Last quarter, I watched a company launch their biggest product release of the year. Product marketing built beautiful messaging, created a launch deck, and wrote battlecards. Demand gen had no idea the launch was happening and ran generic campaigns with six-month-old positioning. Sales never opened the battlecards because they reported to a different VP who hadn't prioritized the training. The launch generated 30% of the pipeline the CEO expected.
This disaster wasn't about individual incompetence. It was about org structure. The company had product marketing reporting to the VP of Product, demand gen reporting to the CMO, and sales enablement buried under Sales Ops. Each team optimized for their own leader's priorities, and nobody was accountable for the cross-functional outcome of a successful launch.
Here's what actually happens when you organize GTM teams by function instead of outcomes: functions become silos, collaboration happens by accident instead of design, and revenue suffers because nobody owns the end-to-end customer journey.
Good GTM structure aligns teams around shared goals, creates natural collaboration points, and makes one leader accountable for integrated execution. Here's how to build it.
The GTM Team Structure Options
You have three primary ways to organize your GTM teams. Each has trade-offs, and the right choice depends on your company stage and complexity.
Option 1: Centralized GTM (All under one leader)
In this model, one executive—typically a CMO or Chief GTM Officer—owns all customer-facing functions: product marketing, demand generation, sales enablement, content marketing, and lifecycle marketing. Everything reports up through a single leader who's accountable for the entire GTM motion from positioning through pipeline generation to sales effectiveness.
The advantages are powerful. You get single-point accountability for GTM outcomes—no finger-pointing between marketing and sales about whose fault the pipeline gap is. Alignment becomes dramatically easier because everyone shares the same boss, attends the same staff meetings, and rallies behind unified OKRs. Cross-functional collaboration happens naturally when teams share goals and leadership. Product launches get demand gen support by default. Sales enablement uses current messaging because they sit in the same weekly sync as PMM.
The downsides matter too. You need a rare leader with deep expertise across positioning, demand gen, sales enablement, and content—a tall order. The role risks becoming a bottleneck when every cross-functional decision flows through one person. And managing eight to twelve direct reports across diverse functions stretches even strong leaders.
This structure works best for Series B through D companies at ten to one hundred million ARR that desperately need coordinated GTM execution but haven't yet scaled to the complexity where specialization becomes mandatory.
Option 2: Distributed GTM (Separate leaders)
The distributed model splits GTM functions across separate executives. Marketing owns demand gen, content, and events. Product owns product marketing. Sales owns sales enablement. Each leader reports directly to the CEO or COO with clear functional swim lanes.
The advantages scale with company size. Each function gets specialized leadership with deep domain expertise—a demand gen expert running demand gen, a product marketer running PMM. Functional ownership is crystal clear, eliminating ambiguity about who's responsible for what. As the company grows beyond one hundred million ARR, this specialization becomes necessary because no single leader can maintain deep expertise across all GTM disciplines.
But the downsides create the exact disaster I described in the opening. Silos emerge immediately. Product marketing builds positioning that demand gen doesn't use. Sales enablement creates materials that PMM hasn't reviewed for message alignment. Leaders compete for budget and headcount, optimizing for their function at the expense of integrated execution. Coordinating product launches requires herculean cross-functional project management because no single leader can make decisions.
This structure works for large companies over one hundred million ARR with mature processes, dedicated PMOs, and strong cross-functional rituals. Before that scale, it creates more problems than it solves.
Option 3: Hybrid (Centralized strategy, distributed execution)
The hybrid model attempts to capture the best of both approaches. The CMO owns strategy, brand, product marketing, and demand generation—ensuring aligned messaging and coordinated launches. But sales enablement reports to the VP of Sales, recognizing that enablement effectiveness requires deep sales proximity and credibility with reps.
The advantages blend centralized benefits with specialized execution. Product marketing and demand gen stay tightly aligned under one leader, solving the coordination problems that plague distributed models. Sales enablement gains credibility and responsiveness by sitting in the sales organization where they understand pipeline reality, quota pressure, and rep feedback. Strategic ownership remains clear while execution gets closer to the functions it serves.
