AMA: Gong Director of Product Marketing, Sherry Wu on Stakeholder Management

When creating ANY content, think about the needs of your stakeholders. The form and format of messaging needs to suit the audience. The audience for a messaging doc is usually internal - you're serving your marketing partners in Comms, Content, Demand Gen, AR, etc. A good messaging doc should answer these questions: * What is the product/feature? How would you describe it in 1 line? * Audience: Who is this product/feature for? What's your audience (persona, geo, company size)? * Market need: what's happening at a macro level? What are the key trends impacting your customers' business? * Customer challenges: what are the top 3 pain points your product/feature will address? * Your solution: How does your product/feature address those 3 pain points you just named? * Benefits: When somebody successfully uses your product, what will they achieve? What are some of the KPIs associated with those outcomes? * How does the product work? How does the product deliver those benefits? (Sometimes, it can also help to describe known product limitations) * Differentiation: How does this stack up to the competition. What are 3 points that make your product different? Why would that matter for the customer? * If this is tied to a product launch, link to the launch plan -- what's your launch timeline. With that outline, you're answering the 5 W's - who, what, when, where, how. Other information, e.g. customer proof points, SEO keywords, 25-word or 100-word boilerplate copy can be helpful as well, but those 8-9 areas cover most of the bases. In terms of format, I find Google Docs helpful - makes it much easier for stakeholders to collaborate. I've seen table formats and prose formats. The teams I've worked with seem to prefer table formats in Google Docs -- but again, it's important to test it out with your team!

"Politics" often feels like such a dirty word... but ultimately you need to navigate stakeholders to be able to influence without authority. Oftentimes, folks tend to butt heads when they have differences of opinion (whether that's on naming, launch timing, product readiness, etc.). When people have differences of opinion, it might be because they're not seeing the same data you are, or maybe they have other priorities you don't have visibility into. DO come to the table with a point of view. Do NOT force your point of view on others, especially if you do not own the decision. DO bring others along for the ride. Let's use a concrete example. Let's say a VP Product wants to continue investing in a product line. But based on customer research and market data, you know that demand is going to be low and the field is not going to be excited to sell. In this case, PMM does NOT own the decision on whether product investment -- PM does. But how do you advocate for what you know is good for the business? * Do NOT say - "This product will not succeed in the market." * DO say - "I'd like to show you some data from the sales tiger team. The average deal cycles are xyz days for this product, and the ASP is $xx. Is this the level of performance you'd expect from this new product?" This approach requires you to put aside your ego, by letting stakeholders come to their own conclusion. It just so happens to be the conclusion that you might have recommended. Navigating politics effectively isn't about proving that you're right -- it's about navigating stakeholders so that everybody can come together to do what's right for the business.

That ratio seems about right for PMM teams in general ;) PMMs are always going to be outnumbered by other teams! Oftentimes, the biggest issue for PMM is needing to navigate stakeholder requests. Why can't we launch this product now? Can you help with this sales deck? We're having trouble getting our customers to adopt this feature; can we run a campaign here? It's hard to manage stakeholders to turn their tactical requests into strategic partnerships. It's really all about providing visibility into what you're working on long- and short-term. That way, people understand how you're prioritizing your work and the tradeoffs that need to be made if you change those plans. Here are two tools that help me say "no" but provide context: 1. Share your mid- and long-term plans. Share them with the leaders of the teams, and ask for their input. This gives you an opportunity to explain how you're prioritizing your time, and communicate how you're tying your projects to business goals. This is super helpful so that if people ask for a tactical request, you can point them to a plan that will highlight either A) how their request maps back to a larger initiative or B) see if that request should be prioritized above any of your larger strategic projects ("that's a great idea. we're working on a few other high-priority items. Do you think I should deprioritize xyz to be able to tackle your request this quarter?") 2. Give a centralized place for teams to submit short-term requests to the team. This one is going to be controversial, I already know it. "But doesn't this turn PMM into a service organization?!". Not if you manage the requests right (and couple it with that more strategic plan). Having a form like this (whether it's for sales presentations, roadmap decks, etc.) ultimately gives stakeholders visibility into the volume of requests you're getting. It also helps you identify trends in types of request and can help you make decisions on creating something more scalable (e.g. do you see SEs requesting roadmap presentations for large accounts? Maybe it's time to create a roadmap that gets regularly shared!).

This question is related to a previous one about navigating politics. At the end of the day, influencing others IS about navigating politics. When trying to figure out how to influence, you need to identify who the decision-maker is and understand their goals. Oftentimes, you'll find that you share goals (but they may not have the same data you do). DO come to the table with a point of view. Do NOT force your point of view on others, especially if you do not own the decision. DO bring others along for the ride. Let's use a concrete example (from my own personal experience). Let's say a VP Product wants to continue investing in a product line. But based on customer research and market data, you know that demand is going to be low and the field is not going to be excited to sell. In this case, PMM does NOT own the decision on whether product investment -- PM does. But how do you advocate for what you know is good for the business? * Do NOT say - "This product will not succeed in the market." * DO say - "I'd like to show you some data from the sales tiger team. The average deal cycles are xyz days for this product, and the ASP is $xx. Is this the level of performance you'd expect from this new product?" In this case, the great achievement was (counterintuitively) NOT launching the product line. It saved the business from throwing good R&D budget after bad, and helped the sales team focus on the core product. This approach requires you to put aside your ego, by letting stakeholders come to their own conclusion. It just so happens to be the conclusion that you might have recommended. Navigating politics effectively isn't about proving that you're right -- it's about navigating stakeholders so that everybody can come together to do what's right for the business.