I spent my first month as a PMM rewriting our messaging framework.
Nobody asked me to do it. Product and Marketing seemed fine with the current positioning. But I was a product marketer, and product marketers own messaging, so I dove in. I interviewed customers, researched competitors, built a comprehensive new messaging hierarchy, and presented it to the team in week five.
The response was polite disinterest. "This is interesting, thanks for putting it together." Then everyone went back to using the old messaging.
By day 60, I'd produced zero measurable value and had damaged my relationships with both Sales and Product. Sales thought I was ignoring their immediate needs—they needed battle cards for a competitor that was eating our lunch, not new positioning. Product thought I was second-guessing decisions that had already been made and had been working fine.
I'd spent two months solving problems nobody had while ignoring the problems people were actively struggling with.
My manager pulled me aside in week nine and asked a question that redirected my entire career: "What would have to be true for Sales to think you're the most valuable person they work with?"
I didn't have an answer. I'd been optimizing to look like a competent PMM, not to solve the team's actual problems.
The Mistake Almost Every New PMM Makes
I've watched dozens of new PMMs join teams over the years, and 80% of them make the same mistake I did: they try to prove their value by doing PMM things instead of by solving problems.
They rewrite messaging, build new frameworks, create launch processes, organize the content library, update the competitor intel system. All of these are legitimate PMM work. None of them build credibility if they're not solving a problem the team is actively feeling.
The PMMs who succeed in their first 90 days do the opposite. They spend the first month figuring out what's broken and who's frustrated. Then they fix the most painful thing fast. Then they fix the next thing. By day 90, people associate them with making problems go away, not with producing PMM artifacts.
I learned this the hard way. The messaging framework I created in month one eventually got used—fourteen months later, after I'd built enough credibility that people trusted my judgment. But it sat on a shelf for a year because I'd tried to implement it before earning the right to change things.
What I Should Have Done Instead: The First Two Weeks
If I could redo my first 90 days, I'd spend the first two weeks doing nothing but listening and watching.
Not listening in meetings, where people are performative and political. I'd watch people work. Sit with a sales rep during deal cycles. Watch a product manager run a roadmap prioritization meeting. Shadow customer success during a renewal conversation. Observe a launch retrospective.
The goal wouldn't be to understand the product or the strategy—that comes later. The goal would be to understand what people struggle with and what causes them stress.
I'd take notes on every time someone said "This is a pain" or "I hate this process" or "I can never find what I need" or "I wish we had X." I wouldn't try to solve anything yet. Just observe and collect pain points.
In parallel, I'd run one-on-one conversations with every stakeholder who'd give me 30 minutes. Not to present my ideas or explain what PMM should do—to ask questions:
"What's the biggest thing blocking you right now?" "What would make your job dramatically easier in the next month?" "What's a problem that keeps coming up that nobody has solved?" "If I could only help you with one thing in my first quarter, what would it be?"
I'd ask these questions to the VP of Sales, the VP of Product, my manager, three sales reps, two customer success managers, and the demand gen lead.
I'd compile the responses and look for patterns. Not "what is PMM supposed to do?" but "what do these people actually need?"
My first month messaging project failed because I didn't do this work. I assumed I knew what the team needed based on what PMMs are supposed to deliver. I was wrong.
Week Three: The Smallest, Fastest Win
By week three, I'd have a list of 15-20 pain points from my listening tour. Most would be big, structural problems I couldn't fix quickly. A few would be small, annoying problems I could solve in a week.
I'd pick the smallest problem I could solve completely and solve it fast.
In my actual first 90 days, this problem revealed itself in week four during a sales call I shadowed. The rep needed a case study for a manufacturing prospect. We had one—I'd seen it in the content library. But the rep couldn't find it. They searched SharePoint for "manufacturing case study" and got 47 results, none of which were the right one.
I could have written this off as a sales enablement problem or a SharePoint problem. Instead, I spent three hours reorganizing the case study folder with clear naming conventions and tags. Then I posted a Slack message in the sales channel: "Reorganized case studies by industry and use case. Here's the new structure: [link]. Let me know if you can't find what you need."
Three sales reps messaged me within an hour thanking me. One said "This is the most useful thing anyone has done for us this quarter."
That small fix bought me credibility. When I needed Sales to make time for competitive interviews two weeks later, they said yes immediately because I'd already made their lives easier.
Week Four Through Eight: Building Strategic Context
While delivering quick wins, I'd use weeks four through eight to build the strategic context I'd need to make better decisions later.
This is when I'd learn the product deeply. Not by reading documentation or sitting through demos, but by using it. I'd sign up as a customer, go through onboarding, try to accomplish the core jobs-to-be-done, hit the pain points real users hit.
I'd also do the competitive research I should have done before touching messaging. Actually use competitor products. Read their customer reviews. Watch their demo videos. Talk to sales reps about where we win and lose.
I'd learn the customer base by reading win/loss interviews, listening to sales calls in Gong, and joining customer success calls. I'd want to hear customers describe our product in their own words, not filtered through our positioning.
Critically, I'd do all of this research with specific questions I was trying to answer, not as general learning:
"Why do customers buy us instead of staying with their current solution?" "Where do we lose to Competitor X and why?" "What do customers struggle with in their first 30 days?" "What objections come up in every deal?"
This focused research would give me the raw material to make strategic recommendations later. But I wouldn't make those recommendations yet. I'd be building a knowledge base while continuing to ship quick wins that build credibility.
Week Eight Through Ten: The First Strategic Project
By week eight or nine, I'd have enough context and credibility to take on my first strategic project. Not the project I thought was most important—the project my stakeholders thought was most urgent.
