Just last week, I attended an industry conference in Madrid and listened to an IDC presentation, in which the analyst explained that 42 percent of the world’s enterprise IT departments are now using Third Party Maintenance (TPM) and the two primary reasons: “Cost savings” and “easier to do business with.”
By now, you have undoubtedly heard the stories of Cisco conducting entitlement audits to verify compliance or impose penalties on those who are unable. If you are not familiar with this issue or its history, I would highly encourage you to read Grant Patten’s (our VP, Service Delivery) article from a few weeks ago. The article is entitled (click the link to read): What Cisco and Traditional TPMs Don’t Want You To Know; Why We Need a Better Maintenance Solution.
“Educate them. But don’t OVER-educate them,” that was a former boss’s direction before pitching my former company’s solution to a client. He was afraid that if a prospect truly understood the economics of Cisco third party maintenance (“TPM”), they would choose to do it themselves rather than buying maintenance from us. My goal today is to “OVER-educate” you by opening the kimono on the economics of the industry.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has told manufacturers that their approach to monopolizing repair and support by putting warranty void stickers on products and in their disclaimers is illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law passed back in 1975.