Of course, focus works equally well – there is no right answer. If you and I sell almost the same capability, my product name gives the appearance of being broader – perhaps that’s going to work in my favor. If there are 9 million searches a year for Red Apples and only 1 million searches for Great Apples, you better believe Red Apples is a better name for your apples (assuming they are at least a little red).Īnd lastly, the names appear to be broader or slightly narrower in terms of the scope, and vendors can use this to position themselves or deposition their competition. The point is this: Vendors will name their products and services based on the most common search terms relating to the solution they are trying to sell. It’s impacted by a wonderful mix of all the actual content on the internet (which Google has indexed) and what the various vendors have done to optimize those same search results. Also, the country you’re in at the moment influences the search results. But that’s the game – how do people describe what they are looking for? If you google source to pay, procure to pay, or purchase to pay, you will get different search results. It also helps people to find from Google what they are looking for. It is important to make sure the name on the tin reflects the contents of the can. In that case, it’s generally a good idea to call your service something like ‘Acme Accounting Services’ rather than ‘Green Tiger Services.’ Suppose you are selling accounting software and want people to recognize that just from the solution’s name. ![]() Product naming does have a lot to do with both the ‘indicative’ value and search engine optimization. You probably won’t be surprised to know that Google is also involved in this terminology deathmatch. Is there a difference then if you use Source to Pay, Purchase to Pay or Procure to Pay terminology? As someone who has managed Analyst Relations and submitted to multiple MQ and Wave reports, I can tell you the differences are negligible. The report now uses Procure to Pay terminology. Today, they have blended the two into a single e-Procurement Wave with Gartner. Forrester, similarly, focused on Electronic Invoice Presentment and Payment (EIPP) and e-Procurement. Reports, like Gartner’s Magic Quadrant, were split into two separate pieces. At that time still, AP didn’t talk to Procurement, and vice versa. At that time vendors in the space were lobbying analysts, like Gartner and Forrester, trying to convince them that Accounts Payable (AP) and Procurement solutions were connected. I started working with Purchase-to-Pay (P2P) in early 2007. ![]() But first, let me share some background, as I’ve come to know it over the last thirteen years in the industry. In this blog, I have listed some definitions, which hopefully give you something to work with. If you ask ten people to explain the differences, you might get ten different answers - if not more. Can you explain the differences between sourcing, purchasing, and procure to pay? With confidence? If not, well, you are not alone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |