How to find your first B2B customers: five real sources
Your warm list runs out in about a quarter. Where first B2B customers actually come from, what the PDPL requires before you send, and how to qualify.
Read
BDGL / Insights / Partnerships
Most partner programmes are announced and quietly abandoned five months later. The cause is almost never the commission rate.
Most referral partner programmes are announced and then quietly abandoned. The announcement is a page on the website, a commission percentage and a form. The abandonment happens about five months later, when somebody checks and finds that four partners signed up, one sent a lead, and the lead was not qualified. Nothing went wrong exactly. The programme simply never had a reason to work.
The failure is almost always the same, and it is not the commission rate. It is that the programme was designed around what the vendor wanted, which is leads, rather than around what a partner needs, which is a reason to spend their credibility on you.
Start here because it is the assumption that shapes every other decision. A percentage of a deal you may or may not close, paid at some point after the customer pays, discounted by the partner's estimate of whether you will do a good job, is a weak incentive for anyone who is not primarily in the business of reselling.
For a consultant or an agency, the deal they refer to you is worth a fraction of what their own next engagement is worth, and it carries a risk their own engagement does not: if you handle the client badly, the damage lands on the relationship they spent years building. Rational partners price that risk. Most price it higher than your commission.
What actually moves them is usually one of three things. You solve a problem they get asked about and cannot deliver, so referring you keeps a client conversation alive instead of ending it. You make them look informed, because the introduction itself is a service. Or you send them work back. The third is the strongest and the least offered.
These get conflated in one document and they are different businesses. A referral partner makes an introduction and steps back; you own the sale, the delivery and the relationship. A reseller owns the customer, sets the price and expects margin, support and often exclusivity in a territory.
The mistake is writing a referral agreement and then behaving as though you signed a reseller, or the reverse. Decide which one you are building, say so in the first paragraph of the agreement, and accept that a referral programme produces fewer, better introductions rather than volume.
This is the part most programmes get wrong, and it is the part with regulatory exposure attached. Once a partner has a financial interest in recommending you, their recommendation is an endorsement with a material connection behind it.
The FTC's guidance on this is clear and is worth reading in the original. In the FTC's Endorsement Guides FAQ, the standard is that if there is a connection between an endorser and the marketer "that a significant minority of consumers wouldn't expect and it would affect how they evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed clearly and conspicuously". A commission arrangement is exactly that kind of connection.
The obligation does not stop at the partner. The same guidance sets out that advertisers should train participants on what they can say, tell them how to make disclosures, periodically monitor what they are saying, and act when they find something wrong. The line that matters most is the plainest one: "Your company is ultimately responsible for what others do on your behalf."
Two practical consequences. Your partner agreement needs a disclosure clause that says what the partner must disclose and where, not a vague compliance paragraph. And somebody on your side has to actually look, at least quarterly, at what partners are publishing about you. A programme with fifty partners and no monitoring is a liability that grows with its own success.
If your partners are outside the United States this specific regime may not bind you, and you should check what does. The underlying principle, that undisclosed paid recommendations are treated as deceptive, is common to most consumer protection regimes rather than unique to one.
Partners do not fail to refer because they forgot. They fail because at the moment the opportunity appears, making the introduction costs them more effort than letting it pass. The work is to lower that cost to near zero.
If you pay only on closed revenue, you are asking partners to carry the risk of your sales process, which they cannot influence and cannot see. That is a reasonable structure for a reseller and a poor one for an adviser making an introduction.
Consider paying something small at the qualified-conversation stage and the balance on close. It costs little, it acknowledges the part the partner controls, and it turns a lottery ticket into a predictable if modest return. It also forces you to define what qualified means, which is a useful discipline regardless.
Recruitment is the most visible activity in a partner programme and the least useful early. Thirty signed partners producing nothing is a worse position than three producing two introductions a quarter each, because thirty inactive partners give you no signal about what to fix.
Pick three who already serve your buyer, and treat the first six months as a design exercise rather than a channel. What you are looking for is the version of the offer, the trigger and the handoff that produces a second referral without you asking. When you have that, recruiting is worth doing, and not before.
Partner programmes are slow, and they are slow in a way that is easy to misread as failure. The interval between signing a partner and receiving a referral you would want is typically measured in quarters, because it depends on one of their clients happening to have the problem you solve while the partner still remembers you exist.
That has a direct consequence for planning. A referral programme is not a fix for a pipeline that is empty this quarter, and building one under that pressure produces the announce-and-abandon pattern this piece opened with. Fix the pipeline with something that responds faster, and build the partner channel alongside it with a longer horizon, using the same forecasting honesty as anything else in a pipeline you can forecast.
There is also a selection question that sits before all of the mechanics, which is who is worth partnering with in the first place. Khaled Badr has a useful piece on that, written in Arabic, on choosing who to partner with. It is aimed at smaller businesses in the Egyptian and Gulf markets and is worth translating if you do not read Arabic, because the framing is about fit rather than terms.
Decide referral or resale and write it down. Identify three partners who already sell to your buyer. Work out what each of them gets that is not money, and offer that first. Put a real disclosure clause in the agreement and diarise the monitoring. Pay something at qualification. Report back on every introduction, including the dead ones. Recruit more only once one partner has referred twice without prompting.
None of that is a growth hack, and the programme it produces will be smaller than the one on your competitor's website. It will also still exist next year, and it is worth checking whether theirs does. The same distinction between activity and system applies here as everywhere else, which is the case made in a system problem, not an effort problem, and the qualification discipline that keeps partner leads honest is the one in where deals actually die.
We work out who already sells to your buyer, what would make a referral worth their credibility, and what the agreement needs to say.
Book a Free Consultation