Channel conflict management
A single page tying together how we model territory, where collisions actually hurt margin, and how partner conversations stay procedural instead of personal.
Territory model
We stack three lenses — postcode bands, SKU sensitivity, and visit cadence — then mark “shared attention” zones instead of drawing fake walls. The model exports to your governance wiki with confidence tags per cell.
Schematic — not a live map.
Overlap scenarios
Duplicate modern trade keys
Two distributors credentialed for the same banner — promo calendars collide first.
HoReCa vs retail bleed
Foodservice routes selling retail SKUs into pantry outlets — volume looks fine until rebates stack.
E-com leakage
Marketplace sellers triggering offline partner complaints without a triage path.
Escalation ladder
- L0 — Field logs incident with SKU + outlet ID.
- L1 — Partner relations timeboxes response (48h).
- L2 — Commercial ops pauses conflicting promos.
- L3 — Governance committee picks path using evidence pack.
Partner communication norms
Letters cite data slices, attach the ladder, and separate observation from accusation. We provide bilingual executive summaries when boards need Korean first — drafting stays English for version control unless you ask otherwise.
