As I continue to talk to a number of technology companies about their winning strategies and best practices in building partnerships and alliances, I keep hearing about some of the critical tactics that will work in your behalf and hopefully keep you in your position.

Note that I said tactics – not strategies or best practices – that can keep you successful. I’ll leave strategy and best practices for another blog.

Here are 5 that I believe are important to help you keep your position.

• Target a 90 day win
• Target high and deliver in phases
• Target the largest customers in your market
• Target your sales force and your partner’s sales force
• Target maximum control

Now here is more of what I mean.

Thinking beyond 90 days in today’s economy is a recipe for disaster. Few companies can afford that luxury, not even the largest ones. While good alliance managers like to think strategically, this is not the time to put all your eggs in this long term basket.

Thinking big in terms of a win means delivering the highest value and hopefully highest revenue joint sale that is realistic and still fits in the 90 day-ish window. Thinking big also keeps you in front of all the right people – sales, management, marketing and customers. But think in chunks of deliverables that are realistic and that can show measurable and incremental success to everyone.

Thinking in terms of large customer deals means that you are targeting the highest end of your target market. If you need to target large companies and your partner is targeting companies in the mid bracket, you could have a disconnect. Make sure you’re both on the same track and can deliver with the same level of customer.

Thinking in terms of getting the buy-in and participation of both direct sales forces has always been important. This has not changed today and may be even more critical in making the right things happen. And if the right things don’t happen, having the sales buy-in may provide a little extra buffer for you in the event of problems.

Thinking in terms of maximum control means keeping control of as many of the elements of success as possible. If you expand your partnership beyond two partners, or if you require too many resources, or input from a third party, you will begin to lose control. That goes for complex projects or ventures that require too many pieces of your own organization to deliver on.

This is a tough market and alliance managers are under a lot of pressure. I’d like to hear what you believe are most critical to your immediate success.

Over the past 3 months I’ve talked to over 25 companies primarily in the Business-to-Business (B2B) space and mostly technology companies (software and hardware).

 Specifically, I was asking questions including:

• What types of traditional marketing activities are you maintaining (webinars, website development, paper-based sales and marketing collateral, seminars, etc.)?
• What types of digital marketing activities are you engaged in (blogs, Twitter, LinkedIn lead generation, Facebook, partner driven digital marketing, SEO/SEM, etc.)?
• Are you combining the two disciplines and in what ways?

 The types of responses were a little surprising as I thought there would be more push toward exercising these emerging techniques around digital marketing.

 What I found was the following in regards to digital marketing:

1. Most companies were taking a wait-and-see strategy. That is they were waiting to see what their partners or competitors were doing before they invested a lot of time and effort.
2. They were unclear about the ROI from digital marketing activities. Some said that they didn’t see any early returns from looking at how their market was engaged in these activities.
3. They were indeed monitoring digital trends and activities – usually informally – until the time they thought would be appropriate for them to take the plunge.
4. In general, they didn’t see the value in Twitter but did see some value in LinkedIn – as this was a professional community – one that they could have meaningful discussions through. However, even with LinkedIn, almost none of them had anything truly formal going on.
5. There seemed to be an executive gap. Mid-level managers and rank and file employees were more apt to use informal social media communication than senior management. Security and trust were important issues at the senior level.

There were some clear trends that I plan on illustrating in some follow-up blogs and reports, but this is a quick readout of what I found.  Keep in touch or sign up for my future reports.

And please add your comments as I’d appreciate what you’ve found.

Note to above: About 15 of these discussions were formal – that is they followed a prescribed set of questions that lasted approximately one hour. Discussions with the remaining 10 companies were more informal although in general the same types of questions were asked.

And there are always more than a few good articles at B2B Magazine for which I used their logo as an illustration above.

After taking the Labor Day week off, it’s back to writing my regular weekly blog and maybe even catching up sometime by doubling up on my blog one week soon.

In any case, this is a continuation of the theme of 5’s on alliance building and partnerships. This one focused on Alliance Warning Signs. So here are several of my favorite warning signs. I look forward to reading about yours.

