AMA: New Relic Director, Product Marketing, John Withers on Messaging

I’m going to split my answer into two parts, using the following (loose) definitions: * Positioning: An internal-only description of what the product is, who it’s for, the problems it solves (with key benefits), and how it’s differentiated from the competition. * Messaging: The language you use in the market to convey the value of the product. Messaging First, I can’t overstate how important it is to always be open to feedback about your messaging, and to be willing to update it (even after it’s been “finalized”). In this scenario, I’m going to assume that you’ve already spent hours drafting and editing messaging, in part based on internal feedback from your manager, your PM(s), Sales reps, SEs/SCs, and potentially executive stakeholders (eg, Head of PMM, CMO, CPO, etc), depending upon the importance of the product and the associated launch. So what’s next? At this point, it’s time to get input from people outside of your organization, to see if your messaging actually resonates and lands the way that you want it to. One of the easier ways to get this type of feedback is from analysts, assuming you have that function set up. Analysts speak with tons of customers, and they also hear from your competitors, so analysts are well-positioned to have an informed opinion about your entire market, including knowing what customers value and prioritize. Just use caution to not over-rotate to an analyst’s feedback, especially if you’re launching a novel product or an emerging technology that the analyst may be unfamiliar with. Oftentimes, the more difficult feedback channel, but ultimately the best source of feedback, is getting it directly from customers. Hopefully you’ve been able to develop a handful of close relationships with your AEs and SCs/SEs, who may be able to arrange a meeting with a friendly customer. Low-hanging fruit would be customers involved in a Preview release who are actively providing product feedback, but getting any customer feedback is incredibly valuable! Again, don’t over-rotate to a too-small sample size, and make sure you’re getting feedback from customers that match your ideal customer profile (ICP) for that product. Positioning Positioning should be the entire basis for building and releasing anything, as it forms the foundation of any product strategy. So while I’ve listed it second (behind Messaging), the reality is that this work must be done first (and is often owned or co-owned by the Product team). The channels for validating Positioning should be very similar to those of Messaging, but the feedback you would seek would be different. You’ll be less focused on how you talk about the product/feature/release, and instead you’ll want to seek answers to the following (non-exhaustive) questions: * What problems are we solving? For whom? * Does the market need this capability? * How well does our solution address the problems we’re trying to solve? * Will customers be willing to pay (more?) for this capability? * Are we playing catchup with a competitor, or is our solution differentiated? Again, getting feedback from analysts and actual customers is critical to getting Positioning, and ultimately, the product strategy right. But that input should be received well before the product is built, because only after you understand the answers to the questions above, can your organization determine what to build.

It depends. But first, let’s align on the purpose behind all of this work: We want to drive conversion, simple as that. And by conversion, I mean: We want users (or buyers) to take some action, such as reading a blog post, signing up for a webinar, talking to an AE, demoing the product, and ultimately using the product (PLG) or signing a contract (SLG). We get people to take these actions by piquing their interest about a better way for them to do their jobs. This is actually a really interesting question, in part because different scenarios would yield different approaches. For example, consider the following: Scenario 1 * Scenario: You’re at an enterprise company, and you and your competitor share the same customers, but for different products. You’ve decided to expand into your competitor’s market with a similar offering. * Example: Think about how Salesforce expanded beyond Sales (CRM) software into Service and Marketing automation, going head-to-head with ServiceNow and Marketo. * Messaging approach: Emphasize i) tools consolidation (cost savings) and/or ii) efficiency gains from using a single platform vs. siloed tools. Scenario 2 * Scenario: You enter a new market against an incumbent with a product that nobody likes using (eg, they have monopoly power and have stopped innovating). * Example: There are lots of enterprise examples, as well as fintech vs. banking, Airbnb vs. the hotel industry; Mint Mobile vs. big three US telcos, etc. * Messaging approach: Highlight why people dislike the incumbent’s solution while emphasizing how you’re different and better (or just do the latter without the former, if that’s more appropriate). Scenario 3 * Scenario: You have a novel solution, innovation, or technology, but customers are generally happy with the status quo. This is one of the hardest scenarios, because customers don’t think there’s a problem with how they’re currently operating. * Example: When Apple first launched the iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry had a near monopoly on the business world and government organizations (and quite a few consumers as well), and those users loved their “Crackberries.” Convincing these users, and the organizations that had invested so much into the Blackberry IT infrastructure, to try something so drastically different (and in many ways, inferior) took years of sustained effort and product innovation. * Messaging approach: Can vary wildly, but the goal is to demonstrate that the status quo is broken, and that the new way will unlock incredible benefits that were previously unimaginable.

