After our biggest product launch of the year, I spent two full days building a comprehensive results presentation. Thirty slides covering:
- Launch timeline and execution
- Marketing campaign performance across 6 channels
- Sales enablement adoption metrics
- Product usage analytics
- Customer feedback themes
- Competitive response tracking
- Press and analyst coverage
- Detailed ROI calculations
I was proud of how thorough it was. I'd captured every dimension of launch performance.
I sent it to our exec team with the subject line: "Q2 Product Launch: Complete Results Analysis."
Our CEO replied 45 minutes later: "Can you give me the 60-second version? Did we hit targets and what's next?"
He hadn't opened the deck.
That's when I realized: Executives don't want comprehensive launch analysis. They want to know if the launch worked and what we're doing about it.
I rewrote the entire presentation as a one-page executive summary. The CEO read it in 90 seconds, made two strategic decisions based on it, and forwarded it to the board.
Same results. Different format. Completely different executive action.
What Executives Actually Want From Launch Results
What I thought executives wanted: Complete view of every launch metric so they could understand the full picture.
What executives actually want: Three questions answered:
- Did we hit our targets? (Yes/No with numbers)
- What's working and what's not? (Pattern identification)
- What are we doing differently going forward? (Action plan)
Everything else is appendix material that they'll read if they need supporting detail.
The template that works:
Slide 1: Launch Performance Summary
- Revenue/pipeline target vs. actual
- Customer acquisition vs. target
- Top 3 wins
- Top 3 misses
Slide 2: What We Learned
- Key insight #1 and business implication
- Key insight #2 and business implication
- Key insight #3 and business implication
Slide 3: What Changes
- Adjustment #1 and expected impact
- Adjustment #2 and expected impact
- Adjustment #3 and expected impact
Total: 3 slides. 5 minutes of presentation. 25 minutes of strategic discussion.
That's what executive launch summaries should look like.
How I Structure the One-Page Launch Summary
After that failed 30-slide deck, I built a one-page template I now use for every launch.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: [Product] Launch Results
Performance vs. Targets (30 Days Post-Launch)
Pipeline Generated: $2.8M (Target: $3.5M) — 80% of goal
New Customers: 47 (Target: 60) — 78% of goal
Sales Adoption: 82% (Target: 90%) — 91% of goal
Feature Adoption: 1,240 users (Target: 1,500) — 83% of goal
Summary: Launch performance was 80% of targets. Pipeline is tracking to goal by day 60. Sales adoption is strong. Customer adoption is below target.
What Worked
✓ Mid-market segment over-performed: 110% of pipeline target, $180K average deal size (up from $140K) ✓ New positioning resonated: 68% of prospects cited "implementation speed" as key differentiator vs. 42% pre-launch ✓ Sales certification: 82% completion in 2 weeks—highest adoption rate of any launch
What Didn't Work
✗ Enterprise segment under-performed: 45% of pipeline target, lost 8 of 10 competitive deals to compliance gaps ✗ Feature adoption below target: Only 30% of new customers activated core feature vs. expected 60% ✗ Self-serve conversion: 12% trial-to-paid vs. target 22%—onboarding flow has 65% drop-off at step 3
Key Insights
-
Mid-market is our sweet spot: Close rate 58% vs. 18% enterprise. Sales cycle 3.2 months vs. 7.4 months. Recommend doubling down on mid-market and deprioritizing enterprise until we address compliance gaps.
-
Positioning shift working: New "operational in 2 weeks" messaging cut implementation objections 40%. Recommend expanding this positioning across all product lines.
-
Onboarding friction killing adoption: 65% of users drop off at "Configure Integration" step. User testing reveals terminology is confusing. Recommend urgent fix—could improve activation 25-30%.
What Changes (Next 30 Days)
→ Sales focus: Redirect 60% of sales capacity from enterprise to mid-market (expected $1.2M additional pipeline) → Onboarding fix: Simplify integration setup, test with 20 customers, deploy in 2 weeks (expected 25% activation improvement) → Pricing test: Mid-market deals 30% larger than forecast—testing 15% price increase with next 10 customers → Enterprise pause: Stop new enterprise prospecting, focus on closing active pipeline, reassess after compliance roadmap
Decision Needed: Approve sales capacity reallocation and enterprise pause (impacts quota planning).
That's the template. One page. 400 words. Executives can read it in 2 minutes and make strategic decisions.
