Broad recruitment vs. selective partner curation

Broad recruitment vs. selective partner curation

Program-growth strategy splits at recruitment philosophy: cast wide and sign everyone, or curate a small roster of high-fit partners. The right answer depends on your motion's marginal cost of a bad partner.

Broad recruitment maximizes coverage.
— Open application, low barriers, volume of partners.
— Best for self-serve, low-touch affiliate motions where a non-performing partner costs nothing — they simply send no traffic.
— Weakness: in high-touch channels, every signed partner consumes onboarding and enablement resources whether or not they produce. A roster of 500 mostly-dormant partners is overhead, not reach.

Selective curation maximizes fit and depth.
— Vetting, application review, a smaller managed roster.
— Best for co-sell and reseller motions where each partner requires investment and a bad-fit partner actively costs you (mis-sold deals, brand risk, support drag).
— Weakness: slower growth, and you may pass on partners whose value you underestimated.

The deciding variable is whether a dormant or bad partner is free or expensive. Affiliate dormancy is free — keep them on the books. Reseller dormancy is expensive — you've onboarded, trained, and possibly granted territory to someone producing nothing.

Trade-off: Broad recruitment buys reach and optionality cheaply but dilutes focus in high-touch models. Curation concentrates investment but caps growth and risks false negatives.

Implications: Match recruitment width to the marginal cost of a non-producing partner. The 'more partners is better' instinct is correct for affiliates and wrong for resellers.