General Consultant Discussion

Sage SPS reseller agreement issue: FYI, the is language in SPS's (Sage Payment Solutions) reseller contract that requires the reseller to not represent or even mention other competitive products if they sign up with SPS. Per an e-mail with the new guy at SPS, they can remove that language if requested. I asked about this language on Sage's Linked on group after he introduced himself to the group and my post asking the question was removed not once, but twice. I did get an e-mail from him, but think it is very insightful that he never posted on the Linkedin feed his answer to me. This cost me a over $2000 a year in referral fees a couple of years ago. We sold a deal and hand-delivered it to Sage and got them paid; then they presented me with the reseller agreement with the requirement shown above. I did not sign it due to ethical issues (my need to be able to be free to recommend what is best for my client even if it is not sold by Sage) and Sage has paid me absolutely nothing for the referral ever. Be careful with these guys and be aware of this language in their reseller agreement.

Greg I remember seeing your question and I'm following up right now with Bill Kizer to see if the post was pulled. I work with him on the Sage group and do not recall any discussions about the post being pulled. I run the MAS90 group (where SPS posted) and can assure you that I didn't pull anything on that group.

I think part of the issue surrounding the posting might be because Joe Michalski posted a few times - to introduce himself -- then to invite people to a webinar. I can find one comment you made here (which I think is the one I recall seeing) http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=70262949&gid=106271&commentID=51674777&goback=%2Eanp_106271_1317222935415_1%2Eamf_106271_75422569&trk=NUS_DISC_Q-subject#commentID_51674777 And I was able to find this second post (which I think I have posted here out of order because this was probably your first posting because it went into more detail). http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=70263830&gid=1644357&commentID=51668199&goback=%2Eanp_1644357_1317222935417_1%2Eamf_1644357_75422569&trk=NUS_DISC_Q-ncuc_mr#commentID_51668199

I'd be happy to chase this down with Hammermaster himself. Do they have a copy of that agreement online somewhere?

I have no idea if they have a copy online. I still have the agreement they sent to me. I would assume the questionable language is still in there as Bill said that it could be removed; if it was still not in there, there would be nothing to remove. Please do chase this down if you have time. The post definately was posted twice. I can see why they may have removed the first post as it was pretty direct. The second one was very polite and not objectionable in any way unless they just did not want to acknowledge the issue publically I saw both of the posts online after I posted and they definately were removed. I have no concerns about you pulling anything not did I ever think you did. If they removed my post, who knows what else they have removed over time. I would still recommend SPS to a MAS client if it was appropriate and I have in fact done so since the incident I spoke of in my post. My issue is one of ethics and I am sure any CPA would share the concern. Our job is to do what is best for our client and make sure that we do not compromise on ethics. If we do, how in the world is our client going to trust us and at the end of the day, that is why they come to us for advice in the first place. Thanks for your help.

I saw the LinkedIn post and recall chuckling to myself while reading that SPS paragraph over a year ago. My recollection is that Sage could kick you out of the program and stop paying commission on existing SPS customers. Figured I'd always do what's best for client, and if Sage disagreed or found out, they'd simply stop making deposits. Fortunately, SPS has become a worthwhile solution.

Greg I did find both your posts. Nothing was pulled. I'm a big believer that unless there's somethig that is potentially libelous that the information we post online should stay and not be filtered. Let me think of who the best person to get an answer from is. It may be someone on Tom Miller's crew

I have a rider to my SPS contract that I signed over a year ago excluding that clause. In fact, I think I had the rider the next day after request. We represent several POS systems that use other CC processors (much more lucrative for the reseller than SPS, I might add) and could not under any circumstances accept that clause. If they did it for me, why would they not do for everyone?

I intend to ask

Interesting as to the rider. Maybe now that SPS is the sole source for MAS 90/200 v4.5, they are starting to put on the gloves.......

