General Consultant Discussion

Here's what I have from our meeting that we mapped out for membership fees for OASIS Single User = $ 500 plus $250 each additional Three User = $ 800 plus $250 each additional Five User = $ 1,200 + $250 each additional I have several questions/concerns: a. Does this unfairly increase the cost on the smaller partner who pays $ 500 as the initiation fee whereas the 5 user partner is paying $1,200 (or $240 per user)? To me it seems like larger firms should be paying a larger percent for the initial 5 users. Or did I copy this fee structure wrong? I don't see how someone wouldn't ignore the single user and just go for three or five which when divided out produce a cost per user which is roughly half. Perhaps we should have a joiner fee similar to: Joiner $ 500 + # users. Single = $ 750 ($500 plus one user $250) Three = $ 1250 ($ 500 plus three at $250) Five = $ 1,750 ($500 plus five at $250) And I still believe somewhere along the line someone is going to ask (as I have asked) why a larger company that obtains more value is paying the same joiner fee as a one or three user? And even still if we key purely off the users they add we are going to potentially have larger firms just add one person to the group to get the lowest fee schedule -- which is why I suggested a fee schedule based on tier would be the fairest estimate of value.

A smaller firm that only wants a single account pays $500. They absolutely could jump up to the three user account but they would pay more in total (although less on average) for no real benefit. If they have more, they pay more. Either the model at the top or the model with the joiner fee works for me. As a single person, paying $500 (or $750 in the second case) is just fine for the value and if a bigger firm pays $1,200 (or $1,750 in the second case), I'm ok with that. I personally like the second numbers better but there is no reason to stage them. You really have one pricing plan: $500 plus $250 * number of users. Simple math - easy to track and explain.

I continue to have the feeling that it is wrong to bring in large multi office firms at essentially the same fee level as single users. The only reason we don't have more discussion about it is that it hasn't happened yet. Do we mean to open the doors to Net@Work and possibly more aggressive marketers at such a low rate? I still think rates by Sage tier make the fairest determination of value provided.

Let's get the budget done and then work on the fee schedule more.

I think tying it to the Sage tier might prove somewhat arbitrary and difficult to managem. As an example, you can have a small provider that is a high tier (through luck, perserverence, software sales focus vs service focus). You could also have a huge firm that dabbles in Sage software sales that might want to join the group. I don't think there is a perfect solution without making the pricing overly complex.

I still have a problem with the fee per person being almost double for the smaller single user companies. I'm getting inquirires so I'm sending out this fee schedule though it really makes no sense why we'd charge small vars more per user.

I tend to agree with Wayne. I might think twice about joining if I had to pay $500 for just one user. If we create a single one user for $350, two users $700 and then bring in the 3 user tier structure, this might ease the pain of small firms joining.

I'm starting and ending with this: just pick a model and go with it - you won't make everyone happy. That being said - I think you guys are thinking about it backwards. There is actually more value to 90 Minds and OASIS for the smaller guy than the bigger guy. If you look at what we mapped out at MOM, it's $500 for a one-man show - that one man (or woman) will get a crapton for that $500. The larger firms with 5 people signing up will pay $1,200 but it's unlikely that the bang for the buck will be as much as it will be for the small guy / typical reseller. I think the model we came up with at the conference is a winner. Or if you want to make it a base fee plus member fee, try this: $500 base fee - includes one member account $250 for each additional member 1 person show pays $500. 3 person shop pays $1,000. 5 person shop pays $1,500. 10 person pays $2,750. We can always change it at a later date if we change the value offered or we can charge for special events (like ITA does) on top of membership if we need to. Just pick a model and go with it - you won't make everyone happy.

Peter noticed that I left off a sentence - we can always modify the structure if we don't like the results..........

The smaller firms get more value than the larger ones. A larger firm already has other people to bounce stuff off of. I think there are enough members now to tout the value that it becomes easier to sell at $500 for the first user. I think what we came up with at MOTM was pretty good and we can amend it later if it doesn't work. But we really need to do something and stick to it.

I agree with Robert that it's ""pretty good"" - not perfect but pretty good. Stick a fork in it and agree to revisit in six to twelve months.

+1 for robert and Peter comments

We generally have had the most internal discussion about admitting larger partners. Yet we're making it easy for the large partners to join. See me in 6 months when Net@Work and ISM are looking to join with 5 people and the rest of the group is whining.

We let Blytheco in. Why would ISM or Net@Work be different? Kissinger on the other hand...

That's fine - I updated the form.

