In the vast ecosystem of information technology, the companies that help businesses implement and manage systems often serve as intermediaries between corporate buyers and the technology giants. Managed service providers (MSPs) and system integrators perform essential work: they install networks, secure data, deploy applications, and maintain uptime. Yet behind the curtain of technical services lies a powerful economic engine – one largely fueled by the incentives of hardware and software vendors.
Most MSPs are not simply billing clients for their hours. They also participate in vendor programs that reward them for shifting market share. Big technology providers – Microsoft, Cisco, Dell, HPE, AWS, Google, and myriad others – compete aggressively to ensure their products and cloud platforms remain dominant. To encourage loyalty, they compensate MSPs through discounts, rebates, and structured incentives. These mechanisms are public enough to be widely acknowledged, but the specific rates and terms are typically gated behind partner portals.
This reality explains why many MSPs proudly market themselves as certified partners (silver, gold, or platinum) of the world’s leading vendors. Those designations are not mere badges of honor; they are tiers in compensation ladders that unlock richer benefits the more business an MSP steers toward a vendor.
How Compensation Works
The structure of these incentives takes several forms. Some are straightforward: front-end discounts and wholesale pricing allow an MSP to buy licenses or equipment below list price, reselling it at a margin. Others are back-end rebates, where the vendor issues payments after a sale or after hitting growth thresholds. Marketing development funds (MDF) reimburse partners for advertising or events, ensuring the vendor’s brand is promoted alongside the MSP’s own. Deal registration and “advantaged pricing” give the partner who brings in a lead better margins, effectively rewarding them for sales origination. And layered over all of this are “SPIFFs” – short-term rewards or bonuses given directly to sales reps at the partner company for pushing certain products.
None of this is inherently sinister. Vendors compete fiercely, and MSPs operate in tight-margin industries where these funds and incentives make the difference between survival and growth. The presence of such programs is a structural feature of the IT economy, not a moral failing of any participant. But it does matter to the advice being proffered in the market today, so we bring attention to it, just as we’ve highlighted other conflicts of interest MSPs have with their clients.
Silver, Gold, and Platinum Tiers
The partner-level designations (silver, gold, platinum, diamond) are more than marketing gloss. They are thresholds in a vendor’s channel program, tied to revenue commitments, sales volume, certifications, and customer wins. Each higher tier unlocks larger discounts, bigger rebates, greater MDF access, and sometimes preferred lead distribution from the vendor itself.
From the client’s perspective, it can feel reassuring to work with a partner that boasts a “gold” or “platinum” credential. After all, it signals experience with the vendor’s ecosystem. But the reality is that these designations are also signals of allegiance. They represent a financial tether between the MSP and the vendor, which can subtly (or sometimes, not so subtlely) shape recommendations when new technologies or competing solutions are under consideration.
The Economic Realities
Again, we acknowledge the economic realities. MSPs are not charities; they operate businesses in a highly competitive field. Vendor incentives subsidize training, marketing, and client acquisition. They reduce the cost of doing business and, in many cases, allow MSPs to offer clients lower prices than they otherwise could. This creates enormous market pressure for everyone to participate likewise, and to expect these firms to decline participation in such programs would be unrealistic.
Moreover, many MSPs genuinely believe in the platforms they recommend. A Microsoft-aligned MSP will have deep skills in Microsoft 365 and Azure. A Cisco-aligned partner may have decades of expertise in networking hardware. It is natural for them to specialize, and vendor compensation programs reinforce those specializations. From this angle, what looks like a conflict of interest may also look like efficiency. But it’s not the level playing field most client executives believe it is.
Conflicts Arise in the Most Strategic Moments
There is a difference between implementing and supporting a platform vs. advising whether to choose it in the first place. Day-to-day support – patching servers, resetting passwords, configuring routers – does not usually implicate conflicts of interest. The MSP is performing the tasks required to keep systems running, and their vendor allegiances are largely irrelevant to those motions.
But at moments of strategic decision – e.g. budget cycles, platform migrations, or digital transformation initiatives – the calculus changes. The advice a company receives on whether to invest in Microsoft versus Google, Cisco versus Fortinet, AWS versus Azure, is profoundly shaped by the incentives sitting on the MSP’s balance sheet. Those vendor relationships are not neutral. They are aligned, financially and structurally, with particular outcomes.
The Case for Independence
This is where independent, vendor-neutral firms stand apart. These firms – yes, Innovation Vista among them – eschew vendor incentives. They do not accept rebates, MDF, or platinum status. Their consultants may be trained in multiple technologies, but they are not bound by the economic levers of big tech channel programs. Their recommendations are paid solely by the client, creating a cleaner line of accountability.
Independence does not guarantee wisdom, but it does remove the conflict of interest. It creates a space where advice can be offered with no hidden variables. However they weight other criteria, including independence as a criterion in vendor selection is therefore an essential safeguard. It is an acknowledgement that when the stakes are highest – choosing or designing platforms that will define an organization’s digital foundation for years – clarity and neutrality matter a great deal. In those moments, truly, they mean everything.
Backchannel Incentives are Common – That Doesn’t Mean They’re Acceptable
Most MSPs are compensated by big technology vendors to shift market share. Many implementers build their business model around silver, gold, and platinum partnership tiers. These allegiances are understandable, given the economic realities of the industry. And in day-to-day service delivery, they rarely matter. But when budgeting and platform decisions are on the table…? In those critical moments where IT choices ripple across strategy, competitiveness, and costs, the influence of vendor incentives cannot be ignored. In those moments, independence is not just a virtue; it is a necessity. Whether with Innovation Vista or another vendor-neutral advisor, organizations should ensure it is part of their decision criteria.
