Death in the Afternoon Cocktail & How the MACH Alliance must evolve
Issue №25 - We examine the MACH Alliance and where it goes from here, paired with a classic Absinthe & Champagne cocktail with a great back story.
Welcome everyone to another addition of Cocktails & Commerce. In this issue we explore the MACH Alliance and how it needs to evolve and change, while pairing it with a potent cocktail created by none other than a mixology patronus - Ernest Hemingway.
Cheers!
Cocktail: Death in the Afternoon before the sun also rises.
Earnest Hemingway is primarily known as a larger than life man-of-letters - a seminal author and personality, he was among the most simultaneously famous and infamous people of his day. His persona but one of his many creations. He had a significant impact on western culture and the milieu of his day - much of it positive, some perhaps less so. He also made an impact on the world of mixology and on drinking culture overall - creating ethos and mythology (for good and bad) as well as an iconic cocktail that packs a knife just like Hemingway’s beloved bullfighters.
Among the drinks most closely associated with Hemingway is the Daiquiri, which Hemingway most certainly helped to mainstream in American and western culture. But Hemingway did not create the Daiquiri, he just managed to enjoy them profusely! That was especially true of the Daiquiri No. 3 at his beloved Floridita Bar in Havana, Cuba. The Daiquiri No. 3 adds a bar spoon each of grapefruit juice and maraschino liqueur to the traditional spec, and is that variation which is now known as the Hemingway Daiquiri. (For more on a classic Cuban daiquiri, see C&C Issue No. 10).
But there is a cocktail which Hemingway indeed created - the Death in the Afternoon. This Champagne and absinthe cocktail was conceived of by Hemingway following his ‘absinthe phase’ during his time in 1920’s Paris. Although it shares a name with Hemingway’s 1930’s treatise on bullfighting, the drink was actually inspired by reflections on one of his many maritime adventures. As Hemingway explained, “This was arrived at by the author and three officers aboard the H.M.S. Danae after having spent seven hours overboard trying to get Capt. Bra Saunders’ fishing boat off a bank where she had gone with us in a N.W. gale.”
Based on Hemingway’s account, our crack research staff at C&C (aka: Wikipedia) has pinpointed that the cocktail was thus most likely created in 1931, when the H.M.S. Danae was based out of Britain's America and West Indies Station in Bermuda - and thus in Hemingway’s proximity. The recipe grew in notoriety after it first appeared in print in 1935’s collection of cocktails titled So Red the Nose, or, Breath in the Afternoon. All the cocktails in the book were contributed by famous writers of the time, and is seen as one of the first celebrity cocktail recipe compilations. Notably, most of these writers faded from notoriety, except of course Hemingway.
Hemingway, leaning into his well earned reputation as a voluminous quaffer, instructs when making the cocktail, “Pour one jigger absinthe into a Champagne glass. Add iced Champagne until it attains the proper opalescent milkiness. Drink three to five of these slowly.” The editor of the book added in a note, “It takes a man with hair on his chest to drink five absinthe and Champagne cocktails and still handle the English language in the Hemingway fashion,” and then later referring to one of the authors more well known works, “and after six of these cocktails, the Sun Also Rises.”
One of the cocktail’s unique attributes is indeed the opalescence Hemingway referred to as the marker for when the cocktail has reached appropriate proportions. This effect occurs when the Champagne hits the absinthe. The aromatic compounds in absinthe are more soluble in alcohol than in water - so when the absinthe is diluted, those compounds drop out of solution and crowd together, which we see as cloudiness or opalescence. This process is evident as well in the classic Absinthe Drip, which combines absinthe with cold water and sugar.
A word or two on ‘the green fairy’ - aka absinthe
Banned for almost a century, absinthe still carries connotations of danger and still has a hangover of sorts from its prohibition, particularly in the United States and Western Europe. Often depicted as a dangerously addictive hallucinogen, absinthe was blamed for many various societal ills - from making people crazy, violent, or despondent. That led to its ban in much of the world by 1915. Thankfully science has now debunked these claims, showing that absinthe's psychoactive properties were greatly exaggerated and its effects are no more impactful or harmful than other spirits.
The ban on absinthe stemmed from a combination of cheap, imitation knock-offs, the growing temperance movement of the day, and the wine industry's desire to protect and revitalize its market share - particularly in France where the movement to ban absinthe originally kicked off. Absinthe's resurgence began in the 1990s in the United Kingdom - where it was never formally banned - leading to repeal of the bans, including France. The United States finally repealed the ban in 2007. Repeal of the bans sparked renewed interest in Absinthe cocktails and classics like Death in the Afternoon.
So raise one or two - or if you dare, five or six - to Papa Hemingway and science! Cheers!
Death in the Afternoon Cocktail Spec, serves one:
1 1/2 oz (~45 ml) - Absinthe
~4 oz (~120 ml) - Chilled Champagne (substitute: dry sparkling wine)
Garnish - Lemon twist
The process:
Pour the absinthe in a Champagne flute or white wine glass (see note), then add chilled Champagne until the drink attains the desired opalescence (see note). Garnish with lemon peel . [Preparation time: 2 minutes]
Notes:
The glass - lets’ be honest here.. If you don’t have the proper glass, 1) acquire it, you are a grown-up now, or 2) who gives a fuck, just make the drink.
A useful and perhaps more palatable variation - If a full on ‘Death in the Afternoon’ is a bit much, or you think the cocktail can be a bit more interesting and complex, we suggest a simple and delicious variation, call it a ‘Coma in the Afternoon’. Use 1 oz. of absinthe (versus the 1.5) and add in ¼ oz fresh lemon juice and ¼ oz simple syrup. In some ways this variation is like a French 75 with a meaningful twist - subbing the gin for absinthe. This variation is wonderful, even if Papa H. may not have approved.
An update on the cocktail contest we entered… it was rigged!
We had a lot of fun entering the cocktail contest we talked about in the last issue of the newsletter. We enjoyed creating Josephine's Reply, and look forward to entering more contests in the future. As mixology enthusiasts it was a wonderful, creative experience to respond to a prompt and experiment - putting forth our best efforts.
Many asked how we did… Status - we did not win and are in the process of appealing to the World Court of Questionable Quaffing. Oolong tea syrup is not a readily available ingredient! The pictures? Pleeeazzzz. (Kidding!)
While we might quibble with application of all the contest criteria, we recognize we were in great company with many well crafted entries alongside ours. The winning amateur entry, Sunrise Around the World sounds delicious and interesting - and contains its own cheat - Italicus! It is more than worthy.
It also turns out the name of our cocktail may not have been quite as clever as we thought it was. We thought we were so creative… but turns out… no. There were over twenty-five ‘Josphine something or others’. Sigh...
Lets all raise a Sunrise Around the World and give a shout out to Cesar Pailhes, the winning amateur mixologist! (Fuck the pros, they get paid for this shit.)
Analysis: MACH Alliance - A great first few laps, but time to get serious
(Warning: Substack is warning me that this newsletter is too long. Fuck that, I have already whittled this as much as I am willing - there is a lot to cover! I hope if needed, you click through to see how this ends - sorry for that.)
I have personally been involved in nearly every possible type of conversation about the MACH Alliance - from the outside anyway. From conversations many years ago about something like the Alliance, to the Alliance launching and my being on the outside looking in and trying to figure out how to respond. From the business I was a part of being turned down more than once, to finally gaining admission. From being elected to the Executive Board of the Alliance - a role I was unable to serve once I decided to move on from Bloomreach - to today, as an independent industry observer and strategic advisor to both current and prospective Alliance members - as well as those who would rather bash it or ignore it. After thinking about this quite a bit of late, here are my key thoughts on the Alliance…
The MACH Alliance has crushed the first few laps - a lot of positives.
