It’s Way Past Time to Get Rid of the Term ‘Master Agent’

Dave Dyson

The recent Channel Futures article, “Channel Partners Debate Rebranding Master Agents,” argued that while the terms master agent and subagent are problematic, they are the terms we know and have used for years.

It’s important for me to say that this response is my own opinion. It’s equally important to note that I am a board member of and offered to share my thoughts on behalf of Xposure. Xposure is the organization where the industry meets to champion diversity, equity and inclusion in the space. It’s also worth noting that I am a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for Channel Futures, though in no way does this op-ed represent that organization. I note my affiliation to both organizations because both are critical to the growth of our channel, not just in terms of revenue and customers, but more importantly in becoming a more equitable and inclusive industry.

All that said, these are the opinions of Dave Dyson. You are free to agree and sign on or vehemently disagree with me. I will heretofore refer to master agents as “technology services distributors” and subagents as “partners.”

What’s the ‘Debate’?

When I read the headline and the verb “debate,” I was intrigued insomuch as I wanted to see what arguments there might be for keeping the terms “master” and “subagent.” I had hoped to find a clever linguistic or legalistic argument that might play devil’s advocate. The strongest claim mustered was something to the effect of, “It’s the way we’ve always done it.” Everyone quoted in the article, many of whom I am lucky to call friends and all of whom I respect, were gracious, thoughtful and politically savvy in their viewpoints, which I appreciate.

Allow me to be a little less of all of those things and say the time to end the master/sub titles was 20 years ago. Each day that goes by where we still use these terms is one too many. I know I am taking what may seem like an incredibly controversial stance here, so let me take you through my rationale. (For the record, I have many controversial opinions: I am against cancer, in favor of puppies, and think that people could stand to be a little nicer to one another).

First and foremost, words matter. We have thankfully entered an era where people are acknowledging the connection between naming and thinking. We must acknowledge the influence of our words, particularly those of us whose words are listened to, studied and repeated. In our world, technology services providers have lots of power, and more importantly, they have the largest bullhorns. They have sway over which vendors are allowed in, power over the contracts that are signed by vendors and partners, and incredible influence on what we sell, how we speak (“trusted adviser,” anyone?), and the framing of how technology services are talked about and sold.

We know that what we say – and how we say it – influences our customers, partners and co-workers, and just as we think about strategic communication and its impact in terms of corporate culture and bottom line, we must also think about how the messages we send impact the social world.

I am calling on my friends and partners at Avant, Sandler Partners, Telarus, TBI and Scansource/Intelisys to take the lead and be bold. First one to come up with a new name wins! I promise, no one will hold the death of the term “master” in our business against you.

Racist Overtones

Secondly, it has super-racist overtones. Do we need to persist in naming this relationship based on …