Channel Economics
SkillMediaChannel economics: design and analyze the financial structure of go-to-market channels. Use when picking a channel mix, modeling partner margin or TCO, designing partner tiers and rebates, or analyzing channel conflict.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Channel Economics skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by borghei/claude-skills in business-growth/channel-economics/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
End-to-end financial modeling and design of go-to-market channels: direct sales economics, reseller / distributor margin structures, marketplace fees, partner tier economics, channel conflict resolution, and the TCO frameworks that compare channel options apples-to-apples.
This skill provides the financial backbone for channel strategy. For strategic partnership design (which channel to invest in, how to structure the partnership), see business-growth/partnerships-architect. For partner-deal-level approval mechanics, see business-growth/deal-desk.
When to use this skill
| Situation | Skill applies |
|---|---|
| Deciding direct vs partner-led for a new product | Yes — start with channel model decision tree |
| Designing a partner tier structure (silver/gold/platinum) | Yes — see partner tier economics |
| Modeling a specific partner deal's margin / payback | Yes — scripts/channel_margin_calculator.py |
| Analyzing channel conflict (overlapping direct + partner deals) | Yes — see channel conflict + scripts/channel_mix_optimizer.py |
| Building a partner program rebate / SPIFF structure | Yes — see rebate design |
| Comparing AWS Marketplace vs direct list-price economics | Yes — scripts/channel_margin_calculator.py --channel marketplace |
| Negotiating a specific partner contract | Use business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer for the contract; this for the economics |
| Strategic partnership design (joint go-to-market, OEM, white-label) | Use business-growth/partnerships-architect first |
The channel model decision tree
Six core channel models. Most companies use a mix.
What's the product's complexity + price point?
Low complexity, low price (< $10k ACV):
├── Self-serve / PLG → no channel
├── E-commerce → direct via web
└── Marketplace (AWS / Azure / GCP / Salesforce AppExchange) → if buyer already there
Medium complexity, mid-market price ($10k - $250k ACV):
├── Inside sales / SDR-led direct → if buyer journey is well-understood
├── Reseller / VAR (Value-Added Reseller) → if local presence / language matters
├── Marketplace → if buyer prefers procurement via existing relationship
└── Embedded / OEM → if your product is a component in someone else's offering
High complexity, enterprise ($250k+ ACV):
├── Direct field sales → standard for high-touch enterprise
├── Strategic SI / Integrator (Accenture, Deloitte, etc.) → if implementation is a substantial project
├── ISV / Embedded → if you're a feature in a larger platform
└── Reseller / Distributor → for regional or vertical specialty
Operational / managed-service buyer:
└── MSP (Managed Service Provider) → if customer wants outsourced operations
See references/channel-models-direct-partner-marketplace.md for each model in depth: economic structure, typical margin splits, when each works / fails, contract patterns.
Margin and TCO framework
Apples-to-apples channel comparison requires a consistent TCO model. The naive comparison ("direct gets 100%, reseller gets 70%") misses critical costs.
True channel TCO formula
Channel Contribution Margin
= Channel-attributed Revenue
− COGS
− Partner Discount/Commission
− Channel-specific Sales Cost (allocated)
− Channel-specific Marketing Cost (MDF, co-marketing)
− Partner Enablement Cost (training, certification)
− Channel Operations Cost (channel manager headcount)
− Channel-specific Support Cost (T1 partner support)
Side-by-side comparison
For a $100k ACV deal:
| Component | Direct | Reseller (30% off) | AWS Marketplace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer payment | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 |
| Reseller / marketplace fee | $0 | -$30,000 (30% discount) | -$3,000 (3% AWS fee) |
| Revenue to us | $100,000 | $70,000 | $97,000 |
| COGS (15%) | -$15,000 | -$10,500 | -$14,550 |
| Sales cost (allocated CAC) | -$25,000 | -$5,000 | -$8,000 |
| Marketing cost (MDF / listing) | -$2,000 | -$8,000 | -$5,000 |
| Partner enablement (amortized) | $0 | -$3,000 | -$1,500 |
| Channel ops (amortized) | $0 | -$2,000 | -$1,000 |
| Support cost | -$5,000 | -$3,000 | -$5,000 |
| Net contribution | $53,000 | $38,500 | $61,950 |
| % of ACV | 53% | 38.5% | 62% |
The "30% discount" reseller deal is more like 14.5% margin difference once everything's counted. Marketplace can look better than direct on per-deal basis (Amazon's sales team brings the buyer) — but volume varies.
Use scripts/channel_margin_calculator.py --deal deal.yaml --channel <type> to model this for any deal.
See references/margin-and-tco-frameworks.md for the full TCO framework, per-cost-line guidance, and how to allocate "fully-loaded" sales / marketing / ops costs.
