I'm the Managing Director and co-founder of Filament, a digital agency specialising in Go-to-Market strategy and partner marketing for B2B tech companies and vendor channel programs.

Over the last 17 years, I've worked with diverse companies to build and expand marketing frameworks, deploy demand gen and lead gen programs, enter new markets, unlock support from tech vendors, and increase market share. 

Tech companies and vendor channel programs I’ve supported include VMware, Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, HPE, AWS, Google, IBM, NetApp, Veeam, Tata, Zerto, Dropbox, Nutanix, Symantec and Splunk.

This has meant I’m experienced in working with a variety of B2B tech company and channel partner types, including:

👉 Independent Software Vendors (ISVs)
👉 Managed Service Providers (MSPs), Value-Added Resellers (VARs) and System Integrators (SIs)
👉 Cloud-based service providers, including IaaS, PaaS and SaaS companies
👉 Cybersecurity and Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs)
👉 Edge infrastructure and IoT providers
👉 Virtualization and application deployment specialists
👉 Data centres, and
👉 Distributors and Aggregators.

Prior to leading agencies I was primarily leading marketing and communications programs in the finance and investment sector.

Key career highlights I’m proud of include:

✅ Articulating the state of mobile marketing for Google SE Asia, in partnership with Capitalis
✅ Supporting Australian tech companies to enter and expand in the US
✅ Significantly growing a channel program by 4x in 12 months
✅ Leading the corporate communications on a $47.1 million off-market transaction of an investment firm with $3 billion FUM
✅ Expanding a SaaS multinational's footprint in SE Asia

Jeremy Balius

Many tech companies think they have a growth problem, when they actually have a visibility problem.

A common theme so far this year in conversations I'm having with tech execs is operational efficiency. 

Not in terms of cost-cutting, but rather, in terms of clarity.

When they talk about “GTM efficiency" or even "GTM focus", what they’re really trying to get to the bottom of is:

What’s meaningful GTM investment… and what’s waste?

It's tricky to write about in general terms but here’s where I see some hidden waste creeping in.

❗️ Multiple campaigns targeting overlapping audiences and creating confusion, or worse, all getting ignored
❗️ Successive campaigns not retargeting audiences to create meaningful moments over longer periods of time 
❗️ Different teams telling slightly different stories
❗️ Vendor-funded activity that doesn’t align with core positioning or serves vendor sales cadence rather enabling Partner sales nurture rhythm
❗️ Sales enablement assets that don't enable, i.e. never get used, because GTM or marketing doesn't understand the complexities sales professionals face

None of these look dramatic on their own. But together, they create drag.

That’s waste.

GTM investment, on the other hand, feels expensive upfront.

✅ Tightening positioning and meaningful differentiation before scaling campaigns, ensuring you lead with value rather than "Always Be Closing"
✅ Retargeting, nurturing, trust building over uncomfortably-long periods of time
✅ Taking control over going-to-market together with vendor alliance partners, rather than following their lead
✅ Aligning sales and marketing around one narrative and mutually-agreed lead definitions
✅ Reworking partner motions instead of layering on more tactics

These decisions don’t create instantly attributable return - especially when analysed on their own.

But the coherence and focus this creates compounds.

Right now tech executives aren’t asking me, “How do we spend less?”

They’re asking, “Where is effort being diluted so we can double down on what is working?”

There’s a big difference and that's been the main theme in January.

What feels like real meaningful GTM investment for you… and what feels like a drag?

#GTM #gotomarket

I help B2B tech companies go to market faster. Founder with 1 exit.

GTM waste vs efficiency

"You should embrace AI” has been a real common GTM push (wrapped up as strategic advice) by Partners to their end user clients.

Very few leaders know how to visualise success or measure if it’s working. 

I was reminded of this clip from Episode 26 of Go-To-Market Playmakers in discussion with Dave Boyce from Winning by Design. 

If AI is reshaping go-to-market…

How do you evaluate success when you don’t even know what the final model looks like yet? And what if there are no traditional guide posts along the way?

There's a practical concern here:

How do we know if this is actually improving performance when the landscape changes so fast within even a quarterly cycle?

One idea that resonated strongly with me in the discussion was this: If you can’t measure the experiment, why are you running it?

The way Dave frames the concept of Minimum Viable Signal Loop was a gamechanger for me.

