Distribution, Revisited: Why the Way You Reach the Customer Defines Who You Are

I want to return to a topic I touched on some time ago, mainly because it continues to come up in conversations. Sometimes directly, sometimes between the lines. I’ve received comments, questions, and a few thoughtful challenges often from people who intuitively feel that something is shifting, but struggle to name it precisely.

The topic is distribution.

More specifically, it is about how distribution choices quietly but profoundly shape what a company becomes over time.

The original reflection came from a discussion I had with Neil during a podcast where we compared the movie industry and the insurance industry. At first glance, it sounds like an artificial comparison. One is about entertainment and storytelling, the other about protection, risk, and regulation. But once you step back and look at how value is created, priced, delivered, and defended, the similarities are difficult to ignore.

Today, I want to focus on one part of that comparison: how products reach the end customer and what that implies for strategy, organization, and control.

When people talk about Netflix, they often start with content. Series, movies, budgets, talent. But that is not where Netflix’s real strength lies.

Netflix is, above all, a distribution company.

Content is essential, of course. But content exists to feed a distribution engine that Netflix controls end to end. The customer relationship sits entirely with them. Registration, interface, recommendations, pricing, promotion, and feedback all of it flows through one single channel. Nothing is delegated. Nothing is abstracted away.

That level of control is not accidental. It defines how Netflix thinks, how it invests, and how it evolves.

Traditional studios operate very differently. They are excellent at producing content. They know how to finance projects, manage creative talent, and build intellectual property. But in most cases, they do not control the moment when the audience actually encounters the product.

That moment is mediated by others: cinemas, TV channels, regional distributors, franchises, and platforms. Each of these actors has its own economics, its own audience, its own constraints. The studio must convince them first, long before the viewer ever sees a trailer.

This is not a weakness. It is simply a different model. But it is a model where influence over the end customer is indirect.

This distinction matters because the same structural choice exists in insurance.

Some insurers sell directly. They own the client relationship. They speak to the policyholder, collect the data, manage the experience, and receive the feedback without filters.

Others distribute through intermediaries, brokers, agents, and platforms that control the relationship and the commercial conversation. In that case, the insurer’s primary customer is not the policyholder, but the distributor.

Again, neither approach is inherently superior. But they lead to very different organizations.

Over time, large insurance groups have tried to do both. Multi-channel distribution has become the norm, particularly in Europe. Online, captive agents, salaried sales forces, independent brokers, and large brokerage platforms sometimes all at once.

On paper, this appears to be diversification. In reality, it often means managing several business models under one roof.

Each distribution channel carries its own logic. It influences how products are designed, how fast they need to evolve, how much flexibility is required, and where decisions are made. Trying to force all of this into a single, uniform value chain is tempting. It promises efficiency and control. But it also creates friction.

The online channel makes these tensions particularly visible.

Digital distribution does not tolerate slowness well. It requires constant adjustment. Pricing, wording, underwriting rules, customer journeys, everything is exposed to immediate comparison and feedback. What worked six months ago may already feel outdated.

Traditional insurance value chains were not built for this. They were designed for robustness, compliance, and predictability. Changes were infrequent, carefully validated, and rolled out slowly.

For a long time, insurers debated whether the same value chain could serve both worlds, with differentiation only at the very end, marketing and sales, or whether the split needed to happen much earlier.

In practice, unless an organization has developed exceptional flexibility, digital distribution tends to force earlier differentiation. Product architecture, decision rules, and even claims handling often need to be adapted to the rhythm of the channel.

Technology, and particularly AI, is changing this equation. Automation, data-driven decision-making, and modular systems make value chains more adaptable than they used to be. Some insurers can now reuse larger parts of their traditional setup for online distribution.

But technology does not remove the underlying question. It only widens the range of possible answers.

The strategic choice remains: do you want to own the relationship, or do you want to excel at supplying those who do?

This question becomes even sharper when we look at the growing power of large distributors.

In insurance, as in many other industries, brokers and platforms are consolidating. They control access to significant client bases. They understand purchasing behavior in detail. They know what sells, at what price, and under which conditions.

As a result, they increasingly influence what products look like. Features, pricing, tone, and even ethical positioning are shaped by distributor expectations. Insurers adapt. Sometimes they negotiate. Sometimes they redesign internal processes to fit distributor needs. In some cases, parts of product development are effectively outsourced.

This is not fundamentally different from what we see in the movie industry, where platforms now influence content creation itself. Distribution power does not stop at selling. It reaches upstream.

That is why control of the value chain matters so much. Not absolute control, but conscious control. Knowing what you own, what you delegate, and why.

Both in movies and in insurance, the most resilient players are those who are very clear about these boundaries.

There is, however, an important difference between the two industries.

In the movie business, success or failure is often decided very quickly. A release window is short. Marketing intensity is high. Audience reaction is immediate. If momentum builds, it builds fast. If it doesn’t, there is rarely a second chance.

Insurance operates on a different timeline. A product launch matters, but it is not final. Products can be adjusted, refined, and repositioned. Early sales may disappoint without condemning the product long-term. Feedback loops are slower, but they allow for correction.

This does not make distribution choices less important. It simply changes the risk profile. The consequences unfold over years rather than weeks.

When leaders ask how to approach distribution transformation, the discussion often starts with tools, platforms, or operating models. That is understandable, but it reverses the logic.

The more durable approach is simpler, and harder:

First, decide what role you want to play in the market.

Then, design value chains that support that role.

Only then choose the technology that enables it.

Netflix did not become powerful because of algorithms alone. It became powerful because it made a clear choice about distribution and aligned everything else to that choice.

Insurance leaders face the same responsibility. Whether consciously or not, every organization answers the question through its actions.

Are we primarily a manufacturer of products for others to sell?

Or are we a company that owns the relationship and builds everything around it?

Avoiding the question does not keep options open. It usually does the opposite.

Clarity simplifies decisions. It reduces internal tension. It makes investment choices easier. And in a market where margins are under pressure and distribution power is shifting, clarity is not a luxury.

It is a strategic asset.

That, ultimately, is why this topic keeps resurfacing and why it deserves more than a tactical discussion.

François Jacquemin

P.S.: Want to watch the video version of this article? Go to https://www.francoisjacquemin.com/covered/distribution-lessons-from-netflix-hollywood-and-insurance