Partner tier economics
Multi-tier partner programs (Authorized → Silver → Gold → Platinum) are common. Designed badly, they reward effort that isn't valuable; designed well, they reward outcomes that drive growth.
Standard tier structure
| Tier | Annual revenue threshold | Discount % | Other benefits | Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authorized | None | 10% | Standard support | Sign partner agreement; 1 certified person |
| Silver | $100k | 15% | Co-marketing eligible (limited MDF) | $100k achieved; 3 certified people; 2 customer wins |
| Gold | $500k | 20% + 5% rebate at threshold | Dedicated channel manager; MDF; deal registration; lead sharing | $500k achieved; 5 certified; 5 wins; 80% renewal rate |
| Platinum | $2M | 25% + 7% rebate at threshold | Top-tier support; joint roadmap; preferred status; press release rights | $2M achieved; 10 certified; 10 wins; 90% renewal; participation in advisory board |
Tier design principles
- Outcome-based, not effort-based. Reward revenue + retention, not training hours or marketing event count.
- Achievable but stretching. Each tier should be a 12-18 month stretch from the prior.
- Differentiable benefits. Each tier needs benefits a partner actively wants (not just "more support").
- Renewable status. Tiers re-evaluated annually. Partners can move down if they don't maintain.
- Anti-gaming protection. Discount-stacking, registration gaming, transfer pricing — design out.
Use scripts/partner_tier_economics.py --tiers tiers.yaml to model tier economics: gross margin per tier, partner-side incentive, break-even revenue per partner per tier.
Rebate / SPIFF design
Three common reward structures, each with trade-offs:
Front-end discount
Partner buys from you at a discount; sells to customer at list (or close). Margin = the spread.
Pros: Simple. Cash flow goes to partner immediately. Cons: Hard to incentivize specific behaviors. Discount is locked in regardless of performance.
Back-end rebate
Partner pays full price (or near it); earns rebate quarterly / annually based on revenue / tier achievement.
Pros: Ties reward to actual achievement; behaviors can be incentivized (e.g., bonus for selling new products). Cons: Cash-flow burden on partner. Complex to administer.
MDF (Marketing Development Funds) / SPIFF
Per-deal or per-period bonuses for specific actions: bring leads, attend events, certify staff.
Pros: Highly targetable. Rewards specific behaviors you want. Cons: Easy to game; admin overhead high; partners often expect it without producing.
Typical mix
| Partner type | Front-end | Back-end | MDF/SPIFF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reseller (transactional) | 70-80% of total comp | 10-20% | 5-10% |
| VAR (consultative selling) | 50-60% | 20-30% | 10-20% |
| Distributor (volume play) | 80-90% | 5-15% | 5% |
| ISV / Embedded | n/a (rev share) | 100% | 0 |
| MSP | 40-60% | 20-30% | 10-30% |
Channel conflict
Channel conflict happens when multiple sales paths chase the same customer. Common forms:
Direct-vs-partner conflict
| Scenario | Resolution pattern |
|---|---|
| Direct rep finds opportunity also touched by partner | Deal registration: first to register wins; partner gets credit if they brought it |
| Partner finds direct customer | If direct is already engaged: partner deferred (with consolation MDF perhaps); if not: partner leads |
| Customer asks for direct after partner-led pilot | Honor partner relationship for term; transition at next renewal if appropriate |
Partner-vs-partner conflict
| Scenario | Resolution pattern |
|---|---|
| Two resellers both pursuing same account | First-registered wins; second is offered alternative leads / regional swap |
| Vertical specialist vs geographic | Vertical wins (customer values vertical expertise more) |
| New partner pursues incumbent partner's customer | Incumbent has right of first refusal for 90 days |
Marketplace-vs-direct conflict
Customer can buy via AWS Marketplace OR direct. If price is lower direct, customer feels gamed. If price is same, why not just use marketplace? Common resolution:
- Same price direct vs marketplace (customer doesn't get punished for procurement choice)
- Quota credit to the direct rep when customer chooses marketplace (so rep isn't disincentivized)
- Marketplace listing visibility as a value-add, not as a different pricing channel
See references/channel-conflict-resolution.md for the full conflict-resolution playbook including deal registration process, neutral arbitration, conflict-of-interest disclosure.
Clarify First
Before modeling the channel economics, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
- Channel model(s) in scope — direct, reseller/VAR, distributor, marketplace, OEM, or MSP (sets which decision-tree branch and TCO comparison to run)
- Target ACV / price point — sub-$10k vs mid-market vs enterprise (selects the viable channel branch and sizes per-deal margin)
- Fully-loaded cost lines — COGS %, allocated sales/marketing/ops/support costs (drives the TCO contribution-margin model, not just the headline discount)
- Partner contribution + tier intent — what the partner does (lead, sell, implement) and whether you're designing tiers/rebates (drives tier economics + rebate/SPIFF mix)
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the model.
