Folks, whats the thoughts of CSMs & TAMs.
Key part of CXS and adoption.
Staying?
Worried and keen on thoughts.
11 replies (most recent on top)
Highly bloated roles, CSMs & TAMS. CXS should be in one role (according to Broadcom's hyper-efficient and hyper-capitalistic attitude). If they are combined to one role than it makes sense
TAM is a revenue generator role and earns its own paycheck. If current TAMs have a relationship built with a customer. Why rock the boat? Unless there are performance issues.
The whole PSO is seen as a low margin business for BC (anything less than 60% GM). So it makes sense to offload PSO to distis or partners
CSX needs a rework. Nobody knows what each of those positions are supposed to be doing. Job roles will be more clearly defined and cleaned up. Hopefully.
VMW has a history of selling Cadillacs and delivering Hyundais (with all due respect to the current nice Hyundais), and I can imagine that AVGO would only multiply this approach.
no one is safe, if they can get rid of a head and move your accounts to another or go low cost they will, do not assume anything
That doesn't meant they can't be outsourced to Costa Rica or India. Yes they are paid for by customer but that doesn't make any tam immune to layoffs. Ssms got laid off years ago and got farmed out to Costa Rica in a Pooled model and they were also paid for by the customer
Tam is paid by customer not vmwsre remeber that! Also my VP did say on a meeting recently that front line sales like TAM have minimal impact . He specifically mentioned TAM.
As a TAM the rest of the org has always thought they were safe. The issue is exactly what you said I think Hock is gonna come in and double or atleast increase slice count. It's not uncommon for TAMs in other orgs to carry 10 accounts as an example. So I could see him trimming it or outsourcing tam to India or Costa Rica kinda like they did with SSMs
For example, they could cut the TAMs by half and double the workload on the rest.
Now that is straight from the PE/AVGO playbook.
I am a TAM and will only comment on the individual TAM contributor role. I won't speculate on the future of other CSX positions such as SCSMs, SSMs, CS or TAM leadership.
If I were Hok and I wanted to really leverage VMware's embedded position within the customer base to crank up the revenue extracted from customers, the TAMs would be a critical asset to getting the intimate details of the larger customers in order to carry out my desire. Plus, for every TAM engagement that has been sold, there is a contractual obligation to deliver on that engagement. And who better to do that than the existing TAMs. Thirdly, TAMs are pretty much self-funding, albeit not nearly as profitable as a software product, but a necessary asset for the overall objectives. So in short, I think some percentage of TAMs will need to be kept.
The flip side of the coin is that AVGO may determine that the TAM ranks can be thinned out and the remaining TAMs used to accomplish the above. For example, they could cut the TAMs by half and double the workload on the rest.
In the end, I think CXS will see significant cuts just like all the other business units. The TAM position may be perceived as safer, but only on a relative basis.