I think there are quite a few warning signs that alliance managers have to be aware of. Part of the problem in any relationship, personal or business, is recognizing which ones are most telling and which ones appear to be important but can be dismissed. Some apparently troubling signs initially can actually be double entendres.  Notice how each of these signs can be interpreted differently and produce equally positive or negative results.

Significant Financial Changes: this is easier to read when your alliance partner is a publicly traded company. Earnings reports, stock prices, etc are powerful barometers of business performance. A couple of quarters of negative earnings can spell cutbacks or imply customer defections. On the other hand, perhaps poor earnings were due to an inflated acquisition or writedown. So it’s important to look at the situation thoroughly. Even if it is negative, it might turn out that your partner will turn to their best partnerships and if you’re in that class then indeed this could easily turn out to be a clear win for you – especially if they make a comeback.

Senior Management Change: this is an obvious caution sign. New CEO’s often bring in teams that are more closely aligned to their past history and strategy. If your new partner CEO had a closer relationship with your competitor for instance, that could easily spell trouble, especially if your relationship is not well secured. On the other hand, change in upper management could just as well be a plus for you if the tenor of the new team has a positive past with you or your company.

Internal Turnover: always be on the look out for internal changes, especially when it comes to either the key people you deal with or other key influencers on your partner’s team. On the other hand again, if you’ve been stagnating lately with some of your partner’s counterparts – a change could be just what the doctor ordered.

Customer Complaints: perhaps the number one area of caution is when a joint customer is undergoing issues with your partner or their products or services, particularly if those problems also impact you and that same customer. Nothing seems to derail a partnership more than a customer with problems. On the other hand, solving customer issues with your partner quickly can be a powerful force for your future joint efforts and forge an enduring bond.

Significant Market Condition Changes or Major New Competitors: we’ve seen a lot of this occurring over the past 12- 18 months. Many companies quickly righted their ship while others slowly struggled and muddled through these business situations. Most importantly, negative economic and competitive situations will always arise. It’s how you work through them with your partner that ultimately matters most and getting through some tough and trying situations usually builds character and a lasting relationship in the long run.

Let me know what your favorites are.

In keeping with my theme of 5, here are some thoughts on the top 5 traps to avoid (or potential problem areas to stay clear of) when it comes to partnerships and alliances.

• Not monitoring change signals from your partner
• Failing to negotiate when it’s necessary
• Trying to represent that you or your company can do more than you really can
• Waiting for your partner to dictate the direction that your partnership takes
• Focusing on individual success and not the partnership

Let’s explore each one a little further.

Trap No. 1:  Not keeping a close eye and ear on what your trusted partner is doing in the marketplace is a recipe for getting blind-sided. I’ve been involved first hand with an important alliance that we expected to move into an acquisition deal. Our discussions turned south when our partner was acquired by a larger partner of theirs, all while they were in the midst of negotiation with us. And we were even partners with their acquirer. That was a costly lesson to learn.

Trap No. 2:  Similar to trap #1, failing to recognize when to negotiate new terms and conditions, or direction, can result in unwanted results and outcomes, at least for one of the partners. When there are substantial changes in business conditions, such as when new competitors enter your field or there are a bevy of acquisitions, don’t wait to look at your partnership T’s and C’s until the contract is up for renewal. That’s usually too late.

Trap No. 3:  Trying to represent that your company can take on more than it is capable of or that your every move is firmly backed by everyone in your company can easily set you up for a fall. It’s important to aspire to success but success is more frequently attained through continuous achievement and hitting milestones than with over zealousness or boasting.  Don’t be enticed to offer your partner more than what you can realistically deliver, and target modestly at least initially. Under-promise and over-achieve as the expression goes.

Trap No. 4:  The fourth trap is allowing the direction of the partnership to be dictated by your partner, especially if they are the larger-dominant one. While you may have to submit to some of their terms and conditions, or risk endless tie-ups and delays with their legal department that most smaller companies can ill afford, you must equally dictate the tempo, rhythm and culture of the partnership. If it sounds like a dance, it is.

Trap No. 5:  While it’s obviously never wrong to focus on your success, if it’s always coming at the expense of your partners’, your partnership won’t keep its legs very long. It’s important to look at the partnership as a joint venture – each side having a stake and a gain. Look out for your partner when they sometimes can’t look at for themselves and you’ll both be successful in the long run.

