After nearly three years reshaping Verizon’s partner strategy, channel chief Mark Tina shares how the centralization of channel resources and a focus on convergence are paying off.
After nearly three years in the channel chief seat, Mark Tina, Verizon’s vice president of indirect partner sales, says the telecom giant has quietly reshaped how it works with partners, both internally and externally. Verizon has reworked its channel strategy to better reflect how customers buy today, from breaking down internal silos to elevating the channel’s role across product, finance and go‑to‑market decisions. The goal, Tina said, is positioning partners to deliver end‑to‑end outcomes focused on convergence at a time when customers want more than just connectivity.
Those efforts have culminated in a major organizational shift for the telecom giant. Verizon has consolidated all channel resources under a single leader — Tina — who is reporting directly to Verizon Business CEO Kyle Malady. Tina sat down with CRN to explain how this centralization of channel resources is reducing complexity for partners, improving go-to-market plans for products and speeding deal cycles, all while helping Verizon expand its partner base beyond the tried and true, traditional telecom agents toward MSPs. He also outlined how Verizon is tackling long‑standing channel conflict and why convergence remains the biggest untapped opportunity for partners.
Here are excerpts from the conversation with Tina.
Tell us about the work that Verizon has been doing over the past two years to deeply rework its channel strategy.
I can’t believe how fast the two years have gone, but over that time in the channel chief slot, we’ve done a lot both internally and externally. On the latter, externally, really digging in with the different partner types, and we’ve done a lot of feedback sessions [with] external partners on: What is working? What’s not working? What else do you need to see from Verizon, etc.? And then taking that information back and figuring out how we can be a better partner for the channel. Internally, we’ve done a lot of work across our segments. Verizon, obviously, is split between our consumer group and our business group. On the business side, which is where the channel sits, you’ve got what we call our midmarket team, and that team covers small/medium business all the way up to 999 employees by way of business size, and then [we have] enterprise and public sector. That’s our go-to-market, customer-facing distribution. And, then of course, we have finance, product marketing, etc. Internally, we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that every one of these organizations — not only the direct sellers that we complement, we work alongside of and in certain cases, obviously we compete with — all the way over to our product teams, our marketing teams, our finance teams, to make sure that everybody understands the importance of the channel [and] the prioritization that’s necessary for the channel to be successful in order to really win in the market. I’m a firm believer that today, a client is not just looking for a vendor. They are looking for a partner that can meet their needs end to end, and the more that we can fulfill, the better off we’re going to be. Those customers are choosing these capabilities and core competencies, and it’s our role to make sure that those partners choose Verizon. It takes all of the said stakeholders that I just mentioned to be able to make that happen. So, we’ve been spending a lot of time there, and I’m very confident that Verizon has now prioritized the channel the right way.
We’ve been in the channel game for decades, but always in wireline. For decades, channel partners have been selling wireline [and] around 2019 is where we introduced mobility, and then obviously convergence. Now, our partners do both wireline and mobility, and that’s the work we’ve been doing internally in order to better position us for success.
How is centralizing all channel resources under one leader reporting to the CEO reducing complexity for partners?
Reporting to Kyle [Malady] (pictured) really became a culmination of that work we were doing internally. I think the organization realized there were channel resources that were spread out in each of those segments that I mentioned. There was the channel team in global enterprise, in public sector, etc., so it was spread out. We realized that a centralized organization under one leader reporting directly into the CEO would create efficiencies and gains, not only for us, but for our partners and for our customers. And so, through a lot of work, a lot of effort, we realized it made sense to pull everything together [and] roll it into the CEO and that’s what we did. We made that decision in late November, early December 2025. The team took the field, I would say, in this new format, this year.
