You launch a new product. You train sales. You create perfect battlecards.
Three months later: Zero deals.
You ask sales: "Why aren't you selling it?"
Sales: "I'm not compensated for it."
This happens because most product launches ignore sales compensation structures.
Good product marketing isn't just enablement—it's understanding and influencing what sales gets paid to sell.
Here's how PMM works with sales comp to drive product adoption.
Why Sales Compensation Matters for PMM
Here's the simple truth that every PMM learns eventually: Reps sell what they're paid to sell. Not what you built. Not what the product roadmap says is strategic. Not what the CEO announced at the all-hands. They sell what hits their quota and maximizes their commission check.
So when you launch a new product, here's what actually happens. If it doesn't count toward quota, they won't sell it—why would they spend time on something that doesn't get them closer to their number? If it has lower commission than the core product, they'll deprioritize it in favor of deals that pay better. If it takes longer to close than what they're used to, they'll avoid it entirely because time is money in sales.
This is where PMM comes in. Your role isn't just creating battlecards and running training sessions. You need to understand the current comp structure, identify misalignments with launch priorities, advocate for comp changes with sales leadership and finance, and design launch GTM around comp realities when you can't change the incentive structure.
Understanding Sales Compensation Basics
Common B2B SaaS comp structures:
Structure 1: Base + Variable
Base salary: $80K-$120K (40-50% of OTE)
Variable (commission): Based on hitting quota
On-Target Earnings (OTE): $200K ($100K base + $100K variable if hit 100% quota)
Example:
- Base: $100K
- Quota: $1M ARR
- Commission: 10% of ARR closed
- At 100% quota: $100K base + $100K commission = $200K OTE
Structure 2: Commission Accelerators
Pay more when exceeding quota:
0-80% quota: 8% commission
80-100% quota: 10% commission
100-120% quota: 12% commission
120%+ quota: 15% commission
Why: Incentivize overperformance
Structure 3: SPIFs (Sales Performance Incentive Funds)
Temporary bonuses for specific products:
Example:
"Sell new AI product by end of quarter:
- 1 deal: $1,000 bonus
- 3+ deals: $5,000 bonus"
Why: Drive short-term focus on priority product
Structure 4: Product Mix Requirements
Must sell X% of each product to get full commission:
Example:
Quota: $1M total ARR
Mix requirement:
- Core product: 60% minimum ($600K)
- New product: 20% minimum ($200K)
- Add-ons: 20% ($200K)
If miss mix: Reduced commission rate
Why: Prevent reps from only selling easiest product
PMM needs to understand which structure your company uses.
How Comp Structures Affect Product Launches
Scenario 1: New product doesn't count toward quota
Comp structure:
- Quota: $1M ARR (Core product only)
- New product: Doesn't count toward quota
Result:
- Reps ignore new product (doesn't help hit quota)
- Launch fails
Solution:
- Add new product to quota (even at reduced weight)
- Or: SPIF for early adopters
Scenario 2: New product same commission as core
Comp structure:
- Core product: 10% commission, 60-day sales cycle
- New product: 10% commission, 120-day sales cycle (unproven, longer cycle)
Result:
- Reps prioritize core (faster commission)
- New product ignored
Solution:
- Higher commission rate on new product (12-15%)
- Or: Accelerators for new product deals
Scenario 3: Add-ons not incentivized
Comp structure:
- Core product: Counts toward quota
- Add-ons: Don't count, tiny commission
Result:
- Reps sell core only
- No upsells, low expansion revenue
Solution:
- Add-ons count toward quota
- Or: SPIFs for expansion deals
PMM's job: Identify these misalignments before launch
PMM's Role in Sales Compensation
Role 1: Analyze Current Comp Structure
Before launching new product, PMM asks:
Q1: Does new product count toward quota?
- Yes → Good
- No → Red flag
Q2: What's commission rate vs. core product?
- Same or higher → Good
- Lower → Problem
Q3: Sales cycle length?
- Similar to core → Okay
- 2x longer → Need higher commission to compensate
Q4: Are there any SPIFs or accelerators?
- Yes → Good
- No → Consider adding
Example analysis:
New product: AI Analytics
- Quota inclusion: No
- Commission: 10% (same as core) ⚠️
- Sales cycle: 120 days (vs. 60 for core)
- SPIFs: None
Assessment: High risk of launch failure due to comp misalignment
Action: Advocate for comp changes
Role 2: Advocate for Comp Changes
PMM works with Sales leadership and Finance:
Proposal:
"For Q1 AI Analytics launch, we recommend:
Option A: Add to Quota
- New product contributes 20% of quota ($200K of $1M)
- Commission: 12% (vs. 10% for core)
- Rationale: Offset longer sales cycle
Option B: SPIF (if can't change quota)
- Sell 1 AI deal by end of Q1: $2,000 bonus
- Sell 3+ AI deals: $10,000 bonus
- Duration: Q1 only (ramp period)
Option C: Product Mix Requirement
- Must sell 15% new product to get full commission
- Forces diversification
Recommendation: Option A (best alignment)"
Present with data:
- Projected revenue impact
- Competitor comp structures (if known)
- Risk of not aligning comp
Role 3: Design Launch GTM Around Comp Realities
If can't change comp (political/budget constraints), adjust GTM:
Example:
Comp reality: New product doesn't count toward quota, can't change
GTM adjustments:
1. Target existing customers (expansion deals):
- Shorter sales cycle
- Less competitive
- Easier win
2. Bundle with core product:
- Sell together (counts toward quota)
- "Core + AI bundle"
3. Product-led motion:
- Free trial drives demand
- Sales just closes (easier)
4. Limit launch scope:
- Don't expect huge revenue if sales isn't incentivized
- Set realistic targets
PMM adapts strategy to comp realities.
