Our product launch was scheduled for Tuesday. On Monday afternoon, sales still didn't have the deck.
Product shipped the feature three weeks early but never told anyone. Marketing created campaigns for a different positioning than what we'd agreed on. Customer success didn't know the launch was happening. The pricing page hadn't been updated. Nobody had trained sales.
At 4 PM Monday, our VP asked: "Are we ready for tomorrow?"
We were not ready. We delayed the launch two weeks, scrambled to coordinate everyone, and when we finally launched, half the company still didn't know what was happening.
That's when I learned the Programs box in Pragmatic Framework isn't about making pretty launch plans. It's about building the infrastructure that makes launches actually executable.
Most PMMs treat launches like events—something you plan once and coordinate through sheer willpower and Slack messages. Then you wonder why every launch feels like controlled chaos.
The Programs box—GTM strategy, launch planning, campaigns, and demand gen coordination—is about systematizing execution so launches become repeatable, not heroic.
What the Programs Box Actually Means
Pragmatic's Programs box includes GTM strategy, launch planning and execution, marketing programs, and demand generation campaigns.
Most PMMs focus on the launch plan—the timeline, the deliverables, the Gantt chart. They create a 40-page launch document, share it in Slack, and assume everyone will execute their part.
Then the launch falls apart. Product ships early and doesn't tell anyone. Marketing builds campaigns before positioning is finalized. Sales doesn't know what's launching or when. Customer success finds out from customers. Pricing changes the day before launch.
The problem isn't the plan. It's that you don't have systems that make execution predictable.
I learned this after my fifth chaotic launch. I'd built beautiful launch plans every time. Every launch still felt like a fire drill.
Then I realized: I was planning individual launches instead of building launch infrastructure.
Building Launch Tiers Instead of Treating Everything As Major
Most teams treat every product update like a major launch. New feature? Full launch plan. Bug fix? Full launch plan. API update? Full launch plan.
This creates launch fatigue. Product, sales, and marketing can't sustain major launch energy every two weeks.
I watched a team burn out because they ran full press releases and sales training sessions for minor bug fixes. By the time a genuinely major product came along, nobody had energy left.
I built a tier system instead. Major launches—new products or major capabilities that required sales training, customer communication, press, and campaigns—happened two to four times per year. These needed six to eight weeks of planning with a cross-functional launch team.
Standard launches—significant features or enhancements that required sales enablement, customer email, and a blog post—happened monthly. These got three to four weeks of planning, and I coordinated with product and sales directly without pulling in the full organization.
Minor updates—small features, enhancements, or fixes that only needed product update notes and an internal announcement—happened weekly. These took one week, and product owned them while I reviewed for consistency.
This framework changed everything. Product stopped escalating every feature to urgent status. Sales stopped expecting full training for every update. Marketing focused campaign energy on launches that actually mattered.
The test became simple: could someone in the organization look at an upcoming release and immediately know what launch tier it was? If not, we hadn't communicated the system clearly enough.
Standardizing Checklists So You're Not Rebuilding Plans
I used to customize launch plans for every launch. Different deliverables, different owners, different timelines. Every launch required rebuilding the plan from scratch.
Then I standardized checklists for each tier.
For major launches starting eight weeks out, I knew exactly what needed to happen when. Week eight was kickoff—confirming the launch tier with product and exec team, locking the ship date with product's commitment, identifying the launch team with clear leads for PMM, product, marketing, and sales, and completing a positioning draft based on Market and Focus work I'd already done.
By weeks six and seven, we finalized the messaging framework and got approval, completed competitive positioning, locked pricing if applicable, and approved the launch campaign plan, sales enablement plan, and customer communication plan.
Weeks four and five were asset creation. Sales deck created and reviewed with the team. Website updates drafted and in design. Campaign assets moving through production. Press materials drafted if needed. Internal FAQ written so everyone had answers to common questions.
Weeks two and three focused on enablement and quality assurance. Sales training happened live with recordings for anyone who missed it. Customer success and support got trained on the new capability. We incorporated beta feedback, updated and tested the pricing page, and made sure the demo environment was ready.