If you are involved in the commerce technology market it is hard to ignore the growth and impact the Alliance has had on the commerce technology market since its founding nearly four years ago. Bringing a community of competing technology and services providers together to agree on standards, advance a common narrative, pool resources, and fundamentally change the conversation across the landscape is remarkable in and of itself - let alone to see the degree of engagement, growth and lasting power the Alliance had already demonstrated. Arguably, the net impact has been greater than any other marketing strategy in the North American and European commerce tech marketplace in the last decade - and arguably remains so. (And I’m a marketer!)
In my mind, the MACH Alliance has achieved something very meaningful - it lit a fire under a stagnating market while mainstreaming and advancing key architectural concepts like ‘API-first’, ‘composability’, and ‘headless’ across the market. Once confined to largely niche, nerdy topics these concepts are now on the lips of not only CDOs and CTOs, but also many merchants and marketers and core to many of their go forward strategies as a whole. That is a good thing.
Digital experiences and commerce are about to enter another period of rapid evolution. Having the right technological and architectural foundations will present an advantage for those on the right path - whether that is a set of MACH Alliance member solutions or those that simply align with ‘MACH principles’. The future will be composable and API-first, whether those solutions are from members of the Alliance products or from others including the larger ‘suites’. Those ‘suites’ still remain the most dominant enterprise software providers in commerce, experience, and marketing - especially when you factor in all the various applicable domains, from front-office, middle-office, and back-office - and have many relevant products that will remain key to client’s composable strategies.
Is the MACH Alliance a marketing alliance? Got Milk?
One of the most common critiques of the Alliance has always been something to the effect that ‘it is just a marketing alliance’. Critics of the Alliance want to use that against it, while proponents want to argue that this is not true. But the funny thing is that not only is it true, but that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. Like a group of Californian dairy farmers, who teamed up to drive milk consumption with one of the best campaigns of the last century - it is hard to argue that the Alliance has not succeeded.
Pooling marketing efforts and resources was in fact one of the central founding missions of the Alliance - to help the member companies together compete more effectively in a landscape dominated by much larger, better funded competitors. Together, they took aim at Salesforce, Adobe, SAP, and now Shopify, among others - presenting an alternative narrative and an alternative future. A key principle of the Alliance was to ensure a MACH Alliance member won a deal, versus those who were not - counting on the benefit of narrowing the playing field to Alliance ‘certified solutions’ - and thus pooling demand. While there are many factors that lead to pipeline and closed-won, starting with a narrower playing field can certainly help - as can biasing selection criteria, RFP templates, and loads of lazy FUD. (And BTW - this in many ways to how Waves and Quadrants get used, and all that B.S.)
By uniting a community of vendors - most of whom are much smaller and less recognized than software giants like Salesforce, Adobe, or SAP - the Alliance has not only enabled these vendors to collaborate in order to enhance their competitiveness, but has also created a market landscape and synergistic ecosystem that leverages their collective resources to their amplify individual market presence and impact. The Alliance’s events have energy, its thought-leadership drives engagement, and members benefit from the Alliance’s ability to bend demand toward MACH solutions in part as a result.
Looking good. Drawing eyeballs at the gym.
Backing up and taking the long-view, I believe the Alliance is responsible for a noticeable shift in the market. The Alliance injected fresh competition and innovation into what - in my view - was a previously stale environment, maintaining a dynamic tension that continues to propel the industry forward in a number of ways.
The Alliance lit a fire under every vendor competing in the market - inside the Alliance and out - soliciting a response that ranged from brushing up their roadmaps; to revamping their partner programs; to refreshing their product marketing, to updating their sales narratives; and even attempting to create competing alliances. Sure there was plenty of ‘MACH-washing’, but suddenly everyone was competing to push their solutions forward and using a common vernacular to do so. The tension in the market has driven it forward, and that tension has persisted. (Look, I’m writing about it for a reason.)
