewed and listened to — and the demo reflects that. When the Demo looks like a features display, it fails.

When the prospecting is automated, when the contact is too salesy, when the follow up is basically “Ready to buy yet?”, there are so many steps in the sales process – the whole SDR process; discovery; demo; proposing; objections; follow up; listening; budgeting; and so on. It would be difficult to find someone with all of those skills and who is motivated by a 6 months sales cycle and still likes to prospect.

The sales engineer doesn’t prospect. They skip the whole Rejection-Experiment process of finding a Prospect. The SE doesn’t usually do follow up.

So when you talk about a Jedi, are we talking about someone who just has to get in the Jet Fighter for one target while getting air support from the cannon fodder?  Put another way, to have a Jedi salesperson, you would have to have an organization with an SDR team and sales support (for proposals, paperwork, CRM, follow-up and other tasks).

And you saying that ALL sales require a SE/Jedi/Closer, which isn’t necessarily how all sales close.

You have to look at your org, your Buyers, your products, your sales cycle, your sales process and put the right people in place in order to facilitate your sales goals in your Target market.

There aren’t enough Jedi to go around. There aren’t enough organizations that can support the Jedi. And some Jedi turn to the Dark side and destroy the org that they are a part of.

As I was writing the obituary for my father, I realized I only knew him from one or two perspectives, but he was many things to many people. He was a son, a nephew, cousin, a grandson, a father, coach, teammate, friend, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, salesperson, employee, retiree, and probably so much more.  Everyone who knew him over his 83 years on this planet and 61 years of marriage experienced a different perspective.

The Channel is kind of like that. It is moored in its roots of Microsoft and Cisco servicing the small business, but there are so many different types of partners now that vendors will have different perspectives on the Channel.

Most people think of it as one Channel. It isn’t. Agent, VAR, Inter-Connect, ISV, systems integrator, MSP, MSSP, influencer, referral, affiliate – there are a number of business types that comprise the channel.

A majority of partners – probably 85% – are great at selling mass market. In other words, broadband, voice, Internet Access, POTS Replacement, cell phones. Replacement services that are well known quantities in the market. These services don’t really need an introduction. The demand was already there, which is important because the Channel does NOT create Demand; it merely supplies it.

If, as a vendor, your services need an introduction, an explanation, if your services aren’t in demand or are not for every business, well, then 85% of the channel isn’t going to work for you.

The vendors with a Brand – AT&T, Cisco, RingCentral, Microsoft – do well in the channel because there is Demand and product knowledge in the market. When you consider that Broadband was actually launched in the market by VC-backed companies (Covad, Northpoint and Rhythms), it is no wonder that all three went under. They had to build those networks AND create demand. hard to do both. Yet, today, 24 years after those 3 DSL pioneers blew through $1.7B, everyone knows what DSL was – and buys broadband either as 5G, 4G, DSL, cable modem or fiber.

SD-WAN, CCaaS, CX, UCaaS, CPaaS and so much more are unfamiliar terms to the Buyer. The only reason AI is known is due to science fiction movies and a $40B investment round.

Many vendors come to me about getting in the channel  (and recently a few are thinking that I have talked myself out of a job). That isn’t what I was trying to do when I was trying to lay down realistic expectations for products that are made for Enterprise or are not a small business play.

If you are mass market, the channel is a great play. If you are not, then you need to be realistic about your strategy, your Target Audience, your Message, the time frame and the expense before you see the results. Not everyone wants to wait three years to see the faucet come on. Just ask Verizon, InterNAP, NEC and Office Depot. Two were out of the TSD based channel in 2 years frustrated and the other two were in and out of the channel a bunch because they didn’t like the results.

For Verizon, a $100B+ revenue company, or NEC, a $50B+ global company, if a product doesn’t hit $100M in revenue fast, it gets shuttered. Most companies are not multi-billion dollar companies. Most would be very happy with $10M in channel revenue, but the small vendor without a $1M annual budget for channel isn’t going to make $10M in channel sales.