The challenge is managing the seam between marketing and sales enablement. You need strong collaboration rituals—weekly PMM and enablement syncs, shared launch processes, aligned KPIs—to prevent enablement from drifting off strategy. This requires cultural maturity and disciplined process that many companies lack.
This structure works for Series C and beyond companies balancing the need for alignment with the benefits of specialization. For most B2B SaaS companies, go centralized under one leader until you hit one hundred million ARR, then transition to hybrid as organizational complexity demands specialized leadership.
The Product Marketing Team Structure
How to organize PMMs:
Structure 1: By Product Line
When to use: Multiple distinct products
Example:
VP Product Marketing
├── PMM - Product A
├── PMM - Product B
└── PMM - Product C
Pros:
- Deep product expertise
- Clear ownership
- Product teams have dedicated PMM
Cons:
- Inconsistent messaging across products
- Duplication of effort
- Hard to coordinate cross-product campaigns
Structure 2: By GTM Function
When to use: Single product, need specialized GTM skills
Example:
VP Product Marketing
├── PMM - Positioning & Messaging (Core messaging, launches)
├── PMM - Sales Enablement (Battlecards, training, tools)
├── PMM - Competitive Intel (Research, positioning)
└── PMM - Customer Marketing (Case studies, advocacy, expansion)
Pros:
- Specialized expertise
- Depth in each GTM discipline
- Clear responsibilities
Cons:
- Need coordination for launches
- Product teams have multiple PMM contacts
- Potential for silos
Structure 3: By Customer Segment
When to use: Distinct buyer personas or verticals
Example:
VP Product Marketing
├── PMM - Enterprise
├── PMM - Mid-Market
└── PMM - SMB
Pros:
- Deep customer understanding
- Specialized messaging by segment
- Clear sales support model
Cons:
- Product knowledge spread across team
- Duplication across segments
- Hard to maintain product expertise
Recommendation:
- <$20M ARR: 1-2 PMMs (generalists, everything)
- $20M-$50M ARR: 3-5 PMMs by product line
- $50M-$100M ARR: 5-10 PMMs by function or segment
- >$100M ARR: 10+ PMMs, hybrid (product + function + segment)
The Demand Generation Team Structure
How to organize demand gen:
Structure: By Channel
Example:
VP Demand Generation
├── Paid Advertising (Google, LinkedIn, etc.)
├── Content Marketing (Blog, guides, SEO)
├── Email Marketing (Nurture, campaigns)
├── Events & Webinars
└── Lifecycle/Growth Marketing (Product-led, expansion)
Why this works:
- Channel specialization (paid ads expert, content expert, etc.)
- Clear metrics per channel
- Scalable as you add channels
Alternative: By Funnel Stage
VP Demand Generation
├── Top-of-Funnel (Awareness, content)
├── Mid-Funnel (Consideration, nurture)
└── Bottom-Funnel (Conversion, ABM)
Less common, but works for companies optimizing funnel conversion.
The Sales Enablement Team Structure
How to organize enablement:
Structure 1: Under Marketing
Pros:
- Aligned with PMM (shared messaging)
- Can coordinate launch campaigns
- Shared content creation resources
Cons:
- Seen as "marketing" not "sales" by reps
- May not understand sales reality
Structure 2: Under Sales
Pros:
- Close to sales, understands needs
- Credibility with sales team
- Can influence sales process directly
Cons:
- Disconnected from PMM/marketing messaging
- Harder to align on launches
Recommendation:
- Early stage (<$10M ARR): PMM does enablement (no separate team)
- Growth ($10M-$50M ARR): Enablement under Marketing (aligned with PMM)
- Scale (>$50M ARR): Enablement under Sales Ops or RevOps (specialized function)
The Cross-Functional Collaboration Model
Even with best structure, need collaboration rituals:
Weekly: PMM + Demand Gen Sync (30 min)
Agenda:
- Upcoming launches (next 4-8 weeks)
- Active campaigns (performance review)
- Content needs (what PMM should create)
- Lead quality feedback
Bi-Weekly: PMM + Sales Enablement (30 min)
Agenda:
- Upcoming launches (enablement needs)
- Sales feedback (what's missing, objections)
- Competitive intelligence (new battlecards)
- Win/loss insights
Monthly: GTM All-Hands (60 min)
Attendees: PMM, Demand Gen, Sales Enablement, Sales Leadership
Agenda:
- Metrics review (pipeline, win rate, MQLs)
- Next quarter launches and campaigns
- Cross-functional dependencies
- Wins and learnings
Quarterly: GTM Planning (4 hours)
Attendees: All GTM leaders + Exec
Agenda:
- Review last quarter (what worked, what didn't)
- Plan next quarter (launches, campaigns, priorities)
- Align on shared goals and metrics
- Resource allocation
These rituals prevent silos regardless of org structure.
