B2B channel marketing agency UK · a buyer's guide · July 2026

B2B Channel Marketing Agency UK

Channel marketing is the only marketing discipline whose ceiling is set by competition law rather than by budget.

The things a partner programme most wants — one price everywhere, control of where partners advertise — are the two things a statutory instrument names as hardcore restrictions.

For the agencies themselves, the shortlist is next door: eleven verified UK firms in the B2B marketing agency UK guide.

£12.4m
CMA fines, four resale-price cases
2
hardcore restrictions bite channel work
0
published UK rate cards we could find
Scroll to descend
00 · The category

Three different jobs, one word

"Channel marketing" covers three motions that have almost nothing in common operationally, and — more importantly — differ in who is legally the advertiser.

To partner
Marketing aimed at the partner: recruiting resellers, distributors, MSPs and integrators onto the programme, then enabling them. You are the advertiser and you control every claim.
Through partner
Campaigns running in the partner's name, to the partner's list, funded by you. The partner publishes; the evidence behind the claims is usually yours. This is where the legal weight sits.
With partner
Joint demand generation, both names on it, costs split. Cleanest legally — both parties are visibly advertisers. Hardest commercially, because it needs a lead-routing agreement written before the campaign.

An agency that does not ask which of the three you mean in the first meeting is going to sell you the one it is set up to deliver.

A note on where this sits next to the rest of the discipline.

If your problem is the campaign itself rather than the partner relationship, that is a B2B advertising agency brief; if it is the whole commercial motion, it is a go-to-market one.

01 · The shape of it

You do not sell. They do.

Every hop between you and the end customer costs you a degree of control and a degree of signal.

A distributor's reseller's customer has never seen anything you wrote, and the partner who did the selling had commercial reasons to change it.

That is not a failure of the programme; it is what a channel is.

The job of channel marketing is to decide which parts of the message are worth protecting all the way down, and to accept that the rest will not survive.

Which motion are you buying?Pick one
The distinction matters legally, not just operationally: the CAP Code attaches to whoever publishes a marketing communication, and only one of these three motions leaves that as you.
Everything above is what a channel programme wants to control.
Below is what it is allowed to.
Descend into the Order
02 · The hard limit

You may recommend a price. You may not hold one.

The instrument is The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, in force since 1 June 2022.

Article 8 lists the hardcore restrictions — the things that take an agreement outside the block exemption entirely rather than merely making it risky.

Two of them land squarely on channel marketing, and the first is price.

Worth knowing before you design anything long-lived: the Order ceases to have effect on 1 June 2028.

Article 8(2)(a)Pick a scenario
Quoted verbatim from SI 2022/516. General information about one article of one instrument, not legal advice — a real programme needs a competition lawyer, and this page exists to tell you what to ask them.
03 · The proviso

The sentence that catches partner programmes

A recommended price is lawful. It stops being lawful when it becomes a fixed or minimum price "as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties".

Rebate tiers are incentives.

So is market development funding, and so is preferred-partner status.

Which means a programme can arrive at an unlawful price floor without anyone ever writing down a minimum — by attaching something a partner wants to the price they hold.

Does yours turn a recommendation into a floor?1 / 4
Four questions, answered from your own programme. This is a reading of one article, not a compliance assessment, and a low score is not a clean bill of health.
04 · The consequence

What it has actually cost

Four UK decisions, at true relative scale. None of these companies set out to break competition law; all four ran what they thought was a pricing policy.

The CMA says it receives more complaints about resale price maintenance than about any other anti-competitive practice.

CMA resale price maintenance decisions£4.5m
Each figure is the fine in the CMA's own published decision or announcement, linked. Dar Lighting is worth reading in full: the CMA published the mechanism in the company's own messages, and it reads like ordinary channel correspondence.
05 · The second restriction

You may not close an advertising channel

Article 8(6) makes it a hardcore restriction to prevent a buyer "from effectively using the internet for the purposes of selling their goods or services online or from effectively using one or more online advertising channels".

Article 8(7) then defines those channels to include "advertising on search engines" and "digital comparison tools".

So a partner agreement that forbids resellers from bidding on brand terms, or from listing on comparison sites, is not a brand-protection policy.

It is the thing the Order names.

Supplier restrictionsArticle 8, SI 2022/516
The left column is not a loophole list — selective distribution and territorial protection have their own conditions in the Order, and meeting them is the work. The right column is closer to absolute.
06 · The money

MDF is a compliance control, not a finance one

Market development funds and co-op money are usually administered by finance against a claim form and a receipt.

Two things make that insufficient.

