Why MEDDPICC is Perfect for Channel

I get asked a lot: Should there be a P for Partners in MEDDPICC?

My answer is a firm No.

It's not because I don't think Partnerships, Channel, Co-selling, and Cloud Marketplaces aren't important enough. It's because I believe they are too important to relegate down to just one letter of MEDDIC.

Here are 3 reasons why MEDDPICC is 🔥 for the channel:

It helps GTM teams perfectly encapsulate the proposition of value being offered to specific stakeholders while communicating the status of the process.

You can't 'cosell' with a common language if both parties speak different languages.

• In a recent survey, AWS found that 76% of their managed accounts use MEDDIC
• At my last check, 87.5% of the most efficient and fastest-growing public companies used MEDDIC

I always feel a little daft when expanding on this point, but a common language has to be common. Yet I see other sales frameworks that have a tiny market share claiming to be a common language.

It's not inconceivable that the P evolves to stand for 'Place' as sellers question as early as possible, “Where would an agreement be transacted? Paper or Marketplace?” 

This evolution aside, considering Cloud Marketplaces under the 'P' means sellers can retain a proactive approach and can not only align with their customer's interests should they have a preference to transact in a marketplace but also differentiate themselves.

All of the above looks at MEDDPICC for the channel with a ‘co-sell’ lens There's a secondary lens of ‘selling to’ the channel, which MEDDPICC also works superbly for. This lens helps GTM teams consider how they sell themselves to potential partners to ensure they present themselves according to the interests of the partner they are trying to work with.

All in all... Don't relegate or dilute 'Partnerships' inside of MEDDPICC as a sole letter. Instead, expand it across all of MEDDPICC.