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?

Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT)

Manager: Product Team

Curio Group

Lead Education Consultant

Senior Education Consultant

Senior Learning Designer

Deakin University

2018 Arts and Education Teaching Excellence Award winner. 

2019 Faculty of Arts and Education Innovation Award nominee. 

2015, 2016, 2018, 2019 commendations for exceptional teaching.

Lecturer

RMIT University

University of Saskatchewan

Visiting Academic Fellow

Indigenous Business Australia

Economic Development Officer

Hi, I'm Matthew. 
I am the Product Lead at SAIT, designing exceptional digital product for the Future of Work.
 
As a consultant I worked extensively with universities, colleges and research institutes to build education ecosystems, to create process-driven learning design systems and to develop solutions to complex pedagogical and organisational challenges. 

I help teams to develop creative solutions to today’s most complex digital challenges. . 

In the last few years, I have led the design of 1000's of hours of learning with the world's leading university brands. 

In a previously life, I worked at Deakin University, in Melbourne Australia, for 5 years, where I was awarded Deakin University’s Individual Teaching Award and was nominated for the Teaching Innovation Award. 

I previously taught or held research positions at RMIT (Melbourne, Australia), Masaryk University (Czech Republic) and within the University of Saskatchewan’s Interdisciplinary Center for Culture and Creativity.
I hold a PhD from the University of Western Australia.

taplio

The Battle

Jeremy Balius

Matthew Hall, PhD

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJeremy Balius's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Jeremy Balius

Matthew Hall, PhD

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

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJeremy Balius's LinkedIn Performance