Size of MSPs
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Nope, you didn't read their pages.
I don't need to, Softcat and Pheonix are vendors of mine.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nope, you didn't read their pages.
I don't need to, Softcat and Pheonix are vendors of mine.
What do they provide for you? SoftCat's site specifically says that they have to develop new services to offer. Do you get packaged services from them?
-
I totally agree with @scottalanmiller's point about IT Outsourcers not being quite so defined and "boxed in" in what they do. This makes it harder to talk to non-technical people, because in most other fields, everything is spelled out and defined from a service standpoint. However, when someone looks at you and goes "given our environment, what can you support" and your answer is "yes", they don't know how to respond, because they're used to specialized, bulleted lists, not broad-sweeping statements. They will often go to people who can give them that, even it means having multiple companies doing support and poorer service, simply because they're more comfortable having limited expectations than just a one-stop shop.
-
Big ones are generally part of other companies. Most of them are small. And Most of them are well, Bad. a Few of them are good.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
And to some degree this makes sense. If you want an MSP model, you look for that. If you want broad support and someone that can help you with anything, this is the opposite of what you would do. I never said MSPs were bad, they are very good. But they don't fit every need.
Lots of companies don't want their vendors to be locked in to what their current products are. While that has benefits, it has huge negatives too. Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
Related, we post on our website that we are MS Certified professionals. But nothing about being an MS Partner, because we are not selling that stuff. We do have a partner subscription for other reasons (lab software mostly), but we do not sell anything.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
Related, we post on our website that we are MS Certified professionals. But nothing about being an MS Partner, because we are not selling that stuff. We do have a partner subscription for other reasons (lab software mostly), but we do not sell anything.
Gets you extra training too!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
And to some degree this makes sense. If you want an MSP model, you look for that. If you want broad support and someone that can help you with anything, this is the opposite of what you would do. I never said MSPs were bad, they are very good. But they don't fit every need.
Lots of companies don't want their vendors to be locked in to what their current products are. While that has benefits, it has huge negatives too. Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
This is a huge one. MSPs are limited in their support scope, which often means they are limited in what they will recommend, or even can in good faith. So instead of getting an open opinion on what would be best for your company, you get the best solution company X can offer for your needs. See the difference?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
I'm not saying I disagree with you. But this is the bulk of what I see.
Finding the genuine projects not delivered by resellers or pushy vendors are few and far between. I'd love that backlash against vendor focused providers but...Not seeing it happening. -
In theory, you do not get advice from an MSP. Their business models make them function like VARs in that case. The very design of an MSP organization puts them at odds with giving general IT advice.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
In theory, you do not get advice from an MSP. Their business models make them function like VARs in that case. The very design of an MSP organization puts them at odds with giving general IT advice.
And that is why we do not provide services like that.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
I'm not saying I disagree with you. But this is the bulk of what I see.
Finding the genuine projects not delivered by resellers or pushy vendors are few and far between. I'd love that backlash against vendor focused providers but...Not seeing it happening.It's the model that makes the most money. In SW, only as an example, MSPs out number IT Service Providers like 100:1 (just saying.) It is so dramatic that no one even recognizes the other category and when talking to customers you are normally the only one they have ever met. The MSP and VAR models are so common and make so much better margins that it is rare to find someone doing something else.
There is nothing wrong with using an MSP, they have great value. But you have to know where their allegiance lies and that they are not advisers, purely managed service providers. They offer what they offer. They might be pushy or not pushy, but the trick is not letting them be in a position of giving advice and being prepared to go to a different MSP anytime that you want to change products or technique.
You might have many MSPs to handle lots of specific functions. In fact, one of the functions of an IT Service Provider like @ntg could be to bring in an MSP for a specific function. The two are not necessarily competing models. But only one would be in a position to really manage the others. But one IT Outsourcer could easily handle business communication and management and use several MSPs to manage phones, desktops, etc.
-
I think why I'm coming across as awkward is because I don't understand where this is pointed towards.
The MSP marketing machine works, It is making a lot of people money, it is making a lot of purchasing decision makers "happy" with the perceived value of the vendor relationships, whilst they are losing thousands.
In this thread alone, different people define an MSP by different criteria. So whether you call it
VAR/MSP/Magic IT provider
How does a business owner distinguish between a outsourced IT and a fixed service provider. What options do they have? OVernight the branding/marketing machine might call it something different, they might all become outsourced IT instead of MSP, would NTG have to change their definition to avoid the taint?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
In theory, you do not get advice from an MSP. Their business models make them function like VARs in that case. The very design of an MSP organization puts them at odds with giving general IT advice.
In theory. Most do.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'd love that backlash against vendor focused providers but...Not seeing it happening.
Businesses love and are addicted to what they see as free consulting. The MSP / VAR model is so easy to sell. If you don't understand IT, you would never understand why you would want something else.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'd love that backlash against vendor focused providers but...Not seeing it happening.
Businesses love and are addicted to what they see as free consulting. The MSP / VAR model is so easy to sell. If you don't understand IT, you would never understand why you would want something else.
This. This times 1000. I'd say a close second is companies who give kickbacks to those who have purchasing power, like the example @scottalanmiller gave me one time where a company sells someone a phone system and gives the people buying the system (or advising to buy it) a week of free training, in Bermuda. Case in point.
-
@nadnerB said:
All the MSP's I know of have at least 20 employees.
Until SW, the two I knew of were the same way.
-
@Dashrender said:
@nadnerB said:
All the MSP's I know of have at least 20 employees.
Until SW, the two I knew of were the same way.
That's because big ones are going to be the ones that you know. The average company is tiny, just a few people, but the average company that you know is huge (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) What ones you know is misleading towards few, large companies.
-
In my early days, I only knew tiny MSPs. Normally one or two people. Saw my first 10+ firms only after running into them at trade shows. But at the same shows ran into one person shops too.