I sent an email to Julier Herman - SVP over at SPS : Julie, Some discussions have been happening between Sage partners in my 90 Minds group over the Sage Payments reseller agreement that partners are bound by. I admit that I have not reviewed one in a while - so I cannot state for sure that this issue has not been changed already. That's what I'm hoping you can tell me. The issue.... In most instances, unless a partner requests a waiver, the SPS agreement precludes the partner from offering any competing products. From my information that clause also indicates compensation ceases if the partner begins offering a competing payment service in the future. I have heard that Sage has been pretty generous about granting waivers to this policy. This seems like a policy that should be modified globally and that the restriction on offering competing services/products should be removed for all partners. So far the main issue that I have heard several times is that this ethically challenges partners who are striving to offer what's best for our mutual customer. The clause in effect could handcuff a partner from making a sound business recommendation primarily because of a non-compete type claus. I'll be interested in your feedback Thanks,

That may be somewhat shortsited also. I just moved a Client off of SPS because their bank wanted their CC business if they were to continue the Line of credit. The Client had a choice, continue the relationship with the bank and have the financal support to run their business or keep SPS. A no brainer. Surprisingly, contrary to what I have been told in the past about SPS rates, the client is saving approx $1500 per month with the bank since switching from SPS four months ago.

In most cases the bank makes up the difference in lending fees. Just shifted the cost to make CC processing look cheaper. Happens a lot.

Just like everyone else, you have to keep an eye on the rates from SPS. Given the inherent problem of swiped vs. keyed rates in MAS, clients WILL get screwed ratewise if they use to swipe the card but now key the number in MAS. One of my clients is paying $4K more per year for this convenience of the MAS interface. All in all, I still think they are ahead of the game by ensuring all monies have been received, but it is getting very close. Am in a wait and see mode for 2012 to see if they really roll out the swipe CC feature in MAS.

For the record, I was not offered the opt-out provision on that clause and I did ask for it. I had to make the choice between taking the money or maintaining legitimate ethical standards that I would expect from any consultant that I worked with. I chose to maintain ethics. This clause has no place in a reseller agreement if Sage is serious about doing what is right by either the reseller or by the client. If Julie and the other folks at SPS are serious about doing what is best for their client's, they will drop this clause from the contract for everyone. It is just that simple in my opinion.

Sage is interested in doing what is best for the reseller or client?????????? I've never seen this in the almost 12 years that I have been hustling their product. They may say they are interested in the client, but there are severel interests ahead of the client on that ladder. And let's not even start down the path of reseller interest. If they were interested in giving client's options, SPS wouldn't be the sole CC processing provider for v4.5. Recurring revenues IS the future for Sage and they will not think twice about cutting the reseller out of the action.

Hearing nothing from Julie Herman - I've reposted my email to her publicly on the Sage Partners forum.

I heard back from Juilie -- and also from Erika - both of who really cannot imagine why there would be a problem (mostly because Sage is going to take away the ability to natively integrate any payment provider other than SPS to their products). Here's Erika's feedback she left on LinkedIn: Wayne, To my knowledge, the current agreement between Sage Channel partners and Sage Payment Solutions does require that the partner not offer a competive payment gateway solution nor take compensation from the competitor for doing so. As you learned at Summit, the future of payment integration with Sage ERP MAS 90 and 200 is with Sage Exchange, the new Sage Payment Solutions tool that streamlines integration between business applications like ERP and e-stores and the Sage Payments Processing Gateway. With the release of Sage ERP MAS 90 and 200 5.0 next year, SPS will be the only payments gateway offered by Sage. We are also going to expand the functionality available to customers using Sage Exchange to include such things as mobile payments integration and more. Our objectives are to make the Sage Exchange/Sage ERP integrated offering so compelling that customers will not only want to use it., but be eager to do so as well. So if you as a partner are ethically bound to offer what you think is best for the client, we agree that is what you should do. We believe that the SPS solution is in the client's best interest, and are doing everything we can to our future offerings to ensure you and the clients believe it too. Regardless, you are not required to sign the agreement from Sage Payment Solutions in order for your customers to use SPS, you are just precluded from receiving residual payments from Sage in exchange for referring that client to us.