That AI adoption in GTM isn’t about tools, it’s about signal.

It's a real mindset shift.

Full episode is down there 👇

Strategy has never looked better on the slide deck. But momentum hasn't felt this hard inside the organisation in a long time.

In conversations with tech execs across cyber, IaaS and hardware manufacturers over the past week, a theme kept surfacing:

The strategy is clear. The goals are dialled in. It's been impressive to see! 

But the execution feels scattered. 

Teams are super busy, but they're stretched. Everyone is moving… but not always in the same direction.

That gap between strategy and execution is widening. And this isn't a clarity problem.

There's potentially three quieter forces at play here.

First, strategy shifts faster than operating rhythm.
By the time teams galvanise around one direction, the next adjustment comes through. Momentum resets before it compounds. Staying afloat and keeping up becomes the unspoken priority.

Second, too many things qualify as “strategic.”
When everything is a priority, focus fragments. Individually, each initiative makes sense. Collectively, they create drag. It seems like common sense but this one quietly becomes the norm.

Third, incentives rarely align perfectly with stated intent.
Leadership may emphasise long-term positioning. Teams are often measured on short-term output. Monthly and quarterly cycles shape behaviour. Whether we admit it or not. 

What I’m noticing is this:

The organisations that feel stuck aren’t lacking intelligence or effort. It's the coherence that turns strategy into momentum.

Are you seeing this as well?

The widening gap between GTM strategy and execution

A weak value proposition shows up as a growth problem. But does that mean it's a messaging problem?

In a lot of tech companies I speak with, there is a strong internal belief in their positioning.

The feature comparison is strong. The deck is polished. Sales can explain what the service or product does.

They'll even talk about how they have the best tech, the best service and the best people.

But when you zoom out, something's not landing.

Whether that's visible in demand, pipeline, deals dragging or inconsistent win rates, it's usually not a sales capability issue. It starts much earlier in the causation chain.

It’s usually a positioning issue.

When the value proposition is similar or same with other competitors, the consequences ripple.

There's no cut-through to reach net new prospects. Sales teams start customising the story deal by deal. Each rep frames the product slightly differently. Consistency erodes. 

Partner sales team or distie sales teams struggle even more. If your own team can’t articulate sharp differentiation, how do you expect an external team to do it?

They also default to features. Or worse, they deprioritise your offer because it doesn't land as easily or quickly as other offers in their stable.

None of this breaks the business overnight. And none of this can be clearly pointed to as a direct cause for any of the issues. 

That’s what makes it so tough to navigate.

The cost compounds quietly:
➞ Lower quality pipeline.
➞ Longer sales cycles.
➞ Increased discounting.
➞ Fragmented brand perception.

And by the time leadership notices, it looks like a demand problem.

Differentiation isn’t a marketing exercise.

It’s a strategic control point. It's the very core of your Go-to-Market as a company.

Clear differentiation that means something to your target buyers or ICP buying committee members? 

That's what separates momentum from drag.

I've seen this pattern countless times: GTM strategy doesn't lead to sales momentum.

The leadership team invests time and effort into a brilliant go-to-market strategy. The positioning is sharp. The differentiation is clear. The pricing tiers make sense.

Then sales has to translate it. And then the GTM fragments.

Reps default to features. Objections get handled inconsistently. New offers launch without playbooks. 

By the time the strategy reaches the end user prospect, it's unrecognisable.

The problem isn't the strategy. It's the execution layer between strategy and sales conversations.

I just recorded an on-demand webinar that shows how B2B tech companies solve this with high-impact GTM enablement. (and I'm trialling long-form uploads here on LinkedIn!) 

It covers:
→ Why great strategies fragment at the sales level 
→ The 4-phase framework we use to build structured enablement systems 
→ How to standardise value conversations across your entire team 
→ A real case study from FUJIFILM CodeBlue NZ

This isn't about creating more collateral. 

𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧.

If you're a tech leader watching your sales reps improvise your carefully crafted positioning, this one's for you.

Watch the full webinar below. 👇

“Security is not an option anymore. It’s part of the infrastructure.”

Storage used to be a capacity discussion, but it's become so much more.

Jeff Hyunshik Park, Country Manager Australia at Seagate Technology, shares in this edition of Tech Exec Insights how Seagate is increasing enterprise capacity without increasing footprint or power consumption.

