by 
What's in a name? Sometimes, the answer is: "More than we might think." Consider the evolution of names and other terminologies in the world of automobile sales for example. First we had "used cars." Then "pre-owned" and "previously owned." Now, car dealers sell "certified pre-owned cars." Yikes!
Yes, these terms all refer to the same thing: a car that is not fresh off the assembly line and therefore not new. Yet the implicit meaning of each of these terms is different. When people hear the word "used" -- whether referring to a car, furniture, golf clubs, or most anything else -- the initial impression often is that the product would be substandard, damaged, and of questionable value. The seller has to overcome these implicit objections before getting to the specific offering, which may, in fact, be a very good product and a smart buy.
In the minds of most people there's just one alternative to a used car: a new car. That's not the case with pre-owned, previously owned, and certified pre-owned vehicles. The alternative may well be a different pre-owned, previously owned, or certified vehicle.
So, what does this have to do with the supply chain and distribution channel? Again, more than we might think. There's a change underway in electronics distribution channel nomenclature. Organizations formerly called "franchised distributors" are now being referred to as "authorized distributors." In and of itself, you might not think a name change like this would make a difference. But it can when the corollary is that anyone not "authorized" is "unauthorized."
Using this logic, a person who decides to open a hamburger stand not affiliated with the majors (Mickey D's et. al.) is in effect selling unauthorized beef. Seems a bit ludicrous don't you think? Unauthorized is a fear-invoking word. Unauthorized entry is illegal. So are unauthorized charges to a credit account. There's danger and risk implicit in the word.
Hamburger aside, it's not clear to me that the new terminology is serving the interests of the customer within a supply chain context either. The fact is that there are times when the constraints on authorized distributors make it impossible for them to obtain critical components. When that happens, there are only a couple of alternatives: Shut down production or do business with an independent. If the perception is that there's always risk in working with an independent (which, incidentally, I know is not a fact), then shutdown is the only answer, and that's an expensive, counterproductive way to go. I'd be curious to know if that has in fact ever really happened.
A colleague recently gave me pause to think as he pointed out an apparent error in logical thought that had escaped me for a long time. He said: "Authorized distributor is not the opposite of unauthorized distributor!" (Although it’s all too easy for the mind to make that assumption almost immediately.) Taking this a bit further, as an independent distributor, it's also important to me that my current and potential customers understand that "independent" is not the opposite of "authorized." And "independent distributor" and "broker" are not synonymous.
I need my customers to think about this. Some words have taken on meanings that are at best misleading. But it just doesn't follow that "it's risky to do business with an independent distributor." Now, I don't dispute that there may be more of a risk of receiving counterfeit components from an independent distributor than from an authorized distributor. But, let's be clear on this: Authorized is not synonymous with risk-free . I know that counterfeits can enter the supply chain at any point, including authorized channels and even through OEMs.
That's why the words caveat emptor have become so much a part of our collective vocabulary. You just never know. The good news is that when an independent is properly credentialed and vetted, my experience and that of my customers proves that there's no more risk than when purchasing through an authorized distributor. That's a fact if you're dealing with the right kind of independent distributor.
The right independent distributor is a viable link in the supply chain. Manufacturers need to embrace these independents and value them for what they add to the supply chain. Incoming inspection, audited and certified quality inspectors, training and certification for the proper handling of ESD sensitive parts come to mind.
For the record, there are many reliable ways to qualify an independent, among them:
- Is it a member of the Independent Distributors of Electronics Association (IDEA)? If so, then it will already be qualified as "safe." Out of thousands of independent distributors, IDEA currently has a roster of about 35 member companies that have undergone rigorous training regarding standards and ethics.
- Does it have a substantial, quality program?
- Does it have appropriate certifications; e.g., ISO or AS9120?
- How long has it been in business?
On a final note, most of the time, calling someone or something "independent" is usually seen as a positive, but maybe that's not the case in the electronics component distribution business. Do we need to consider a new name for the independent distributors that have met the highest quality standards and are able to be as "risk-free" as franchised or authorized channels? The time may be right for such a review.
How about "Certified Distributor?" Would a formal, perhaps mandatory certification process be a good idea? I'd support that. What do you think the next step should be? I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
About Independent Distributors
Because I have read lately a lot of articles and comments with a topic relative to independent distributors I have a messy image about them and a few questions:
What are the characteristics that do a distributor to be named as an independent distributor?
Why to be an independent distributor?
What is the opposite of an independent distributor?
That's a really good question Nemos.
I thought all distributors are 'Independent'. I thought it was because they were not tied to any particular products or clients independently & are free to sell to anyone.
I assume (dangerous, I know) that at least one motivation to use the term 'authorized' is assurance that product obtained through that channel is not counterfeit. If the perception is, then, that the independent channels pose more risk, some sort of certification or program to assure customers of part authenticity may be very helpful.
Great questions…The supply chain in its historical format has only allowed for three paths to obtain product- factory direct, franchise distribution, and brokers. This methodology has worked well but the industry has matured and as a result a new class of distributors has emerged to fill in the gaps that these three sourcing channels cannot provide. A simple summary would be to say that Independent Distributors provide solutions for the 20% of parts that cause 80% of the headaches. This includes the shortages, obsoletes, excess disposition, but also includes vendor consolidation, value engineering, low cost replacement analysis, and other services!
Your second question regarding the characteristics needed to be an Ind. Disty is interesting. While there are many certifications and qualifications that can help demonstrate proficiency and a committment to quality, I think the thing that seperates independent distributors the most is that they have a complete understanding of the supply chain, and as a result are able to tailor custom solutions to solve those difficult supply chain issues. Staying in that independent distribution category frees them from any contractual obligations to component manufacturers that might prevent them from delivering creative and outside the box solutions.
I hope this sheds some light on your questions and I would to hear from others on whether you think independent distribution can really add value to the supply chain!
I haven't used Google+ yet, but I am aware of a few friends who have. So far they seemed to be pretty impressed. Granted, they are network computer geeks who will be looking at things that some of us will not take into consideration. I think Google+ has a good chance to be the next big innovator. They have had time to see what sites like Facebook and Twitter have to offer, and are going to try and better them. With Linkedin being mainly a business networking site, Google’s main competition is Facebook and Twitter. Since Google+ has only been out for a few weeks, it will be interesting to hear what the masses have to say after they have had time to really get to know the site.
This is a great article that brings up very interesting points. No matter how many times you want to rename a product or company, it's still the same component. I think independent distributors definitely have a place in the supply chain. The fact that they are not labeled a certain way is a formality that doesn't change the fact that they carry the same quality products. There should be some sort of certification that might help ease buyer’s minds. As for counterfeits, we all know they have ways of slipping into the supply chain even with the best of authorized distributors.
Google, as usual,still keeps this as invitation-based. It tries to maintain a mysterious status? Those who already have the account often mention this is quite similar to facebook anyway. I am keen to have an account as well 🙂
Haven't used it yet, but if you're telling me it provides the consolidation I want between business and personal visbility, I'm intrigued. As a marketing director for my firm, it becomes quite a bear to manage the outflow between Linked In, Facebook, Twitter and keep that statistic climbing. Up to now, I've relied on products like Nutshell to help monitor the various social media groups and communication lines. If Google+ has a method that saves time and increases reach, then I'm impressed enough to get on it this weekend!
I imagine every other marketing pro in the supply chain ought to be doing the same.
Great article on independents. The supply chain has certainly evolved and we have to be clear on its various segments, particularly in quality-critical components. My advice – ask the distributor for its certifications. Some will make them readily available on their sites along with links to key certifiying bodies including IDEA and one you didn't mention – ERAI. Here's the link on that group:
http://www.erai.com/
@Tvotapka — It's too early yet to tell what Google has in store for businesses. As of now, they have asked businesses not to set up accounts for their brands, leading us to believe there is more to the platform than currently meets the eye. It was the same for Facebook's evolution into 'Pages'. I am spending time familiarizing myself with Google+ on an individual level before they release expectation for business sites–armed with the knowledge that what I am seeing may not be representative of the offerings yet to come for brand marketing.