While some outside the Alliance will argue that the impact from being on the outside has been minimal, the truth is that the Alliance has created a binary in the market - you are either in or out. In an already challenging market, the Alliance has provided a clear framework for many technology-oriented buyers working in commerce - such as CDOs, CTOs, and devs - aiding them in navigating their technology transformations with a set of ‘certified solutions’, thus simplifying their decision-making processes in an otherwise complex tech landscape. This narrowing of the set of solutions evaluated by buyers has brought benefit to the Alliance member companies - narrowing selection processes and RFPs to one’s focused on MACH - with often only the member companies included. And in processes that include both Alliance members and non-members, the member companies have often sought to use MACH certification to their advantage - slapping a healthy dose of lazy FUD on non-member companies which they hope sticks in the eyes of buyers.
The reality is that as the Alliance has grown, it’s shirt is too small.
While all that FUD may not always resonate with a sophisticated buyer, it has had its impact. In fact, from a marketing perspective, relief from FUD may be the biggest benefit to prospective members seeking to join the Alliance at this point. Enabling Alliance members to collaborate and pool marketing and other GTM resources to advance a narrative has certainly helped many member companies, while perhaps not in a way that has really impacted their business results.
Being in the Alliance is not enough to win on its own, and never was. A buyer at the end of the day is still going to select the best-fit, best-value, proven solution right for them. So being one of many solutions in a given domain within the Alliance is going to bring little real benefit unless you are clearly among the leaders within a respective category. If not, you will simply be cannon fodder - added to RFPs and processes with little chance you emerge with a deal, and the marketing benefits of the Alliance amorphous. If you joined - or are aiming to join - with the idea the Alliance will bring a flood of high-quality opportunities you will take down, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, if this is about removing FUD that you are not a modern solution and you desperately feel you just need more at bats, it will help - especially in Europe.
Which begs the question - why has this not caught on in North America?
The Alliance has effectively doubled membership every year - from the fourteen founding and inaugural members nearly four years ago, to the 108 ISV, services, and ‘enabler’ (AWS, Google Cloud, etc.) member companies as of this writing - evolving into an alliance that now spans many domains of the ‘front-office’ enterprise commerce tech stack. The Alliance's resources and staff have also grown and matured, enabling it to do more. The Alliance’s positive momentum is likely to continue - evidenced by a significant backlog of applicant companies queued to go through the certification process and be invited to join. But the reality is that most of the momentum and impact to-date has been in Europe. Why?
In my mind, the answer is not simply that ‘that’s where it started’ - cruising the canals of Amsterdam - as most of the vendors participating in the Alliance are multi-regional players and many of the customers deploying MACH are as well. It is also a fallacy to think that the European market was - or is - any more technologically advanced’ than North America. The real reasons lay in key differences in who the typical decision maker is in each market and the relative maturity and size of the digital businesses.
In Europe, earlier generations of commerce tech were implemented by businesses in a federated approach to their various country sites - run on distinct instances, even if on a common platform (and often not). This federated approach caused a nightmare of sorts - with many challenges in managing and evolving these sites. MACH not only presented a meaningful, well-timed evolution, but it also appealed to the typical, key tech decision maker in Europe - IT. In the EU, technology and solution decisions almost always rest on the shoulders of technologists.
This contrasts with the U.S., where ‘the business’ often makes the call. In my mind, the yawns the Alliance has largely received in the U.S. have less to do with a lack of technical understanding on the part of the business - U.S. enterprise commerce leaders are relatively technically savvy - and more to do with risk and the focus these leaders have on business impact and the outcomes they want to see in any new solutions or larger technology transformations.
The more mature the business - and experienced these business leaders are - the more likely they have been burned before by technology trends crashing through the market. They also may be thinking shorter-term, with pressure to deliver business results within quarters, not years - and ‘full MACH’ is not an easy button and for many, represents risk. That said, that perceived risk is not true when it comes to ‘composability’ as a whole.
Composability is not a new concept - the U.S. has been doing this workout for years.