That matters because AI growth is not slowing down.

He also made it clear that hardware encryption and embedded security are now baseline requirements, not premium add-ons.

The bigger shift? In 2026, infrastructure decisions are being shaped by:
• AI workload pressure
• Data sovereignty concerns
• Cyber resilience expectations

Are your infrastructure conversations evolving fast enough?

It's not that GTM strategy fails. It's the 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 that fragments.

After years of working with B2B tech companies, we see the same patterns repeat:

➞ Leadership decks are crystal clear. Sales conversations are less clear.
➞ Reps pitch features. Customers need value.
➞ Objection handling varies wildly across your team.
➞ New offers launch with excitement, but no playbook leverages the attention.
➞ Sales tools are scattered across folders, formats, and individual laptops.

The gap may not be your strategy. 

It's the system that translates strategy into sales conversations.

Watch this quick breakdown from our recent sales enablement webinar. 👇

#SalesEnablement #B2BSales #GTMStrategy

Storage decisions are no longer made by IT alone. 

Security wants risk clarity. Finance wants lifecycle visibility. Executives want continuity and AI readiness.

In this clip from Tech Exec Insights, Jeff Hyunshik Park from Seagate Technology explains why partners must shift from product-centric pitches to outcome-based conversations.

If your sales narrative still focuses on technical features only, you’re missing half the room.

He also shared something that really stood out to me:

Partners should bring vendors like Seagate Technology into architecture conversations early.

Why?

Because security, scalability, and lifecycle decisions are being shaped before procurement ever happens. By the time RFPs land, strategy is already set.

To me, this aligns with the mindset of "going to market together".

Are you strategically getting upstream in deals? Or are you still responding to requirements someone else defined?

Technology Solutions Partner Education and Enablement Leader in the APAC Region

Driving change and improvement to increase growth is where I excel. I am a no nonsense type of guy that pushes others to their potential.

I have a strong focus on driving my self to ensure that I lead by example. I am constantly pushing myself to gain more knowledge to further increase my skill base.

Host of the Pax8 TSP Talk Podcast

YouTube = https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJjJ-aecObp7QEo3kLKGpTKn5RxIxSSEB
Spotify = https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pax8tsptalk
Apple Podcast = https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/pax8-tsp-talk/id1698011259

James Davis

I have spoken about cybersecurity for a long time now!
 
 
And I don't enjoy it, we are having the same conversations we were having 3, 5, and now even 10 years ago. I am sick of saying the same thing over and over again
 
 So this is my final brain dump on the topic to try and help Partners get unstuck and sort their shit out
 
 I am sicking of seeing cyber incidents that were easily avoidable and I am embarrassed at how poor the practices are across a large portion of the industry
 
 I am calling everyone out!
 
 Many partners are the biggest danger to their clients with the lack of practices and them letting their clients assume they are protected. For many they have hit negligence and it is unacceptable!
 
 So here is my final baseline cybersecurity article that I hope to ever write

Strategic Advisor to the leading APAC Technology Solutions Partners

TLDR Summary: There are still so many cowboys in the industry that are super dangerous for their clients A lot of Partners still haven't gotten their 

Open article: The Traditional MSP an SMBs Biggest Cyber Threat by James Davis • 8 min read

The Traditional MSP an SMBs Biggest Cyber Threat

This is probably not something you have ever stopped and thought about...


That is overall an order of priority in what you deliver to clients!

And I don't mean Priorities and SLAs on tickets, I mean wholistically being able to juggle work for clients, especially in smaller Tech Partners that don't have separate teams that are well resourced

How often are you behind on Projects because your techs are focusing on that backlog of service requests, or that proactive maintenance not being done because we are focused on standard incidents

The list could go on and on

The majority of Partners I see, still run service delivery in a very reactive manner, incidents take priority over anything else and everyone is running around like they are on fire. It is stressful and it is super inefficient is there any wonder we are operating our businesses at around $150k Revenue per Employee, Service Cost to Labour Ratios of 1.8 to 2, and ~150 endpoints per tech managed

We are stuck being busy, but what if I told you there is a better way!

