Good Technology yesterday may have made its intentions of going public clear to the tech industry, but the details of how its initial public offering (IPO) will impact the channel are located deep within the company's IPO prospectus.
On Wednesday, the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based enterprise mobility management (EMM) solutions provider filed its registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for an IPO that it hopes will raise $100 million.
To make things a little easier for the channel, MSPmentor has taken a look at Good Technology's S-1 filing to find out what the company's plans are for its channel partners.
Here's a quick recap of what Good Technology had to say in its IPO prospectus about the role of its channel partners going forward.
Good Technology leverages its own direct sales force, resellers and other channel partners
Noted in its S-1 filing, the company's sales strategy revolves around it selling its "secure mobility solution and related services primarily to large organizations through a combination of our direct sales force and our channel partnership."
Good Technology additionally plans to continue customer acquisition by expanding and growing its channel relationships. It currently works with value-added resellers (VARs), managed service providers (MSPs) and value-added distributors.
With regards to how Good Technology will leverage its channel partners for sales, the EMM vendor stated the following in the document:
"We focus our direct sales efforts on the Forbes Global 2000 and augment our direct coverage with extensive channel partnerships that focus on companies with approximately $500 million or more in annual revenues. Our direct field sales force is complemented by an inside sales force to enhance our coverage and both are supported by telesales representatives who are primarily responsible for qualified lead generation."
But that's not all:
"In addition to augmenting our direct sales coverage for large accounts, we utilize partners as our primary channel to serve accounts below approximately $500 million in annual revenues. This allows us to better leverage our internal resources while broadening our geographic footprint and extending our sales reach into the middle market."
This messaging is in line with what Good Technology CEO Christy Wyatt told MSPmentor back in March: "I don't think of the channel as some abstract thing from the organization. They really have to be working hand-in-hand with our team."
But what if Good Technology's channel partners can't generate sales?
The company stated in the document that its growth will be impeded if it fails to expand its sales organization and channel partnerships.
"Our business may be adversely affected if our efforts to expand and train our sales organization and channel partners do not generate a corresponding increase in revenues. In particular, if we are unable to hire, develop and retain talented sales personnel or if new sales personnel or channel partners are unable to achieve desired productivity levels according to our forecast, we may not be able to realize the expected benefits of this investment or increase our revenues."
The majority of the company's agreements with channel partners are non-exclusive, which means many of its channel partners have relationships with competitors, the company said.
"If we do not invest an appropriate amount of resources to train and develop our channel partners or if our channel partners do not effectively market and sell our solution, or if they choose to place greater emphasis on products of their own or those offered by our competitors, or if they fail to meet the needs of our customers, our ability to grow our business and sell our solution may be adversely affected, particularly in the public sector, the mid-market and internationally."
Good Technology posted a net loss of $118.4 million on $160.4 million in revenue last year and reported a net loss of $90.4 million on $116.6 million in revenue in 2012.
The filing does not indicate the number of shares to be sold or the price range for the proposed offering -- an exchange name is also missing from the document.