In the U.S. - particularly in the enterprise segment - composability is not a new concept, even if the term is relatively so. Many U.S. commerce leaders look at MACH and wonder what the big deal is - they have been composable for years - combining ‘API-first’ solutions over time into their commerce, experience, and marketing stacks to solve for specific capabilities and needs. In fact, many Alliance member solutions play well in a composable tech strategy overall - and have many clients who combine their solutions with non-Alliance member solutions, including Salesforce, SAP, Adobe, bespoke, and so on. In the U.S., many clients look at the vendors they work with who are not in the Alliance and see basically the same as those who are. In fact they might even be confused or even insulted when they are told the vendors they rely on today - and will likely continue to - are ‘not MACH’ and somehow bad.
Many of these ‘baddies’ are key vendors for these businesses, who also happen to be well aware of their vendors roadmaps - perhaps even having influence on them - and these roadmaps and strategies have composability and ‘API-first’ all over them. It is not fair to call that ‘MACH-washing’, rather that is sensible evolution based on what is needed by clients now and in the future, or to better integrate with other solutions offered by these non-Alliance members.
So while the MACH principles make sense to clients overall, the contrast less so. That is especially true absent the meaningful payoffs that the Alliance’s certification should represent - reducing cost and complexity, while improving interoperability and flexibility. That leads us to…
All legs, no upper body, time for a new workout - a ‘marketing alliance’ of tech brands is not enough.
Despite all the momentum, impact and promise, the Alliance in many ways faces a crossroads. Recently evolved admission criteria and mission, the sheer number of member companies, and the Alliance’s focus on growth in the North American market heighten the questions about the Alliance’s future - what it is for, what it should become, and the lasting impact it can have. Being a ‘marketing alliance’ is simply not enough - and, we all know it.
By everyone here, I really mean it - members, non-members, customers, prospects, service providers, and observers like me. We all know that the Alliance needs to stand for more and that the certification must have real meaning. But the thing is, the Alliance - and specifically its leadership and staff - knows this too, and is working on it.
The Alliance has evolved the inclusion criteria more than once, but most recently this past April. The Alliance evolved the inclusion criteria to longer only certify ‘standalone legal business entities’ but to include independent offerings within larger vendors, where the MACH solutions are actively branded, offered and sold separately.
That is fucking great to hear.
The communication also put forth an expanded vision. That vision focuses on the ‘buyer perspective’ and from the buyers “growing need for guidance in navigating a landscape characterized by a mix of legacy systems, MACH Certified® technologies, and emerging product innovations.” It goes on to share that buyers have emphasized “the importance of MACH architectural principles and vendor interoperability, hallmarks guaranteed by our MACH certification [...and] enterprise technology buyers want to see the MACH Alliance play a more active role in helping them navigate this complex landscape.” Also great to hear.
But wait… there is some fine print in the gym membership… WTF?
The evolution of certified solutions at first glance feels like a great move, but once you look at the details it is clear it is not enough. The updated criteria state that certified solutions must be “independent brands within larger companies”, meeting five specific requirements. Some of these requirements make sense… they must be ‘Distinct Products and/or Services’ separate from any parent company offering, showcasing a unique value proposition. ‘Adherence to MACH Principles’ also makes sense, aligning with the open and 'best of breed' composable approach advocated by the MACH Alliance, and to demonstrable through customer examples and ‘interoperability with products’ - which though implied, it is left unclear if those must be all be MACH. In my view these updates are fair and good.
But what makes this update goofy is the need for these solutions to maintain a ‘distinct brand and identity’, “possess[ing] a distinct brand identity, separate from other offerings within the parent company” What the heck does that mean? Does ‘Adobe Experience Manager’ demonstrate a separate identity? What about “Optimizely Experiment”? I think we know the answer.
Even more silly is that these ‘solutions’ must maintain an ‘external brand presence’ - “marketed and sold independently, with its own external-facing presence and website”. Website? Is that a separate domain? And in addition, the ‘solution’ must maintain an ‘independent brand executive team’ with autonomy. These are simply unrealistic.
