|
|
E&U Partners
by Tim Revels on Jan 11, 2008 - 10:39 AM read 76 times |
I want to start a potentially controversial dialogue, but one that I think is very important (don't worry, this conversation is only able to be viewed by members of this Interest Group). Over the last few months we have secured various partners in the Energy and Utlilities space. At the time these partnerships were started, we believed that there was a certain level of upside for BSG in the relationship (or else we would have never become partners, right?). In the last few months, several of you have in-depth experience with our partners, and we now have more knowledge about them.
Over time sometimes the original aspirations are brought down to earth or found to be unrealistic for a variety of reasons. So, what do we think about our partners now? Can they help us achieve our 2008 goals? If you have experience with one of the partners listed below, please give your input starting with the following questions:
- Do you still feel that there is significant potential with this partner?
If yes,
- How can we engage this partner in 2008 to realize this potential?
- What exactly is the potential (e.g. work subbed out to BSG, introduce BSG to their clients, value in BSG being associated with partner)?
- What are the next steps to realize this potential?
If no,
- Why do you feel this way?
- Is there an experience with the partner has caused you to feel this way? Can you elaborate (no pun intended)?
- Is there anything BSG can do to improve the relationship?
- Can this partner help E&U realize its 2008 goals?
- Is this partnership worth maintaining? If not, why?
Which partners do you think have the most potential to help E&U meet its 2008 goals?
Partner list:
E-Meter, ROME, Confirm Hub, Salesforce.com, Active Grid, who else?
-
Salesforce.com Partnership
a reply to E&U Partners
by Tim Revels on Jan 11, 2008 - 11:41 AM read 29 timesI love answering my own questions. It keeps me busy at night.
Regarding the Salesforce.com partnership, I would say that it has not met my original expectations for several reasons:
- The "partnership" seems to be viewed by Salesforce.com as a revenue generating opportunity: they require partners to achieve certain levels of certification that cost several thousand dollars/person, they are always pushing partners to sign up (and pay) for specialized training classes.
- Salesforce.com sales reps have been very erratic in their contact, providing very few leads even after BSG had provided contact lists and introductions into some clients.
- Salesforce.com sometimes views partners as competition, and will undercut partner efforts. This occurred when BSG was bidding on an SFDC project at Citi.
Is this partnership worth the effort to improve it? Yes, I think so. I think SFDC work could provide a few projects in our E&U portfolio that product revenue, and raise our profile. I also think SFDC work could be a good entry point into several E&U companies where we could then discover more opportunities.
In several cases, this partnership has been a case of which comes first - the chicken or the egg. SFDC says that BSG needs more certified consultants, I explain that BSG needs a SFDC project to justify the expense of certification. What can be done to improve things in 2008? The first thing to do is to get the certifications squared away to ensure that this is no longer an issue with SFDC sales reps. While we officially became partners with SFDC in August, we still have to have 1 more person get certified by 1/31 to preserve our partnership in 2008. Wendy Irizarry will get certified by 1/31, then BSG begins a marketing campaign to all SFDC reps in the TOLA and NYC regions. Also, BSG develops a demo for an Energy Industry around origination and contract management. Right now SFDC has no presence in the Energy industry, so if BSG can offer an Energy solutions that uses SFDC as a platform, SFDC reps will become very interested in us. This demo should probably take about 40 hours to develop.



