← Every exhibit

Figure Figure 1 Go-to-market & pricing

The synthetic partner-route comparison

A route comparison becomes meaningful when partner action, direct alternative, cost boundary, ownership, and outcome are declared together.

A synthetic horizontal bar chart compares contribution per 1,000 euros of declared route resource: direct route 1.8, partner-assisted 1.6, and partner-referred 1.1. Values are illustrative and do not estimate partner performance, attribution, or incremental growth.0.5 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resource1.0 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resource1.5 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resource2.0 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resource2.5 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resourceDirect route1.8 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resourcePartner-assisted1.6 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resourcePartner-referred1.1 synthetic contribution per EUR 1,000 route resourceSynthetic contribution ratio
Vector SVG Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's synthetic route comparison grounded in Adner (2017), Frazier (1999), Homburg, Vomberg and Muehlhaeuser (2020), and Sa Vinhas and Anderson (2005). Values are illustrative contribution fields, not partner performance or incremental-growth estimates.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A The definition, verbatim: an ecosystem is "the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize" Adner. (2017) · ADN17-C1
  • A Interdependence is the unit: the definition turns on "the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize", so activities and positions are described relative to that proposition Adner. (2017) · ADN17-C2
  • A The review's own verdict on the field: "we have barely touched the surface of all the managerial issues that need to be addressed" Frazier. (1999) · FR99-C1
  • A Prior work exists and is not enough: "a variety of research needs still exist regarding constructs and issues examined in prior channels research" Frazier. (1999) · FR99-C2
  • A The sign flips by route design, in the authors' words: "Whereas direct channel usage predominantly lowers agency conflicts in terms of information asymmetry and sales partner moral hazard, indirect channel usage" amplifies them. So an observed association can differ across direct and indirect route designs Homburg, Vomberg and Muehlhaeuser (2020), publisher PDF pp. 1, 9, and 13-16 · CH1R-C1
  • B A route-level ledger can assign distinct booking, access, service, economics, renewal, expansion, and learning fields before outcome judgment Author framework grounded in the cited channel sources · CH1R-C7
  • B A route comparison needs a design that identifies incremental demand; gross bookings do not supply that comparison Author framework grounded in the cited channel sources and sweep boundary · CH1R-C8
  • B Partner-led growth is a go-to-market route in which a partner contributes declared access, capability, credibility, delivery, or demand mechanism to an outcome Author framework grounded in ADN17-C1 and ADN17-C2 · T09-OWN-C1
  • B Partner activity, sourced booking, partner-led motion, channel economics, and incremental growth are separate objects Author taxonomy · T09-OWN-C2
  • B Partner-sourced or partner-assisted bookings do not by themselves prove incremental demand or contribution Author negative boundary grounded in FR99-C1 and CH1R-C1 · T09-OWN-C4

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits