Writing a PMM Charter That Gets Executive Buy-In

You're three months into your PMM role when Product asks you to write PRDs. The next day, Sales wants custom decks for every deal. Marketing expects you to manage the social media calendar. Customer Success needs help documentation. Your boss asks what you accomplished this quarter, and you freeze—you did everything and nothing.

Most PMM charters fail because they're documents that live in a Google Drive folder nobody reads. You spend two weeks writing a beautiful charter defining responsibilities, getting stakeholder feedback, and presenting it at a team meeting. Everyone nods. Then Product still asks you to write PRDs.

I spent my first year as a PMM saying yes to everything because I didn't have a charter. I became the go-to person for whatever nobody else wanted to do. The result? I was too busy with tactical work to do actual product marketing—positioning, competitive intelligence, launches that moved the needle. My performance review said I "lacked strategic impact." No kidding.

The problem isn't that you need a charter. Everyone knows that. The problem is that most charters don't have teeth. They define scope but provide no enforcement mechanism. They clarify responsibilities but don't answer the critical question: What happens when someone ignores the charter and asks you to do work outside your scope anyway?

Why Most PMM Charters Are Theater

I've seen dozens of PMM charters. Maybe three actually worked. The rest were well-intentioned documents that got filed away and forgotten the moment someone senior needed something done.

The charter said PMM owns product launches. But when the VP of Product decided launch timelines, PMM wasn't in the room. The charter meant nothing.

The charter said PMM doesn't write PRDs. But when an exec asked the PMM to "just help out this once," the PMM wrote the PRD. Then it became expected.

The charter said PMM measures success through win rates and pipeline contribution. But the CMO measured PMM on number of assets created. The charter didn't change how performance was evaluated.

Here's what I learned: A charter without executive enforcement is just a wish list. It needs three things most charters lack: executive sponsorship, specific consequences for scope creep, and quarterly accountability reviews where leaders reference the charter to evaluate your work.

Without those three elements, your charter is theater. With them, it's armor.

The Moment I Realized Charters Need Teeth

I wrote my first charter six months into a PMM role. I was drowning in requests from every direction—Product wanted market research reports, Sales wanted competitive analysis updated weekly, Marketing wanted me to ghostwrite blogs, CS wanted product training decks.

I carved out time to write a charter. I defined PMM scope clearly: positioning, messaging, launches, competitive intel, sales enablement. I listed what PMM doesn't do: PRDs, demand gen execution, customer support content. I got feedback from every stakeholder. I presented it in a cross-functional meeting. People nodded approvingly.

Two weeks later, the VP of Product asked me to write PRDs for three features because "the PM team is underwater." I referenced the charter. He said, "I know, but we really need help." I wrote the PRDs. Then it became expected every quarter.

The charter failed because I had no enforcement mechanism. When someone senior asked me to violate it, I had no answer except "but the charter says..." And nobody cared what the charter said.

Fast forward to my next PMM role. I wrote another charter. But this time, I got my boss—the CMO—to co-sign it with the CRO and VP of Product. The charter explicitly stated: "Requests outside PMM scope require executive approval and trade-offs on current priorities."

When Product asked me to write PRDs again, I said: "I can do that, but per our charter, I'll need to deprioritize the upcoming launch. Let's align with the CMO and VP Product on what takes priority." Product decided the launch mattered more. I never got asked to write PRDs again.

That's the difference between a charter that works and one that doesn't—executive enforcement.

What Actually Goes in a Charter That Works

Most charters are too vague or too detailed. They either say "PMM drives product success" (meaningless) or list 47 responsibilities (nobody remembers them).

A charter that works is simple. It answers three questions executives actually care about:

1. What does PMM deliver that drives revenue?

Don't list activities. List outcomes. Not "PMM creates sales enablement materials." Instead: "PMM increases sales win rates through competitive positioning and enablement."

I watched a PMM defend headcount in a budget meeting by pointing to their charter that listed "responsibilities: messaging, positioning, launches, competitive intel." The CFO said, "I see a lot of tasks. I don't see business impact."

The PMM who kept their headcount had a charter that said: "PMM drives 40% of pipeline through launch programs and improves win rates by 15% through competitive enablement. These outcomes require dedicated PMM resources."