Yes, it does become unruly when the big kids start to get involved. I can see everyone's position. Speaking for the little guys, yep, it's spendy and certainly Robert & Peter have it correct - you all are available to ""bounce"" ideas/issues I've no one else. So am willing to pay my part. On the other hand, Wayne is right. It doesn't cost a large company much at all to buy into this group. And yes, I'd be a little bummed about the addition of more large companies into the group...we are already getting squished by Sage, just beginning to feel a little close if the big boys come to play here too. All that said, I guess we have to see what the year holds. Hopefully we'll not get impaled.

Can someone explain to me how the inclusion of big firms hurts smaller firms? I just don't get it.

I assume for some 90 Minds/OASIS is their equalizer to help them compete with big firms. If the big firms are in 90 Minds/OASIS then they lose that competitive advantage.

How often are you competing against a big firm for business? It seems that new business oppos are few and far between.

Let me turn it around on you, what does it hurt to keep big firms out?

I think we could learn something from them - provided they contribute to the dialog. In particular, I think it's clear that we all need to be better at marketing and selling ourselves (not Sage) and the big firms, for the most part, are successful in that area. If we don't sieze opportunities to work together to grow (either stronger, bigger or both), we have no one to blame but ourselves as our business models slowly become a thing of the past. While crying about Sage being jerks may be accurate and cathartic, it doesn't put food on the table. Great marketing and sales does.

@PeterWolf Do you ever have any of the big guys actively turning their marketing departments on recruiting your customers?

Despite the chit chat from other partners - 90% are making their money from their installed base. The ability to have a 100+ consulting group as a backup is a growing competitive advantage for smaller consulting firms who are often faced with larger consulting firms marketing their services as ""we have xx offices and yyy people""...

@WayneSchulz - Your point is ... the big firms are aggressively marketing to other's install base? And that they are winning over clients by saying ""we have xx offices and yyy people""? Am I interpretting your points correctly?

That's one of my points. The original question is did we intend to make a one user site pay almost double what a large site does? Fee scheduled based on tier is the fairest measure

I disagree for two reasons: 1. Tiers aren't necessarily pegged to size of organization. 2. Who polices tier level? If you don't like the de-escalation of fees, make it a straight $500 per sign-up. Problem solved.

The group has clearly agreed with you and disagreed with my logic on this and we are adopting 90 Minds pricing to reflect the group decision made during the meeting. On second thought let's just go free, open this to everyone.

Are we still going rounds on this?

Huh? ""The group has clearly agreed with you and disagreed ......."" I think what is clear is that this is an issue that generates a lot of discussion. We AREN'T going to get a tier structure that makes everyone happy. Implement the structure as defined and we'll revisit in six months or so. I am sure there will be unintended consequences which will be dealt with as they pop up. Just as the NFL has a rules committee to enhance viewership, we'll do the same.

I just joined this group, so am late to the party... but thought one of the reasons for 90 Minds (if not the primary) was to provide smaller VARs a forum to exchange ideas, collaborate and pool resources to help level the playing field against larger VARs. As in ""Dear Customer, I'm not Blytheco, but have access to similar resources..."" For various reasons, some of us actually choose to remain small, but can't be certified in everything. For the most part, larger VARs don't have this problem. While I recognize that larger VARs do contribute to this group, I have to wonder why the membership fee is working against the smaller VAR, because it's perceived that they benefit most. The requirement to contribute applies to all members. Who decides how much value I derive from membership in order to price it? The proposed fee schedule is priced to attract larger VARs. Is this the goal?

I don't think it's designed to attract larger VARs nor is it designed to work against the smaller VAR. With many things in life, prices drop as quantity increases - it encourages extra consumption instead of folks ""making do"" with a smaller amount. So ... by pricing it so there is a graduating decrease in additional members, it encourages people with more consultants to buy individual memberships instead of just having one login for all members. If the goal is to keep out larger VARs, we will have a problem as a good portion of the group is DSD. I have to ask yet again - I have not seen a satisfactory answer to date: 1. How often are the big VARs (BlytheCo ??? or are there others) poaching customers? 2. Are the lost customers really customers that it hurts to lose? (Every time I've lost a customer to another partner, I'm nearly jumping for joy for getting rid of a bad egg.)

I think a good portion of small partners are Dba DSD to protect margin, but still running their own individual practices. For me, the opportunity to join the group was never about protection from other VARs, so the answer to #1 is moot. I reviewed the original invite to the group and learned of the following benefits: - Presence/listing members on the 90Minds Web Site - Use of the 90Minds Logo for member marketing (optional) - Co-Marketing opportunities (web seminars) - Place to send your clients for un-branded recordings of web seminars - Mutual business and marketing idea exchange (conference calls, best practices) - Future group meetings to discuss more of a business / marketing focus (SageResellers exists and will continue for the technical) - Other joint projects TBD I originally assumed that small resellers were the focus, perhaps because many of the original members were small... but mergers, acquisitions and new recruiting policies have changed that.