Based on my experience on this issue so far, I am not suprised that you are still awaiting an answer. I think that this is an issue that warrents pushing Sage on however and forcing them to publically state what they intend to do on this issue. It is time to give the good guys who are really trying to do the right thing inside Sage some help and support and turn up the heat on anyone who is not committed to doing the right thing by Sage's cusomer base. And this is just the type of issue to do that with. Public exposure on this issue and involvement of some of Sage's actual end-users may unfortunately be needed. This is an issue that directly affects Sage's customer's and directly affects the customer's ability to get straight and honest answers from the VAR or consultant they work with. The issue here is not taking dollars out of a VAR's pocket, something the actual guy using MAS and calling you from time to time to get advice and and answers from you may or may not really care about. The issue is about your and Sage's customer's ability to trust that the VAR or consultant he is working with can be trusted to tell him the truth. And as we are not Sage employees, there is lots of legal exposure to us if we do not. If Sage's contract with the VAR or consultant prevents the VAR from telling the customer something that he would like to know and really needs to know, the customer DOES have a problem with Sage. Maybe it is time to get some of our customers involved in this situation and let them ask Sage why this language exists at all. Let's give Sage the chance to really demonstrate just how important the companies that are actually using MAS and paying thousands of dollars in fees to Sage each year really are to Sage. A lot of what Sage has done that has hurt its reseller base can be cloaked under the old ""we are only doing what we feel is best for the people that actually use MAS"" line. This one cannot. Maybe this would also be a good subject for a a joint letter to the new head guy in North America from some of the members of this group. It would be very interesting and telling to see how be responded.

To 'not mention' other peoples products sounds to me like a First Amendment issue if somebody had the time, money and inkling to argue it. Which Sage knows, isn't likely

From what I understand, Sage's position is: A. With Sage Exchange the opportunity to integrate external merchant accounts (non SPS) into MAS is going away. I think this happens in v5.0. B. This only precludes you from taking compensation to move a customer from SPS to another Merchant. You could always do so on your own and if I were Sage defending the ""we are helping the customer"" I might argue that accepting any commission taints your impartiality so you could still move a customer off SPS but you would not be able to have any commission from another provider for doing so or your contracts with Sage become null so far as future commission payments go. I'm not saying that I agree -- just that this is Sage's argument. Argument (A) also doesn't cover situations where the customer might choose not to integrate to Sage for any number of reasons. In this case you would be precluded from helping them off SPS if you were receiving compensation from a competing merchant. What I think is unfair is that you should not be subject to losing all commission because you also represent a competing merchant. Personally I have always assumed that these promised ""commissions forever"" plans (including all SaaS providers) have a limited lifespan and figure that unless I'm earning my own revenue stream that commissions can go away based on any number of technicalities.

I wonder if they are also changing the wording of Master Developer agreements to preclude them from writing a PC Charge like interface? So, once they have tightened the (noose) integration between MAS and SPS, expect the merchant fee to be less competitive because there will be no competion for this convenience...............

I like Erica, but she seems to be living in some alternate reality. Sage is confusing itself with a monopoly. The people who use Sage do have other options and if Sage continues down the path it is on now, I have a strong suspicion that Sage may see a lot more of its customers moving to competitive products than it ever has before. If there is any confusion about Sage's commitment to doing what is best for either its customers or its resellers, I think Erica just cleared that issue up. Anyone want to hazzard a guess what the CFO or CEO of a company that is actually using MAS in their business would think about Erica's response? I cannot think of a single CFO or CEO that would think of Erica's approach as wise or in anyone's best interest. WOW. I thought I had seen and heard it all.

I don't get the impression that Sage is preventing the channel from recommending what we feel is best for the customer, just that they're unwilling to compensate us unless we only recommend SPS. If the channel sits back and accepts this argument, how long before this reasoning is applied to every Sage product?

Julie Herman asked for a couple weeks to look at this agreement and that she'd get back to us ...

Is this a secure Dealer site?

Mark has an excellent point -- could there be a day when you lose all tier because you are recommending other ERP solutions? It's a valid question I think.

Mark, I believe you just figured it out. Anyone else who has not yet, it is time to wake up. I started working on starting a non-Sage related business about two years ago and it will be up and fully operational by year-end. I do not know when or if it will actually become unprofitable to deal with Sage, but I am sure glad I have other options when and if that day comes.

Harold, The reality is that no site on the internet is truly secure. My advice, do not post anything on this site or any other that you would not want Sage to see.

Got a call from Dexter Cube who is a sales rep for SPS. I guess he wants to answer my question that I posted on LinkedIn about whether SPS is still anti-competitive with respect to their partner agreement.

How can you not return a call from someone named Dexter Cube?

I know -- right ? ... ;-) Spoke to him. Pretty much reinforced Greg's info. Clause is still there. It is supposedly struck when asked (negotiated?)...