As I’ve been learning the past few weeks, I’m sure there are many other traps to be aware of. I’d love to hear your favorite.

In this continuing series focused around alliance building and partnering, I’d like to explore 5 topics, or should I say Partnering Myths, that I will discuss in this issue. These myths, as I term them, are nothing more than a set of expectations that are usually never realized.

Here are my 5 myths of partnering:

Myth No. 1 – Loyalty and success are dictated by the Agreement and Contract. My experience indicates that a written contract has very little to do with success. It’s not the numbers, terms or conditions that make alliances work, rather it’s much more dependent on people and mutual trust.

Myth No. 2 – My second myth, Exclusivity, frequently is associated with further increasing the mutual value of the partner agreement. Some believe that exclusivity enforces trust and loyalty and further creates a foundation for success. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but while exclusivity may benefit the smaller partner in the near term in a weak-strong partner relationship, it usually creates over-dependence on the larger partner in the long term and can result in non-competitive selling situations, reduced revenue and lower market capitalization for the smaller partner.

Myth No. 3 – Short Term Financial Results are indicative of a successful partnership. While short term results are always good, they can also cloud or mask problems with how the combined products and services are supported and what the longer term satisfaction requirements are for the customer.

Myth No. 4 – Money and Resources can solve partnership problems. Rarely does a set of joint marketing initiatives or investments solve an inherently poor business proposition. Rather, joint marketing spending needs to have clear objectives assigned in terms of what it will do to create demand and brand for the partnership.

Myth No. 5 – Industry Analysts buy into it. Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of analysts who come out and endorse a certain alliance or particular partnership. While analysts usually have excellent insight into the market landscape, they can often be blind-sided when it comes to understanding how productive alliances net out in actual working relationships between two sales organizations and R&D groups.

No doubt that there are others that I haven’t highlighted.

What’s your favorite myth when it comes to partnering?

I’ve been in some discussions with a half dozen partners of one of our top technology companies. The purpose of these discussions is to look at best practices and how this partner group can improve in this tough economic climate.

While I have another 6 more discussions to go, here are some early returns in how they are using conversational media techniques and social networking to improve their presence – not only from the perspective of their partnering aspect, but also how they are using it in general.

Two points of clarification – the partner ecosystem that I’ve talked to is primarily focused on business-to-business (B2B) and they include both private (< $100M in revenue) companies and one large public company. All the private companies have been in business 2 or more years and would be considered successful and fast growing in their specific area.

As part of the project that I’m working on, there are another half dozen companies I will talk to that will include more public companies in the mix. So that may alter some of the following conclusions. But here’s what I can tell you so far, at least from the perspective of the non-public companies.

• They all want to use LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to a much greater degree, but it must serve their business purpose of course.
• They feel that they are just scratching the surface.
• They are engaging in, acquiring or employing internal resources to learn and explore more of the possibilities in regards to employing some of these social networking techniques.
• They do not have a clear set of goals in mind about which social networking technique is best, under what situation or for what purpose.
• They feel that there is a lot more to accomplish with social media and their common partner, and they will look to their primary common partner for more help, support, guidance and cooperative business social networking in the future.

Whether it’s the current economic atmosphere or not, all of them want to employ these techniques to open up new channels of customer contact and eventual revenue. Customer contact is a primary motivation for everyone.

While I will be sharing more of these general findings in the future, I’d like to summarize this in 3 points:

   -  We are quite early in the cycle of using social networking with a specific business “revenue” goal in mind. But we are closer to using LinkedIn, for instance, to acquire or talk to new prospects and perhaps get professional feedback on our product or service.

  -  There is still minimal hard business evidence to look at which will firmly guide us right now.

  -  And no one wants to be left out of the game!

More to come on this subject soon.

In the 90’s, I had the opportunity to represent AT&T in one of the first Information Technology (IT) benchmarking studies facilitated by the Nolan, Norton Co. The two founders and principals of the company were David Norton and Dick Nolan. David Norton became famous for his development and use of the balanced scorecard while Dick Nolan was one of the leading professors of Information Management at Harvard. Their company Nolan, Norton Company eventually was bought out by KPMG – but I believe it may be independent again or at least reincarnated.