The Shared Metrics Framework
Problem: Teams optimize for different metrics
Solution: Shared north star metrics
Company-Level Metrics (Everyone owns)
- New ARR: $X added this quarter
- Pipeline Generated: $X in pipeline
- Win Rate: X% of qualified deals close
Team-Specific Metrics (Contributing to north star)
Product Marketing:
- Product-influenced pipeline
- Launch-generated MQLs
- Win rate in deals using enablement
Demand Generation:
- MQLs generated
- MQL→SQL conversion
- Cost per MQL / CAC
Sales Enablement:
- Content usage (% of reps using materials)
- Ramp time for new reps
- Win rate improvement
All teams measured on shared pipeline/revenue goals.
Team Sizing Guidelines
How many people do you need?
Product Marketing
- <$10M ARR: 1-2 PMMs (generalists)
- $10M-$30M: 2-4 PMMs (start specializing)
- $30M-$75M: 4-8 PMMs (by product or function)
- $75M-$150M: 8-15 PMMs (product + segment + function)
- >$150M: 15+ PMMs (full specialization)
Rule of thumb: 1 PMM per $10M ARR or 1 PMM per 2 products
Demand Generation
- <$5M ARR: 1-2 (do-it-all marketers)
- $5M-$20M: 3-5 (channel specialization starts)
- $20M-$50M: 5-10 (full channel teams)
- $50M-$100M: 10-20 (specialized by channel + segment)
- >$100M: 20+ (mature demand gen org)
Rule of thumb: 1 demand gen per $5M ARR
Sales Enablement
- <$10M ARR: 0 (PMM does it)
- $10M-$30M: 1 enablement person
- $30M-$75M: 2-4 (training, content, tools)
- $75M-$150M: 4-8 (specialized by sales segment)
- >$150M: 8+ (full enablement org)
Rule of thumb: 1 enablement per 50 sales reps
Common GTM Org Structure Mistakes
I've seen companies make the same structural mistakes repeatedly, then blame execution when the real problem is organizational design. Here are the ones that cause the most damage.
Splitting product marketing and demand gen under different leaders might look clean on an org chart, but it destroys launch effectiveness. PMM reports to the VP of Product, demand gen reports to the CMO. The VP of Product cares about shipping features; the CMO cares about pipeline. Neither cares about ensuring launches have integrated messaging and campaign support. The result: launches happen without demand gen support, and campaigns run with six-month-old messaging because demand gen wasn't in the planning meetings. Fix it by putting both functions under the same leader—CMO or VP of Marketing—who's accountable for integrated execution.
Making enablement an island creates similar disasters. Sales enablement operates independently, rarely talking to PMM or demand gen. They build materials in a vacuum, using whatever messaging they remember from three quarters ago. PMM launches new positioning that enablement doesn't hear about for months. The fix is brutally simple: weekly syncs between PMM and enablement, with shared launch calendars and aligned content roadmaps.
Hiring all generalist PMMs might seem flexible early on, but it creates shallow expertise across the board. Every PMM does everything—launches, competitive, enablement, customer marketing—which means nobody gets deep enough in any discipline to be truly excellent. As you scale past twenty million ARR, specialize deliberately. One PMM owns competitive intelligence full-time. Another owns sales enablement. A third focuses on customer marketing. Depth beats breadth.
The most insidious mistake is measuring each team on different metrics. PMM gets measured on launch velocity, demand gen on MQL volume, enablement on training completion rates. Each team optimizes for their metric while ignoring shared outcomes. Fix this with shared pipeline and revenue goals for all GTM teams. Everyone owns the same number, measured quarterly.
