Impartner PRM vs. StructuredWeb

TreeHouse Interactive Marketing View is well suited when there is a whole team that needs to work together quickly. When the team is of five or less the overhead of the system is a little much to warrant use

Incentivized

StructuredWeb's team was professional, easy to work with, and experts in what they do. They guided us well throughout the process and kept open, frequent communication between our teams.

• Each partner wants a customized portal these days. Treehouse facilitates this.
• Treehouse works quickly and easily.
• Treehouse works into the future. It's not 2010 anymore.

Incentivized

• Increasing partner engagement
• Supporting a global marketplace across 10 languages and 50+ markets
• Enabling our vendors to create, manage, and connect with channel partners
• Arming our channel partners with valuable marketing and sales resources to generate demand and close more deals

Incentivized

• The UI and portal builder is a little dated, could use an update
• It's somewhat limited in what it can do, would like to see additional features

Incentivized

• A tad of a learning curve.

ImpartnerPRM has a slight edge as Zift appears to still be struggling with the integration of legacy Relayware functionality. This results in a different user experience and issues with single sign-on.

Incentivized

StructuredWeb is more flexible and customizable than other products the company has used in the past. Campaigns move more quickly. It has allowed us to grow at scale. The data reporting is much more robust, which allows for a constant feedback loop to optimize our work. Our channel partners seem to appreciate the ease of use, as well.

• I do think our lead to demo rate increased a significant percent
• We were able to communicate easily with over 1k partners that were hard to reach before

Incentivized

• We were able to grow partner adoption of vendor content by 48% MoM in the first five months using StructuredWeb.