By Larry Walsh
During last week’s Channel Focus conference in California, I moderated a roundtable with channel leaders on best practices in co-selling. I had the benefit of having two leaders in co-selling in the room as well — PartnerTap and Crossbeam. As we batted around the issue, one of the attendees asked a question: “Reselling is such an antiquated term; does it even apply anymore?”
It’s an interesting question given the changes in the channel and the market. The entire tech industry seems obsessed with working with managed service providers (MSPs) that consume products more than they sell them. The other obsession is hyperscalers that facilitate sales through their marketplaces on a scale that few other organizations can achieve. Even systems integrators are increasingly viewed as builders rather than resellers.
Fueling this question was the issue of co-selling. If a partner is working with a vendor’s sales rep to win a deal with a customer, is that partner actually reselling or simply influencing a sale? If the partner isn’t taking title to a product or license and is merely pushing the deal through on its paper, is that really reselling? This blurring of roles complicates how vendors measure performance, allocate credit, and reward partners — especially when multiple parties claim influence on the same deal.
For years, channel thought leaders have tried to replace the term value-added reseller (VAR). About 20 years ago, people began using the term solution provider to describe all partners — regardless of their model or identity — to reflect their collective position between vendors and customers. The rationale was that whether they resell or provide services, they're ultimately solving for the customer’s needs. The term survived largely because vendors and partners needed a neutral, catch-all descriptor that smooths over the revenue-movement distinctions.
Still, solution provider is often an inadequate label. It’s intentionally broad and vague, which undermines its usefulness.
From the Channelnomics perspective, partner nomenclature isn’t as meaningful as sales models. Regardless of terminology, what matters is the flow of value — who gets paid, who assumes risk, and who owns the customer relationship. All partner engagements ultimately fall into one of six sales motions:
Direct — The partner isn't involved.
Sell-To — The partner is the customer.
Sell-Thru — The partner is a reseller.
Sell-With — The vendor and partner co-sell.
Sell-As (white-labeling) — A partner rebrands and resells another company’s product or service as its own.
Influence/Referral — The partner sends a lead to the vendor.
A vendor selling through a first-party marketplace is engaging in direct sales. A hyperscaler selling a vendor’s product on its third-party marketplace is reselling. A partner selling with a vendor in a co-sell motion is still reselling if the deal is on its paper; if it’s on the vendor’s paper, it’s an influence deal. Even MSPs are increasingly reselling vendors’ Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) contracts and then managing the licenses.
Reselling may sound antiquated because it dates back to the early days of the channel. Channel practitioners want new terminology that reflects evolving technologies and changing market conditions. No one wants to sound like a relic, but facts remain facts.
Whatever comes next — marketplaces, ecosystems, or agent-to-agent automation — partners will continue to stand between vendors and customers. Call them whatever you want — resellers, MSPs, solutioneers, trusted advisors, technical wizards. It’s all good. Just keep calling them.
Larry Walsh is the CEO, chief analyst, and founder of Channelnomics. He’s an expert on the development and execution of channel programs, disruptive sales models, and growth strategies for companies worldwide.