Our 9 month IT benchmarking study that was geared to highlight IT best practices (world-class best practices actually) was conducted with around 10 companies including Boeing, American Airlines, Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada, Sprint, Ford, etc. We used a number of techniques and as I recall it was an initial exposure to David Norton’s balanced scorecard which had just come out about that time. You can read more about it below and there is The Balanced Scorecard Institute for further information.

Applied to partnering, alliance managers can use these principles to measure:

• Partnership financial performance
• Customer satisfaction and increased customer interaction
• Internal learning through understanding of complementary products and services
• Process improvement through incorporation of best partner practices

Those 4 important balances apply to alliances and partnerships in the following way:

1. Process: Too much process and paperwork can overrun the alliance with unnecessary bureaucracy. Too little and there is not enough of a framework to work within. Having a defined go-to-market partner framework puts boundaries around where to focus.
2. Management: Too much executive interference may kill off the groundswell and viral effect while too little will surely doom its failure as evidence of no real commitment between the partners.
3. Customer Interaction: Too much customer interaction early on in the relationship will result in lack of focus and potentially dissatisfied clients especially if the partners paint the expectations too high. Too few early customers will stall the partnership from lack of concrete success stories and references. Early customer interaction can also help drive new areas of co-innovation that might go seemingly unnoticed.
4. Financial Results: Expectations that are set too high, too early will damage the credibility of the partnership, while too few results ends in a non-start eventually. It’s also important to build a compensation neutral programs with early incentives for both partners so that the line sales people that drive the success of the deals are appropriately compensated. That’s a subject of its own – but is quite important in the overall financial success of most partner driven relationship.

In summary, partnerships naturally imply balance, not necessarily in exactly equal amounts, but more in terms of relative commitment. Lastly, using a balanced scorecard approach can be an important lens into looking at your valuable partnerships and is another way to make sure that partnership success can be equivalently measured and improved.

For more information around the Balanced Scorecard
What is the balanced scorecard?
The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system that is widely applicable to organizations regardless of size or type of business. The system, extensively used in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide, provides a method of aligning business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improving internal and external communications, and monitoring organization performance against strategic goals.

Some of my efforts have come in the form of attending events such as the Search Engine Strategies conference (March, NY), or Federated Media’s Conversational Media Summit (June, NY), or a Mashable meetup, or working with a business client, or business association colleagues such as MENG – Marketing Executives Networking Group and ASAP – the Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals.

There’s not too much in the way of resources out there that can be of a lot of value since some of these social media capabilities are relatively new or at least relatively unexplored when it comes to B2B alliances and partnerships and how they can be expanded and improved through the judicious use of social media activities. Where I’ve found resources, I will make them known, as there are a some.

So over the next several blogs I will be putting together a series of what’s going on in this area compiled from input and presentations at conferences by companies including Intel, as well as conversations from alliance, marketing (traditional and digital marketers), and sales professionals and executives in my network. I will attempt to capture Best Practices (where there are some early BP indications) and point you to a half dozen resources and places to look for information or expertise.

I may ask you and my larger network to take a survey on what you think and what you are experiencing.

These upcoming blogs will address the following questions when it comes to social media, web2.0 and alliances:

• What is Social Media and Web 2.0’s impact on the strategic alliance process and partnering?
• How can it be used effectively with channels?
• How does it integrate into the traditional partner marketing and business development process?
• Which social media and Web 2.0 strategies are more partner effective and in what situations?
• What are some case studies and who are the successes in using social media and Web 2.0 to improve partnering?
• Who or what failed and why?
• What is the cost and ROI of using social media and Web 2.0 for partnering and how does one measure it?
• Is there an opportunity (lost) cost of doing nothing?
• How do business partners maintain control and are there specific partner rules of social media engagement?
• Who or where can you turn to for help?

As this progresses, I will put the information into a whitepaper for easier reading. So if you would like, send me an email or sign up for my updates on these findings and a complete whitepaper and I will be happy to forward it to you.

Lastly, and just as importantly, if you are interested in discussing, questioning or being a part of the input, let me know.  Or just comment below if you have thoughts.