Product management and marketing were siloed and misaligned. Each team established its own processes, systems, and software tools. Several work efforts were redundant, which was not only inefficient, but also created an environment of distrust as each group defended functional ownership. Product management resided in engineering, and marketing did not have visibility to product development or timelines.
As a result, virtually no go-to-market strategy or plan existed. “Marketing” was limited to internal channel communications without any demand generation or creative content development. Morale suffered as critical contributors grew increasingly frustrated and stressed. Leadership acknowledged the status quo was not sustainable.
Before an efficient and effective go-market-process could be devised and implemented, corporate culture needed to change. Trust needed to be built and siloes needed to be razed. First, I interviewed the relevant stakeholders to gain insight into their individual processes. I documented those processes and then reported back to the larger group (including engineering, marketing, and leadership). The report revealed multiple redundant efforts and inefficiencies. I quantified the time spent on, and opportunities lost due to, the overlap in work. I facilitated a conversation among the stakeholders, each of which expressed frustration at not having adequate time to focus on vital areas of responsibility. The report demonstrated that a realignment of roles and duties would benefit everyone individually and the organization generally.
Marketing now focuses on market research, while product management concentrates on technology and engineering trends. Together they collaborate on new product concepts, product enhancements, and product extensions. Product management makes the business case and marketing develops the messaging and positioning. Product management submits the proposal to leadership and if and when approved, the project is entered into the engineering project management system. In parallel, marketing develops a communications plan and ultimately enters the request for creative development into its project management system. Both teams have limited, read-only access into each other’s project management platform for visibility. Various process gates are in place, which requires the teams to meet to review and validate progress through launch. Product management and product marketing both have access to sales dashboards to track progress and reevaluate performance to determine if product design, pricing, or messaging modifications are necessary.
Following years of mistrust and inefficiency, product management and marketing were collaborating from product concept through product launch and beyond. Time to market was significantly reduced, and perhaps more importantly, product roadmap and resource allocation decisions were more strategic. Each team member has functional area expertise and ownership, but now everyone appreciates the value and contribution that others offer.
The first major new product launch using the redesigned process was a revolutionary new audio/video distribution technology on which an entire new product category was built. Close alignment and collaboration among Research & Development, Engineering, Product Management, and Product Marketing was critical. The design, implementation, features, and functionality were all moving targets.
The technology was ground-breaking and first of its kind. As the market for this technology did not exist, there was no awareness or demand. The need and benefit had to be defined and communicated. Without any context, comparison, or credibility, the go-to-market strategy and messaging had to be flawless.
Phase I:
Phase I of the launch began before the technology was completed. This was the education and awareness campaign. We started with technical white papers and articles. We booked subject matter experts (SMEs) with the media, including print, podcasts, webinars, and speaker panels. The goal was to establish thought leadership and technical expertise.
The conventional go-to-market plan consisted of product information emailed to system designers, programmers, and installers. However, I knew the traditional industry channel would resist such a significant change. We needed to speak directly to the target market. Our stories connected and rang true. As analog turned to digital, system failures in the field became more frequent. Dealers claimed there was no solution, but the market was aware of our technology in development, which promised an improved experience.
Phase II:
Phase II was to promote a beta test program, which was positioned as an exclusive opportunity for those who qualified to become honorary members of our R&D team for this new breakthrough technology. Customers jumped at the chance to participate.
Now that the market was seeded with products installed and working in the field, and customers who were invested in advocating on our behalf, we rolled out Phase III.
Phase III:
We flooded the market with customer testimonials, case studies, and product reviews. Customer demand was through the roof. Dealers had no choice but to buy and sell our products, which introduced Phase IV.
Phase IV:
We created a multi-level certification program and required that anyone wanting to specify, sell, and install our new products needed to become certified. The basic certification levels were free, but the highest levels required a relatively minor investment. Once certified, we sent one of our technicians onsite to assist with the first installation to ensure a positive experience.
With the channel and the market now heavily invested, the cost of change became exorbitant. Ultimately, the product line was a market disruptor, effectively rendering all previous technology obsolete.
We estimated that we had the first-to-market advantage for approximately 2–3 years. In fact, it would be seven years before any real competitive threat emerged. By that time, the annual revenue of this new product line was approximately $800M.
Comentários