The Numbers do NOT add-up in Sage’s Rebranding Strategy
At the recent Sage Summit user and partner conference, Sage North America executives announced the company’s plan to rebrand its products to emphasize the Sage name, followed by a number (similar to the Sage Europe products such as Sage 50, Sage 100, etc.). The rationale behind this strategy is that the Sage brand is more recognizable in the global market than the individual product names, and this move will help the company create a consistent brand and image for its family of products.
I believe that everyone is supportive of Sage having a strong brand – I know I am. It is very beneficial for all parties, Sage, clients and business partners. However, I see no value to a Sage brand by dropping already heavily co-branded names like MAS, Accpac, ACT! or Peachtree and replacing them with numbers (50, 100, 200, 300 etc). This will only add significant confusion to existing clients and prospects and add client expectations that Sage has never been able to deliver. I support a strong Sage brand; however, I do not believe adding numbers after the word Sage enhances the Sage brand.
Existing Sage branding already uses the Sage name, supported by co-branding with strong product names with a rich heritage. I see nothing in the new branding scheme that will further enhance the Sage brand. In both options, Sage is the first word in the brand. The co-brand components add value and clarification today and help co-brand the Sage name.
Numbers, however, add no value to me and add significant risk and concern. Numbers imply a family, a pecking order, compatibility, interoperability and structure. Numbers can have some value for some product lines, for example, BMW 3, 5, 6, and 7 series. Everyone knows and assumes that the higher the number the higher the cost, bigger the car and more luxurious the feature set. What if they came out with an 8 series that was a competitor to a small European subcompact for a price of $15,000? What if they came out with a 6-series truck instead of the standard 6-series sports coupe? Do you think that would add some confusion?
Compare that to Sage:
First, we have the confusion of a similar numbering scheme in Europe. We get calls every month from prospects who believe that a US Sage product is the same or interfaces with a European version of Sage. Once Sage NA uses the same or similar numbering scheme, that will be a natural assumption. Global company, global solution, same name – they better work together. However, we know they never will, so why add to that confusion?
Second, having multiple products in multiple regions all called the same Sage number is a real cluster. Calling Simply Accounting and Peachtree “Sage 50” in North America and having another Sage 50 in the UK and then another Sage 50 in CRM – what will the customer think or expect? I can assure you that my expectation is they are all compatible, all have the same user interface, same database and interface options and they work together. All things we were told would happen more than ten years ago and I have yet to see any significant movement in that direction. But the customer would expect that today – not coming over the next five years (or never at all).
Third, non-US customers contacting us today already assume that Sage MAS 90 is a upgrade to Sage 50 or an intro or compatible version to Sage 100, or that Sage MAS 200 is the US version and is compatible to Sage 200. It is human nature to assume that Sage 500 is a better / bigger product than Sage 200, Sage 100 or Sage 50. It’s also assumed that product lines in the same family (200 series) work together as seamless modules or applications. None of those assumptions are true, so why set that expectation and encourage negative customer satisfaction?
Fourth, take MAS and Accpac – similar markets and customer profiles. Giving them the same name/number creates confusion; giving one a higher number than the other implies a difference (Sage 250 has many more features and capabilities than Sage 200). Also Sage 250 is just an upgrade from Sage 200 since they both come from Sage, both are in the 200 family … Sage 250 is just a better fit for me. These are all reasonable assumptions, however, all unrealistic expectations.
Fifth, let’s think about cross selling other Sage products. Imagine the conversation with a customer that you propose to sell Sage 250 (ERP) with Sage 400 (HRMS) and Sage 50 (CRM). Choose your own product numbers and related product brands. The initial expectation is that the customer should choose products from the same Sage number family – 200 series. Then the expectation is they will work together – but they don’t. Picture yourself explaining that the right solution is “250, 400 and 50” – though they still do not integrate, look and feel the same or use a common database or technology. Just one more reason to say – this is not a suite of products, just a cluster of numbers and incompatible products. The numbering scheme just enhances expectations we do not meet today.
