Skip to content
Log in
← Glossary

channel conflict

Also called: partner conflict

A clash when your own sales team and a partner, or two partners, go after the same customer. It leads to price undercutting, confused buyers and partners who stop selling for you; clear rules on who owns which accounts and deal registration prevent most of it.

Channel conflict happens when two of a company's sales routes go after the same customer: the vendor's own sales team and a partner, or two partners. The customer gets two calls and two quotes for the same product, the sellers start undercutting each other, and the partner who loses concludes that working with this vendor isn't worth it.

Most of it is preventable with rules agreed before the first deal. Decide which accounts each route owns (for example, companies already in the vendor's pipeline stay direct), use deal registration so a partner can claim a new opportunity for a set period, record the date of first contact for every account, and write down who serves a client after signing and who decides a dispute. Compensation matters too: if the vendor's salespeople lose all credit when a partner closes a deal, they have every reason to compete with partners.

Some remedies cross legal lines and must not be used. A vendor may not fix or set a minimum resale price to stop partners undercutting each other, and may not forbid a partner from serving customers who approach it on their own (passive sales). A vendor can limit a partner's active selling into areas or customer groups reserved for others in certain cases, and can recommend a resale price without pressure; the exact rules have exceptions, so partner agreements are reviewed by a lawyer. This is a guardrail, not legal advice.

Example

Klasna for Teams sells directly at 800 UAH a lesson (contribution 339), through referral partners (10% commission leaves 259) and through a training agency that resells (it buys at 640 and sets its own price, so Klasna keeps 179).

Suppose the agency pitches a retail company that Klasna's own team first called in March and has been talking to since. Without a rule, both send quotes. If the deal ends up going through the agency, Klasna's contribution falls by 339 − 179 = 160 a lesson: on 100 lessons a month that is 160 × 1,200 = 192,000 UAH a year, and the client has watched two sellers of the same lessons compete.

With the rules in Klasna's partner terms, the agency would have registered the company first; Klasna would have answered within the week that it was already in its pipeline, with the date of the first call, and the agency would have moved on with no surprise. What Klasna does not do is tell the agency it may not sell below 800 or may not serve companies that contact it themselves: those would be the legal lines described above.

Common mistakes

  • Waiting for the first clash to write rules. Account ownership, registration and disputes are cheap to agree early and expensive to argue later.
  • Fixing resale prices to stop undercutting. It is illegal under EU and Ukrainian competition law; fix the ownership rules instead.
  • Banning passive sales. A partner must stay free to serve customers who come to it on their own.
  • Paying your own team only for direct deals. Then they compete with partners; give credit for partner deals in their territory.
  • No record of first contact. Without dates, every dispute is one person's word against another's.

Learn it in the course

  • Partner terms and legal guardrails · Tiered commission, deal registration, a partner marketing fund and conflict rules, plus the lines you don't cross: no fixed resale prices, no ban on passive sales, consent before sharing client data.