Multi-Vendor Considerations in the World of SMS

One of the biggest decisions businesses face when rolling out new services is whether to use a single end-to-end vendor or to take a multi-vendor approach. Companies can literally debate […]

One of the biggest decisions businesses face when rolling out new services is whether to use a single end-to-end vendor or to take a multi-vendor approach. Companies can literally debate for weeks and months about which approach to take.

Maintaining two or more strategic vendors can make sense in some areas of mobile engagement. This is particularly true in commoditized markets such as the world of pure Wholesale where lower prices – from maintaining a competitive environment between multiple suppliers – are likely to outweigh increased operational costs.

Not all content deliverers are built the same and any organization moving forward with one supplier only has to have complete confidence in them, feeling their vendor can grow as they might do. There is no room for error here: one failed campaign can impact the brand and consumers have long memories.

The Oxford Union in England is the most famous debating society in the world so let’s take a leaf out of their book and look at both sides of the argument objectively.

First up to the lectern we have the single-vendor approach…

  • Faster time-to-market

Analyzing competitor offeringsandnegotiating agreements with one company only saves precious time and resources. Likewise, integrations.

  • Simpler administration, operations and training

The single-vendor approach offers the advantage of purchasing and learning to use a single set of tools (e.g. customer portal) and competencies.

  • Lower support and testing costs 

Commercial and technical personnel only need to liaise with one vendor and if a client tests routing, testing one mobile engagement supplier saves time and money.

  • Streamlined workflow

Managing connectivity can have its complications, particularly given this is not the core competence of most organizations. Customers using a multi-vendor approach could find themselves overwhelmed by these challenges. With one end-to-end solution, however, the workflow is simpler.

  • Increased discount potential 

Dealing with one vendor inevitably leads to a higher sales volume — so bargain for a better discount that might outweigh price reductions in a multi-vendor scenario.

  • Closer vendor relationship 

Having only one account team to deal with is more efficient and is particularly valuable in large organisations with complex procurement procedures. A single, close relationship with the vendor account team can also bring human benefits.

And now over to the dual-vendor approach of the house…

  • Improved risk mitigation 

A dual-vendor approach helps to hedge the risks of a vendor going out of business or losing capacity or access to a particular destination.

  • Avoidance of lock-in

Becoming locked in to one environment – one business model for example – can be limiting and stifle the ability to evolve

  • Enhanced negotiation power

In a single-vendor relationship, the supplier has less incentive to lower its prices. Even if the relationship is working well, checking the market can bring additional peace of mind.

  • Improved account support quality

Once a supplier perceives a client to be ‘locked in’, there is sometimes little incentive to provide excellent service and standards can slip.  A vendor keen to become more strategic to your business will be a useful addition to your supply chain, being more responsive to user needs.

  • Access to more connectivity choices 

A single-vendor strategy limits any organization’s options. Whilst not an issue today, this could prove problematic in the future. A dual-vendor strategy enables more choice, in turn allowing a company to truly deploy the best solutions for its needs.

With our experience, innovative solutions, global reach, expert support and geographically redundant platforms, Mitto is perfectly placed, whichever vendor approach you decide is best for your organization.