Purpose
Classify a portfolio of bottler and distributor partners into clear capability-and-priority tiers, then assign each tier a differentiated engagement approach, investment level, and governance cadence — so commercial resources flow to the partners who can return them and weaker partners get a defined improvement or exit path.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Segment or classify bottlers, distributors, or franchise partners into tiers
- Decide which partners deserve more investment, joint business planning, or executive attention
- Design differentiated engagement models instead of treating every partner the same
- Prepare a partner portfolio review or annual route-to-market planning session
- Identify underperforming or at-risk partners and what to do about them
- Allocate trade spend, marketing support, or field resources across a partner base
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Partner list: The bottlers/distributors to segment, with names or identifiers (a roster of 5–50+)
- Volume/revenue data: Per-partner annual case volume, revenue, or net sales — actuals and trend if available
- Geographic/market role: Territory each partner covers and whether markets are growth, mature, or contested
- Capability signals: What's known about each partner's cold-chain, fleet, sales force, digital/DSD systems, and execution quality
- Strategic goals: The 1–3 commercial priorities this segmentation should serve (e.g., grow immediate-consumption, expand into a new channel, defend share)
- Relationship factors: Contract terms, ownership type, history of compliance and collaboration, any known conflicts
- Resource constraints: Total trade spend, field headcount, or investment pool to be allocated, if relevant
If capability data is incomplete, infer tiers from volume and market role, flag the gaps explicitly, and list the diagnostic questions needed to confirm placement.
Instructions
Step 1: Establish the Two Scoring Axes
Segment on two dimensions, not one. Volume alone hides capability gaps.
Axis A — Partner Value (current + potential) Composite score (1–5) weighting:
- Current volume/revenue contribution to the portfolio (40%)
- Growth trajectory over trailing periods (30%)
- Strategic territory importance — market size, channel access, competitive stakes (30%)
Axis B — Partner Capability & Strategic Fit Composite score (1–5) weighting:
- Operational execution: cold-chain, fleet, route coverage, fill rate, out-of-stock control (35%)
- Commercial capability: sales force quality, account penetration, ability to launch innovation (30%)
- Collaboration & alignment: planning discipline, data sharing, willingness to co-invest (20%)
- Compliance & financial health (15%)
Score each partner on both axes with a one-line rationale per score. State assumptions where data is missing.
Step 2: Plot Partners Into a 4-Tier Model
Map the two axes onto a defined tier structure:
- Tier 1 — Strategic Partners (High value + High capability): Anchor partners who can execute the agenda. Co-invest and grow together.
- Tier 2 — Develop & Invest (High value + Lower capability): Strategically important but capability-constrained. Build the capability gap deliberately.
- Tier 3 — Maintain & Optimize (Lower value + High capability): Reliable executors in smaller or mature markets. Efficient, low-touch, protect the relationship.
- Tier 4 — Reassess (Lower value + Lower capability): Drag on the portfolio. Define an improvement bar, restructure, consolidate, or exit.
For each partner, state the tier and the 1–2 factors that drove the placement. Note any borderline cases and what evidence would move them.
Step 3: Define the Engagement Playbook per Tier
For each of the four tiers, specify a differentiated model covering:
- Planning rhythm: Joint business planning depth and frequency (e.g., quarterly JBP vs. annual review)
- Coverage model: Field/account team allocation and seniority of relationship owner
- Investment posture: Trade spend priority, co-investment expectations, marketing support level
- Performance commitments: The 2–3 metrics this tier is held to and target levels
- Governance: Escalation path and decision rights
Step 4: Capability Development Path for Tier 2
Tier 2 is where most value is created. For these partners, specify:
- The top 1–2 capability gaps blocking them from Tier 1
- A concrete development action per gap (e.g., DSD route optimization support, sales-force training, cold-chain co-investment)
- The trigger that promotes them to Tier 1
Step 5: Decision Path for Tier 4
For Reassess partners, define the explicit options and the test for each:
- Improve: A 2–3 metric performance bar and the timeframe to hit it
- Restructure: Territory consolidation, contract renegotiation, or shifted scope
- Exit/consolidate: When the partner's volume can be better served elsewhere
Step 6: Portfolio Summary & Resource Reallocation
Synthesize across the base:
- Tier distribution count and % of portfolio volume per tier
- Where current resources are misaligned with tier (e.g., over-serving Tier 4, under-investing Tier 2)
- The 3–5 highest-priority actions for the next planning cycle, ranked by impact
Output Format
- Structure: Scoring rationale → tier assignment table → per-tier playbooks → Tier 2 development paths → Tier 4 decision paths → portfolio summary
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words
- Format: A partner-by-partner scoring/tier table, followed by structured prose and bulleted playbooks; portfolio summary as a short ranked action list
- Sections: Scoring axes → Tier assignment table → Tier 1–4 engagement playbooks → Tier 2 development paths → Tier 4 decision paths → Portfolio summary & reallocation
- Tone: Commercial strategy director — decisive, evidence-led, willing to call out weak partners without hedging
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every partner provided is scored on both axes and assigned to exactly one tier
- [ ] Each tier placement names the 1–2 specific factors that drove it — not just the score
- [ ] All four tiers have a distinct engagement playbook with different planning rhythm, coverage, and investment posture (not minor variations)
- [ ] Tier 2 development paths name concrete capability actions and a promotion trigger
- [ ] Tier 4 partners each have a defined improve/restructure/exit recommendation with a test
- [ ] Portfolio summary states tier distribution by count and by % of volume, and ranks the top actions
Notes
- The most common failure in partner management is treating a volume leader as a strategic partner when its capability is weak — the two-axis model exists to catch exactly this.
- Resist over-populating Tier 1; if more than ~25% of partners land there, the bar is too low to drive differentiated resourcing.
- Where capability data is thin, deliver the model anyway with explicit assumption flags and a short data-collection list — a directional segmentation is more useful than waiting for perfect inputs.
- Tier assignment is a planning input, not a contractual judgment; frame recommendations as engagement strategy, and route any exit consideration through legal and franchise-agreement review.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills