Six Months In: What the Series Has Really Been About
Last Christmas I sat down to write a single blog post on how to build successful partnerships. It did not survive the outline. Every point I wrote down opened three more underneath it. Is your organisation actually ready for partners, and would you even know? Which tools earn their place and which ones quietly make things worse? Which frameworks hold up in a real programme rather than on a conference slide? One post could only carry that by flattening it into the kind of advice I was trying to argue against. So I made a different call. I would write it as a weekly series, in public, in the order you actually hit these problems, and keep going until the picture was complete. This is the twenty-fourth week. Almost six months of publishing every single week while running a partner programme in Europe at the same time. I mention that not to take a bow, but because the consistency turned out to matter more than any single article. Partnerships reward the people who keep showing up long after the announcement energy fades. A series about partnerships that quietly died after a month would have proved its own point in the worst way. What I did not expect was that writing it weekly would change what I think the whole thing is about.
The ground moved while we were writing the playbook
When I first moved into a partnership role on the vendor side, years ago, I would have told you channel was a relationship business. Know the right people, build trust, keep the relationship warm, and deals follow over time. There is truth in that. It is also the smaller half of the truth, and treating it as the whole has cost more programmes more time than almost anything else I have seen.
There is a reason I can see this more clearly now, and it goes back further than the series. When I was in secondary school I used to teach maths to primary school children, and it taught me something I have relied on ever since: teaching a thing is the fastest way to actually learn it. Writing every week has worked the same way. It pushed me to research beyond my own reality, to look past the patterns I already trusted, and to see connections between them that were never obvious while I was only living them.
Here is what six months of writing made impossible to ignore.
Most of our channel thinking was built for an industry that no longer exists. We inherited the language and the mechanics from a world of licences and physical distribution, where the deal was the finish line and the partner's job was to move a unit and move on. We sell subscriptions now. Value is created over years through adoption, expansion and retention, and yet we still recruit, incentivise and measure partners with a model designed for a single transaction. That mismatch is why so many programmes look busy and produce so little.
And now a second force is pulling the old playbook apart far faster than the subscription shift ever did. AI is changing what the work of running partnerships actually is. Not the relationship part, the work part. The research, the account analysis, the signal-gathering, the groundwork that used to need a team is now within reach of a small, sharp one. When the cost and speed of the work change that much, the assumptions the traditional model rests on stop holding.
So the argument this series has quietly been making, the one I can now say plainly, is this.
Building partner programmes on the old playbooks no longer works, not when AI is rewriting what the work itself is. Partnerships have stopped being a relationship business. They have become one of the most important go-to-market motions a software company has, and that means they belong in the DNA of the organisation, not bolted to the side of it.
What replaces the playbook is evidence, not enthusiasm
If a warm relationship is no longer the engine, what is?
The honest answer the series kept arriving at is proof. Evidence that the opportunities are real, repeatable, and the partner's to win. That single shift reframes almost everything else.
It is why the series opened not with recruitment tactics but with a readiness check, a set of blunt questions about whether the whole organisation, not just the channel team, is built to work this way. Most of the expensive mistakes I have watched were made before a single partner was signed.
It is why the idea I keep coming back to is the Partner Signal Loop. It began as an explanation for why account mapping sessions so reliably fail, and it grew into something larger. Both sides of a partnership generate intelligence about shared accounts all the time. The real work is to sense it, surface it into something two busy teams will actually read, and act on it so the result becomes the next signal. That loop turned out to answer the incentive question and the measurement question as much as the pipeline one, because when you ask a partner to bet their consultants' time on your product, a margin number does not convince them. Visible signal does.
And it is why I spent two honest months testing AI across the partner lifecycle, and wrote about where it genuinely changed the work and where it just produced faster, worse output. The useful question was never which tool is best. It was where in the lifecycle AI moves the needle, and where judgement still has to.
If you run partnerships for a living, this is for you
I write this for the person stepping into their first partnership role, staring at a portal full of signed partners and no pipeline, wondering why the playbook they were handed is not working. It is not working because it was built for a different industry, and that is not your fault.
I write it for the experienced practitioner who already knows the patterns and wants a sharper frame to explain them to a sceptical leadership team.
And I write it for the founder still deciding whether partnerships belong in their growth strategy at all, because the answer is no longer obvious by default. It belongs there if you are willing to build it in, and it will disappoint you if you bolt it on.
If any of that describes your week, you are who this series is for.
Where it goes next, and why I want your voice in it
The next phase moves to scaling, and Partner Relationship Management tools become a running thread through it, examined against the problems they are actually meant to solve rather than as a feature parade.
After that, I want the series to change shape. Six months of writing it alone has made one thing obvious: this gets sharper with more than one voice in the room. So for the later phases I want to open it up and co-create with other partnership leaders, building the back half of this series with the people living the same problems rather than narrating it at them. If that is you, I would like to hear from you.
So three asks. Follow along if it is useful. Share it with someone just stepping into the partnership world, because that is who I started writing for last Christmas. And if you are a partnership leader I should be learning from, or you want to be part of the collaborative phases ahead, reach out. I am building that list now, and I would like you on it.
Key Takeaways
- •Most channel thinking was built for an industry that no longer exists — a world of licences and physical distribution where the deal was the finish line. We sell subscriptions now, but we still recruit, incentivise and measure partners with a model designed for a single transaction
- •AI is pulling the old playbook apart faster than the subscription shift ever did. When the cost and speed of the work change that much, the assumptions the traditional model rests on stop holding
- •Partnerships have stopped being a relationship business. They have become one of the most important go-to-market motions a software company has, and that means they belong in the DNA of the organisation, not bolted to the side of it
- •The engine is not a warm relationship — it is proof. Evidence that the opportunities are real, repeatable, and the partner's to win. The Partner Signal Loop is the mechanism that generates and sustains that proof
- •Teaching a thing is the fastest way to actually learn it. Writing every week pushed the author to research beyond personal experience, look past patterns already trusted, and see connections that were never obvious while only living them
Real-World Insight
When I was in secondary school I used to teach maths to primary school children, and it taught me something I have relied on ever since: teaching a thing is the fastest way to actually learn it. Writing every week for six months has worked the same way — pushing research beyond personal reality, challenging patterns already trusted, and surfacing connections between them that were never obvious while only living them. The series started as one blog post that did not survive its own outline. Twenty-four weeks later it has become something I could not have planned: a coherent argument that most channel thinking is built for an industry that no longer exists, and that the old playbooks are being pulled apart not gradually but fast.
Summary
This is the twenty-fourth and midpoint article in the SaaS Channel Partnership Series, written as a retrospective on what six months of weekly publishing revealed about the state of channel partnerships. It opens with the origin story — a single blog post that became a series — and argues that the consistency of publishing weekly itself embodied the core lesson: partnerships reward people who keep showing up after the announcement energy fades. The central argument, stated plainly for the first time, is that building partner programmes on old playbooks no longer works because AI is rewriting what the work itself is, and that partnerships have stopped being a relationship business — they are now one of the most important go-to-market motions in software, and belong in the DNA of the organisation rather than bolted to the side. It explains why the series opened with a readiness check rather than recruitment tactics, why the Partner Signal Loop became the organising concept, and why the AI tools experiment was about where AI actually moves the needle rather than which tool is best. The closing section signals the next phase of the series — PRM tools examined against the problems they are meant to solve — and announces plans to co-create the later phases with other partnership leaders.
Found this useful? Connect with me for more on SaaS partnerships.
Follow me on LinkedIn