Partner Registration Form Template
Structured onboarding for your partner pipeline — company profile on page one, partnership fit and pitch on page two.
We build with partners deliberately, not promiscuously. Tell us who you are and how we win together — strong applications get a call, not a form letter.
Partner programs die of two diseases: too little structure (a partnerships inbox full of unparseable pitches) or too much (a twelve-section portal application nobody finishes). This registration form is the working middle — two short pages that produce a reviewable, comparable partner file for every applicant.
Why two pages, and what's on each. Page one is identity: legal company name (the name that will sit on an agreement, hence "legal"), the human who owns the relationship, their work email, and an approximate customer count. Page two is the fit conversation: which partnership model, which region, and the pitch. The page break isn't cosmetic — separating "who you are" from "why us" makes applicants answer the second page deliberately instead of dumping everything into one box, and gives your reviewers a consistent reading order. In Document mode the pages advance with a clear step, and partial submissions mean a page-one-only applicant still leaves a recoverable trace.
The fields that do the routing. Partnership model and region are dropdowns because they map directly to how programs are actually staffed — a reseller application in Latin America and a technology-integration application in Europe go to different humans with different checklists. Filter the responses view by either column and the weekly review meeting runs itself. The customer-count number gives a size signal without demanding confidential revenue data this early.
The pitch field is the real filter. It is required, and its placeholder sets the bar: your customers, your motion, the overlap. Applicants who can write five specific sentences about mutual value are worth a call almost regardless of size; applicants who paste their company boilerplate have answered a different question, visibly. Effort filters beat criteria filters at the top of a partner funnel.
What we left out. Contract terms, margin expectations, NDA checkboxes, and document uploads — all of that belongs after mutual interest is established, in the onboarding conversation. Asking for it up front signals bureaucracy and scares off exactly the nimble partners programs claim to want.
Who uses this. SaaS vendors building channel programs, platforms recruiting integration partners, manufacturers vetting regional distributors, and agencies formalizing referral relationships.
Make it yours. Match the partnership-model options to the programs you actually run (delete the ones you don't — an option that leads nowhere wastes everyone's time), tune regions to your coverage map, and wire a webhook so each application lands in the partnerships channel with model and region visible at a glance. Reply-speed is program marketing: the ending screen promises a human, so make the weekly review actually weekly.
Frequently asked questions
Why is the form split into two pages?
Page one captures identity, page two captures fit — the separation produces more deliberate pitches and a consistent review order. Applicants who stall on page two still leave partial data you can follow up on.
How do applications route to the right reviewer?
Filter the responses view by partnership model or region, or push each submission via webhook into your partnerships channel or CRM with those two fields prominent. Both were designed as routing keys.
Should I ask for revenue or margin expectations here?
No — commercially sensitive terms belong in the conversation after mutual interest is confirmed. Early demands for confidential numbers depress application quality and volume.
Can I add model-specific questions?
Yes — use conditional logic to reveal extra questions per model, like "which platforms do you integrate with?" when Technology integration is selected. Everyone else keeps the shorter form.