Who owns your end to end GTM system? What about the Bowtie data model? This was a key question during our two-day Revenue Architecture Summit in Santa Cruz. Marketing owns awareness. BDRs or equivalent own education. Sales owns selection. Finance oversees the mutual commit/contracting. Professional services do onboarding. CS helps with retention. Account managers focus on expansion. So do we even need somebody to own and optimize the overall #bowtie process and data model? YES! "But my marketing is great at increasing leads and sales is increasing close rates, so why worry about an overall owner?", you might say. What if the new leads are low quality and sales is rushing through the sales cycle, ultimately yielding high onboarding and ongoing churn? Whether you like it or not, revenue production is a closed loop system. Something you do on the left side of the bowtie impacts the right side and the other way around. Best to assign an unbiased data owner who does that personally have anything to gain by making the data tell any particular story. The most likely owner for the overall system, or at least for the overall data model, lives in operations or finance. We see new titles around GTM Strategy and Operations. We also see RevOps moving from CRO to COO or CFO. So hence my question: In your company, who owns the end-to-end revenue production system? Who owns data definitions and brings together your teams to decide on next actions to improve revenue production based on the data? #revenuearchitecture #bowtie #revops Photo courtesy Jill Guardia (she/her)
In my opinion, the CRO needs to own the overall responsibility. However, once your organization starts to drive different GoToMarket motions, thus different revenue generating lines, he or she needs dedicated support, typically organized within RevOps, Sales or Commercial Excellence teams, who can support on as well strategic topics, process design and analytics.
Love this. The bowtie should be the foundation of the revenue engine. Ultimately it’s the responsibility of the C-Suite to ensure the revenue model is established and all this “owning” turns into focus on the customer journey. That said - RevOps should be accountable for establishing and driving. If there is a true CRO function then it should sit there otherwise RevOps should be elevated. Not all CROs have the ideal span of control, some do not have marketing or customer success, so the answer is really, “it depends”… Ben O'Rourke …
Wolter Rebergen Richard Schenzel Koen Stam what's your take on this one? .....and who should...?
I’m excited to read the book! But TBH I’d rather see joint ownership across all the aspects of customer experience.
Jeffrey 🫡
Strategic enablement was originally set up to be that very end to end production system. The sad part is that people just associate to training when it’s so much more Dominique Levin
The answer is yes! We need that leader!
I’ve owned it in past as VP of revenue strategy and operations! And now as CRO co own it with CMO
The bow tie is built into the design of the platform.🤓 I am training the company to understand revenue architecture, even product.
Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) | collect.AI | Ex-Billwerk+ | Mastership Revenue Architecture (WbD) | Deloitte Technology Fast 50 Award Winner | SaaS | Software | Artificial Intelligence | Go To Market | RevOps |
6moA success factor model for innovative RevOps is going around the world 🌎🙌. My answer to your question: it depends on the size of the organisation - in itself the Chief Revenue Officer, but this and the CFO and CPO must grow together to form a real power team. The new generation of SaaS CFOs are dynamic GTM obsessives. Love it. Addendum: in my opinion, the fact that COO or CFO are RevOps Owners is due to the fact that many CROs have their origins in Sales (i.e. are more likely to be VP Sales). The role of the CRO is a corporate strategic responsibility rooted throughout the entire organisation. He influences almost every unit.