Week one was final prep. All assets got final QA and approval. We confirmed the launch day schedule. Internal announcements were drafted. We built a monitoring plan for launch day covering usage, support tickets, and sales questions.
Launch day itself had a rhythm. Product shipped. Website updates went live. Customer email sent. Sales notified through Slack and email. Press release distributed if we had one. Social posts published. Internal announcement sent to the full company.
The first two weeks post-launch were for learning. We reviewed usage metrics, collected sales feedback, gathered customer feedback, analyzed support tickets, and scheduled a launch retrospective to improve the next one.
The value of this standardized approach was that I never rebuilt the plan. I filled in the template. Sales knew what to expect. Marketing knew what was needed. Product knew the timeline. Nobody scrambled at the last minute because the system defined what needed to happen when.
Making Ownership Clear So Nothing Falls Through the Cracks
Most launches fail because everyone assumes someone else is handling critical tasks.
Who's updating the pricing page? "I thought marketing was doing that." "I thought product was doing that."
I started creating clear ownership for every major launch deliverable. For positioning, I was responsible for the work, but the VP of Product was accountable for the outcome. Product and sales got consulted, and the exec team stayed informed. For the sales deck, I built it, sales enablement owned the outcome, and product and sales got consulted. For website copy, marketing wrote it, but I owned the outcome since positioning needed to stay consistent. For campaigns, demand gen built them, marketing owned them, and I got consulted to ensure positioning alignment. For pricing updates, I was responsible, finance was accountable, product got consulted, and sales stayed informed. For training, sales enablement was responsible, I was accountable, and product got consulted.
The rule was simple: every deliverable has one person responsible for doing the work and one person accountable for the outcome being correct.
This eliminated "I thought you were doing that" conversations. If it had clear ownership, someone handled it. If it didn't have clear ownership, it didn't get done—and we learned to assign ownership earlier.
Planning for 90 Days, Not Just Launch Day
Most PMMs think GTM strategy means "launch campaign plan." They design the email sequence, the ads, the landing page, the webinar.
Then the launch happens and nothing moves because they optimized for launch day, not for sustained adoption.
I learned that GTM strategy isn't about launch day—it's about the first 90 days of market adoption.
Most launch plans end on launch day. I extended mine to cover the full first 90 days.
In weeks one and two, the goal was awareness—making sure our target market knew the capability existed. We sent customer emails, published blog posts, distributed press releases if it was tier one, announced to sales, and posted on social. We measured reach, impressions, and page views.
Weeks three and four shifted to education—helping buyers understand what it does and who it's for. We ran webinars, created demo videos, published use case content, and clarified competitive positioning. We measured engagement, demo requests, and sales conversations.
Weeks five through eight focused on activation—getting customers to trial or purchase the capability. We ran free trial campaigns, had sales reach out to existing pipeline, and developed customer expansion plays. We measured trials started, deals created, and expansion pipeline.
Weeks nine through twelve drove adoption—making sure customers got value and became referenceable. We optimized onboarding, had customer success reach out proactively, and developed case studies with early adopters. We measured active users, retention, NPS, and how many referenceable customers we could point to.
Most teams did weeks one and two and called it a launch. I ran the full 90-day playbook and measured adoption, not just awareness.
I changed how we measured launch success entirely. The old metrics were email open rates, website traffic, press mentions. The new metrics were pipeline created by week four, customers actively using the capability by week eight, and customers willing to be references by week twelve.
This shifted how we planned launches. Instead of optimizing for launch day buzz, we optimized for 90-day adoption.
Aligning Campaigns and Sales Before Launch, Not After
The Programs box includes "marketing programs" and "demand generation campaigns." Most PMMs interpret this as: "Marketing owns campaigns, I'll just provide the messaging."
Then campaigns don't drive pipeline because marketing built them before positioning was finalized, or they targeted the wrong segment, or they launched before sales was ready to handle inbound.
I learned that campaign coordination means ensuring campaigns and sales plays are aligned before launch, not after.