Time for the Alliance to diversify its workout and focus on products, not companies.
The fine print of this latest criteria update begs the question of who these were really designed to exclude. To keep Salesforce, Adobe, SAP, Shopify, Optimizely, etc. at arm’s length? Meanwhile, if one of these players acquires a MACH Alliance member and is willing to sacrifice brand and GTM synergies to keep the brand independent that solution can stay in? C’mon. Let’s just say it seems as if these were not done with the interests of the clients and buyers of MACH solutions in mind - and let’s leave it at that.
What should really matter is if a solution is really a composable one or not - able to combine with other composable solutions and adhere to MACH principles, not that they are stand alone companies or brands or teams. It is time for the Alliance to really open up to evaluate relevant products and services whomever offers them - as long as they are relevant to digital enterprise commerce, experience, and marketing. (Yep, that's wide enough!) Adherence to standards and interoperability and ability to combine with other composable solutions is what matters - not all this other bullshit. It is time for the Alliance open up certification eligibility, for realllllz.
And as they do that - maybe over time - why not extend down and across the stack, into the middle and back-offices as well. That shifts the focus to really takes to run these digital businesses, beyond just the front-end. Of course, we all should recognize that opening up the aperture of eligibility could bring a flood, so this can certainly be staged - while the direction and criteria are both made clear.
And what about this workout fad? What is this “microservices” B.S.?
At the very core of the MACH Alliance is of course the principle that every member must be MACH - delivering or implementing commerce and experience solutions that meet the core criteria of being ‘MACH’: Microservices based, API-first, Cloud-native SaaS, and Headless. Of those, three make real sense (API-first, Cloud-native SaaS, and Headless), whereas the first one much less so. The truth is that many MACH members are not really, or certainly not fully - microservices based- and for sure not all. But then again, it doesn't really matter now does it. Any purity test around microservices is really just a distraction. (Go ahead, nod your head.)
Just because these vendors are not microservices-based does not mean these vendors do not deliver meaningful solutions via API - because they do. But they are not actually built with a microservices architecture - many have ‘legacy’ tech stacks under the hood, with all the inherent advantages and limitations that come with that. Is that really a problem? Not really- as long as it is consistent. What actually matters is that the solution integrates and can be run via API; runs in the cloud and ideally be able to run on different clouds (not just the vendors’ chosen one); and is ‘headless’ and able to integrate to any number of ‘heads’ - digital and digitally-enabled experiences. Perhaps ‘micro-services’ is a sign a vendor can theoretically develop their solution faster or more efficiently, but it has little to do with the capabilities and value of a product or service.
That said, I am not proposing the Alliance change its name - MACH is a much better acronym than ‘ACH’! The really important things lay elsewhere.
C’mon, add more weight! Have a real impact by focusing on standards
Perhaps the most important and ambitious purpose of the MACH Alliance mission is to make it easier to implement these solutions together, while creating a “swappable enterprise tech stack in which every component is pluggable, scalable, replaceable, and can be continuously improved through agile development to meet evolving business requirements” [Source: MACH Alliance]. The goal is to make these solutions easier to buy; easier and more efficient to implement and integrate; and enable interoperability and really pay off on “the freedom to choose from the best tools on the market today and provide a structure that makes it easy to add, replace, or remove technologies in the future.” This is an area the Alliance still needs to pay off.
The truth is, integrations across MACH solutions today are largely still point-to-point. The reality is that sorting this out often falls to consultancies and system integrators who leverage commercial iPaaS solutions - or build their own frameworks - to try to simplify this for clients. These solutions are often generic tech, and not tuned to the high throughput and unique use-cases seen in digital commerce and experience. It also introduces a different kind of vendor lock-in for clients - dependency on the services provider over the long haul - making it hard to cease their active support or make a change. Sure, businesses can do that themselves, but again, that shifts the problem and forces them to own and productize these solutions within their organizations - which some have certainly done, but which many will not want to invest in and manage.
