AMA: Twilio Sr. Group Manager, Product Marketing, David Esber on Messaging

This question suggests PMF or an offering that can solve the (or some of the) challenges both segments face. If that's the case, read on. If that's not the case – stop – do not pass go, and do not collect $200. Every business wants to be seen as enterprise-grade/ready/insert-your-word-here. That's why early-stage companies often focus heavily on landing big logos with low margins; it's no more complicated than saying: "If Company X trusts us, you should, too". For my money, I'd focus on landing messaging that resonates with enterprise customers since those are often more complicated buying processes, more complex problems, and larger contracts. Your best bet, though, to show partnership with stakeholders is to identify the largest addressable segment (using your knowledge of customer pains, opportunities, and the competitive landscape), conduct basic TAM research, and make a recommendation. With that buy-in, you can be confident that you're making a decision that meets the needs of the business. 

Get in front of customers any chance you have! I will rarely say no to an ask to present a roadmap, speak at an event, support a pitch, or join a voice of customer session. This gives me opportunities to hear their concerns/desires and subtly test messaging. I might swap out a standard pitch deck for a draft I'm working on, or ask leading questions to test out new messaging – all of these insights don't just validate our messaging, but help us to refine and improve our messaging. Additionally, our paid demand gen and organic content teams are amazing sources of feedback – messaging only matters if it is seen, so using traffic, clicks, and conversion events as proxies for resonance is a strong source of data for validating messaging. 

The best feedback we can get as PMMs is critical feedback. I firmly believe that our messaging should constantly be refined based on changing market conditions, competitor releases, or customer needs. If we're getting feedback that our messaging isn't landing, then it's a great opportunity to dig into the "why" it isn't working – but that certainly doesn't mean you have to agree or make changes. There will always be times when leaders push changes from the top, and we need to respond, but an essential part of our job as PMMs is to mediate that criticism, validate it (from more than just one source), and, if necessary, make changes. Having data, customer or analyst quotes, or market insights to back up why we're saying what we're saying is always helpful to have when doing broader messaging reviews, or pushing back on critiques that don't resonate with our research and understanding of customer needs. The best way to reduce feedback after launch is to ensure that key stakeholders are involved in the discovery process, see early versions of messaging, and are brought along throughout the entire process. Simply, messaging shouldn't come from an ivory tower, when possible. 

A deep understanding of the product, target audience, job to be done, and the technical solution is essential for our team to be good PMMs. For any product, even those that are less technical, knowing what the job to be done is and how the product offering does that job is a strong starting point. Every product conversation starts with what I call 20ish questions that generally focus on the following categories: * Job to be done (who, what, why) * Product accessibility (how do they use it, what limitations exist) * Market landscape (how does this address a need, what others solutions exist) * Go-to-market (paid/unpaid, roadmap) From there: * We partner with Product to develop a v1 of messaging * Test with internal stakeholders (account execs, solutions engineers, marketing colleagues) * Test with external stakeholders (analysts, friendly customers, painted-door webinars/3rd party events) * Refine positioning and gain signoff from Product and leadership * Activate through web updates, launches, and sales/internal enablement The level of depth we go depends on the launch size/opportunity size (i.e., a feature may be nested within our broader messaging and positioning, whereas a rebrand of a platform would be more extensive). 

My first question is: what's the reason for not relying on your revenue org? Is there a lack of trust, challenges with prioritization, or something else? The best, most differentiated positioning means nothing if it's not being used throughout the customer journey – and since the majority of marketing orgs are focused on driving leads to a sales team, that messaging better be consistent at every stage of the marketing funnel. I view our sales partners as essential in building, validating, and activating our messaging. Since much of the intel we gain from sales teams is rooted in the present challenges our target audience is facing, I tend to work closely with them to identify key pain points, then validate with new and existing user research (both in-house and sourced with third parties), broad customer surveys (key trends based by audience), and by talking to customers any opportunity I have. To that end, I'll often volunteer to present a product pitch, volunteer for booth duty, or present our roadmap, just to have face-time with customers; we're providing direct value, so folks rarely object when I ask a few additional, discovery questions, or drop-in new messaging just to observe their reactions. The best messaging, though, doesn't just address the current problem, but future problems (and in an economic downturn, economic opportunities) that we are best positioned to address. So, vision-building is often more of a conversation and ideation exercise with my product stakeholders. Simply, intel from sales/customers is great for messaging that gets heads nodding, and the product vision conversations are what I use to get people excited about the future. Together, that's the peanut butter and chocolate of messaging. While this question was specifically about quant tools, it's essential to start with that qual research. Some really talented UX partners taught me that qualitative data is essential before building out quantitative research – I treat messaging the same way. On the quant side, here are a few things I've seen work: * Message testing with friendly customers/customer-facing teams (either via an ad hoc or existing VOC community – ask them for quant and qual feedback in exchange for swag, donations to a cause, or access to new features) * Painted door exercises (A/B test landing pages and ad copy with variations of content to measure CVR) * Sales training & correlative win/loss rate (train teams in new messaging and observe changes in win/loss and customer segments over time using tools like Gong)

A former marketing leader I worked with always emphasized the need to "market your marketing". It takes time, is often the last thing I want to do after spending months working on a deliverable (or entire Bill of Materials), but it's arguably the most important thing we do. Since our messaging is often most consumable in the form of customer-facing slides, we often start with a canonical pitch deck (that is maintained in our enablement hub), demo, and website. From there, it's a hub-and-spoke model of updating one-pagers, blogs, and other internal and external materials. Since no pitch is identical (I find most reps build their own frankendecks to fit the needs of the customer), ensuring that we have a single source of truth in the form of a canonical deck is accessible, we have confidence that at least the most important messages will reach our intended audience. For major messaging overhauls, we've also launched required enablement trainings for account teams to ensure they can speak to the critical messages. 

No one likes being marketed at, but, when done well, we typically don't mind being marketed to. Generally speaking, we've found there's far more nuance to this dichotomy than simply drawing a line between audiences. I've also noticed many companies shift away from the divided messaging approach (i.e., dedicated landing pages for developers or non-developers) toward a single page that speaks to both features and values. Since we can't reasonably control 100% of who lands on a given piece of content or webpage, a rough set of guidelines for meeting the needs of both audiences might be to: * Speak concisely to the differentiated features that solve particular needs * Use customer examples and quantitative data to speak to the value this product brings to the business * Avoid undifferentiated jargon that signals to either audience that they are being marketed to Depending on where the asset would live, dialing up either the features or value can help address the needs of a particular audience. One of the most visible places that this blended messaging appears is online, but for technical resources, documentation, or other content that is segmented by persona more clearly, focusing on either value or features is often effective at getting heads nodding.