Role 4: Track Comp Impact on Launch
After launch, measure:
With comp alignment:
- New product deals: 40% of reps selling it (good)
- Revenue: 15% of total ARR (target achieved)
Without comp alignment:
- New product deals: 5% of reps selling it (bad)
- Revenue: 2% of total ARR (launch failed)
Report back:
"AI Analytics launch underperformed. Root cause: Sales comp not aligned. Recommendation: Add to quota for Q2."
Sales Compensation Timing for Launches
Ideal timeline:
8 weeks before launch:
- PMM analyzes comp structure
- Identifies misalignments
6 weeks before launch:
- PMM proposes comp changes to Sales + Finance
- Get buy-in
4 weeks before launch:
- Finalize comp plan changes
- Communicate to sales team
Launch day:
- Comp plan updated
- Sales knows what they're paid
Worst case:
Launch day:
- You realize comp isn't aligned
- Too late to change (comp plans locked quarterly)
- Launch fails
Lesson: Start comp discussions 6-8 weeks before launch
Common Compensation Structures for Launches
Best practices:
Launch SPIF (Short-term)
Use when: Can't change quota structure, need temporary focus
Example:
"Q1 AI Analytics Launch SPIF:
- First 5 reps to close AI deal: $3,000 bonus each
- Any rep closing 3+ AI deals in Q1: $10,000 bonus
- Ends: March 31"
Pros: Easy to implement, creates urgency
Cons: Short-term only, not sustainable
Quota Inclusion (Long-term)
Use when: New product is strategic, long-term priority
Example:
"Starting Q1, quotas updated:
- Core product: 70% of quota ($700K)
- AI Analytics: 20% of quota ($200K)
- Add-ons: 10% of quota ($100K)"
Pros: Sustainable, long-term alignment
Cons: Harder to implement (comp plan changes)
Accelerators (Medium-term)
Use when: Want to incentivize without changing base structure
Example:
"AI Analytics accelerator:
- Core product: 10% commission
- AI Analytics: 15% commission (50% higher)"
Pros: Incentivizes without quota changes
Cons: Can be confusing
Product Mix Requirements (Balanced)
Use when: Want portfolio selling, prevent over-reliance on one product
Example:
"To achieve full commission, must sell:
- 60% core
- 20% AI Analytics
- 20% other"
Pros: Forces balanced selling
Cons: Complex, can frustrate reps
PMM recommends structure based on business goals.
What PMM Can't Control (But Should Know)
PMM doesn't set comp plans, but should understand:
Why comp plans can't always change:
Reason 1: Budget constraints
- Higher commission = higher cost
- Finance may reject
Reason 2: Comp plan complexity
- Already have 5 products, each with different structure
- Adding another creates confusion
Reason 3: Quarterly lock
- Comp plans change once per quarter or year
- Can't adjust mid-period
Reason 4: Fairness concerns
- Changing comp for one product creates precedent
- Other teams want same treatment
PMM's role: Understand constraints, work within them
Quick Start: Align Comp with Launch in 2 Weeks
Week 1:
- Day 1-2: Understand current comp structure (meet with Sales Ops/Finance)
- Day 3-4: Analyze alignment with new product
- Day 5: Identify gaps
Week 2:
- Day 1-2: Draft comp proposal (quota inclusion, SPIF, or accelerators)
- Day 3: Present to Sales leadership
- Day 4-5: Get buy-in, finalize
Deliverable: Comp plan update or launch GTM adjusted for comp reality
Impact: Aligned incentives = successful launch
The Uncomfortable Truth
Here's what actually kills most product launches: Sales isn't incentivized to sell the new product. It's that simple, and that painful.
The pattern repeats itself at every company I've worked at. PMM launches without checking the comp structure, assuming sales will sell anything you build because it's good for the company. Three months later, you realize the comp misalignment—new product doesn't count toward quota, or pays half the commission of the core product—but it's too late because comp plans are locked quarterly. Nobody advocated for changes during planning season. The new product doesn't get sold. The launch fails.
What actually works is completely different. Start with early comp analysis, ideally 6-8 weeks before launch, when you still have time to influence the plan. Advocate hard for alignment—quota inclusion, SPIFs, accelerators, whatever structure fits your business. If you can't change the comp structure due to political or budget constraints, design your GTM around those realities instead of pretending they don't exist. And track and report the impact rigorously so you can prove the ROI of comp alignment for next time.
The best product launches I've seen all share common characteristics. Sales comp is aligned from day one—the new product counts toward quota. It's incentivized appropriately, with higher commission if the sales cycle is longer or the product is unproven. Changes are communicated early so reps know what they're paid at least four weeks before launch. And everything is tracked rigorously to measure the impact of comp alignment on actual outcomes.
If sales isn't selling your new product, check their comp plan first. Not their training. Not their enablement materials. Not their understanding of the value prop. Check what they're paid to sell. Nine times out of ten, that's your answer.
Understand the structure. Advocate for alignment. Design your GTM accordingly. Your launch success depends on it.