In my actual first 90 days, this should have been competitive positioning against the competitor that was winning deals. Sales had been asking for updated battle cards for two months. Instead of treating this as a tactical request, I could have turned it into strategic work that demonstrated PMM value.
I'd interview 10 sales reps who'd recently lost to that competitor. I'd talk to 5 customers who'd evaluated them and chosen us. I'd use the product myself and document where it was genuinely better and where it was just different.
Then I'd update the battle card, but I'd also create:
- A one-page competitive positioning guide for sales calls
- Three email templates for common competitive scenarios
- A mini-training session to roll out the new approach
- A tracking mechanism to measure if win rates improved
This turns a tactical request (update the battle card) into a strategic project that measurably improves business outcomes (increase win rates against top competitor).
More importantly, it's solving a problem that Sales leadership cares about. When I present results in month three, I'm not showing "I created a framework." I'm showing "Win rates against Competitor X improved from 42% to 51% after we updated positioning and enablement."
That's the kind of impact that gets you invited to strategic conversations.
The Politics I Didn't Understand
The biggest mistake I made in my first 90 days wasn't picking the wrong projects—it was not understanding the political landscape.
I presented my messaging framework to the full marketing team without talking to my manager first. She'd been planning a messaging update for Q3 and I'd just proposed changes without knowing that context. It made her look out of the loop and made me look like I didn't respect the chain of command.
I asked Product for 30 minutes to "understand the roadmap" and then spent the meeting critiquing feature prioritization. The PM was polite but never took another meeting with me. I'd positioned myself as a critic, not a partner.
I sent a competitive analysis to the sales team without giving Sales leadership a heads up. It contradicted some of their current talk tracks. They were annoyed that their team saw it before they did.
None of these were firing offenses, but they accumulated into a reputation: smart but doesn't understand how to work with others.
If I could redo my first 90 days, I'd invest heavily in understanding organizational dynamics:
Who has decision rights over what? Before proposing any change to messaging, positioning, or process, I'd understand who owns that decision and what their current priorities are.
Who are the informal influencers? There's the org chart, and then there's who actually influences decisions. I'd figure out who Product and Sales leadership actually listen to and build relationships with those people.
What are the sacred cows? Every organization has decisions that were hard-fought and are not up for debate. I'd learn what those were before accidentally stepping on landmines.
What's the communication culture? Some teams want everything in writing. Some prefer Slack. Some want face-to-face conversations before any formal communication. I'd match the culture instead of imposing my preferences.
I'd also be more deliberate about giving credit and sharing wins. When the case study reorganization got positive feedback, I should have publicly credited the Marketing Ops person who'd done the original upload work. Instead, I took all the credit and created resentment.
Month Three: The Narrative of Impact
By month three, I'd want to tell a coherent story about my impact. Not "Here are 10 things I did" but "Here's the problem I solved and the results."
In my actual first 90 days, I couldn't tell that story because I'd worked on scattered projects with no through-line. If someone asked what I'd accomplished, I'd list activities: "Updated messaging, created a battle card, organized content, interviewed customers."
None of that communicated value.
If I'd focused my first 90 days on solving Sales' competitive positioning problem, my month-three story would be different:
"When I joined, we were losing 60% of deals against Competitor X. Sales didn't have positioning that differentiated us. I spent month one understanding why we were losing, month two building new positioning and enablement, and month three rolling it out and measuring impact. We're now winning 51% of competitive deals, representing $400K in recovered pipeline."
That's a story that gets you invited to QBRs and strategy meetings.
What Success Actually Looks Like at Day 90
I used to think success in your first 90 days meant having a comprehensive understanding of the market, the product, and the strategy. That's not wrong, but it's not sufficient.
Real success is when key stakeholders think "I should ask [your name] about this" when they hit a problem in your domain.
You've succeeded when:
- Sales reaches out proactively when they encounter a new competitor
- Product asks for your input on positioning before they finalize a feature name
- Customer Success forwards you feedback they think you should see
- Your manager includes you in strategic planning conversations you wouldn't normally be invited to
These behaviors mean you've built credibility and trust. That's the foundation for everything else you'll do as a PMM.
I didn't have any of this at day 90. I had it by day 180, but only after spending months rebuilding relationships and proving I could solve problems instead of just analyze them.
The Real First 90 Days Checklist
If I were starting as a PMM today, here's what I'd actually do:
Week 1-2:
- Shadow sales, product, and customer success in their actual work
- One-on-ones with key stakeholders focused on their problems, not PMM strategy
- Document every pain point mentioned
Week 3:
- Pick the smallest problem I can solve completely
- Solve it and ship it
- Communicate what I did and why it helps
Week 4-8:
- Continue shipping 2-3 small wins per month
- Build strategic context: use the product, use competitor products, listen to customer conversations
- Map the political landscape: decision rights, influencers, sacred cows
Week 9-10:
- Pick first strategic project based on stakeholder urgency, not my assessment of importance
- Scope it to deliver measurable results by day 90
- Communicate progress weekly
Week 11-12:
- Complete and ship strategic project
- Measure and communicate impact
- Set up tracking to show sustained results
Week 13 (Day 90):
- Present results to stakeholders
- Tell coherent story of impact, not list of activities
- Propose priorities for next 90 days based on what I learned
This isn't the sexy first 90 days where you redefine the company's strategy and become a hero. It's the boring first 90 days where you build trust, solve problems, and set yourself up to have strategic impact in month six and month twelve.
I wish I'd understood that on day one.