@t.alex — I've given the 'invitation-only' aspect of this alot of thought, having gone through the same procedure with Gmail when it came out. I think the Google is defending against the masses of people who would just set up an account to see what it looked like, then abandon it forever. Yahoo mail and Hotmail from Microsoft saw this issue and it leads to lost space and revenue; as well as mis-leading statistics. How many Facebook and Twitter accounts are out there in existence just for this reason? I think that requiring an invite cuts down on this, as only those who really want in will make that extra effort. Just an aside: If you have an iPhone of iPad, download the Google+ App through safari at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google/id447119634 — I have had friends say that signing up through the app did not require an invite… Worth trying.
@Jay_Bond — Thanks for the comment, Jay. Its intriguing to say the least. Though any new social network brings with it the repeat requirement of rebuilding your audience, it would be worth the time if it provided what we need. I was just laughing to myself because many of those who have joined my circles are the same group that were the first users of Gmail. The front line never really changes. 🙂
Got it. Worth watching as things change almost daily in this fast-paced area. You may want to look at Awareness software. I'm not a customer, but I've been told they've got an efficient way to bridge and hub the various social media traffic into a dashboard style tool.
http://www.awarenessnetworks.com/
Hi Mark,
It is great to see another independent on here fighting the good fight. I like the angle you took with it — excellent points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important subject.
-Dawn Gluskin
SolTec Electronics
@alawson, I disagree with you on the invitation-only thing… I think it's more designed as a way to ENCOURAGE people to sign up. By requiring an invite, it makes it seem like some very exclusive, important thing. Google is able to get away with this because, well, they're Google: if a start-up tried this tactic, it would very likely result in no one signing up.
Anyhow, it's not like getting an invite is very difficult. I have an invite and I didn't even ask for one. If you want to try it out, it's not a huge ordeal to get an invite, and if it Google+ was truly so “exclusive” they wouldn't already have 20m+ members.
To me, the invite-only thing is a smart tactic to build buzz that works.
Also, not really sure I agree with you on your point that inactive-type accounts cost these companies money: really, how much does an empty, inactive account cost? It's a couple of lines in a database. And it's not like if you sign up for Gmail, they put aside 2GB of space just for that account, regardless if you use it or not. That's not how it works.
In agreement with you, independent distributors have a great place in the supply chain. They are of great value in the market place because of packaging and distribution cost to major manufacturers. It is cheaper for the big companies to use them and they make the products more readily available and cheaper to the consumer. Name or no name they carry the same quality product of the same component and value. My suggestion is to verify their certification and to perform quality control and quality assurance of the products.
kunmi
@DennisQ — Good points Dennis. Thanks for the comments and clarification. Its obvious that, whatever the strategy is around invites, it works (at least for Google). A few friends said they got invites in their Gmail accounts and figured everyone did. I did not, even though I got on gmail as early as I could. So maybe I just didn't get the early nod from the powers-that-be.
Mark,
You make a great argument and I love the analogy to unauthorized beef. In our world of politically correctness you are correct that everyone is looking to reinvent themselves as they keep moving the cheese. We should however beware of those who can buy their way to prominence. I recently had a customer confide in me that he was duped by the credentials of his supplier. As he explained being an ERAI member required his supplier to pay the subscription and not be reported. He bought military parts from an IDEA member only to find less than one third of their membership had an AS9120 certificate. We are a member of the ERAI who post possible suspect parts and have the highest regard for the work the IDEA administration staff has done for the betterment of their independent members however, certification of its members by itself may provide a layer of assurance that may not protect the customer. Attending a book reading on religion does not make someone a strict practitioner.
As a member of the SAE G-19 for the past two years I have worked with members of IDEA, ERAI, test houses, independent and franchised distributors. Prime contractors, contract manufactures and those from legal and governmental agencies are also in attendance. The committee is chaired by members of NASA as well as people outside the USA.
The purpose and goal of all involved is to safeguard and protect the supply chain throughout the world. Our focus has been to adopt a standard that meet the needs of all who participate in the electronic supply chain. The knee jerk reaction by many companies to only buy from franchised or authorized I believe will change. The ISO9001 and AS9120 third party certification is currently governed by ANAB. These quality standards do not address counterfeiting and having one does not guarantee safety.
My company was one of the first to achieve AS9120 and after 8 aerospace audits we are still formulating the extent of what we shall do in house as inspection and what shall be 3rd party to mitigate counterfeits. My hope is that the new SAE standard that addresses the requirements for independent distribution shall be embraced by the electronics community and lessen the name labels you discussed.
