spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

February 09, 2010

 

The Future of Supplier Directories and Supplier Search

Last week marked a sad event in the history of supplier search and supplier directories. Thomas Global, one of the earliest providers of global content and supplier directories, shut its doors. But is Thomas Global's closing -- and the general downsizing of Thomas over the years since the big green book -- indicative of the beginning of the end of supplier directories (including online directories) or does it just signal a more general shift in the direction of the market? At this stage of my investigation, I'd probably argue the latter. And that's because companies are now gaining access to supplier information primarily through four types of online directories and information sources.



The first type of information source companies are using to learn about suppliers represents the online version of offline paradigms. These include ThomasNet and to a lesser degree, even niche industry sites like Surplus Record (owned by Ariba) that aggregates and publishes in print and online listings of used industrial assets. But both ThomasNet and Surplus Record have survived not just by bringing offline listings online -- they've also built out a larger value proposition for both buyers and suppliers. ThomasNet not only offers free directory listings (like Surplus Record) in addition to paid ones, they also build supplier websites and optimize these sites for search engines and its own search capabilities. And in addition, they provide third-party analysis, content and community on their sites for the buying community. Other sites in this category include Macraes and GlobalSpec, both of which, depending on whom you speak to, are taking market share away from others while increasingly growing the supplier directory pie through targeting specific groups (e.g., engineers in the case of GlobalSpec).

The next group of providers are what I'll term global new entrants that started with global or worldly ambitions. Many of these providers have copied the original Thomas model of having suppliers pay for premier placements in directories or online advertising. Perhaps the best known of these is Alibaba, a provider that I've been critical of in the past but recently explored in more detail and look forward to telling Spend Matters readers about in a series of coming posts. Others in this category include Global Sources, Made in China (a China-focused supplier search directory), India Mart and Trade India. In general, these models tend to oversell the benefits of participation to suppliers (as well as the types of organizations that are locating suppliers on their sites). In many cases, small and medium-sized organizations (and inventors) are the ones most likely to identify global suppliers through resources like this versus larger organizations that maintain on-the-ground resources and teams.

The third category of supplier directories and search providers are supplier networks repurposed as supplier directories. Ariba, Ketera and others are in the process of repositioning their networks not only as transaction hubs, but as a way to identify new sources of supply and even to negotiate with suppliers and issue RFQs in an open network format. Ariba has been quietly at this longer than Ketera and I've not heard much about the traction they've realized to date. Ketera, which I spoke to last week, is aggressively transitioning its business model to much more of a network-based approach based as much on charging suppliers for access to business as it is on charging buyers access to Spend Management technology. What's the future of Ariba and Ketera as network and supplier directory providers? Only time will tell, but I suspect we'll be hearing more from both of them in the near future.

The fourth category of suppliers are those with entirely new, commerce-driven business models. In this regard, companies like MFG.com present a platform for industrial buyers and engineers not only to identify a potential supply base, but to manage the entire RFQ and negotiation process online with them in a secure format that protects intellectual property of prints, design specifications, etc. Suppliers pay to become members, and in return for access to the buyer network, they can receive and bid on RFQs and they also, much like advertisers on ThomasNet, can improve their search engine rankings through the web presence that MFG.com provides for them as part of their directory listing. MFG.com has tried to build community rankings into the system as well allowing buyers to see the past performance of suppliers and for suppliers to see the past payment history of buyers. While the MFG.com business model is promising, it has yet to achieve the same level of growth and international presence of Alibaba and others focused on breadth versus depth.

Procurement and engineering organizations have many choices today when it comes to researching suppliers on both a local and global basis. Our own research suggests that Thomas Global's recent unraveling is a signal of just how fast the market is changing rather than a permanent downturn in the use and need for supplier directories and search mechanisms. Stay tuned for additional Spend Matters coverage on the subject -- including deeper dives into ThomasNet, MFG.com and Alibaba -- in the coming weeks on Spend Matters.