While very hard to do, the Alliance must lean into developing and enforcing standards and protocols that pay off on the promise of interoperability and more efficient implementation. In the case of the Alliance that can include API structures, taxonomies, data models, logging, integration patterns, and interoperability. To be clear, that is very hard to do. It requires a level of focus, negotiation, and compromise that can be very difficult to sustain or realize - but it can be done with dedication, focus, and effective program management. It even gives MACH members a reason to stick around and engage even more meaningfully - to ensure their desires are met. I know there are workgroups within the Alliance beginning this work, but more needs to be done.
Time to pump you up! Time to put the the ‘D’ in ‘da Mach Alliance’!
The ‘marketecture’ the alliance uses has holes, and no more so than the ‘data layer’. There are no common data models or standards that enable the various solutions in a commerce and experience stack to work together - as whole - effectively. This adds to the challenge of delivering on the promise of interoperability, flexibility, ‘swapability’, simplicity, and the ability to make implementations more efficient.
But what makes this even more critical is the need for data standards that opportunity that Generative and general AI present in digital commerce, experiences, and marketing. The MACH Alliance is full of members who on an individual vendor level have an AI story and recognize the important inflection point that AI represents - even if it is early. Yet the Alliance itself does not have an ‘AI story’ or seem to want to step in with a meaningful POV - with some MACH Alliance voices even taking a near-luddite view of Generative AI in this market.
Whether training AI products from the hyperscalers - some of whom are MACH Alliance ‘Certified Enablers’ - or training their own LLMs - clean, easily accessed data is critical to business ability to benefit from the next generation of AI that is both here and evolving fast. (This is also critical for effective analytics, but let’s not digress.) Making it easier for clients of MACH certified solutions to leverage the event, order, customer, and process data across their solutions together with the advent of Generative AI - both in the experiences they deliver and efficiencies they seek - can represent a huge benefit of working with certified solutions. That means focusing on data. I recognize that developing data standards and common models is likely very hard to accomplish, but great things often are.
Perhaps all this reflects a hard truth that gets at the core of the Alliance’s structure.
Work the abs! The Alliance should consider restructuring to better incorporate clients - the buyers of their solutions.
The Alliance today is made up of solution providers - largely ISV vendors and service providers (SIs). The Alliance incorporates the end-customers of these solutions in the form of “Ambassadors”, which is good - but these are individuals (not the companies they work for) and are not really members.
To become more meaningful and meet the needs of the buying community the Alliance should make them the focus of membership. By doing so, a greater focus on the education, thought-leadership, and standards needed will naturally become paramount. Current ISV members and services providers in the Alliance would benefit, though they may need to be reclassified as “sponsoring member” or something to that effect.
Today, all the funding, governance, and prioritization of the Alliance is driven by the vendor community. I believe to drive long-lasting change, deliver on the promise of MACH, and be relevant for the long-haul the Alliance should consider this change. I know it is big, but so can bring loads of benefit.
Let's go! More reps! MACH is good! MACH can be great! Double down!
I call on the MACH Alliance members to support ongoing evolution and focus on what really what matters - and for the leadership to keep pushing. Where the Alliance is at today presents a phenomenal start - and everyone who has been involved with its beginnings and evolution should be credited with a big ol’ pat on the back and congratulations. But it is not enough. Time for another lap.
Further change and evolution is needed for the Alliance to deliver on its promise - and the next two to three years in my mind are key. The ideas I have shared here are in many ways a synthesis of conversations I have had with many. I hope they may be useful, though they are certainly worthy of debate and maybe I have not seen the whole picture.
Bottom line, we believe the MACH Alliance has the greatest potential to solve the hairy problems that have plagued our market for too long - so make it happen!
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your comments.
If you are looking for Brian online, you can find him here, here, and here. And find Bill here and here.
Be well, be safe, and here is to good business! Cheers! - Brian
Cocktails & Commerce™ is a wholly owned subsidiary of StrategyēM, LLC.