Executives don't care about your task list. They care whether PMM moves metrics that matter.

2. What does PMM own versus contribute to versus not do at all?

This is where most charters fail. They define what PMM owns but don't clarify what PMM explicitly doesn't do. Without the "not" list, people assume PMM does everything.

I've seen this play out repeatedly. Charter says "PMM owns product launches." Product interprets that as "PMM does all the launch work." Sales interprets it as "PMM builds custom pitches for every deal." Marketing interprets it as "PMM runs all the launch campaigns."

The charter that worked had three clear tiers:

PMM owns: Product positioning, competitive battlecards, launch strategy, sales enablement frameworks, win/loss programs.

PMM contributes to: Product roadmap (customer insights), pricing strategy (market validation), demand gen (messaging), customer marketing (case studies).

PMM doesn't do: Write PRDs, build demand gen campaigns, close deals, provide customer support, design product UI.

The "doesn't do" list is the most important. It gives you language to redirect requests without saying no. "That's not in PMM scope per our charter, but I'm happy to connect you with [team that owns it]."

3. Who makes the final call when there's a conflict?

This is the enforcement mechanism most charters lack. When Product wants you to delay a launch and Sales wants you to accelerate it, who decides? When an exec asks you to drop your priorities to handle their urgent request, what's the escalation path?

The charter that worked had explicit decision rights:

"PMM has final authority on product messaging, competitive positioning, and launch content. Product has final authority on launch timing. Conflicts escalate to CMO + CRO."

"Requests outside charter scope require executive approval. PMM will present trade-offs (e.g., 'I can do X, but Y launch will be delayed by 2 weeks') and executives decide priorities."

This language gave me permission to escalate instead of just saying yes. When Sales asked me to build custom decks for 20 deals, I said: "That's outside charter scope. I can build templates and train your team to customize, or we can escalate to the CRO to discuss whether custom decks should be a PMM priority." Sales chose the templates. Problem solved.

How to Get Executive Buy-In Without Politics

The mistake most PMMs make is treating the charter like a solo project. They write it in isolation, send it for feedback, and wonder why nobody takes it seriously.

The charters that work are co-created with stakeholders. Not "getting feedback"—actually building it together.

Here's how I did it the second time:

Week 1: Stakeholder interviews

I scheduled 30-minute 1:1s with the CMO, CRO, VP Product, and Head of CS. I asked three questions:

1. "What do you need from PMM to be successful?"
2. "What should PMM not be doing that we currently are?"
3. "Where do you see confusion about PMM scope?"

The answers were revealing. The CRO thought PMM should own demand gen. The CMO thought PMM should focus on launches and enablement, not demand gen. Product thought PMM should write PRDs "occasionally when needed." CS thought PMM should create all product training materials.

None of them agreed on PMM scope. No wonder I was getting conflicting requests.

Week 2: Draft and align

I wrote a draft charter that synthesized their feedback. Where they disagreed (like demand gen), I proposed a compromise: "PMM contributes messaging and positioning to demand gen campaigns. Marketing owns execution."

I sent the draft to all four stakeholders with a note: "This is based on your input. Where we had conflicting expectations, I've proposed a middle ground. Let me know if this works or where we need to discuss further."

Two responded immediately with approval. The CRO and VP Product had a 15-minute debate about who owns launch timing. We aligned: Product owns launch dates, PMM owns launch readiness (sales trained, content ready, positioning finalized).

Week 3: Present and get sign-off

I didn't present the charter in a big meeting where people can passively nod. I scheduled a 30-minute working session with the CMO, CRO, and VP Product. We walked through the charter section by section. They debated a few points. We revised in real-time. All three signed off verbally.

Then I sent a follow-up email: "Attached is the final PMM charter per our discussion. Please confirm approval by EOW." All three replied "Approved."

That email trail mattered. When someone later violated the charter, I forwarded those approval emails and said, "Per the charter you approved, this is outside PMM scope."

Week 4: Socialize

Once executives approved it, I shared it everywhere:

• Added it to the company wiki
• Presented a 5-minute overview at the team all-hands
• Posted in Slack with the summary and link
• Referenced it in every cross-functional planning meeting

The key message: "This is how we work now. Questions about PMM scope? Start here."