Last but not least, I am tired of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars rebranding Sage every year on our website, videos, product literature, company literature, advertisements, and more. Yes, the cost to rebrand is expensive. But what is more expensive is the lost opportunity costs of having my staff do that instead of generate leads and opportunities for NEW Sage business via new campaigns, or verticals on new initiatives. A rebrand every 3-5 years would be reasonable. Sage has either rebranded their own name (Sage, Best, Best Software, Sage Software back to Sage) or product names (MAS 90, MAS 90 by Sage, Sage MAS 90, Sage ERP MAS 90, etc.) every year for the last 10 years. Enough is enough. Keep the names the same for at least 3 years. Your resellers barely follow all the changes. Our customers are totally confused.
So, for me – the Sage numbers rebranding as proposed adds no value, and adds significant rebranding costs AND adds significant risk in future sales. Sage, when you make your products look and feel the same and interface deeper than an import-export to an Excel file, then you can rebrand into a suite of products (with or without numbers). Until you do that, the numbering scheme is as productive as creating a package for “MAS 90 for Peachtree users” and providing putting the same old MAS 90 CD in the box with no added value such as data conversion, help guides or anything that would help a Peachtree user migrate to MAS 90. End result: It sets customers expectations and delivers nothing but disappointment and low customer satisfaction.
Sage, please apply those same funds and resources and focus on delivering your business partners and customers competitive and integrated products that we can sell with confidence and that add value to our joint customers. You have great products with a rich history and a current naming approach that supports a strong Sage brand. Changing product names again does not enhance the brand. It’s as productive as changing the cloth color on the deck chairs of the Titanic. Let’s focus on our customers – not another name change.
But, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Stephen Blythe
CEO BlythecoLLC,
Sage Partner of the Year
If technology allowed, the sound that you would now be hearing would be that of me applauding – Great post.
Dave
I can’t say I disagree with your thoughts. I think there are a lot of details still to come and I’m wondering whether this rebranding is in essence the kickoff of a re-organization which will see products “rationalized” (I think that’s polite wording for sold off or retired).
Until Sage lays out their full plan(s) it is too soon to tell if rebranding is a good idea or bad.
I will say I think it’s a bad idea to bring your active partners together in a conference and only announce the tip of the iceberg and tell them to leave and wait until the end of the year to learn about the total re-branding and the new certification and support rules that have been pre-announced but not detailed.
To the extent that Sage sees channel unease about those actions, in my opinion, they deserve it.
Wayne and Dave – thank you for your comments.
I think the toughest part as a partner with many things is that we sometimes get the feeling we are at the end of a long rope being whipped in the wind. All the details aren’t there, but you know that you are going to have to plan to react quickly and respond once the plans are there.
We aren’t brought in early enough to that we can plan well enough to reduce the cost that these things will have on our organizations.
I’m on the ERP Marketing BPAC and one of the things we are trying to figure out is to minimize the impact on partners. A tall order!
Keep the comments coming.
Although I stated I would resist the temptation to say anything further on this subject, this well written post deserves at least a comment.
I hear and understand the frustration upon the release of the “carrot” by Sage. There are quite a few very valid points raised in this post, and @Wayne’s poignant point in his comment “…to bring your active partners together in a conference and only announce the tip of the iceberg and tell them to leave and wait….” But for Sage to watch the outcries during and after the re-branding webinar, frankly surprised me. I was informed there were telephone calls made from Sage, to some employers about comments made (by certain employees through the chat window). So they are well aware of the upheaval among the reseller community. However, they do not seem to care – unless this is what they wanted. Get the channel talking about the re-branding for months ahead of time. And keep us talking about it – until it actually happens. So we get it all out of our system…….
You are assuming Sage has a clue and is making a rational decision. This could be nothing more than new CEO doing his obligatory change thing. Change for the sake of change and time honored protocol not because there is a good reason.
