Rebates are a fact of life and the first marketing group rebate negotiation, in 1968, was designed to capture incremental revenue (for a wire company) with the distributors collecting the funds for a social engagement.
But the core issue was the manufacturer sought growth / increased market share.
Vendor published programs such as Legrand\’s Cornerstone program, Leviton\’s Excalibur program, Thomas & Betts\’ Signature Service, Hoffman\’s Meridian and more are \”standardized\” programs, offered to distributors who meet certain performance expectations (sales volume, category commitment, etc). They were all designed to generate growth (either conversions, some share shift or stimuli to focus sales and marketing efforts).
Many of these programs have remained the same for years.
And here\’s where we need your help.
So, we need your help by taking this survey. At the end you can also register to win one of three Microsoft Surface\’s AND they will donate $10 per response to the NAED Education Foundation.
We need your input by Tuesday, August 9th.
Additionally, share your thoughts below, anonymously, on:
- Why a manufacturer should offer a rebate if it is not based on growth?
- What other supply chain / inventory management elements should be included as an element of a rebate program?
- What is the role, if any, of business development activities in a vendor published program? (i.e. Marketing funds / co-op, promotional activities, planning processes, etc)
Manufacturers, do you feel you get an appropriate return on your vendor published programs or are they a \”necessary evil\” / recognition of supporting distributor profitability?
If you are a manufacturer rep, what are your thoughts on the issue.
So, do vendor published rebate programs work? Do they drive growth?
Thanks for your input. All feedback is confidential.