What we’re seeing, if I look at it from a partner experience, because we always try to look at things through the partner lens, it becomes easier to do business where, if I am a partner, I now come to one channel manager and team and organization, regardless if I’m selling wireline or wireless, regardless if I’m selling a deal to a police department, or to a global enterprise, or to a mom and pop bakery on Main Street. It’s now all under one hood. I think our partners are finding it easier to do business with us and it’s easier to find who the senior leadership is, because again, it’s all within my organization, and my direct reports run the channel, so it’s always going to be in one place, whether it’s a resource that they need, or whatever it may be. It has definitely improved things for us from a [Verizon] employee standpoint. Let’s say a new product is launching. The product team now immediately considers the channel first to say: ‘Should this be a channel-led product? Is this a product or solution that our channel partners should lead the way on? Let’s check with Mark and his organization to figure out that distribution,’ whereas maybe in the past, product would naturally try to go down the direct route and channel becomes an afterthought. I’ll give you some examples. VoIP, for example — our channel community is very engaged with it and we have a white label product called One Talk. Essentially, we lead our One Talk sales through the channel partner community. A lot of our IoT and fixed wireless access resell work; we lead with our channel partners that are out there. So, I think from a product go-to-market standpoint, we’re improving efficiency of how we go to market, right off the rip when we launch a new product, or we’re trying to refresh a new product, so there’s definitely advantages there. Same thing with finance. We all know that when it comes down to closing a deal with that end customer, it has to be profitable. It has to be profitable for the partner, it has to be profitable for Verizon, and it also has to be competitive for the customer to select us. So, finance, along with my organization and if the direct sales organization is involved, we’re able to expedite the deal process to put the offer out to the market as quickly as we can. Those are just some of the efficiencies we’re finding.
As a large telecom with a tilt toward direct sales, how are you and your team working to reduce channel conflict?
It’s taken a couple of years to educate the direct sellers on: ‘This is not all direct compete. There is a way to partner.’ I’m a big proponent of leveraging data effectively [and] there is no shortage of data in this world. We all know that, but to be able to sit down in front of the direct sales organization leadership to say: ‘When you look at the overall pool of prospects [including] new logos that we don’t have, as well as the massive base that Verizon does have, there is no way that direct sales force is going to effectively get to this total opportunity, and that just by way of sheer number of businesses versus direct sellers. But then, when we also think across the full product portfolio, which has deep breath from Verizon, Figuring out, how do we get after all of that, all geographies, all customer types, all verticals, the only way we are going to win is by leveraging this channel partner community and helping the direct sellers to realize this has been paramount. We’ve also found a way to figure out the attribution, quite frankly, in a way that makes sense … that has really helped out a long way as well where it becomes: ‘Hey, we want to make sure the customer is getting the right solution.’ We want to make sure the partner is kept whole, and it shouldn’t come down to which cost center is getting attributed for the sale?
It’s just like anything else. If there’s one dollar on the table and either I’m getting it or you’re getting it, there’s conflict. If it comes down to; you’re only going to get 20 cents and I’m going to get 80 cents, there’s conflict. We’ve got to think of how to satisfy all sides of the equation, and that’s what we’ve been able to start to accomplish. It’s about getting custom and understanding the scope of the deal. Wireline deals typically lead to more of a residual-type compensation, and obviously in global enterprise, those deals are larger. This is more volume from a widget perspective as well as a revenue perspective, and therefore more important, whereas on the same wireless side, if it’s a smaller fast sale and that partner is just providing a managed service for, say, the pre-sale or the installation, that partner might be more [interested in] an upfront, one-time compensation for their service, and that makes more sense. So, getting more custom and tailored to: What is that service that that partner is providing and what’s the appropriate compensation and creating the best lifetime value for all becomes important.
How is Verizon actively expanding beyond traditional telecom agents toward MSPs and higher-value solution partners?
[We’re still working with] the technology services distributors (TSDs) of the world. They are there, relevant, and we continue to grow with them. We are starting to see, though, more MSPs and those partners that go, let’s call it, above the connectivity layer that might want to get into software as a service sales on top of the network [and] things like cybersecurity, which Verizon has a full portfolio on, and those types of things. We are starting to see more of that, and we are seeking to always be fully aware of the landscape and the portfolio partners that are out there to check our inventory, so to speak, [to make sure]: Do we have the right partners on board? Are there other players out there that we should be looking at? And that’s something else that has evolved under my leadership. I think for a long time the industry was set on: ‘We’re all set. We have our set partners. That’s it. We’re not seeking new partners.’ And that is the opposite of the way I like to lead the business, where, it’s great with the partners that we have, but there are evolving partners in other pockets of the business that we want to make sure that we’re up to date on, quite frankly, and so how we do make those selections? Obviously, we’ve got a process that were we vet these partners out, but what we’re essentially looking for is, first and foremost, building a truly transparent relationship with this partner. Let’s face it, you need to work with partners that you can trust, partners that can trust you, and that just comes down to transparency. There are things we can do, there’s things we can’t do. Let’s be real with each other, and let’s move forward. It’s building that truly transparent, cohesive partnership is one of the top things that we look at. And that’s not easy. That’s not black and white. That’s not something that you check a box and say yes or no. Secondly, we look for partners that are going to put the customer first and that we can measure. We can measure that through things like NPS and other types of customer surveys. We look for how the partners measure their service to customers. A lot of these partners utilize NPS, or they utilize other platforms to measure themselves, but we look for partners that put that customer experience first and foremost, as we do. The next thing we look at is what we call lifetime value. Meaning, is this the type of partner that stays with the customer long term to make sure that they’re going to stay on? We look at [things] like churn [and] we look at other loyalty indicators, such as: Is the account growing? Is it expanding? Are we increasing our share of wallet in the account? And so, we try to find partners that are going to stay with the customer for the long haul, with us of course, to ensure that the customer is not going to churn, not going to disconnect, and then we can continue to expand. Thos are some of the top things we look at, but then, we also look at the players. What’s their scope? Are they national? Are they global? Are they regional? How far can they expand? We would want to ensure that the partner has a sizable enough business and backend support and customer/tech service before we let them go sell into our enterprise space. If we’re bringing a partner into the public sector space, we want to make sure that they’re compliant. And are they on any existing government contracts, or do they have experience in selling to the government? If you make a couple of mistakes on a government contract, then you can’t sell to the government anymore, and so, we look for partners that know how to be compliant in that public sector space. I wanted to be specific around what we look at as we bring on new partners, but we definitely have a strong appetite to always bring on new, innovative partners that we can trust.
What is the biggest untapped area of opportunity for partners right now?
I will tell you, it’s convergence. We’ve had the capability for a while. We’re not just trying to latch on to AT&T. AT&T spends, at least from my vantage point, a lot of time talking about convergence. I do think, though, in the convergence game, we look, smell and feel the most like AT&T because of our fiber footprint, because of our legacy wireline history, and then, of course, paired up with our nationwide mobile footprint that we continue to invest in. That convergence, to me, true convergence, is still an untapped opportunity. There are so many clients — an overwhelming percentage of clients out there — that are buying their wireline services from one provider, their mobility services from another provider, and there really is no connection. In fact, a lot of businesses that you go in and sell to, it’s different decision makers. It’s: ‘No, we don’t handle the cell phones,’ which, mobility is so much more than cell phones. It’s different decision makers and it’s different budgets. My wireline infrastructure that’s already in place and embedded is probably more of an OPEX financial model, whereas if you’re investing into new technology, new equipment, etc., it could be capex. My point is, it’s different budgets, it’s different decision makers but when you tie it together, and you attack convergence, you win. Our partners are in a better position to do this than we are directly, and that’s a fact. That’s where you secure the customer, you increase your revenue and wallet share in the account, and you definitely decrease churn. There’s no doubt when a client is doing both mobility and wireline from the same provider and partner, they are much more likely to stay on than to churn.
I’m also trying to align our channel priorities with our company’s top priorities and one of our company’s literal top four priorities for Kyle [Malady] and it’s one of Dan’s [Schulman, Verizon CEO] top four initiatives for the whole firm. It’s convergence. So, it blends [because it’s a] top priority for us and is also the company’s top priority. There are no competing interests.