And the best thing is it is simple and free! It is as easy as setting delivery priorities and focusing on them, and the infographic is my standard default recommendation

I already know a bunch of you will be scratching your head or disagreeing with this list, but there is method behind my madness 

Focus on the work that is most impactful

- Roll out a project properly as soon as you can and issues or potential issues go away
- Replace someone's laptop and again it will remove issues or potential issues
- Do maintenance and compliance work to prevent issues occurring
- Cut off cyber issues early before they get bigger
- Solve problems instead of isolated incidents including automating things away

The list goes on and on, and what you find is if you focus on preventing work it creates a perpetual spiral, you get more time to do more impactful things which further reduce the reactiveness

I did this very approach when I ran a service delivery department, so well in fact that I didn't get an inbound call for 3 days straight, its unheard of, but it's because we focused on removing issues, and we didn't even have the fancy automation tools that we have now!

It just takes a change of mindset, firstly from the owner, and then driven by the service manager/coordinator to make it habit. We need to question what we are working on and why, focus on building momentum from incremental improvement and away we go

But for many this is too hard, it's easier to default to habits, if you want to do that, that is fine, but you are getting further and further behind the good Partners out there that can do a better job, make better profit and attract better talent

Seems like a no brainer to me!

We aren't being very structured and deliberate about driving automation in service delivery....


I have spoken a lot about automation adoption and financial realisation (https://lnkd.in/grDadkt6 and https://lnkd.in/gQ8bwAQA) But there is something we don't look at enough...

...And that is categorising the tiers of work we undertake in our businesses!

There is already a well-formed structure in ITIL with the services tiering, it isn't revolutionary, but it really helps structure the philosophy in the service delivery teams which is vital for the teams growth, efficiency in the organisation and staying ahead of client needs by providing the right value

It is so easy to get caught out and stagnant because people get stuck being busy in their roles, suddenly that role becomes and identity and people stop growing for fear of losing their identity

But if we drive a culture through a philosophy of continual growth and improvement we remove this challenge from our organisation, we all think we are doing this in our businesses, but we don't

We say "lets automate things and focus on the high value work", but what is the high value work? and how does someone who is doing the low value work going to be able to suddenly do high value work?

That is the value of mapping out service delivery tasks into the tiering, all of a sudden we can see what work sits where, we can focus on pushing work downwards to elevate people, but we can then also plan ahead on what kind of training people need to do so they can elevate into new kinds of work

It all then becomes very tangible and visible, we have a plan, we have a structure, and that is what everyone needs to focus on not only for their day to day role, but as an organisation to get the most impact in our investment in automation and service improvements

It takes time, but there are so many benefits to slowing down to speed up, so give it a try!

We have done such a poor job of developing talent in the industry...


And it really bites us, it has been for quite a while. We are seeing the disappearance of core troubleshooting, networking, DNS and many other skills

It is making it extremely difficult for many Partners to service the edge cases and the smaller handful of clients with more complex environments. It is also leading to poor technical standards being applied, especially with many owners not understanding best practice in modern environments

All of this is because we aren't a professional industry (nor are we a trade) so people coming into it don't have a baseline skill and knowledge set to develop from, they start from scratch, and we all suck at training

We don't have industry standards around role levels, we don't have training & development plans, we don't have career development plans, we continue to assume everyone will learn on the job. But who are they learning from?

We continue to think that everyone is self-motivated and has a clear direction they want to head, so they will go learn out of hours

I will tell you, hardly any of your team is learning outside of hours, if you are team of 10, maybe 1 person outside of you is doing anything outside of standard work hours

So, as our traditional work continues to become commoditised and others can do it faster, cheaper and better than you, what value are you providing your clients?

We need higher skilled people with experience that have more skills in applications, automation, business process, system integration etc all while having the soft skills to communicate with clients, manage programs of work, architect solution and provide advice

How many people in your business can do that? If you are an average Partner, it is probably only you if you are lucky. So, are you going to hire in? Develop your people? Or Consolidate?

The work is changing but we aren't as an industry, so you have to have a direction and do it yourself to have a successful business. Stop and reflect what you need now, and into the future, create a skills matrix, identify who you have now and who you need into the future and start being more deliberate about your talent recruitment, development and retention, your business is counting on it

taplio

The Battle

Jeremy Balius

James Davis

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJeremy Balius's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJames Davis's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Jeremy Balius

James Davis

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Jeremy Balius's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJames Davis's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJeremy Balius's LinkedIn Performance