The case for the channel in an AI-driven security market

There is an ongoing debate in the cybersecurity industry about whether vendors should go directly to customers or instead become a part of a wider partnership network.

The standard argument is that consolidation of platforms and AI-driven cost-of-service delivery makes the traditional model of a channel ecosystem redundant. However, this is largely incorrect, at least when it comes to the SMB and mid-market segments where most UK businesses sit.

For most organizations outside of large enterprises, the channel is the only realistic way to access serious security capability.

The SMB reality

Cybersecurity is not a niche concern for SMBs. According to the latest statistics from the National Centre of Cyber Security (NCSC), one in two small businesses suffers a cyber incident every year.

Given the niche, local context required for each small-to-mid-sized firm, that is not a market that vendors can serve directly at scale, and most are not trying to. A 200-person manufacturer facing a cyber issue is more likely to call its existing IT provider than a global security vendor built for large enterprises.

What SMBs need is local expertise, trusted relationships, and security operations that fit their budget and operational reality. That is what a partner network provides.

What is changing is what partners need from vendors

Partners in the channel system are operating under significant pressures. Nearly half the executives in businesses believe AI-powered threats will occur, but only just over half (53%) say they are prepared for them, according to our research.

Partners are the ones having those conversations with customers who are under-prepared, under-resourced, and know where and how the threat environment has shifted. They need vendors who make it easier to sell, deliver, and demonstrate value under budget scrutiny.

The consistent conversation amongst partner networks is that the commercial basics matter as much as the technology. They need payment models, good margins, and support that does not disappear after the contract is signed. Our research shows that 59% of executives say it is becoming harder for employees to identify real threats as AI-powered attacks grow more sophisticated. That is a sales opportunity for partners, but only if vendors help them to have that conversation credibly.

Trust is local, scale is not

One of the things that gets overlooked the most in the direct versus channel debate is proximity. Cybersecurity is an inherently trust-based business. Customers want to work with people who understand their industry, regulatory environment, and the specific pressures they operate under. That is not something a vendor can create from a distance.

A vendor can provide the credibility, certifications, and depth of capability that smaller partners cannot build on their own. The model that works is a division of labour where partners take ownership of the relationship and the local expertise.

Vendors, on the other hand, provide the platform, the threat intelligence, and the specialist teams to support on more complex matters that go beyond the scope of day-to-day operations.

Paving the way ahead

None of this means the current state of channel enablement is where it needs to be. Across the industry, partners still face too much friction. Onboarding is often slow, programme structures are complex and cross-selling across vendor portfolios remains harder than it should be. For vendors who have grown through acquisition, consolidating that into something coherent for partners is an ongoing piece of work.

The channel is not looking for vendors to get out of the way. It is looking for them to show up properly: with clear programmes, real commercial flexibility, and the confidence to let partners lead where they have the advantage.

The organizations that crack this are best-placed to grow with the channel. The ones that do not will find that going direct is a much harder proposition than the theory suggests.