Usually the small vendor has multiple stories to tell (multiple and diverse products) and an undefined target market. Usually the vendor has a non-simple explanation of what the product does. Usually the product is not a replacement of anything (like AI). Usually the product is not a band-aid or a torniquet for any kind of easily identified pain. (It is more like a mystery illness, like NaaS).

The issue with AI, CPaaS, and CX is that you need specialists to consultatively sell it. Luckily for CCaaS that there have been contact center experts for many years willing to take CCaaS and CX in to their portfolio. (Also, luckily Avaya, Mitel and a host of other vendors in that space have stepped on their own shoelaces and face-planted).

Much of the new technology entering the marketplace will require use cases, stories, explanations, proof of concept, trials, and a sales cycle longer than 6 months. That eliminates 85% of partners who do not want to sell in that way. Many pundits think these partners are dying (and have been singing their funeral for 10 years) but there is still demand in the market and vendors want to supply that demand.

That leaves 15% of the channel partners who can consultative sell and/or do sell to large business. However, the vendor still has to fins these partners, get their attention, tell their story, negotiate a partner agreement and get in their portfolio. THEN the partner has to tell their Customers about this vendor and then the sales cycle begins, which is longer than 6 months. SO it can be a year before a single sale hits the legal department.

When I explain this to vendors, they balk.

I have literally had 5 vendors tell me they needed sales in 90 days! Can you imagine? They would be lucky to ink one partner agreement in 90 days.

One of the things I do for my clients is set realistic expectations. The other thing I do is help them with their story. That becomes a problem when they have marketing that doesn’t want any outside input, but marketing to channel is different than marketing to the market.

When you think of your message, think of it as one photo in a Gen Z’s iPhone 16. They take 50 photos or more a week and at any given time have over 2000 photos on their device. Now imagine a partner getting hit with messages from the 400 vendors who have entered the channel since 2020. Your message is just one photo on the whole device. It better be clear, memorable, and Remarkable.

Are you bothered by the number of ads with the GEICO gecko and the Liberty Mutual emu? Insurance companies do massive amounts of ads to hammer home a brand that is basically the same brand: we are cheaper, better, easier. They need to repeat it often because no one believes them. That repetition is creating branding. Most tech companies do NOT do this.

Personal Injury lawyers have to advertise a lot to remain top of mind for when a accident victim has an accident. Then they have to answer the phone when the victim calls and assess the situation. Only about 1 in 6 calls result in a case.

Vendors without much marketing presence tend to do poorly in the channel, unless their product has great market fit.

There are a number of factors that will have an effect on the success of a partner program: product/market fit; pricing; compensation; partner support; messaging; marketing; target market; Buyer Persona. Truthfully, many vendors don’t have enough marketing support to have identified Buyer Personas,, Value Proposition and other foundational marketing elements that support a strong partner program.

Often for the vendor, the view of The Channel is as a cheaper sales effort, but it isn’t really. Recruiting partners, on-boarding them, supporting them, managing them, co-selling with them, paying them all require vendor talent and budget. [You can read all this and more in my new book, Channel Myths on Amazon for Kindle and in paperback from Lulu.]

I can certainly help you figure this stuff out, map out a strategy, craft a message, design a Partner Profile and launch a partner program (or re-vamp a stale one). Just give me a call  (813) 963-5884

“Most of the people who work at Yale don’t teach classes, and airlines have a very small percentage of pilots among their staff. We create organizations to deliver value, and we add complexity to coordinate and amplify the skilled work that people trade time or money for.” Seth Godin

No, I don’t be AI.

Does anyone remember PGi and their GlobalMeet product? Siris acquired PGI in 2015 for $1B! PGi was in the video meeting, webinar, collab space. In 2020, during the height of the pandemic, they were nowhere to be found. Kind of like Webex. When was the last time you received a Webex invite? Except for my clients that own a BroadWorks, I never receive a Webex invite.

At CCA, all the talk was about AI.

At Enterprise Connect, much of the talk was about AI.

No one is talking about service delivery or customer pain.

During the pandemic, it was Zoom and Microsoft that took hold. Neither were on any quadrants prior to that.

As I look at the cloud communications arena, I am almost sure it will be an outside horse that takes the market by storm.

