Committee Events

Hi Wayne, I trust that you are keeping well and that business is great! Sandra Smith, our Sage Intelligence product specialist based out of Irvine forwarded me details of your 90 Minds event for FY16. I was wondering what the appetite of the group is to have Sage there, and from my standpoint specifically Sage Intelligence, and whether the group would be prepared to waive the fees, as our main objective would be to add value by updating, addressing and explaining all items SI related. I look forward to your response and happy to discuss on a call as required. Stephen Coull Sales Director, Sage Intelligence Sage Office: +27 31-537-7244 | Mobile: +27 82-901-7482 | @stephencoull | EA: Marilyn Fontbin | Office: +27 31-537-7244 Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn | Facebook | Community See you at Sage Summit Chicago 2016 #SageSummit

I think we were planning to invite Sage for SI but not sure. Told Stephen I'd get back to him within a week.

Prepared to waive the fees ... is this option on the table?

If BizNet or Renovofyi is presenting, SI should be invited under the same conditions.

Don't know the answer to either question. I suspect that we should first look to members to fill speaking spots. The Road Ahead for Sage 100 is a bit different because it's unique for Sage to be able to present.

yes, RA is in a separate category. The peripheral Sage 100 products (SI, CRM, HRMS, SPS) clearly now compete with 3rd parties, and IMO should be treated nearly as ""just another vendor"" by 90 Minds. Of course there are limits to this approach, but I think it should be our starting point.

Last week's webinar, I thought there was discussion regarding SI, Biznet and Renovofyi being in one 45 minute session as a ""shoot out"" @ThereseLogeais Otherwise, SI can pay for an affiliate slot as Biznet did last year.

I see this as more of an affiliate session where they are promoting SI, not a technical session where a panel of partners puts forth their experiences with particular options, one of which might be SI. I don't know why we would waive the fee. We also have Jodi with DataSelf who may be purchasing a speaking spot.

Agree with all of the above

Just received another email from the SI folks: Hi Wayne, I hope you are doing well. Just checking to see if there is an opportunity for us at the 90 Minds event. Do you know if we will be able to present Sage Intelligence? Thank you, Sandra Smith Product Specialist, Sage Intelligence Sage Alchemex/Sage North America Office: +1 949 450 3851|Mobile: +1 949 231 0432 sandra.smith@sage.com|http://www.sageintelligence.com

I believe the answer to this is: We are open to this as an affiliate or sponsor session. We're talking with Sage now about whether they will be on board with us for MOTM as an Affiliate/sponsor.

I'm not sure I want any of the main software publishers (Sage, Acumatica, . . .) to be sponsors. After all, they are the reason we are all there. Plus I wouldn't want to give them that kind of power/influence. If we feel we need them to present something that is of value to our members, such as Road Ahead or a module such as SI, then we invite them as guest presenters. If it's an obvious market play, such as Sage Live, then yes they should pay for that privilege. It depends on who benefits from this.

John makes a good point. In addition to the technical support community, I value 90 Minds for its ability to help give us perspective on solutions beyond the core ERP package. In that thinking, we want to draw in the 3rd parties (as we do now), but shouldn't be terribly interested in the core accounting-solution firms unless we have specific questions for them, which would be when we invite them as guest presenters.

We can bring it to a vote at the annual meeting. We are in the process of migrating administrative tasks to a management company. Our cost on MOTM is $772 per person and our cost on Pre-Conference is $661. That includes some cost for event management. Annual dues would have to cover management company for the year for basic accounting and member management. I'm strongly opposed to turning over a group for free to vendors to present but plan on departing in February after the meeting so it won't matter to me. The portion that you're missing is the amount of time it takes to coordinate membership (add/drop/questions) and events during Summit, MOTM, etc. Those social events all need to be paid somehow -- or cancelled. Without sponsors, it's going to be dutch treat sandwiches in a bar at Summit where everyone throws $60 each in a hat. Don't underestimate the amount of effort it takes to coordinate this group. I assure you that it's very significant and most of it happens behind the scenes. It's optimistic to think that people are going to freely devote the hours needed -- pro bono -- to running a group such as this but it's simply not based in reality. People get busy on upgrades and company issues and the group is going to ebb and flow. Vendors aren't really going to pay much mind to a group that shrinks back to a closed communication system and has no other activities or communications.