- Jason Busch

Comments
Could you place a link to ThomasNet.com where you mention it? Thanks
# Posted By Mike | 7/6/09 6:34 AM
MFG.com compared with supplier directories like Ali Baba or the former ThomasGlobal is not a comparison. While all connect buyers and sellers, the difference between them is MFG.com has a transactional platform. Based on the fall of ThomasGlobal, might AliBaba be next without a transactional feature like MFG.com?
# Posted By Marc Deye | 7/6/09 9:42 AM
re: links (added a few in including Thomas).

re: Alibaba -- while I question the efficacy of some aspects of Alibaba from a Global 2000 supplier research perspective, I do not believe they are going away.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 7/6/09 12:23 PM
Is there a date when Thomas Global will completely shut down? I just went to their website and all the category links and content is live.
# Posted By Chris | 7/7/09 4:54 AM
Regarding details on the site shutdown, see:

http://www.spendmatters.com/index.cfm/2009/7/2/Tho...
# Posted By Jason Busch | 7/7/09 5:05 AM
I agree with the category of electronic directories that represent former published directories. Some other examples are Kompass, Fraser's, and Kelly's. You did not make a strong analysis of why this model is apparently failing. I believe the reason is the search strength of Google. There is little need for a structured directory when simple (or not so simple) searches provide sourcing utility, particularly for difficult to find materials, services, or items.

I don't agree with the other classifications of supplier directories. I see three others but, they are different than the three you list.

The first are suppliers of supplier information not in the specific form of a supplier directory. D&B and Bureau van Dijk would be good examples of companies that provide information about businesses. This information is typically used to assess financial health or otherwise enrich existing information to help mitigate risk. You might even include global sanctions screening services or U.S. supplier diversity classification services.

Another type is as you describe supplier commerce networks. I would include MFG.com ("largest online marketplace serving the global manufacturing community") and Alibaba ("the world's largest online B2B marketplace") in the group with Ariba, Ketera, Hubwoo, and others. The directory is a result of the commerce community.

The third I see is a social networking \ social media directory like LinkedIn. http://www.linkedin.com/directory/companies/
This model provides open access to information and enough structure to provide broad benefit. I would not be surprised to see Google enter this same space with an offering that will compete with LinkedIn.
# Posted By Mike Oswalt | 7/7/09 6:40 AM
I agree with Marc Deye’s post in which he notes that Alibaba.com and Global Sources should not really be compared to with MFG.com. Ali and Global Sources have different objectives than MFG.com.

Global Sources offers a mulit-platform export marketing solution (i.e. print, online and trade shows) for Asian (primarily Chinese) suppliers. Global Sources does not want to develop a transactional platform. They are at heart an advertising-driven company. That is the historical background of the company. Global Sources essentially wants Asian suppliers to buy ad space in their trade magazines, at their trade shows and on their online platform.

Alibaba.com has a different target audience. Ali strictly targets SMEs, not large volume buyers and through its parent company, the Alibaba Group, it offers a range of services targeting SMEs including Alipay (competes with Paypal), Alisoft (an Internet based back office software) and Taobao (a C2C and B2C eBay competitor in China). Ali may someday develop a transactional platform, but when/if it does it will only target SMEs.

One final note on Alibaba.com, the company is not going anywhere. They raised over US$1.7 billion in their November 2007 Hong Kong IPO, revenues are growing at a double digit rate and they are profitable.
# Posted By Mark | 7/10/09 8:19 AM
I think Mark raises another important point - many of these directories target different industries or consumer groups. Supplier directories modeling themselves somewhat after print directories can stay afloat by offering featured companies hefty SEO, but targeting niche audiences can be helpful too. ThomasNet, for example, is affordable for mid-sized to large corporate manufacturers and few others, while directories like Industrial Quick Search offer more down-to-earth pricing, fewer bells and whistles and great SEO to small to mid-sized industrial suppliers.

Considering social media's increasing importance in B2B commerce, providing value-added services like RFQ management, information resources and industry blogs seem crucial for successful directories as well.
# Posted By Marjorie | 7/20/09 6:43 AM
I agree there is a difference. I think directories can be targeted to all industries and consumers. You can find help on the site http://www.queentorrent.com
# Posted By Nina | 9/8/09 12:34 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved