To the Symantec and Veritas Partner Program Teams

A long, long time ago, we must have tried to update our contact details on the Symantec Partner web site, specifically our physical address. We must have thought that it was important that you have those details rather than the postal details that were previously supplied.

On November 16th 2015, some months after the Veritas split, we received a rejection email from The Symantec Partner Program Team which said:

Dear Mr. Stafford,
 
This is to let you know that the change request you made to the Symantec Partner Locator has been rejected by the administrator.
 
Proposed change:
 
Head Office,
4 Elimatta Road
Carnegie Victoria
Australia
3163
 
Reason for rejection:
 
Sincerely,  The Symantec Partner Program Team

At the time, we responded to Symantec Channel Programs APJ questioning why this was being actioned now, why it had taken so long to be actioned and why the "Reason for Rejection" was blank. Just in case, we also forwarded the same questions to Veritas Channel Programs APJ.

The response we got from Veritas was "Looks like the changes you had made were in Symantec portal & so the below automated email has been initiated via Symantec portal" which was fair enough ... until we got an identical rejection notice from them on December 7th, 2015 - and we hadn't even submitted the change to them.

Eventually, Rahul Devan responded and said that because the address provided didn't match the address on our web site, the request was rejected. This is despite the fact that there is an obvious linguistic difference between "Location" and "Postal Address". As I pointed out to Rahul, there are several problems with the way Symantec, and now Veritas, have chosen to process changes such as these.

  1. I might want our suppliers to have our physical address but I might not want foot traffic coming from the web site.
  2. If you have "rules" regarding the verification of data, perhaps you could share those rules rather than springing them as a surprise.
  3. Matching data to the web site is error prone. Many web sites I've seen don't even show a physical address. Why don't you consider matching it to the Registered Office as held by the relevant government authority? Or, and here's a really odd suggestion, why don't you look in the relevant country's white pages? Or better yet, why don't you just accept that the person supplying the information knows what they want.
  4. For the change to be rejected after such a long period is ridiculous. For all you know, the data on the web site matched at the time it was submitted. Can you explain the reason for the delay?
  5. The rejection notification did not state the reason for rejection, despite having a place to put such a reason. Good work.
  6. Why did you respond to the email I sent to Veritas rather than the version I sent to Symantec?

None of my questions were answered and there was no comment about the rejection notification which was sent with a blank "reason".

Obviously Veritas is just a little slow on the uptake since they processed a Symantec-era change request months after their supposed split from Symantec - and still managed to send a rejection notice with a space for a reason, but providing none. It looks as if Veritas ended up with the Symantec database including all the outstanding change requests, processing tools, email templates and process errors. Interesting.

Anyway, the take-home message for both organisations is this:
 
I really don't care which address you have on file. In all probability, any mail we receive from you will be just marketing materials and, therefore, more important to you than to us.
 
What surprises me is the inefficiency, inflexibility and lack of initiative demonstrated by each organisation. What a complete waste of time and effort it was to attempt to provide you with what we thought were the most relevant details. We won't make that mistake again.