End-to-end workflows
Workflow: Design a new partner program
- Pick channel models — direct + reseller? marketplace? OEM? — using the decision tree
- Model the economics —
scripts/channel_margin_calculator.pyper channel option at expected ACV - Design tier structure —
scripts/partner_tier_economics.pyto size the gates and benefits - Define rebate / SPIFF mix — per tier and partner type
- Write the partner agreement (with
business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer) - Build channel ops — deal registration, MDF approval, certification tracking
- Hire channel manager(s) — usually 1 manager per 10-15 active partners
- Pilot with 3-5 partners — measure, iterate, then scale
Workflow: Evaluate a specific partner deal
- Inputs: ACV, partner discount %, expected close, partner's contribution (lead source? sales effort? implementation?)
- Calculate net contribution —
scripts/channel_margin_calculator.py --deal deal.yaml --channel partner - Compare to direct alternative — would this deal have closed direct? at what cost?
- Decide: approve / counter / decline (often via deal desk if it's a non-standard partner discount)
Workflow: Channel mix analysis
- Inputs: actual revenue by channel for last 4 quarters
- Run mix optimizer —
scripts/channel_mix_optimizer.py --revenue revenue.csvexamines contribution margin per channel + identifies under-/over-invested channels - Recommend rebalancing — e.g., "Reseller channel: 20% of revenue, 8% of contribution margin — reduce investment; marketplace: 15% of revenue, 25% of contribution — increase listing visibility"
- Quarterly review: present to CRO / CFO
Workflow: Resolve a channel conflict
- Document the conflict — accounts involved, parties, history
- Apply the registration rule — first-registered partner wins absent overriding facts
- Consider exceptions — strategic logo, customer preference, vertical expertise
- Communicate decision — both parties, with reasoning, in writing
- Compensate the loser — alternative leads, MDF, regional swap; preserve the relationship
Anti-patterns
- Direct + partner at same price. Customer feels punished for not using direct (or vice versa); kills partner motivation. Price-to-customer must be consistent across channels.
- Discount-only partner program. Partners that only get a discount have no skin in your success; treat you as another vendor; switch easily.
- Endless partner expansion without enablement. Signing 200 partners that don't sell anything; channel manager headcount can't scale; partners stale.
- Marketplace as afterthought. Listing on AWS Marketplace without dedicated investment (listing optimization, co-sell programs) = marketplace generates nothing.
- Channel manager as glorified email forwarder. CM should drive partner pipeline, not just relay leads.
- Rebates with no audit. Partner self-reports revenue; you trust it; reality is 20% off. Build verification.
- MDF spent on activities that don't drive pipeline. Partner runs a great event, generates no pipeline. MDF should require pipeline outcome.
- Channel conflict policy that isn't followed. Policy says first-registered wins, but exec overrides every time → policy is theater.
- Different commission per channel for same deal. Direct rep gets 8% on $100k deal, channel rep gets 6% on $100k deal — direct rep refuses partner help; channel rep undercut.
- OEM / embedded deals priced like resale. OEM = customer doesn't see you at all; ASP can be 50-80% of list. Resale = customer sees you. Different economics; different price points.
Tooling outputs
| Script | Input | Output |
|---|---|---|
scripts/channel_margin_calculator.py | Deal spec YAML + channel type | Per-channel net contribution margin, cost line breakdown, comparison vs direct baseline |
scripts/partner_tier_economics.py | Tier definitions YAML | Per-tier: gross margin to us, gross margin to partner, partner break-even, tier graduation incentive analysis |
scripts/channel_mix_optimizer.py | Revenue CSV (by channel + quarter) | Per-channel revenue contribution, per-channel margin contribution, recommended rebalancing |
All scripts: stdlib only, argparse CLI, JSON or markdown output.
References
- channel-models-direct-partner-marketplace.md — 6 channel models in depth + economic structure + when each works
- margin-and-tco-frameworks.md — full TCO framework, allocation guidance, per-channel cost models
- channel-conflict-resolution.md — registration process, conflict patterns, arbitration
Related skills
business-growth/partnerships-architect— strategic partnership design (this skill = the economics; that one = the strategy)business-growth/deal-desk— approval mechanics for partner deals (this skill = "what does it cost"; deal desk = "should we approve")business-growth/pricing-strategy— sets list pricing that channel economics deviates frombusiness-growth/revenue-operations— channel revenue is segmented in RevOps reportingbusiness-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer— drafts partner agreementssales-success/sales-operations— runs channel ops (deal registration, MDF approval, certification tracking)c-level-advisor/cs-cro-advisor— strategic channel-mix decisions are CRO-level
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 740
- Forks
- 135
- Last commit
- Aug 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
channel-economics-borghei- Source
- github.com/borghei/claude-skills