The first is the Bribery Act's definition of an associated person, which is wide enough to include a partner spending your money in your product's name.

The second is that the partner is publishing claims whose substantiation you hold, and the CAP Code attaches to the publisher.

What MDF exposes you toPick one
Quoted verbatim from the Bribery Act 2010 and the CAP Code. General information, not legal advice.
07 · Buying it

The brief

Five questions. The last one is the one that separates a channel agency that has read the Order from one that has not.

Nothing is stored and nothing is sent anywhere — this runs entirely in your browser.

Build the brief1 / 5
Take the finished brief to several agencies unchanged. The differences in how they answer question five are the whole comparison.
That is what you may ask a partner to do, and what you may not.
The FAQ and the sources are below.
Buying

How to buy channel marketing in the UK

There is no rate card for this discipline and this page is not going to invent one.

What follows is what to ask instead.

Establish which motion you are buying, in writing

To-partner, through-partner and with-partner need different teams, different assets and different contracts, and an agency good at one is frequently poor at another.

Ask which of the three the proposal is for, and ask what proportion of the fee is programme management rather than campaign delivery. In most channel retainers the answer is "most of it", which is not a criticism — running a partner programme is administratively heavy — but it should be visible before you sign rather than after.

Ask what in the proposal touches price

A channel agency that has read the block exemption will have an immediate answer. One that has not will treat the question as a legal technicality to be routed elsewhere, which is itself the answer.

The specific thing to test is whether any partner benefit in the proposed programme — rebate, fund allocation, tier, status, lead flow — is contingent on the price a partner sells at. That contingency is the mechanism article 8(2)(a) describes, and it is usually introduced by someone trying to protect margin rather than by someone trying to fix a price.

Ask how substantiation travels

In a through-partner motion your partner publishes a claim whose evidence sits in your building. CAP Code rule 3.7 requires the marketer to hold documentary evidence before distributing the communication, so the operational question is how that evidence reaches the partner at the same time as the asset does.

Most partner portals ship the artwork and not the proof. That is a fixable process problem, and asking about it in a pitch is a good proxy for whether an agency has run a programme at scale.

Treat the 2028 expiry as a design constraint

SI 2022/516 ceases to have effect on 1 June 2028. Whatever replaces it will be consulted on well before then, but a partner agreement signed today on a five-year term will outlive the instrument it was drafted against.

Keep the price and online-advertising provisions severable so they can be replaced without reopening the whole contract.

What we are not telling you

No channel marketing rate card, no MDF benchmark, no partner-sourced-revenue percentage. Every figure circulating for those comes from a vendor or an agency that sells the service, with no retrievable methodology behind it.

That absence is deliberate and it is the same standard applied across this cluster: if a number cannot be traced to a named primary source, the sentence is rewritten without it.

FAQ

B2B channel marketing — FAQ

Sources

Sources

Statutory instruments, Acts, regulator decisions and the CAP Code. Where no primary source exists — a channel marketing rate card, an MDF benchmark — this page says so rather than filling the gap.

  1. The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, SI 2022/516 — article 1 (in force 1 June 2022), article 8(2)(a) (resale price maintenance and the pressure-or-incentives proviso), article 8(6) and 8(7) (internet selling and online advertising channels), article 16 (expiry 1 June 2028).
  2. Competition and Markets Authority, Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order guidance, CMA166, 12 July 2022.
  3. CMA, Guitar maker fined £4.5m for illegally preventing price discounts — Fender Europe, decision 22 January 2020, infringement 2013–2018. The same announcement records the earlier £3.7m Casio fine.
  4. CMA, Lighting company fined £2.7 million for restricting online prices — National Lighting, June 2017.
  5. CMA, Dar Lighting fined £1.5 million for illegally preventing online price discounts — March 2022, infringement 2017–2019, +35% for two ignored warning letters, −20% for settlement. See also the Domestic Lighting case page.
  6. Bribery Act 2010, s.7 — failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery, and the adequate-procedures defence at s.7(2). s.8 — meaning of associated person.
  7. Committee of Advertising Practice, CAP Code section 3 — rule 3.1 (misleading), 3.3 (material information) and 3.7 (substantiation held before publication).
  8. Committee of Advertising Practice, CAP Code section 2 — rule 2.1, marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.

Not used on this page, and deliberately: any channel marketing pricing benchmark, any MDF-as-percentage-of-revenue figure, and any partner-sourced-revenue share. We could not find a primary source for any of them that was not published by a party selling channel services.

gtm.quest

Got the brief, need the agency? The shortlist is next door.

📞