I promised myself I wouldn’t write another Trump article.
The first one – Ten Lessons From Trump For Channel Managers – was meant to be a one-off. Then came Six Lessons from the Trump-Harris Debate for PAMs. Surely that was enough. But the past few months have provided such a steady stream of examples of alliances being strained, tested, and occasionally blown up entirely, that it’s hard not to notice the parallels with vendor-partner relationships.
Whether it’s geopolitics or the IT channel, the fundamentals of partnership are the same – trust, predictability, and mutual benefit. Start undermining those, and even long-standing allies begin looking around for alternatives. So here are seven more lessons from Trump… this time for vendors.
1. Allies Don’t Like Surprises
One of the fastest ways to strain an alliance is to suddenly change the rules. In geopolitics that might mean tariffs appearing overnight, or long-standing agreements being questioned without warning. Even close allies become uneasy when major decisions appear without consultation. Channel partners react in much the same way. Pricing changes, margin adjustments, or new partner programs announced with minimal notice, create uncertainty in the partner’s business. Most partners can handle change. What they struggle with is discovering the change when they haven’t been warned or given time to prepare.
2. Short-Term Wins Can Create Long-Term Resentment
Transactional thinking can deliver quick results. Push hard in a negotiation, extract better terms, and claim a victory. But alliances are long games, and when one side consistently pushes for maximum advantage, the other side eventually adjusts its behaviour. Commitment drops, enthusiasm fades, and cooperation becomes more cautious. In the channel this can happen when vendors take a deal direct, readjust incentives, or squeeze margins to hit a quarterly target. The numbers might improve in the short term, but the long-term enthusiasm of the partner ecosystem slowly declines.
3. Power Is Not the Same as Partnership
The Trump administration has made it clear that they have power, and plan to wield it regardless of what so-called international institutions might think. Similarly, large vendors have power in their ecosystems. They control pricing, programs, access to marketing funds, and dictate certification requirements. That power can enforce compliance, but it cannot create enthusiasm. Partnerships built primarily on leverage often result in partners doing the minimum required to stay in the program while quietly shifting their attention elsewhere. True partnerships rely less on authority and more on shared incentives, respect, and mutual benefit.
4. Partners Hedge Their Bets When Trust Declines
When alliances start to feel uncertain, countries rarely walk away immediately. Instead, they begin exploring alternatives. Countries such as Canada, South Korea and members of the European Union are actively looking to increase trade with other countries and reduce their reliance on the US. Channel partners behave in much the same way. If a vendor becomes unpredictable or difficult to work with, partners rarely leave overnight. Instead they hedge. They add a competing offering, invest a little less time, or start building a services capability that’s not reliant on the vendor. They quietly shift their focus to a vendor that’s more stable and reliable.
5. Predictability Is a Strategic Asset
One of the reasons long-standing alliances endure is predictability. Countries want to know that agreements signed today will still hold next year, and that leadership changes won’t suddenly reverse decades of cooperation. Channel partners value exactly the same stability. When vendors maintain clear strategies, consistent partner programs, and transparent communication about future direction, partners feel confident investing in skills, marketing, and pipeline development. Uncertainty creates the opposite effect. When the future direction of a vendor appears unclear, partners tend to slow down their investment and keep their options open.
6. Loyalty That Is Forced Rarely Lasts
Political alliances often come with expectations of loyalty. Leaders want allies to show visible alignment and support their positions publicly. But loyalty that is demanded tends to be fragile. Channel programs sometimes fall into the same trap by asking partners for exclusivity, discouraging them from carrying competing solutions, or penalising them when they do. From the vendor’s perspective this may look like protecting commitment. From the partner’s perspective it often feels like being asked to take on additional risk. Loyalty that comes from pressure rarely lasts very long. Loyalty that comes from strong economics and shared success tends to sustain itself.
7. No Partner Is Ever Completely Locked In
Long alliances can create a sense of permanence. After years of working together it’s easy to assume the relationship will simply continue. But every partnership has alternatives. In the channel, most partners already carry several competing vendors in the same category. If one relationship becomes difficult, shifting focus is rarely impossible. I’ve often said that partners don’t switch distributors because a new distributor has done something dramatically better. It’s often because their existing distributor has dropped the ball (eg. when Ingram’s disastrous SAP rollout created an opening for Dicker Data to gain market share). Strong partnerships survive not because history guarantees them, but because the relationship continues to create value for both sides.
Closing Thought
Whether in global politics or the IT channel, alliances rarely collapse overnight. They erode gradually through small decisions that weaken trust, reduce predictability, or shift the balance of mutual benefit.
Which is why the best channel leaders don’t just manage partners. They understand the importance of consistency. They balance short-term goals with long-term relationships. They manage the health of the partnership itself. Because once your partners start quietly exploring alternatives, the alliance is already weaker than it looks.
Always keen to hear what you think. If you have any thoughts or comments, you can contact me HERE.