Finally, companies re-org too frequently, changing structure every quarter when results disappoint. This creates constant confusion, prevents teams from building effective rhythms, and signals leadership panic. Commit to any structure for at least twelve months before declaring it broken. Most structural problems are actually execution problems that need time and discipline to solve.
How to Restructure Your GTM Team
If you need to reorganize:
Step 1: Diagnose Problems (Week 1)
Questions:
- Where are silos happening?
- What's not getting done?
- Where are hand-offs breaking?
- What do customers/sales complain about?
Step 2: Design New Structure (Week 2-3)
Consider:
- Company stage and ARR
- Product complexity (1 product vs. many)
- Customer segments (need specialization?)
- Current team skills
Create org chart and role definitions
Step 3: Socialize and Get Buy-In (Week 3-4)
Present to:
- Exec team (get approval)
- Affected teams (explain rationale)
- Broader company (communicate change)
Address concerns and iterate
Step 4: Execute Transition (Week 5-8)
Actions:
- Announce new structure
- Redefine roles and responsibilities
- Set up new meeting cadences
- Align on shared metrics
Timeline: 60-90 days for full transition
Quick Start: Improve GTM Collaboration in 2 Weeks
Week 1:
- Day 1: Map current structure (who reports to whom)
- Day 2: Identify silos (where collaboration breaks)
- Day 3: Design collaboration rituals (weekly syncs)
- Day 4-5: Set up meetings and shared dashboards
Week 2:
- Day 1: Launch weekly PMM + Demand Gen sync
- Day 2: Launch bi-weekly PMM + Enablement sync
- Day 3: Define shared metrics (pipeline goals)
- Day 4: Monthly GTM all-hands (first meeting)
- Day 5: Review and iterate
Impact: Better collaboration without re-orging
The Uncomfortable Truth
I've diagnosed dozens of GTM org structures, and the pattern is consistent: they're optimized for functional clarity rather than actual collaboration. Every function has a clear leader, clean reporting lines, and well-defined responsibilities. It looks beautiful on the org chart. And it produces terrible outcomes.
Here's what these elegant structures create in practice. PMM builds positioning and messaging in isolation, never talking to Demand Gen about what campaigns are launching or what's actually converting. Demand Gen runs campaigns using six-month-old messaging because they don't know PMM just updated it for the new product launch. Sales Enablement creates battlecards and training materials that sales reps ignore because they weren't built with input from the people who actually use them. Everyone has ownership of their function. Nobody owns the outcome—revenue.
The result is entirely predictable. You ship major product launches without demand generation campaign support because the teams didn't coordinate timelines. You run expensive ABM campaigns with stale messaging that doesn't reflect current positioning. You build comprehensive enablement materials that sit unused in SharePoint because sales wasn't involved in creating them and doesn't trust they'll actually help in deals.
Here's what actually works when I've helped companies fix this. First, centralize all of GTM under one leader until you hit about $100M ARR. That leader owns Product Marketing, Demand Generation, Sales Enablement, and often Customer Marketing. One person accountable for the whole revenue-generating motion, not three leaders optimizing their individual functions. Second, give these teams shared metrics—pipeline influenced, revenue generated, win rates—so they succeed or fail together rather than optimizing departmental KPIs that don't drive business outcomes. Third, create collaboration rituals that force cross-functional work: weekly PMM plus Demand Gen syncs, bi-weekly enablement reviews, monthly GTM all-hands where every team reports progress toward shared goals.
Then as you scale past $100M and the work becomes too complex for one leader, specialize strategically. Create dedicated teams by product line, customer segment, or function—but only when the complexity genuinely requires it, not because someone read that scaling companies should reorganize.
Here's my simple diagnostic: if your PMM and Demand Gen teams don't have a weekly standing meeting where they coordinate launches, campaigns, and messaging, you have an org structure problem. The teams are organized for individual accountability instead of collaborative outcomes.
Align the structure around revenue. Create rituals that force collaboration. Give teams shared metrics they can only hit together. That's how GTM organizations actually drive growth instead of just looking good on paper.