Dealer quality score: dealer sales and base quality are not the same thing

A common myth

At most regional telecoms the dealer network is evaluated on a single number — activation volume. Top dealers are those who sell the most SIMs. Bonus pool, exclusive stock and marketing budget are allocated against this.

Dig deeper and the picture changes. Dealer number one by volume often delivers a base that churns 2-3 times faster than the network average within 3-6 months. Dealer number two activates “single-use” numbers that go quiet within a month. Dealer number three has a high share of fraudulent activations — SIMs on someone else’s documents, multiple SIMs to one person, with no real usage.

All three get full commission at the moment of activation. The operator pays for ghost sales, sees volume in reports, and six months later finds that the actual base is smaller than what was “sold”.

What “dealer quality” actually means

A dealer quality score is a composite indicator across several dimensions.

Base survival rate. How many of this dealer’s activations are still active after 1, 3, 6, 12 months. Healthy: above 80% at 6 months and above 70% at 12 months. Unhealthy: below 50% at 6 months.

ARPU on activations. Average monthly revenue from this dealer’s activations. Significantly below network average — either targeting is wrong or activations are “for the count”.

Churn rate. Share of activations leaving in the first 6 months. High early churn is a sign the dealer does not explain to the customer what they are buying or signs up the wrong people.

Fraud rate. Share of activations on falsified documents or repeated for one person. A legal-operational issue and a financial loss.

Customer satisfaction. Complaints about the dealer to the contact centre, NPS at activation. A dealer that pushes hard but leaves a bad impression damages the brand.

Strong on all dimensions — the dealer brings real value. Strong only on volume — the dealer generates short-term revenue but mid-term loss.

Why quality scoring usually does not happen

A few typical reasons.

Volume is a simple metric, quality is a complex one. Volume is counted at activation. Quality has to wait 3-6 months. There is a time gap between activity and visible quality.

Commissions pay out immediately. The dealer earns commission at activation. Three months later, when quality becomes visible, clawing back the commission is politically and legally hard. Contracts usually do not provide for clawback.

Top dealers protect their position. Top-volume dealers carry political weight. Quality scoring threatens their advantageous position. They push back.

Sales protects dealers. Sales KPI is often pegged to volume through dealers. Quality scoring may reduce sales numbers.

Billing and CRM do not surface quality data to dealers in real time. The dealer has no feedback that their base is churning, no incentive to improve.

What scoring actually requires

A composite score updated monthly. Per dealer — actual numbers across 5-6 dimensions with a real-time comparison to the network. Without this visibility scoring stays theoretical.

Commission tied to quality. Part of the commission (30-50%) is paid immediately, the rest is paid 3-6 months later contingent on quality survival and other parameters. The dealer has a financial incentive to sell well, not just often.

A dealer dashboard. The dealer sees their numbers compared to the network. Knows where they fall behind. Sees what to improve.

Tiered access. Top-quality dealers get priority access to new products, exclusive offers, training. An incentive to aim for quality, not just volume.

A process for problem dealers. If the score stays low for 3-6 months — a review with the dealer, an improvement plan, then a decision on continuing the relationship.

Where this often breaks at launch

A sharp commission change applied to all dealers at once. Triggers mass resistance, and management rolls back the reform.

Quality scoring without dealer feedback. If the dealer cannot understand why their score is dropping, they cannot improve. A score without diagnostic is helpless.

Including metrics outside dealer control. Network quality in the dealer’s area, for example. If coverage in the zone is poor, their activations churn — not their fault. The score should include only controllable factors.

Different rules for different dealers. If the top dealer has an old contract without clawback and a new dealer has the new clauses, the unfairness is visible and undermines the system.

No consequences for low scoring. If the score is measured but no consequences follow, the dealer treats it as a cosmetic dashboard.

When not to launch quality scoring

If the dealer network is highly fragmented (thousands of small points), per-point measurement is not realistic — minimum activity thresholds are needed for inclusion.

If activation data does not reconcile between the dealer system and billing, scoring is built on inaccurate data and undermines itself.

If contracts rigidly do not allow commission clawback or adjustment, the reform hits the legal layer. Contract restructuring takes a year and a half.

If competitors aggressively poach dealers with high commissions and no quality requirements, scoring can accelerate dealer migration to the competitor.

If sales leadership is not ready for a temporary drop in sales numbers (some dealers will sell less but better), the reform is politically blocked.

Discussion points for the committee

What is the current commission structure — full immediate payout or is there a deferred component? If immediate — that is the first block to remove.

What is the base survival rate of the top-10 dealers versus the rest? If the data shows a gap — the case for quality scoring is strong.

What fraud rate has been detected per dealer in the last year? Above 1% is a serious problem worth measuring.

Is the organisation ready for a phased rollout — first scoring without financial impact, then introducing the financial component? Without phasing resistance is too high.

Who owns the dealer relationship — the sales team or a separate dealer management function? If sales — there is a structural conflict of interest.

How SamaraliSoft can help

Dealer Quality Programme Design — analysis of current dealer-network metrics (volume, survival, ARPU, churn, fraud), design of the composite scoring against the operator’s structure, redesign of the commission model with a deferred component, dealer dashboard concept, and a phased rollout pilot on 1-2 regions in 6-9 months.

Related reading

• /en/insights/telecom-subscriber-intelligence-operating-model/ — operating model
• /en/insights/telecom-sales-attribution/ — who really sold
• /en/insights/telecom-retention-economics/ — retention economics
• /en/use-cases/telecom-churn-war-room-mnp/ — retention in the MNP era

Sources

• Digital Government Portal — digital infrastructure UZ
• UzDaily — Central Asia telecom market
• Ministry of Digital Technologies — telecom in UZ
• MNP.UZ — number portability