Your term certified distributor may become a reality as we look to ANAB to oversee third party certification of both quality and counterfeit risk mitigation.
PS. A special thanks to my fellow G-19 members and all those who have contributed in the battle to combatcounterfeits.
Matthew Heaphy III
ESCS President
Considering the population and the usage of google I want to say they have a strong hedge over other social site. I saw the google + as an additional asset and I don't think it will be abandoned or useless like others that have unused or nonfunctioning account. Personnally, I am alway on google and I think students predominantly make use of it likewise. We live in a social world and for this generation that is what they need. I think its not bad.
One Q: in order for G+ to be successful, does it have to bring down Facebook? Can they co-exist?
I have so much information on Facebook that migrating to a new one is not worth it. I might use it for some things but to completely dump facebook? not now.
I suppose Mark Z. is now shaking in his shoes. But we can expect an appropriate response to G+ from the FB team very soon. But the sooner, the better. The first thing FB should do is to incorporate group and video chat to the site and then work on emulating some of the G+ features (another implementation of Circle for instance) and add (more) new features later.
Both social media can co-exist, but in the end users will eventually prefer one over the other. FB still has an advance over G+, but with the subcription rate to G+, we can expect its population to grow fast. The viability of FB depends on how it subdue the power and possibilities of G+ and not expect that it will follow Google wave and die a quiet death.
“one site to rule them all.” I use daily Facebook. I cannot speak about twitter (even if I have an account on twitter) and Facebook, although the continuing update and the lifting in site still has a lot of weak points. So for the moment there is not a “perfect” social site, and I think this statement reply to your question about why another . Until we will have a social site that will combine all the above you just described will be space for new social sites.
The movement of the users from one social site to another will show us which of them will be successful or not.
I will definitely be interesting to see in the future what the population of each social site is and whether Facebook holds it's population or other social sites such as Google+ takes over.
I am a facebook and twitter user but I can say that G+ will beat other social site hands down. The application will go a long way in online social revolution. Facebook has tried but not done anything in posting compare with what google+ CIRCLES or HANGOUTS has, using SPARKS is like you are using real google serch engine. Google+ on mobile is a blast, it makes texting a great thing, fbchat can not handle what HUDDLE does on Google+. It is going to be a social network revolution breaker, a game changer.
I seem to agree with your point that Google will become a social media to reckon with. They have the advantage of their large users already.
I am not a big fan of name changing just for the sake of it. As a consumer I get tired of the same old fluff sold under a different name. I know people in the business of selling approved pre-owned certified cars and quite frankly these can be a joke. However there is definitely a good case for using approved/authorized/certified etc. distributors when that product absolutely must work in an application. Examples could be found in medical, aerospace or public transport applications. In less critical applications independents play a great role in offering the customer better choice, flexibility and keener pricing which overall is a good thing for the consumer.
People feel more comfortable signing up with Google than with some new no-name.
You are absolutely right. Personaly i feel more satisfied with whatever i output from Google anytime working its website. Those Software geniuses behind the Google's new innovations deserve kudos anyway.
Google's ability to search for the best talents in software technology year in year out makes it street ahead of others. Google+ is welcome to social scene and am waiting to see how it will steer people socializing on social websites.
Meanwhile, how will Facebook and others respond?
@JADEN — Thanks for the comment. Sounds like you have a good grasp on Plus. I find myself gravitating toward it myself–the capability to easily share any content with chosen groups goes a long way with me. I also like the App–looks like they spent some quality time creating a product that would resonate.
@Mr. Roques and @Wale Bakare — Too early to tell what Facebook's response will be or whether they fight for the same audience. Zuckerberg had good things to say about Plus, and made an application available shortly before the Plus launch that allows a 'Circles-like' segmenting at the post level. They'll both get my attention in the beginning, but the one that wins out will be the one that makes sharing and collaborating quick and easy.
Right now, Google gets the +1
I agree Google may be on top because it already have a large user and then This might not shake FB much but it will definately shake Skype
Dawn, An old English adage says: “You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.” Somewhere along the way the electronics supply chain seems to have agreed it is better to ignore this maxim in the rush towards being “perfect.” Independent distributors, or whatever name they are called, obviously provide a service. Why don't we review those services and use it then keep an eye on the faults. There are obviously faults with any other group within the industry but I don't see anyone saying, for instance, that franchised distributors need to go away because OEMs can buy directly from component makers!
