Pick Your Partner With Care

I threw some shade on Salesforce last post for overselling and suggested that you should go to a partner first to protect yourself. Immediately a couple of people reached out to note that some partners aren't exactly paragons of virtue either, when it comes to selling both Salesforce and their own services. I got some eye-opening examples of not just subtle influence of the financial incentives but, frankly, unethical ways that partners have acted against their client's interests.

So let me be clear here: Everything about Salesforce is a caveat emptor situation. (That's Latin for "Buyer, beware.") [Actually, everything about everything is a caveat emptor situation.] No organization should be making the decision to adopt Salesforce—or any other system—without a great deal of skepticism and as much trusted advice as possible from advisors that don't have conflicts of interest. And there are plenty of partners that have conflicts of interest.

Question Me

Depending on how you define it, I might have a conflict of interest. So don't just take my advice and my writings at face value, question me, verify what I say, get second and third and more opinions.

I have noted previously that I am registered as a Salesforce partner. The partner program is very-much-not designed for independent consultants, nor even for small partnerships. I don't get deals from Salesforce, nor do I register my deals/clients with them. But I am enrolled in the program and get some minor benefits from it.

Plus, of course, I'm a member of the Salesforce community and a Salesforce MVP. That means that I regularly receive swag, sometimes meals, occasional gift cards, and other benefits. I'm human, so surely these things influence me to some extent. You have to decide how much.

But my intent—or maybe I should say my pledge—is always to put my clients and their interests first. I take this very seriously; I consider myself to have a fiduciary responsibility to my clients. I would hope all consultants feel this way.

So there's my disclosure. Ask for similar disclosure from any partner you might work with.

The Bigger They Are

I cant get data on this, but I'm going to assert that the larger the consultancy, the more they rely on Salesforce for their book of business. It's just the way of the world that the larger deals are going to show up on Salesforce's radar first (The company is an absolute sales machine!) and then those deals will go to the companies that are large enough to execute on them. It then becomes a self-reinforcing cycle as those companies rely more and more on Salesforce to find them large deals. And that doesn't even bring in the idea of "co-selling," which Salesforce encourages its higher tier partners to engage in. In a co-selling situation there really isn't a difference in financial incentives between Salesforce and the partner. I don't know what the actual financial entanglement is for a co-selling deal, but there's no doubt that a partner that co-sells is a partner that inherits the misplaced financial incentives that apply to Salesforce (see last post.)

I'm not going to name actual consultancies that act poorly (though people have given me insider insights about some specific companies). It's just my working assumption, at this point, that the larger the consulting company the more the troubling financial incentives can drive behavior. Could it happen at a small firm or even from an independent? It certainly could. I'm also not asserting that all consultancies do this nor, of course, that it's the case in all deals. I'm asserting that you should assume you need to take steps to protect yourself from being taken advantage of. If you're reading this as an employee of a nonprofit, whether already on Salesforce or considering adoption, your main protections are information (like this blog!), competitive bids, asking questions, and a healthy dose of "Trust, but verify." regarding any advisor/partner/consultant. If you're reading this as a consultant thinking about the needs of your clients, I will argue that putting the client's needs ahead of your company or your personal interests is your job.

Co-Selling: Ick! Bad for Customers

"Co-selling" basically means that partners become subcontractors to Salesforce's salespeople. And they act like it.

Here's an illustration: On the same day that I posted Don't Go To Salesforce First, I joined the monthly nonprofit partner office hours call. I don't find these calls particularly helpful, but once in a while I learn something that can help my clients. And it's a way for me to stay up-to-date with product roadmaps and developments in the nonprofit Salesforce space. That day I was five minutes late, so it took me a moment to catch up to the context. After about ten minutes it became pretty clear that the goal of that day's session was to communicate to partners what Salesforce's sales goals are for NPC in the next year because they are expecting partners to help achieve those goals. While I can understand why Salesforce wants partners to help them achieve these goals, I don't really think that's the partners' job. Their job is to advise their clients, to implement Salesforce, and to help their clients be successful on the platform.

But apparently I misunderstand. Salesforce and at least some partners view it as the partners' job to sell the platform. That, in my opinion, is a conflict of interest. Because if it's your job to sell the platform, that means that at least in edge cases, you're going to sell it even when another option would be a more appropriate choice.

Finally, let me leave you with some examples how co-selling means that partners hurt their clients. I heard that it's common practice, even company policy, at some Salesforce consultancies to:

• Suppress mention of the P10 Grant. — That's right, the consultancy actually told their people not to let clients know that they could apply for ten free licenses under the Power of Us program! I don't know if the co-selling partner is actually paid a commission based on license sales, or if they just get more in a particular account executive's good graces for ensuring a higher contract cost, or if there is some incentive if a client buys licenses when they could have had them for free. But not getting the P10 grant means the organization will pay a minimum of $4,950/year in license costs in perpetuity.

• Recommend Unlimited Edition. — Most organizations will never actually need the features that come with Unlimited Edition. Even those that will eventually might not have the need at the beginning of the project or for several years into their implementation. But by getting an organization onto UE from the get-go they have ensured a higher contract value and no P10 grant. (I will continue to point out that you do not need Unlimited Edition and that UE means no donated licenses.)

• Recommend Industry Solutions (including Nonprofit Cloud) even if it's not a good fit. — I've written plenty about my opinion of NPC and that it's not appropriate for small and medium nonprofits. I know that there are partners selling it to clients of those sizes, even if they know it will result in both short- and long-term pain (and cost).

• Include all license count up-front. — I've written about this problem before, including in my last post. System implementation can take a while. Larger projects for large organizations could take over a year. During that time you are not going to be using all the licenses you expect to use once the system is live. So paying for all the licenses you're going to eventually need is just wasted money before the system is ready.

Follow the Money

It's not hard to know who you can trust, just take a moment to understand their situation. If they're reliant on Salesforce for their livelihood or the survival of their company, then take that into account when they give you advice about system design and the costs that might entail.

Independent consultants are working only for you. (And we're too small for Salesforce to care about as "partners" anyway.) Smaller and mid-sized consultancies are also only working on their clients' behalf. They rely on organization-to-organization referrals and their own hustle to keep everyone employed. The larger consultancies have great people working for them and do amazing work. (Plus, of course, only the larger firms have the capacity to take on large clients and their complex needs.) But the structure of their income streams mean the salespeople, in particular, might not have their incentives in the right place.