Everything else—detailed metrics, campaign performance, user research findings—goes in an appendix they can reference if needed.
The Metrics That Matter vs. The Metrics That Don't
My mistake: I thought more metrics = more thorough analysis.
The reality: Too many metrics obscure the pattern. Executives drown in data and miss the insight.
Metrics that matter to executives:
Revenue metrics:
- Pipeline generated vs. target
- Average deal size vs. historical
- Win rate vs. baseline
- Sales cycle length vs. historical
Adoption metrics:
- New customer acquisition vs. target
- Feature activation rate
- Time to value
- Churn/retention early signals
Efficiency metrics:
- Sales adoption of launch materials
- Sales ramp time impact
- Cost per acquisition vs. plan
Strategic metrics:
- Competitive win rate vs. baseline
- Market segment performance vs. expectations
- Positioning effectiveness (measured through sales conversations)
Metrics that don't matter to executives:
- Website traffic (unless it converts to pipeline)
- Social media engagement (unless it drives customers)
- PR impressions (unless it impacts brand consideration)
- Sales call volume (unless it converts to pipeline)
- Marketing qualified leads (unless they convert to opportunities)
The pattern: Executives care about metrics that connect to revenue, customers, or strategic position. They don't care about activity metrics.
In my one-page launch summary, I include 6-8 key metrics maximum. Everything else goes in the appendix.
The test: If you removed a metric, would executives make a different decision? If not, remove it.
How to Frame Insights (Not Just Present Data)
The mistake I made: I'd present data and expect executives to draw their own conclusions.
What works: Present the insight first, then support it with data.
Bad: "Enterprise pipeline: $400K (target $900K) Mid-market pipeline: $2.2M (target $2.0M) SMB pipeline: $200K (target $600K)"
Executives think: "Okay, some segments did well, some didn't. Now what?"
Good: "Insight: Mid-market is our sweet spot—we over-performed by 10% while enterprise missed by 55%. Mid-market deals close 3x faster at 40% higher win rates. Recommendation: Redirect sales capacity from enterprise to mid-market.
Supporting data:
- Mid-market: $2.2M pipeline (110% of target), 58% win rate, 3.2 month sales cycle
- Enterprise: $400K pipeline (45% of target), 18% win rate, 7.4 month sales cycle"
The difference: First version is data. Second version is strategic assessment backed by data.
Executives don't want raw metrics—they want patterns identified and strategic implications explained.
The Three Questions Every Launch Summary Must Answer
After presenting a dozen launch summaries, I've found three questions executives always ask. I now answer them preemptively in the summary.
Question 1: "Should we do more of this or less?"
This is the strategic decision they're trying to make: Double down or pull back?
Bad answer: "Results were mixed—some good, some areas for improvement."
Good answer: "Yes, double down on mid-market. No, pause enterprise until we fix compliance gaps. Redirect sales capacity accordingly over next 60 days."
Make a clear recommendation. They can disagree, but they can't make a decision if you don't propose one.
Question 2: "What surprised you?"
This surfaces unexpected insights that might inform strategy.
Examples from my launch summaries:
"Surprise: Average mid-market deal size was $180K vs. forecast $140K. Buyers are willing to pay 30% more than we expected. Testing price increase."
"Surprise: 68% of prospects cited 'implementation speed' as deciding factor vs. 42% pre-launch. Our positioning shift is working—recommend expanding this messaging across all products."
"Surprise: Self-serve conversion rate 12% vs. target 22%. Deep-dive revealed onboarding drop-off at step 3 due to confusing terminology. Quick fix could improve conversion 40-50%."
Surprises are valuable because they reveal misalignments between assumptions and reality. Executives appreciate when you surface these.
Question 3: "What are you changing based on what you learned?"
Executives want to know launch results drove action, not just analysis.
Bad: "We'll continue monitoring performance and optimize as needed."
Good: "Three immediate changes:
- Redirecting 60% of sales capacity to mid-market (starting next week)
- Fixing onboarding step 3 terminology (deploying in 10 days)
- Testing 15% price increase in mid-market (next 10 deals)"
Specific actions with timelines. This shows you're not just reporting—you're adapting based on learning.
The Appendix Strategy (Include Detail Without Destroying Brevity)
The one-page summary doesn't mean you throw away detailed analysis. It means you put it in an appendix.