To begin with the best rebranding is updating and improving the product not switching names
In my view, the blog by Stephen Blythe is spot on. I’ve made similar comments on LinkedIn to several threads. Calling a product Sage Peachtree is branding the Sage name; using Peachtree instead of 50 capitalizes on longterm name association to thousands of users and non-users. 50 connotes nothing.
Numbering applications in sequence that do not share the same code (as in able to upgrade) is a poor attempt at re-branding. the Sage name is important and should be leveraged, but customer loyalty to branding is also just as important. Good article Stephen!
Regards,
I had a very productive meeting today with Tom Miller and Dennis Frahmann from Sage. They were kind enough to share additional details associated with their current proposed rebranding strategy. Several of my concerns were addressed by this updated information.
I confirmed our mutual desire to have a strong Sage brand. I expanded on my concerns with the previously shared plan. I also shared my thoughts on how the naming convention and numbering scheme could be modified to address my concerns. They listened, we had positive and constructive dialog and they liked several of my ideas and are taking them back to the internal Sage branding team.
I appreciate that Sage is committed to understand our concerns and that they announced this early enough to allow input and they are willing discuss ways to refine the branding strategy to enhance the overall Sage brand while reducing impact on partners and our customers. I understand Sage is holding similar sessions and soliciting additional feedback from other partners as well, which is a good thing.
I will share my thoughts in a future post.
Hi Kathleen and Georgie,
I think Sage cares and they do have a clue. I think they have an overwhelming desire to develop a strong Sage brand in the USA the same way it is a strong brand in Europe. They do care about what partners and customers think, but at the end of the day they have to make a decision and move forward with it. In politics 60% is a landslide and a referendum from the people. That still means that 40% hate the idea – or the messenger. No matter what Sage does there will always be a good percentage of interested parties that have a differing opinion.
They have stated their intention well in advance of execution. The advantage to that strategy is we have a chance to refine the strategy with them. This is actually a much better than just having it announced to us as they roll out the new Brand. The disadvantage is its only half baked. (But if it was fully baked then it would be too late to enhance it) So, I am good with opportunity to review and assist in enhancing the initial concept.
Bottom line, it’s their Brand; they have the right to do whatever they want with it. Their desire is to improve it, and it’s in all our interest to have a strong Sage Brand. We can all differ on our opinions of are the proposed changes an improvement or not. Based upon my review of the first draft of the message, I concluded it was not an improvement from my point of view. In reviewing further details of the proposed changes several of my initial concerns were minimized. So, we are moving in the right direction.
However, they still have the time to improve it and create a rebranding campaign that does meet there objectives and minimizes impact to partners and customers. I believe that they will consider our input and then make appropriate improvements.
Makes me think of how Warren Buffett manages the companies that Berkshire Hathaway acquires. Granted that the business BH acquires are typically not in a common ‘line of business’, so he couldn’t necessarily call them Berkshire 50, Berkshire 100, etc. But, Buffett seems to instinctively understand the value in preserving/leveraging the brand recognition of the companies they target. Sage ### also sounds so much less appetizing to me than ‘Peachtree’.
I just got around to reading this. Steve is spot on. Here are my two cents. It is time for Sage to kill some products, just not mine
Seriously, who misses Pontiac.
I do “get it,” per se, in the sense that Sage is trying to leverage the weight of its name in the market in a manner not unlike SAP. However, the embrace of a numeric system that is not immediately mutually intelligible to clients or partners without explanation is a classic failed branding strategy from the 1990s. Any branding that requires further explanation fails out of the box with the Marketing 101 criterion: clearly define the message.
Granted, if one never rubbed elbows with business software, the names Peachtree or ACT! would be just as meaningless, but for over a decade, those pieces have been synonymous with their function.
If Sage has a transition strategy for the rebranding rather than a tagline “ACT! is now Sage 1234,” it may not be awful, but such a transition would have to take into consideration the longer purchasing cycle involved in business software installations or upgrages.
Sage strikes me as an organization that harkens to its partners on these matters. I just hate seeing companies squander any bit of market position on gambles with unfortunate rebranding efforts.