There are dark horses already: Content Guru, Sprinklr, Gladly, Kustomer and so many more.

There are platforms launching aimed just at very small business.

Everyone is looking at AI.

The business software platforms like Hubspot, Zoho, Freshworks, Zendesk and of course Salesforce and Adobe – are all making noise in Agentic AI. All have added Voice and chat. These platforms alongside Amazon are eating away at the market that was dominated by Avaya and Mitel.

Ultimately, the UCaaS providers have to realize that voice is why people are buying from them – along with a sense of “replacing the PBX” while remaining close to that experience.  They need to RE-IMAGINE what cloud comms mean.

Prior to the pandemic, UCaaS was a solution without a problem. It still is. Hybrid communications, Work from Anywhere or as Cavell has coined, “Intelligent Workplace”. It all is still in the UC&C bucket. The problem is what pain point is the Buyer searching for?

At CCA25, the analysts said that the use cases were generic and the AI was generic. This industry should have Gone Vertical years ago. But they all thought they would be the next AT&T or get acquired. How did that work out?

Even with AI, the lack of Differentiation is a large problem.

Sales are getting bogged down by AI.

During a discussions at Cloud Connections 25, how do we migrate people to cloud comms quickly?

After 20 years of pushing the concept of IP-PBX, Hosted PBX, UCaaS, Cloud Phone and other variations on this, there is no magic bullet to get customers to move.

For some, the on-premise PBX is not only the best bargain, but it is the most secure and one they have the most control over. It is also status quo. And the biggest problem is getting businesses to buy CHANGE! That is really what technology sales is about: selling Change.

Often we just sell a replacement product for less money: POTS Replacement, SIP Trunks, broadband, etc. This doesn’t require any change, but moving from a familiar desktop phone to an app is a big deal.

To sell UCaaS, you really have to be Efficient. Efficient at selling and implementing. For very small business (under 10 employees), self-service is key. Along with self-service must come Internet sales, SEO and online ads (Google Adwords, Bing, LinkedIn or similar). And the provider has to not only get efficient at the marketing piece (although that CAN be outsourced), but efficient at handling the leads.

BTW, these folks don’t search for keyword “UCaaS”!

As you move up the employee count, say 20-75, there may be an IT guy involved as a part-timer, freelancer or IT shop. From 75-150 employees, there is usually at least one IT employee. Different segments of the market have different Buyers and different Buyer Influencers.

When you consider that 26M businesses with payroll in the US are under 500 employees and 15M of those are under 10 employees, this is the largest segment of the SMB.

There are outside companies coming into the phone service business like Podium and FlipCX. These are software companies that can easily add voice to their AI assistant or AI Voice Receptionist.

In fact, so many companies are adding voice – Zoho (CRM), ServiceNow (ticketing), Freshworks (accounting) – and if they add AI chatbots and AI assistants, that will squeeze UCaaS providers even more.

Not everyone thinks AI and receptionist are phone system functions.

Selling PBX Replacement seems like a great opportunity due to the 80M-100M PBX seats still standing, but NEC, Mitel and Avaya are great showcases for how freaking hard that is to do!!!!

BTW, an article from 8×8 on why businesses moved off PBX HERE!

Analyst Joe Rittenhouse has a post on LinkedIn about Mitel’s current situation. He references a UC Today story about the debt service being $130M per quarter!

Comments on the LI post blame the wasted acquisitions and the CEO. The difference between Avaya and Mitel is the C-Suite. The same thinking that got you into a mess is NOT the same thinking that will get you out. Avaya got a new CEO. Alan designed a new strategy and like a great coach and General Manager starting putting players into position to execute the plan.

This is what is lacking from most service providers.

You cannot get to where the puck is going with the same team that is staring at the puck going in the net. The leadership has to embrace the new strategy, then sell the workforce on that plan. Then you have to get buy in on the plan from everyone. Not head nodding, but actual buy-in. The employees have to clear the cache on the old ideas (like PBX on-premise head) and embrace the new idea (like cloud).

The “new” idea at Mitel is to chase Avaya cast-offs. Mitel has been trying to do that for years. Now they have tired and angry partners.

