Size of MSPs
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
You're absolutely right! SW has definitely opened my eyes to the TONS of micro businesses that are out there.
-
That's not one I learned from there before anyone points out that only small businesses use SW. The US maintains the size records of every company in the country and the numbers are staggering. The average business is tiny and most fail in the first few years. Very few make money. The numbers are so different than what anyone would imagine.
-
One thing that I learned from SW is just how many MSPs are the same people at different businesses. I know of one person who has their own one man part time MSP, plus is part of a three man part time MSP, is part time with a larger full time MSP and might do a few other things. He alone accounts for two of his own MSP businesses. They are real businesses, just not real big.
What I never knew was just how many IT pros were running tiny MSPs on the side. It seems like it is almost an expected side business of every one man IT shop by day to run a part time MSP by night.
-
We currently have 16 employees, and we've had between 14 and 16 since I bought the business 8 years ago. Holy cow, has it been that long? Now I'm depressed that it hasn't become more successful.
-
Some people on here seem to define MSP differently to Wikipedia. I'm not really clear (or really care) what the official definition is (there probably isn't one), so from now on I wont talk about MSPs since I may confuse people as to what kind of company I'm talking about.
All I'll say is, the vendors I use for IT help employ between 15 and 3,000 people. They may offer managed services, and they have a page on their website that is specifically about managed services, but that isn't all they do, so I won't call them an MSP. I pay them in different ways - from hourly billing, to fixed cost projects, to cost per annum.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
We currently have 16 employees, and we've had between 14 and 16 since I bought the business 8 years ago. Holy cow, has it been that long? Now I'm depressed that it hasn't become more successful.
Yeah, you should really be on a beach in the Bahamas by now, following a successful IPO.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@tonyshowoff said:
We currently have 16 employees, and we've had between 14 and 16 since I bought the business 8 years ago. Holy cow, has it been that long? Now I'm depressed that it hasn't become more successful.
Yeah, you should really be on a beach in the Bahamas by now, following a successful IPO.
Actually for the last two years or so my father in law has been trying to convince me to go public, for some reason, but that's not ideal for all sorts of reasons.