I think we're not on the same page, Wayne. I'm sorry to confuse things. Vendors need to pay to play -- absolutely. My concern is more about the different tentacles of Sage. Sage ERP is not the same as SI, SPS, HRMS, CRM which compete against other companies in those segments. My thought is that SI should be treated exactly the same as BizNet, and that it should be treated separately from Irvine. Also, for better or worse, I sometimes try out my thinking here, looking for feedback on it to better understand. I was looking for some mechanism to get Sage on more or less a same level as an Acumatica, so Sage doesn't see itself as the big gorilla. If they won't pay appropriately, I'm perfectly happy to make due without them and figure out a way to serve our members appropriately.

Sage 100 includes a license for Sage Intelligence, Sage CRM. All of our members (by virtue of being Sage Consultants) are heavily incented to sell complimentary Sage products. So in my view it does put Sage in a slightly elevated position. If Sage doesn't want to pay for presentations, if invited they can come in and do road ahead and have a sandwich then all of them can hit the road. If Sage wants to make multiple presentations, buy full event tickets. They need, at a minimum, to join as Affiliates. At the maximum (more presentations), they need to be joined as some type of event sponsor. Not really a new concept, though each year it drags to the 11th hour and we all look at our feet, shuffle and agree to let them in without thinking about what value Sage is receiving from our fronting them in front of our group. For MOTM this is likely up to a 50-60k value.

I agree with your comment @WayneSchulz . My previous comment was not intended to say that Sage should not pay for participating, because they should be like all other vendors. I do not, however, want them to be elevated by being a sponsor, because of other publishers being there and we don't want this to appear to be a Sage event. Affiliate is appropriate. We should think about what we would have to pay at Summit if 90 Minds wanted a booth. It would be the same high fees as everyone else.

This description is much closer to my intention behind my initial posting. I don't think Sage yet understand the potential value to Sage of 90 Minds. The view of Sage as ""a bit elevated"" is reasonable. I also think it can be viewed as a stable of bolt-on enhancements around an accounting core. For the most part Sage has done a mediocre job of weaving these into its product, especially compared to new competition. While Sage 100 resellers are ""certified"" in SI and SPS, I don't think it's true for the others. Competing vendors are actively selling into Sage 100 base to get users to use their BI/crm/payroll solutions instead. So, viewing Sage as a product portfolio is just as reasonable as it being ""somewhat elevated."" I don't mean to belabor the point, as both views true. BUT I think we might more attention from them about paying as Affiliate if also present an alternative pricing approach treating those product lines as separate affiliate opportunities. I think it's particularly strong message for SI, SPS, payroll and HRMS; 90 Minds has, or likely will have, affiliates in all those segments. I don't have strong feelings either way. I only suspect that this approach might break their resistance. But maybe not.

Should publishers such as Sage and Acumatica have their own level of participation and fee schedule?

We talked about that when we looked at the fee schedule and decided against it primarily because, aside from Sage, we didn't feel we could add enough value. It was also a lot simpler to explain the difference between a consultant member and affiliate member. Once Acumatica has farmed most of the Sage channel (which they've done), there doesn't seem to be a lot more value that we can add other than to sell them a speaking sponsorship. With Sage we've just spun our wheels the past few years (and they're spinning again this year). The question from Sage (and I presume all publishers) regarding sponsorship is ""sure, what do you have in mind"" from which we then have to take a WAG what they value. Our concept is that if Sage (or Acumatica) wants to do more we could have a conversation with them about what they want to do and price an additional sponsorship. If they want to speak multiple times, we can design (space permitting) separate sponsorship agreements. Unfortunately Sage is always a ""foot dragger"" and we don't get much in the way of feedback until sometimes a few days before the event. In some ways, we've adjusted the additional attendee tickets so that if someone like Sage brought numerous people they'd be paying a higher rate per attendee.

Foot dragging is the culture at Sage. Part of it is they have such turnover in management and the new ones have to figure out what to do. This is reflected in the staff, because they seem to want to keep their jobs. The last person to take a stand was Erika and that didn't work out well. They need some strong decision makers and the UK doesn't want that. Acumatica on the other hand appears to give people like Dawn authority to make decisions and to move fast, because that is their culture and they have been successful. So nothing will change at Sage.