Small business still likes the on-premise PBX, especially inexpensive units and a SIP Trunk. However, as the business size grows, so too does the demands of any technology. AI and CX are buzz words but they do make any business owner think if they are positioned for the future, especially before they make another purchase.

Many new service offerings for the VSB (very small business) that include a single pane of glass, omni-channel, web chat, AI and texting are available reasonably for VSB. HELIOS, Net2Phone and a few others already have live clients and use cases. That isn’t the market Mitel partners are in, yet that could displace some of their smaller clients with functions that Mitel can’t fulfill.

Zeus says what I hear often: “a massive on-premises user base still present in the mid-market”. That’s what Avaya and NEC said, too. Look, the on-premise hardware business is declining. It dovetails with the telecom copper market – or wireline as a whole. It make take a while till it isn’t a viable business model anymore. The industry knows that any long-in-the-tooth partners of NEC-Mitel-Avaya are not about to embrace cloud comms now. They will ride out the PBX business plan of the last 20-30 years until sunset. That doesn’t mean Buyers will though.

Bankruptcy always makes customers and partners nervous. Avaya getting 2 of them in short order makes many if one will work for Mitel.

Massive debt and a lack of cash are what killed all the early fiber companies, AT&T, Lumen (CenturyLink/Level3), and many VoIP companies. It may be what kills the TSB/TSD players.

One super agency has at least $30M in debt at 13% and one TSB has at least $15M in debt at 13%. The interest payments alone eat up much of the 20% they keep. Payroll eats up a lot more than that. Many of the TSBs are top heavy. They are constantly updating their portal software. These things eat cash.

The TSBs keep telling the Trusted Advisors to get more wallet share, sell other services, land-and expand, sell solutions from multiple vendors. They yell all this at TAs because network sales are 80%+ of the sales and on every renewal it declines a little bit.

There is a reason network is 80% – it is easy and reliable and quote to cash is fast. Everything else that is in the catalog: software, cybersec, AI, etc., is a longer sales cycle, has many moving parts, has unknown vendors, and the commissions aren’t so great that partners are going to chase them.

Any sales rep will look at a comp plan and discover how to get the most pay for the least friction. The least friction is the point!

The long-in-the-tooth partners will likely stick with what has worked for 15-25 years. Why change now in the dusk of the career?

The funny thing is that many people used to refer to this business as a lifestyle business – and yet vendors and TSBs want the partners to change their lifestyles now. Maybe the next wave of partners.

Since I got into tech in 1996 as a VAR, then in 1999 as a telecom agent and in 2002 as a consultant, bankruptcies have piled up in this business. Caruso’s book highlights about a dozen of them, but there were many others. There were also several vendors who left the channel or oscillated in the channel (VZ!).

Over the last 30 years, it has been a wild ride. For the most part, I wouldn’t suggest partners take advice from vendors or TSBs on how to run their business – unless they invest in you, then I suggest you get a good lawyer to review that contract. Talk to other partners. Talk to customers. What do they want? My journey has not been sketched out. I was just watching where the puck was going and trying to help my clients get there sooner than if they didn’t hire me.

We are at a strange place in time. Businesses need Advisors at a time when the TSBs are in flux, partners are retiring, the technology hype is huge and the next step seems uncertain. The economy and the political environ are not helping.

The analysts and the media tend to offer hope and a positive outlook on every turn. I don’t think they have ever uttered a cautionary note. Caruso, in his book, Bandwidth, mentions an analyst often. That analyst pumped up numerous companies that mostly ended up liquidated, but he and his employer stood to gain from the positive reviews. To keep the party going (the dinners, the free travel, the invites), you have to go along. That tends to mean that most CEOs in telecom don’t often get criticized or questioned. The quarterly mentality and eyeballing the stock price are not necessarily proven indicators of long term success.

I think that is how we get stuck with these vendors going BK. No real criticism. Every product, press release and event is met with applause. What a fake feedback loop.

Well, one thing is for certain: businesses need telecom services and Trusted Advisors will be available to fulfill that demand.