Your messaging should show up everywhere, including within any of the following marketing tactics you may choose to employ: * Internal * Internal announcements (eg, Slack, other field comms) * Enablement sessions and related materials * External * Customer email(s) * Blog(s) * Web * Press release * Social posts * Videos * Field marketing * Webinar * Events * etc But one of the biggest challenges of messaging is driving consistency, especially as you navigate multiple rounds of feedback. That’s why it’s crucial to be disciplined and have a single source of truth for your messaging, such as a messaging framework or messaging document. On my team, for every product launch (even the small ones), we use a simple Google Doc template, where we iterate on the messaging at the very top; once it’s finalized, the messaging can be copy/pasted into each templated section below it (for each desired GTM tactic), to ensure it’s all consistent. And of course, some tactics will benefit from adjustments or deviations, which is fine (if desired).

Broadly speaking, as it relates to messaging adoption, there are two categories of stakeholders: Sales and everyone else. Let’s start with “everyone else,” which is far simpler. Messaging adoption should be programmatic and simple: You draft messaging, get multiple rounds of feedback, have it signed off, and then use it as the basis of everything you and your stakeholders produce (eg, launch comms, web, blog, PR, etc). Your organization likely has a well-defined messaging framework that serves as your single source of truth, and a well-oiled marketing organization will be familiar with using the right messaging (most of the time). But Sales, on the other hand, is much, much different. I spent some time as a Solutions Engineer at Salesforce working directly with AEs, so I have first-hand experience here. As it relates to messaging adoption, the field is up against two different challenges: Capacity and Expertise. Capacity: We throw a ton at AEs and expect them to retain it all, and it’s really an impossible task. Oftentimes, for their own survival, AEs will start to selectively tune out some of the internal comms around launches, updates, new features, etc, because it’s overwhelming. When this happens, they may never hear about your messaging (if a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it…). Expertise: The other challenge is, your most successful AEs are already hitting on all cylinders. They may be navigating complex sales engagements at large, enterprise accounts with different teams, multiple decision-makers, juggling 6-, 7-, or 8-figure contracts with multi-quarter sales cycles. They’ve (ideally) built deep relationships with champions, execs, and perhaps even some practitioners. So when you roll out your new messaging, candidly, they may not need it in order to be successful. Or perhaps the “new thing” will just get lumped into a larger contract, so they’ve not overly concerned with how you’d like them to talk about it. And oftentimes, your less-successful AEs may feel the same way too, resulting in the same behaviors. But don’t give up! There’s a reason Product built that thing. There’s a reason you’re investing company resources into launching it. I suggest taking a two-pronged approach: * 1:many: Company-wide awareness and enablement. Even if some AEs tune out these channels, do them anyway, because you’re still going to get some of the field to pay attention. But don’t think of it as “one and done.” Instead, treat internal awareness much like you’d treat market awareness–as an ongoing campaign. People need to hear things multiple times before it sets in, and Sales is no exception. * 1:few: Direct field engagement. Hopefully you’ve built relationships with a handful of AEs and SEs/SCs who are happy for you to connect with them from time-to-time. Use these opportunities to drive awareness of the things you’re working on (in addition to collecting their feedback and customer/market intelligence). Additionally, when appropriate, connect with Sales team leaders, and try to get five minutes in their team meetings every quarter or so. You’ll find that individual and team formats have their unique pros and cons, so pursuing both options will give you the best overall outcome.

First, let’s start with the following premise: Behavioral science tells us that the vast majority of decisions are made using emotional factors (Customer Brand Preference and Decisions: Gallup's 70/30 Principle, 2022), even when decision-makers think they’re making data-driven, rational decisions. Oftentimes, data is used after someone has made up their mind in order to justify their decision (often unwittingly). So I believe firmly in appealing to emotional benefits. It’s why we often refer to users’ problems as their “pain points” (which more strongly implies an emotion vs. just a “problem” or “challenge”). That said, there ought to be a 1:1 mapping between emotional pain → functional benefit to alleviate the pain → emotional benefits. In other words, “you’re probably frustrated by having to do X, which is why we’ve built capability Y to make you 10% more productive, so you can spend less time on toilsome work and get back to doing what you love.” Another way to think about this is Simon Sinek’s Start with why, where he says that if you want to motivate someone to change a behavior (in our case, buy or use our product), you have to demonstrate why they should do it before you tell them how to do it, or even what you want them to do.

