← Back to Index

ZTAG Partner Alignment & Deal Intelligence Assessment

Generated: 2026-02-15

Based on: 747 meetings, 5,862 email threads, 390 deals, 809 leads

Executive Summary

This analysis identifies where deals derail in Kris's pipeline, maps the competitive landscape, and flags organizations to approach with caution. The core finding: ZTAG's main competitor isn't another product—it's internal customer approval processes.

Key Findings

Part I: Where Deals Derail (Failure Patterns)

Pattern 1: The VP Approval Black Hole

Frequency: Most common failure mode
Example: Victoria Morris (VOA LightHouse Programs)

Timeline:

Root Cause: Champion loves ZTAG but lacks budget authority. VP approval is opaque and slow.

Recognition Signals:

Pattern 2: Procurement Bureaucracy Trap

Frequency: High (especially government/school district)
Example: City of Lancaster - Jorge Monroy

Timeline:

Root Cause: Government procurement requires approved vendor status, compliance documentation, specific invoice formatting.

Recognition Signals:

Pattern 3: Initial Excitement → Ghost

Frequency: 28 documented instances
Example: Reen (PE Teacher)

Timeline:

Root Cause: Prospect showed interest but never had buy-in from decision-makers. Price shock, budget unavailable, or internal politics killed the deal.

Recognition Signals:

Pattern 4: Contact Loss / Organizational Change

Example: Santa Ana Facility

From Meeting:

"Our contact in Santa Ana is no longer there, so it was hard for me to connect you with someone"

Root Cause: Champion leaves organization, institutional knowledge lost, relationship has to restart.

Recognition Signals:

Pattern 5: Market Fit Misalignment

Example: JCCASAC Conference (Juvenile Court/Alternative Schools)

From Kris's Assessment (Jan 23, 2026):

"No units were sold... No other vendor had ANYTHING like ours. There was a virtual reality headset company that was like Oculus, but very individual. Nothing to bring kids together, which, after attending, I'm not sure they actually want to do."

Root Cause: Some markets prioritize individual solutions over group play. ZTAG's cooperative model doesn't fit.

Recognition Signals:

Part II: Lost Deal Analysis

By Organization Type (98 Closed Lost Deals)

Segment Deals Lost Revenue Avg Deal Note
School Districts 28 $362,289 $12,939 Lowest conversion rate
Govt/Parks & Rec 15 $472,528 $31,502 Highest value, long cycles
Non-Profits/Youth 18 $196,220 $10,901 Price-sensitive
Companies/Other 9 $204,415 $22,713 Mixed results

Highest Value Lost Deals

Deal Amount Account
Merced County Office of Education $268,538 Large district
Impact Lighting Inc $100,000 Company
Amador County Office of Education $50,220 District
City Museum Interactive $50,000 Entertainment
4-H Ohio $41,850 Youth org

Stalled Pipeline (6+ Months in Nurture)

41 deals ($472,816) stuck in Nurture stage:

Deal Amount Days Stuck
Tehachapi USD $9,165 704 days
Aspire Public Schools $8,370 641 days
West Putnam Elementary $8,370 543 days
Boulzeye $18,600 446 days

Recommendation: Triage these immediately—move to active qualification with timeline, or close as lost.

Part III: The Distributor Question

Team Consensus (Dec 2025 - Feb 2026)

Steven Hanna (Dec 17, 2025):

"We're probably going to be leaning away from a distributor network. We're probably just going to be direct-to-consumer sales. Our current experience with a distributor network has been pretty stressful for kind of everybody. They have not provided a level of support that we do as a company."

Quan Gan (Feb 5, 2026):

"We even have outside people saying, hey, can I resell this and get commission? We basically just say no. ZTAG is always here to support people who are interested and we're going to route them to the right path."

Kris Neal (Nov 14, 2025):

"If you're going to be the distributor, be the distributor in its entirety, with training being that front."

Current Distributor Issues

Action Distribution (Patrice - Europe):

HOKALI:

Distributor Filter Criteria

How to identify distributor patterns:

Red Flags:

Part IV: Competitive Landscape

Direct Competitors (Active Play/Gamification)

Company Product Price Point Positioning ZTAG Advantage
Lü Interactive Wall projection system ~$21,000 Fixed install, immersive Portable, lower cost, no installation
iDANCE Dance platform High-end 32-player multiplayer More game variety, wearable
PLT4M PE curriculum software Subscription Video-based, tracking Physical activity, not screen-based
Polar GoFit Heart rate monitors Per-device Fitness tracking Team engagement, games

Adjacent Players (PE Equipment)

Company Role Relationship Potential
Gopher Sport PE equipment distributor Potential channel partner (75+ years, strong reputation)
School Specialty K-12 supplies Mixed reviews, acquisition-heavy
Trafera Ed-tech distribution Lü Interactive partner

Channel Partners (Current)

True Movement Tech (TMT)

Part V: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

Warning Signs Observed

1. Commission Seekers

"Can I resell this and get commission?" - multiple inquiries

Response: "ZTAG works directly with sites to ensure the best experience."

2. Distributors Without Support
From meetings: Organizations want distribution rights but won't commit to training, support, or true partnership.

Test Questions:

3. Information Fishers
Prospects who engage heavily with content, request demos, ask detailed technical questions—but never discuss budget or procurement.

Signal: High engagement, zero purchase intent signals.

4. Budget Claim Strategists
Use "no budget" as soft rejection while actually having allocated funds elsewhere.

Counter: Ask early: "What funding source would you use for this?" (Title I, ELOP, general fund, etc.)

Organizations to Approach with Caution

Organization Concern Evidence
Intermediary/umbrella orgs Distributor model HOKALI pattern
Very large district central offices Long cycle, political 6-12 month stalls
Consultants offering "partnerships" Commission seeking Feb 2026 meeting references
International "distributors" Support quality Action Distribution discussions

Part VI: Who to Partner With

Ideal Partner Profile

Based on successful patterns:

Network Multipliers (Derrick Wesby model):

Internal Connectors (Jorge Monroy model):

Organizations with Fiscal Deadlines:

Good Partners in the Space

Organization Why Relationship
SHAPE America PE standards body, 5K convention attendees Premier partner
True Movement Tech Aligned mission, referral model Active
County Offices of Ed (SCOE model) Multi-district reach, established relationship Existing customers
BACR Network multiplier, 7+ units VIP account

Part VII: Recommendations

Immediate Actions

  1. Qualification Gate: In first call, establish:

    • Budget authority (who approves?)
    • Funding source (Title I, ELOP, general fund?)
    • Timeline (fiscal year end, event date?)
    • Procurement requirements (TIPS, sole source?)

  2. VP Materials: Create 1-pager for champions to share with decision-makers:

    • ROI calculation
    • Grant alignment
    • Compliance/purchasing info
    • 3 testimonials

  3. Pipeline Hygiene: Weekly review of:

    • Deals closing this week → action
    • 30+ days overdue → outreach or reclassify
    • 90+ days overdue → close lost or explicit revival

  4. Distributor Filter: For umbrella orgs:

    • Redirect to direct school relationships
    • Offer to connect with their individual sites
    • Do not pursue centralized purchases

Long-Term Strategy

  1. Focus on Network Multipliers: Treat Derrick Wesby-type accounts as VIP
  2. Shorten Approval Cycles: Materials that help champions close internally
  3. Direct Model Only: No commission, no resellers, no middlemen
  4. Market Segmentation: Some markets (juvenile court, individual-focused programs) may not be a fit

Sources

Web Research

Internal Data

This assessment will be updated as new patterns emerge from customer interactions.

Generated: 2026-02-15