A distribution strategy is not a stack of channels.
A distribution strategy is not a stack of channels. Direct, indirect or hybrid architecture determines who sells, serves and owns the customer relationship, and the coexistence rules. Direct improves control but transfers acquisition, logistics, service and investment to the company. Indirect brings coverage, credibility or speed in exchange for margin, data and control. Choose by coverage intensity, intermediary role, full economics, cannibalisation risk and exit conditions.
Decision.
Select direct, indirect or hybrid architecture, assign every channel a role and set safeguards that keep the portfolio profitable, coherent and reversible. Separate acquisition, transaction, delivery, advice, service and loyalty; set intensive, selective or exclusive coverage by territory and segment; then compare net price, commission, acquisition, logistics, inventory, returns, service, fixed costs and working capital on the same horizon. Document price, assortment, promotion, attribution, data-sharing and partner treatment, with a conflict signal, contribution threshold, owner, review date and exit condition per channel.
Worked example.
An indirect channel contributes €152k annually. A direct channel contributes €80.6k after acquisition, logistics, service and fixed costs, with data access valued at €90k. Deduct €45k conflict and transfer risk: adjusted direct value is €125.6k, still €26.4k below indirect contribution. The partner remains primary; direct is a bounded pilot for a segment where contribution, data and service quality are measurable.
Checks and limits.
Compare like-for-like roles, territory and horizon; value customer data only with access, consent and activation capability; treat channel conflict with a documented action. Control and speed scores depend on observed internal capabilities; hybrid coordination costs can be missed by separate P&Ls; a transferred sale is not incremental growth.