I’m going to expand my answer to include the entire GTM strategy as well as the product strategy itself. For a mature company, I can think of at least a couple of scenarios that would require taking different approaches. For this answer, I’m going to focus on the scenario where you expand into adjacent markets that serve similar teams where there are efficiency gains to be made from tools consolidation. There are many examples of this (including Salesforce, where I used to work), but I’ll focus on where I currently work (in 2024): New Relic. New Relic was founded as an Application Performance Monitoring (APM) company, whereas Datadog started with infrastructure monitoring, and Splunk was a logs company. Over time, each company realized we could go after each other’s market share, either by acquiring companies that had solutions similar to our competitors, or by building those products internally. In terms of GTM strategy and messaging in this scenario, the value-add of offering a platform of capabilities vs. individual tools is two-fold: 1) Faster and more efficient troubleshooting when something breaks, because a user has visibility into their performance across their entire stack: Apps, infrastructure, network, and end users’ experiences (ie, mobile devices and browsers). This value prop should resonate with practitioners and IT decision makers. 2) Lower OPEX, due to consolidating onto fewer tools (and simpler procurement process, fewer contracts, etc). This value prop speaks to IT decision makers, budget holders, procurement, etc. So in the scenario I painted above, the messaging and the GTM strategy should reflect the two broad customer value props I outlined. And as a mature company, you benefit from the following (which you should take into account as you build your strategy): * Existing customer base * Mature GTM orgs (Sales and Marketing) * Credibility within your market, your customers, your prospects, analysts, etc Having the above “feathers in your cap” is HUGE, and you’ll benefit significantly from them. The one caution would be if, instead of being considered an innovator in your market, you’re thought of as a laggard throwing up a hail mary to stay relevant, you’ll have a tougher time convincing customers to adopt your new product. Now, let’s discuss doing this at a new company (full disclosure: I haven’t worked for a startup, so take this with a grain of salt). Depending upon the size of your startup, you’ll find yourself on a spectrum from having none of the following to having a fair amount of it: * Existing customers * Mature Sales org * Credibility The earlier stage you are in, the less important it is to focus on the messaging, and the more important it is to truly understand your ideal customer profile(s), your personas, their pain points, and whether they’re willing to pay for a “better” solution to whatever they’re doing today. As such, your focus should be talking to as many prospects, users, and customers as you can to learn as much as as possible, as quickly as possible. Along the way, you’ll be able to validate the aforementioned and start to think about how to message your solution.

PR and AR are really important GTM channels, and having strong leaders/ICs in both of those functions is crucial to reaching customers and prospects with the right messages and GTM strategies. Unfortunately, too many times I’ve seen PR and AR treated as an afterthought. Instead, you need to work closely with both functions well in advance of a launch to have sufficient time to develop the right approaches and to adapt to the input you receive. PR * Expertise: Understands the idiosyncrasies of various media outlets, reporters, and what they’re interested in (and, thus, will promote). Can recruit reporters to publish exclusive articles for major launches. * How you can partner: A strong PR person will actively help you craft messaging to fit a given audience (eg, investors vs. news media), which is especially important for press releases. * When to engage: Multiple weeks before a launch, so you can collaboratively build a PR and media strategy, including securing exclusive press coverage. AR * Expertise: Building relationships with analysts to collect feedback on your products, your roadmap, your GTM strategy, and your competitors (among other things). * How you can partner: Work with your AR leader to set up feedback sessions with analysts, and if you don’t personally have a “seat,” try to get feedback asynchronously through your AR lead. Beyond messaging, analysts can provide feedback about larger strategies, your roadmap, how your customers perceive you, how you compare against competitors, and more. * When to engage: As early as possible. Sometimes, analysts can be tricky to pin down, so even if your messaging isn’t completely baked, it’s better to get early feedback on something that’s close vs. missing an opportunity entirely. And early feedback may alert you to considerations you hadn’t thought of, and might not have anticipated, on your own.