At our recent Global Channel Leaders Forum in London, Channelscaler brought together a group of senior channel leaders to discuss how partner programs must evolve as ecosystems become larger, more diverse, and more outcome focused.
The panel discussion, moderated by Kenneth Fox, CTO & Founder of Channelscaler, explored the theme “The Future of Partnering: Key Trends and Strategies to Maximize Partner Revenue.”
The panel included:
- David Hiscock, SVP Global Channels at Ribbon Communications
- Kelly Woodfin, EMEA Commercial Director at Ricoh Europe
- David Fisher, Head of Distribution EMEA at Zoom
One of the most practical conversations centred around the industry’s continued shift toward solution-based partnering and why that shift forces channel leaders to rethink how they segment, invest in, and collaborate with partners.
How Partner Programs Must Evolve for Solution Selling
In principle, “Solution selling” is easy – Customers want outcomes so partners need to deliver more than products.
But the moment you try to operationalize it, things get more complicated. Because solution-based partnering doesn’t just change how you sell. It changes who you invest in, and how you work with them.
The uncomfortable truth: not every partner fits this model
Most ecosystems are built for scale.
Lots of partners.
Broad coverage.
Flexible engagement.
Solution-based partnering breaks that model. Because when deals become larger, longer and more complex, you don’t need more partners. You need the right partners.
For partnerships, that means:
- fewer, deeper relationships
- more selective investment
- higher expectations on both sides
And for many organisations, that’s where the friction starts.
Capability becomes visible and measurable
In transactional models, capability can stay abstract. In solution models, it can’t.
You need to know:
- who is actually trained
- who can deliver services
- who understands the vertical
- who can integrate into customer environments
Because when deals carry real risk, assumptions get expensive.
One point that came through clearly in the panel:
what partners say they’ll do, and what they actually invest in, are not always the same thing.
That’s not a partner problem. It’s a visibility problem.
Trust isn’t a concept, it’s behavior
“Trusted advisor” gets used a lot. But in practice, it shows up in one very specific way:
when partners bring you into deals early.
That’s when real collaboration happens:
- better solution design
- aligned messaging
- realistic delivery planning
When deals appear late, everything becomes reactive.
And that’s where solution strategies quietly fall apart, not in theory, but in execution.
The real differentiation isn’t the product
Another shift: value is no longer centred on what you sell.
It’s centered on what partners can build and deliver around it.
- services
- adoption support
- measurable outcomes
That’s where partners differentiate. And that’s where vendors need to rethink enablement.
Because teaching partners what to sell is no longer enough. You need to enable how they deliver.
You can’t run this on a transactional program
This is where many strategies stall.
Organisations declare a move to solution selling, but keep the same program structure:
- the same incentives
- the same enablement model
- the same engagement approach
That misalignment creates confusion.
Because you’re asking partners to invest more without changing how you support or reward that investment.
The panel captured this tension well: you can’t do this with everyone. You have to place your bets.
The shift
The organizations making solution-based partnering work are doing a few things differently:
- focusing on partner capability, not just revenue
- creating visibility into real investment (not just plans)
- aligning incentives with behaviour, not just outcomes
- building structured co-sell motions that get used
The takeaway
Solution selling isn’t a messaging upgrade. It’s a commitment to:
- deeper partnerships
- clearer expectations
- more accountability on both sides
It’s harder to execute. But it creates something most transactional models can’t: predictable, defensible growth.