@ Clairvoyant, I agree, it would be interesting to see whether google+ is able to draw more population than FB.
alawson, you have a good point on 'invitation only' approach. It seems Google is the only one adopting this. Perhaps they should extend this to loyal users like me :). I have been using its services for long time.
With new social networking sites coming up everyday and enticing you to become their member, I wonder how many members really remain active on these sites. You get an invitation , register yourself, create some default profile , visit it for a couple of days and then just forget about it or become too lazy to visit it everyday. In the last couple of years I may have registered on at least a dozen of such networking sites but now hardly remember even my login name and password for many of them.
So what is the use of all this ? Isn't it a wastage of the computing, internet, network infrastrcuture resources and also the time spent by individuals?
Definitely google has done great work to integrate many of their technologies into the Google+. This will make google more n more stronger in the social networking. I'm wondering what will happen to facebook!!! Any foreseeing thoughts?
@t.alex & anyone else — I'm not sure if invites are limited, but if you go to the “Social Media in the Electronics Industry” group on LinkedIn (http://linkd.in/r3lVTI) and post that you need an invite, one of us will be happy to do what we can.
Google is definitely on the right track with Google+. In the beginning, early adopters will migrate to Google+ since its new and improved capability. Eventually those that have a need (or want) or one account that can separate their business from their personal friends will also join. The question is how will Google get the younger generation to migrate over to their site? Truth be told, the only reason I have a facebook account is because my kids do and I have to monitor their activity. Facebook started with the younger crowd and now people of all ages have joined in. How will google attract multiple generations?? The answer will determine its success.
Hello
I think the best way to use Facebook is to Block EVeryone, Block the profile, Never make comments and enver read comments, and if is possible never upload pictures, alright… I'm just kidding.
People should be aware of the consecuences using social sites and sharing “too much”, in regards to this article, we should wait for Google++ version.
Best Regards
There are names and there is a name, names could faked while a name is certified. Independent pose more risk except if authorise or certify is attached.
Andy, youngsters are crazed about social medias. It’s a common platform for them to network and to share some thing in common. Starting by Orkut, Facebook, buzz and twitter, now Google+ is the new comer in networking. Now a day’s such social networking medias are providing video and voice call facility for their users to get interact each other. That could one be one of the reasons that business communities are making use of such common platforms for customer support and business activities.
According to me Face book has evolved as great dosage of addiction, the same to continue with google+ will take a long ride.
@eemom — I don't know how representative this is, but my parents got on Facebook initially to be closer to their children's and grandchildren's lives. They did not embrace it as a means of social interaction with peers and friends until they had been on for awhile. So, in my case and the case of many I know, the younger gen led the older gen to Facebook. It would be conceivable that this could happen again. However, switching costs and ramp-up time for the young, tech-savvy generations are much lower, so the real challenge will be in the incentive that we give our family to make the change. Personally, I think the ease of Google+ goes a long way for facilitating a switch.
@mario8a — That's a great point. Thanks for the comment. Security of your information online should always be top of mind. If you don't understand how the system works, seek out help; protect yourself with knowledge. And I am definitely of the opinion that those who are uncomfortable with the sharing and open aspect of social media are probably better off doing just as you say. Social Media is, after all, about choice.
That being said, each person must individually weigh the risks against the gains when it comes to transparency. There are more voices heard now around the world than ever before. A post or a tweet can spark changes both small and great. Its a powerful thing and a great time to be part of it all.
I haven't tried google+ yet, but I agree with your analysis–brand is huge advantage in this race.
“we should wait for Google++ version.”
@mario8a,
I agree that despite the good review about Google+, it is still in testing version and we cannot for sure say if this is a safer environment than FaceBook. But still, the only way to expect an improvement to the social site, is for people to use it and report potential flaws. That is what “testing” stage of a software is for.
Google ++ like C++ for programming?
Many have joined Google +, knowing it is not yet perfect, just to be in it right from the start nd see how it shapes up. Then there are some who are in simply because they've been invited. Some have added a number of people to their circles but have failed to otherwise utilize it because they don't post anything.
@Ariella — Thanks for the comment. When we say they failed otherwise to utilize the tool, we need to remember that spectators and joiners make up the majority of Social usage today. Some of you may have hear me refer to the Social Technographics ladder by Forrester, which breaks the overall social audience down into segments based on their behaviors. People can naturally fall into multiple categories, but the picture speaks for itself. Though its been around since 2006, and the numbers have changed considerably, the fact that there is no vocal majority remains the same.
The majority of people on social are not 'chatty' as most think…they are silent listeners.
“silent listeners” sounds much better, more wholesome and thoughtful than “lurkers.” You're right, I'm sure about more people just watching. Certainly, that accounts for the fact that one of my personal blog posts can get many views — even years after posting — and not garner more than a comment or two. You would think that those joining Google+ want to be in the vanguard of things and so would be more apt to talk up, but I've seen quite a few profiles with zero posts — not even shared posts of other people they are following. I don't have too many of those in my circles myself, though I don't on principle exclude them. Someone on Google+, though, noted that she sees no point in putting such people in her circles.
I also got invited but don't feel like joining yet another social site. For one thing, I feel people are usually reluctant to start something new until they necessarily have to or see the trend going there at a lightning speed. And if they don't do it they will fall behind.
Mario,
I like the way you are thinking but just don't feel all the marketers will be very happy with this approach.
After all Social Networks are all about building the collective conscions is'nt it??
And what this collective can no longer be built upon effectively we have trouble.Lots of trouble.The rationale behind Social Networks is contingent on an ever growing amount of users who keep adding more and more tidbits of their lives online for everyone to see.
If that stops,most Social Networks will start to fold immediately.No matter how big the players behind them really are ,like Google.
Regards
Ashish.
Wong,
I agree with your sentiments and viewpoints entirely.The No.1 reason why Facebook still has the most number of users is this-The Network effect.
Until most of my friends and family use a Social Network(any Network for that matter) I won't jump in.
Most non-Geeks think in exactly the same way.
Its a waste of time for us to be involved in a Network where none of our friends are there.
Regards
Ashish,
I can say that Google+ is becoming more popular day by day and I think it will become the good competitor with Facebook..
@Tech4People
thanks for replying to my comment, as FB user I think Google+ will be another source for networking, how safe will be? I don't know…!!!
@tech4people & @hwong — I believe that for personal use, we have the luxury of jumping in late. With no audience or outlet for our messaging on a new network, there is no incentive for us to post.
As businesspeople though, we are inclined to the unknown; testing the waters a bit to prepare ourselves for the 'what-ifs'. If Google+ continues its meteoric rise (20 mil users in 24 days…FB took 1152, Twitter: 1035), I would regret not establishing both presence and understanding ahead of the wave.
Hello Alawson
I agree with you in regards to personal use could be a “nice to have” but bussiness-wise will be a total different scenario.
@mario8a — Only time will tell, right? Thanks for the comments.
electronics,
This is exactly the message Google Shareholders would love to hear!!!
As for the rest of us,we can afford to wait atleast until there is a modicum of certainty to who exactly will be the clear winner in this battle.
Regards
ASHish.
alawson,
I understand the element of risk which Most entrepreneurs have to take.But things have changed dramatically(when it comes to risk taking today).
Today thanks to a lot of other uncertainities in doing Business(especially Govt Tax,other regulatory hurdles and Recessionary winds) Risk appetite for most Businesses has gone down considerably.
For most wait and watch (while these guys battle out amongst themselves-FB,Twitter,LinkedIn and Google+) in the meantime they will probably be hedging their bets by using both services for awhile and watching typical response rates on all these services.
Regards
Ashish.
Mario,
Yes you are right.
Its definitely wait and watch on the Security front.
Regards
Ashish.
“People feel more comfortable signing up with Google than with some new no-name.”
A andy,
Thanks for the post. I totally agree with you that people feel more comfortable with google. Infact signing up for Google+ is very easy. If we have gmail account then we can easily create one google+ account. We can easily port friends from gmail chat to google+. Overall google+ has impressed many users with its new features.
Well, I think the G+ subscription rate is not real. Anyone with a gmail account can join G+ with a few clicks, not really what “joining means”, more like adding it. I'd like to see the involvement rate of users, how many hours they spend per day (per week is so 90s!).