Loading ...
As my position offers a unique opportunity to work with companies at the early stages of an SPM selection process, I always amazed at the perceptions companies have as it relates to what the various systems will cost them from a ‘licensing’ standpoint all the way through and including implementation. Although vendors vary in the way they approach how they want to charge for their solutions (perpetual vs. Lease vs. on-demand…), it is always intriguing to our team when people include or exclude vendors based on what they feel the costs they might expect from a specific solution provider.
As an example, one of our clients had initially dropped 2 of the larger SPM solution providers from their selection effort (prior to our engaging) solely based on what their competition had said about them. Following a more formal evaluation where these two providers were brought back in against their (lower costing) peers, these two late entries happened to come in as the 2nd and 3rd cheapest solutions in the evaluation.
In the last year we have seen the SPM space recalibrate on a number of different levels from functional offerings all the way through how the providers sell and price their software. We have seen some providers flip back and forth on their pricing model a number of times in a 12 month period to the point a customer simply has to wait a few months and the deal they are looking for may come their way.
To keep anyone from making a mistake that could cost them the solution that would actually be the right fit at the right price… I would urge anyone looking at systems to have a direct discussion with the SPM provider about their pricing before you chose to drop them or keep them as part of your selection process (based on that set of criteria).
Rob Blohm is a partner at OpenSymmetry, a consulting firm specializing in sales performance management, and can be reached at rob.blohm@opensymmetry.com.
Loading ...
EasyCommission is a new on-demand application for small companies. The press release claims that it is very flexible and easy to use.
But as we discussed before, flexibility often comes at the expense of complexity. In this first release of the application, many features were kept out, presumable to make the application easier to use. For example, it does not support quota based commissions, draws/caps, and splits between more than 2 payees. It also does not provide any e-mail capability.
Maybe we’ll have a review coming up… But for now, if you are curious to see what the application looks like, there are plenty of screen captures here.
What I find very interesting about EasyCommission is the pricing model; I haven’t seen this in any other SaaS solution.
There is a free edition that sets a limit of 1 administrator and 4 reps. This free version limits “advanced functionality” and there is no support. The economy edition has a limit of 19 reps. Again, functionality is limited and support is on a “per incident basis”. Finally, the regular version unlocks all the features, and full support is included. What I find very interesting, is that with the free and economy editions, users will be shown advertising within the application.
CellarStone also offers a more robust solution called QCommission which can support up to 10,000 payees according to their website.
Loading ...
When selecting a new SPM system - or any COTS system - people want a solution that will meet all their current needs… but they also want a solution that will meet any of their future needs. What are those future requirements? They are unknown at the time of purchase. It should not be a surprise that flexibility of a solution is often one of the top criteria for its selection.
But with great power comes great responsibility… The more flexible a system is, the easier it will be to make design decisions during implementation that could potentially have a negative impact in the future.
Flexibility also often comes at a cost. Many “less flexible” solutions (often SaaS solutions) are often less flexibility than other enterprise solutions. However, they still meet all the requirements of most clients, and it is this lack of flexibility that can allow them to be deployed in a shorter time frame.
Companies should really consider how far in the future they really should be looking. Are the requirements between today and 3 years from now really going to evolve that much? Looking at a more than 10 year horizon for a piece of software is an eternity. Furthermore, with an on-demand solution, it’s easy to switch to another solution at anytime… and with an on-premise solution, upgrades every 2-3 years will be required to maintain support from the vendor.
Finally, if for some reason your requirements are really so complicated that they are not supported by a leading SPM solution, ask yourself if your compensation plans really make sense.
(6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Recent Comments