People often compare the salesperson–marketer–CSM structure to soccer.
Sales is the striker who scores revenue, marketers are the midfielders, and CSMs are the defenders.
Since most companies aim to grow revenue,
they invest heavily in sales and have the other departments support it.
I really hate this analogy.
A company with this structure can get as far as generating revenue (though many can't even do that), but its ability to take care of customers is very poor.
- The sales team keeps making irresponsible sales for individual bonuses, and a culture of not caring afterward becomes entrenched.
- The marketing team is asked by the company only to supply more leads. They grind through the work and supply leads, but many are thrown away because they can't produce revenue right away.
- The CSM team is reduced to a punching bag. Situations where they have to meet unreasonable demands repeat, the emotional labor goes on and on, and eventually the team withers and dies.
Over time, the spotlight and bonuses for revenue growth go to the sales team, while everyone turns away from the tasks tied to customer success, and you end up with an irresponsible company.
What's more, in Korea a sales team that can't generate revenue can still keep its seats and collect its paychecks. How unfair is that?
Let's go back to the soccer analogy and think again.
- Is the company's goal revenue? Or customer success?
- In soccer, defenders can score goals too.
- The concepts of striker, midfielder, and defender were invented later anyway.
If the structure can't sustain ongoing revenue anyway, splitting the team up is meaningless in the first place.
Sales should take care of customers directly, marketers should sell too, and CSMs should join in making good content.
Even if it looks like kids' swarm soccer at first, I'm convinced a team where everyone can be a striker will be far more competitive than a team with half-baked positions.
*Of course, I know.
That most companies won't do this.