The Hard Part: Enforcement

Having an approved charter means nothing if you don't enforce it. This is where most PMMs fail. They have the charter, but when someone asks them to violate it, they say yes anyway.

I failed at this repeatedly until I learned the enforcement scripts that actually work.

Scenario 1: Product asks you to write PRDs

What doesn't work: "The charter says I don't write PRDs."

That sounds like you're hiding behind a document to avoid work. Product will push back.

What works: "PRDs are owned by Product per our charter. I'm happy to contribute customer insights or competitive positioning. Would a 30-minute working session help where I share what I'm hearing from customers?"

You're redirecting, not refusing. You're offering value in your lane without taking on their work.

If they push harder: "I can help with this, but it'll require deprioritizing the launch we have scheduled. Let me loop in [CMO] to discuss trade-offs."

Now you're not saying no—you're making the trade-off visible and letting executives decide.

Scenario 2: Sales asks for custom decks for every deal

What doesn't work: "That's not scalable."

Sales doesn't care about your workload. They care about closing deals.

What works: "I maintain core decks and vertical-specific versions. For deal-level customization, here's the template and I can train your team to personalize in 15 minutes. That way you get customized decks faster than waiting for me."

You've given them a better solution that respects the charter.

Scenario 3: An exec asks you to drop everything for their priority

What doesn't work: "I'm too busy."

Execs don't care. They'll tell you to work nights.

What works: "I can prioritize this. Here's what I'm currently working on: [launch, enablement, competitive program]. Which should I delay to accommodate this request?"

You've made the trade-off explicit. They decide whether their request is more important than your current work. Often, they'll realize it isn't.

The pattern: Don't say no. Make trade-offs visible and let executives decide priorities. That's not avoiding work—it's forcing clarity on what actually matters.

When to Update Your Charter

Charters aren't static. The first version won't be perfect. You'll discover gaps, overlaps, or places where reality doesn't match the charter.

Review your charter quarterly. Ask:

1. What's working? (Where did the charter prevent scope creep or clarify confusion?)
2. What's not working? (Where are people still unclear or pushing back?)
3. What's changed? (New priorities, team growth, market shifts)

I've updated charters three times at the same company:

Update 1: We entered a new market segment. Charter added "PMM owns vertical-specific positioning and enablement."

Update 2: We hired a second PMM. Charter clarified: PMM1 owns enterprise positioning, PMM2 owns SMB positioning. Both collaborate on core messaging.

Update 3: We shifted to product-led growth. Charter added "PMM contributes to in-product messaging and onboarding flows" (previously not in scope).

Each update went through the same process: stakeholder input, draft, executive sign-off, socialization. Each time, the charter got stronger.

The Uncomfortable Truth About PMM Charters

Most PMMs don't want a charter that works. They want a charter that makes everyone happy. They want to say yes to every request and somehow still be strategic.

You can't have both.

A charter that actually protects your time and focuses your work will disappoint people. Product will be frustrated they can't ask you to write PRDs. Sales will push back that they need custom support. Marketing will feel like you're not a team player.

If nobody pushes back on your charter, it's not doing anything.

The point of a charter isn't to make people happy. It's to ensure PMM does high-impact work that drives revenue instead of becoming everyone's catch-all resource.

I've had VPs tell me my charter was "too rigid." I've had PMs say I wasn't being helpful. I've had sales reps complain I wasn't supporting them enough. Every single time, the issue was that they wanted me to do work outside my scope instead of doing the strategic work that actually moved metrics.

Your charter will make some people unhappy. That's the point. You're saying no to low-impact work so you can say yes to high-impact work.

The PMMs who protect their scope are the ones who get promoted. The ones who say yes to everything burn out or get managed out for "lacking strategic impact."

Most PMMs know they need a charter. Few actually enforce it. The ones who do build careers. The ones who don't wonder why their work doesn't matter.

Write the charter. Get executive sign-off. Enforce it even when it's uncomfortable. Reference it when people push back. Update it when things change.

Or don't write one at all. Just stop complaining when Product asks you to write PRDs and your performance review says you're not strategic enough.

The choice is yours.