Page 1: Executive summary (performance, insights, actions)
Pages 2-10: Supporting detail (if executives want to dig deeper)
What goes in the appendix:
- Detailed metrics by channel/segment/region
- Campaign performance breakdown
- User research findings and customer quotes
- Competitive response analysis
- Sales feedback themes
- Product usage analytics
- Financial ROI calculations
The exec reads page 1 in 2 minutes and can make a decision. If they want supporting detail, it's there. But they don't need to read it to act.
This format respects their time while providing rigor.
How to Present Launch Results When They're Bad
Three months after learning the one-page format, I had to present results from a launch that failed. We'd missed every target by 40%+.
My instinct was to bury the bad news in detailed explanations and context.
Instead, I led with it.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: [Product] Launch — Missed Targets
Performance vs. Targets (30 Days)
Pipeline: $600K (Target: $2.5M) — 24% of goal ❌ Customers: 8 (Target: 40) — 20% of goal ❌ Sales Adoption: 34% (Target: 80%) — 43% of goal ❌
Summary: Launch significantly underperformed. Root cause: Positioning didn't resonate with target buyers. Recovery plan in progress.
What Went Wrong
✗ Positioning missed: Only 18% of prospects responded positively to "AI-powered" positioning vs. 65% needed for targets ✗ Sales didn't adopt: Only 34% of reps used new materials—most reverted to old pitch ✗ Timing poor: Launched during year-end budget freezes when buying had stalled
Root Cause Analysis
-
I misread market: Assumed "AI-powered" would differentiate. Buyers actually wanted "saves 10 hours per week." We led with technology instead of business value.
-
Insufficient sales buy-in: Sales wasn't convinced new positioning would work, so adoption was low. I should have pressure-tested with sales leadership before launch.
-
Ignored timing signals: Q4 budget data showed 40% decline in deals. Should have delayed launch to Q1.
Recovery Plan (In Progress)
→ Week 1-2: Testing revised positioning with 30 customer conversations (ROI-focused, not AI-focused) → Week 3: Re-enabling top 20 reps with revised pitch if testing validates new positioning → Week 4-8: $40K ABM campaign targeting high-fit accounts with new messaging
Early Results: New positioning testing 42% positive vs. 18% for original. If this holds, expect to recover to 60-70% of original targets by day 90.
Decision Needed: $40K budget reallocation from brand to ABM campaign.
The exec team response: Appreciation for directness, approval of recovery plan, weekly check-ins on progress.
Leading with bad news and a recovery plan builds more credibility than trying to soften the blow with context and explanations.
The Follow-Up That Determines Impact
Presenting launch results is step one. Following up on the actions you committed to is what builds credibility.
After my first one-page launch summary where I recommended redirecting sales capacity to mid-market, I sent weekly updates:
Week 1: "Sales capacity reallocation: 65% of reps now focused on mid-market (target 60%). Pipeline already up 18% vs. previous week."
Week 4: "Mid-market pipeline update: $1.8M generated in 4 weeks vs. $1.2M target. New positioning adoption at 78% based on call recordings."
Week 8: "Mid-market results: $3.2M pipeline generated, 58% win rate sustained, average deal size holding at $180K. Reallocation working as projected."
This follow-through did more to build executive trust than the original summary.
Executives remember whether you executed on what you said you'd do more than they remember the launch results themselves.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Launch Reporting
Most PMMs think: Comprehensive reporting shows how thorough our launch execution was.
The reality: Executives don't care how hard you worked or how many tactics you executed. They care whether the launch hit targets and what you learned.
The launch summaries that work:
- Lead with performance vs. targets (clear yes/no: did it work?)
- Identify 2-3 key insights (patterns that inform strategy)
- Recommend specific actions (what changes based on what you learned)
- Commit to follow-through (weekly updates until actions complete)
The launch summaries that don't work:
- Bury performance in slide 15 after methodological context
- Present data without interpreting it into insights
- Describe what happened without recommending what to do differently
- Report once and disappear
The difference in executive perception:
First approach: "PMM delivered strategic insights that changed how we compete in mid-market. That launch analysis drove $3.2M in incremental pipeline."
Second approach: "PMM did a launch. Not sure if it worked. Haven't heard anything since."
Your launch summary is your opportunity to demonstrate strategic thinking. Don't waste it on comprehensive reporting that nobody reads.
One page. Clear performance assessment. Strategic insights. Specific actions.
That's what executives want from launch summaries.
Give them that, and your launch becomes a strategic conversation instead of a report-out.
That's when launches build your credibility instead of just checking a box.