Two weeks before every major launch, I ran a campaign alignment session with demand gen, sales, and product. We reviewed positioning—what's our core message, target segment, and differentiation? We walked through campaigns—what is demand gen running and when? We reviewed the sales play—what's the sales narrative for this capability? We confirmed lead routing—how do inbound leads from campaigns get to sales, and what's the SLA? We prepared for objections—what will prospects say, and how do we handle it?
This session caught misalignment before launch. Demand gen had targeted enterprises, but we positioned for mid-market—we changed campaign targeting. Sales didn't have a discovery question for the new capability—we added it to the sales deck. Lead routing would send inbound to SDRs who weren't trained—we trained SDRs before launch.
The outcome was that campaigns, sales plays, and product positioning were aligned before launch day. Inbound leads got handled correctly. Sales knew what to do with campaign leads.
Most teams discovered this misalignment two weeks after launch when pipeline wasn't moving. We fixed it before launch.
Learning What Kills Most Launches
After running dozens of launches, I started seeing patterns in what made them fail.
Building launch plans instead of launch systems was the first pattern. Teams created a custom launch plan for every release. Every launch felt like starting from scratch. They spent 40% of their time planning launches instead of executing them. The fix was building launch tier definitions, standardized checklists, and reusable templates. Plan once, execute repeatedly.
Optimizing for launch day instead of 90-day adoption was the second pattern. Teams measured launch success by launch day metrics—email opens, press mentions, website traffic. Awareness didn't equal adoption. They got a spike on launch day and nothing else moved. The fix was measuring week four, week eight, and week twelve metrics—pipeline created, active users, referenceable customers. Optimize for sustained adoption, not launch day buzz.
Having no clear ownership for critical deliverables was the third pattern. Everyone assumed someone else was handling the pricing page, sales training, or customer communication. Critical deliverables fell through the cracks. They discovered gaps the day before launch. The fix was creating clear ownership for every launch deliverable. Every task has one person responsible and one person accountable. No exceptions.
Treating every update like a major launch was the fourth pattern. Product shipped a new feature and expected full launch treatment—press release, sales training, campaigns, customer webinar. Launch fatigue set in. Product, sales, and marketing couldn't sustain major launch energy weekly. The fix was building launch tiers. Major launches quarterly, significant features monthly, minor updates weekly. Different tiers required different levels of coordination.
Why Most Launches Feel Like Chaos
The uncomfortable truth: Most launches feel chaotic because PMMs try to coordinate execution through Slack messages and meetings instead of building systems.
You ping product: "When's the ship date?" You ping marketing: "Is the landing page ready?" You ping sales: "Did you watch the training video?"
Every launch requires heroic effort and constant follow-up because nothing is systematized.
I watched this pattern repeat at company after company. Talented PMMs working incredibly hard, coordinating every detail manually, burning out after every launch.
What changed was building systems that made execution predictable.
Launch tiers defined what was expected. Launch checklists defined what needed to happen when. Clear ownership models defined who handled what. Campaign reviews ensured alignment before launch.
These systems didn't eliminate work—they eliminated chaos.
I watched teams go from "every launch is a fire drill" to "launches happen smoothly every month" not because they got better at planning—because they built better systems.
The Programs Box Is About Repetition
Most PMMs think the Programs box is about individual launch execution. It's not.
It's about building infrastructure that makes launches repeatable.
You don't want to be great at planning one launch. You want systems that make every launch better than the last.
I built launch tiers so I wasn't treating every update like a major release. I created standardized checklists so I wasn't rebuilding plans from scratch. I defined clear ownership so deliverables didn't fall through the cracks. I ran campaign reviews so demand gen and sales were aligned before launch.
Then I measured what mattered: not launch day buzz, but 90-day adoption.
Your launches should get easier over time, not harder. If they're getting harder, you're planning individual launches instead of building launch systems.
The first launch with a new system feels awkward. The team asks why there's so much structure. The second launch goes smoother. By the fifth launch, nobody questions the system because launches just work.
I stopped planning. I started building systems.
Your next launch will thank you.