# Track 03 — Workflows / SOP (工作流) — Product Marketing (PMM)

- **Industry:** Product Marketing 产品营销 (PMM)
- **Locale:** en (English-first)
- **Research date / last_checked:** 2026-05-20
- **Researcher:** Track 03 sub-agent (live WebSearch + WebFetch)

## Locale / honesty note

PMM workflow craft is **English-first and authored by US/EU practitioners and vendors**. The canonical SOPs come from named authors (April Dunford, Bob Moesta, Anthony Pierri) and from vendor/association method docs (Wynter, Clozd, Klue, Crayon, Simon-Kucher, Product Marketing Alliance, SVPG). There is no distinct Chinese-language PMM workflow canon for these eight processes — a PMM in any market runs the same playbooks. All percentages/stats below are inline-tagged per the number caveat rule.

### Source bucket note (per Track-03 rules)

Method authority for every workflow lives on a commercial `.com/.io` (author site or vendor blog), so by default these would be `secondary`. Per the rules, the **first-party method pages of the method's author or owning vendor** are hand-labelled **`surrogate_primary`** with a note containing literal `vendor docs` (作者/厂商一手). Examples: aprildunford.com (positioning), wynter.com (message testing), clozd.com (win/loss), klue.com + crayon.co (battlecards), simon-kucher.com (pricing), therewiredgroup.com (JTBD), fletchpmm.com / makeitpunchy.com (messaging), svpg.com (launch craft). **productmarketingalliance.com / gotomarketalliance.com** are association method/template pages → note contains literal `协会`. firstround.com / reforge.com / lennysnewsletter.com → `surrogate_primary` (机构/作者一手). LinkedIn / Reddit → `reference`. No "step by step launch checklist 2025" SEO farm, no AI-summary site, no medium-generic post is in the manifest.

---

## Source Manifest

| source_id | url | bucket | last_checked | author/host | one-line note |
|-----------|-----|--------|--------------|-------------|---------------|
| T03-S001 | https://www.aprildunford.com/post/a-quickstart-guide-to-positioning | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | April Dunford | vendor docs (作者一手); quickstart of the 10-step / 5-component positioning process |
| T03-S002 | https://www.aprildunford.com/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | April Dunford | vendor docs (作者一手); Obviously Awesome + Sales Pitch author home |
| T03-S003 | https://userlist.com/blog/positioning-overhaul/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Userlist | vendor docs (厂商一手 — 实操案例); applied Dunford 10-step, ordered steps documented |
| T03-S004 | https://wynter.com/post/message-testing | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Wynter (Peep Laja) | vendor docs (厂商一手); definitive message-testing method guide |
| T03-S005 | https://wynter.com/products/message-testing | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Wynter | vendor docs (厂商一手); 2-min setup, <48h, B2B panel by title/seniority |
| T03-S006 | https://wynter.com/post/b2b-message-layers-framework-wynter | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Wynter | vendor docs (厂商一手); 5 components — clarity/relevance/value/differentiation/brand |
| T03-S007 | https://www.gotomarketalliance.com/the-tiers-of-go-to-market-launches/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Go-to-Market / Product Marketing Alliance | 协会 method; four launch tiers + tier-decision criteria |
| T03-S008 | https://www.productmarketingalliance.com/go-to-market-template-framework/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Product Marketing Alliance | 协会 method; GTM plan template (who/what/why/how + tactics) |
| T03-S009 | https://www.productmarketingalliance.com/product-launch-team-charter-template-framework/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Product Marketing Alliance | 协会 method; cross-functional launch team charter template |
| T03-S010 | https://www.svpg.com/product-marketing-contribution/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | SVPG (Marty Cagan) | vendor docs (机构/作者一手); PMM contribution in product operating model |
| T03-S011 | https://klue.com/blog/battlecard-best-practices | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Klue | vendor docs (厂商一手); Know-Say-Show battlecard method |
| T03-S012 | https://klue.com/blog/competitive-battlecards-101 | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Klue | vendor docs (厂商一手); battlecard 101 + templates |
| T03-S013 | https://www.clozd.com/how-to-do-win-loss-analysis | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Clozd | vendor docs (厂商一手); win-loss ultimate guide 2026 |
| T03-S014 | https://www.clozd.com/blog/four-pillars-of-effective-win-loss-analysis | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Clozd | vendor docs (厂商一手); exec sponsor + neutral 3rd party + balanced sampling |
| T03-S015 | https://www.clozd.com/blog/what-is-the-right-number-of-win-loss-interviews | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Clozd | vendor docs (厂商一手); how many interviews for actionable insight |
| T03-S016 | https://www.clozd.com/blog/win-loss-analysis-tracking-themes-trends | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Clozd | vendor docs (厂商一手); systematic theme tagging + trend tracking |
| T03-S017 | https://therewiredgroup.com/news/blog-jtbd-interview-live-demonstration/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | The Rewired Group (Bob Moesta) | vendor docs (作者一手); live JTBD switch interview demo |
| T03-S018 | https://jobstobedone.org/radio/unpacking-the-progress-making-forces-diagram/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Jobs-to-be-Done / Re-Wired | vendor docs (作者一手); four forces of progress F1–F4 |
| T03-S019 | https://www.productmarketingalliance.com/how-target-audience-icp-and-personas-guide-product-marketing-strategies/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Product Marketing Alliance | 协会 method; ICP vs persona, data-driven not assumed |
| T03-S020 | https://www.simon-kucher.com/en/insights/value-based-pricing-definition-strategies-and-success-factors | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Simon-Kucher | vendor docs (厂商一手); value-based pricing, WTP, conjoint |
| T03-S021 | https://www.simon-kucher.com/en/consulting/commercial-strategy-pricing-consulting/pricing-strategy-revenue-management/value-based-pricing | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Simon-Kucher | vendor docs (厂商一手); value-based pricing practice page |
| T03-S022 | https://www.tripledart.com/playbooks/crafting-homepage-messaging-for-b2b-saas-products | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Anthony Pierri (Fletch PMM) interview | vendor docs (作者一手); homepage messaging method, cut jargon |
| T03-S023 | https://www.earlynode.com/newsletters/the-7-step-framework-for-writing-killer-homepage-messaging-with-anthony-pierri | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Anthony Pierri (Fletch PMM) | vendor docs (作者一手); 7-step homepage messaging framework |
| T03-S024 | https://www.cascadeinsights.com/what-is-a-messaging-framework/ | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Cascade Insights | vendor docs (厂商一手); messaging house — topline + 3–5 pillars + proof points |
| T03-S025 | https://klue.com/blog/processes-that-make-or-break-your-win-loss-program | surrogate_primary | 2026-05-20 | Clozd | vendor docs (厂商一手); win-loss program process gotchas |

---

### W1. 给产品做定位 (Positioning — April Dunford 10-step)

**One-liner**: Position the product against the alternatives a buyer would actually consider, so its strengths become the obvious reason to buy — not a clever slogan.

**入门 SOP**:
1. List the **true competitive alternatives** — what the customer would do if your product did not exist (a rival tool, a spreadsheet, hiring a person, doing nothing). Anchor on real deals, not the vendors you wish you competed with.
2. Isolate your **unique attributes / features** — capabilities you have that those alternatives lack (capabilities, not adjectives).
3. Map each attribute to the **value** it delivers to the customer, and cluster into value themes.
4. Define the **target customers (who cares a lot)** — the segment for whom that value is urgent and obvious.
5. Choose the **market category (frame of reference)** that makes your strengths look central, then capture it in a one-page positioning doc others can use (and optionally layer a trend — carefully).

- **资深路径**: **跳过** the from-scratch vocabulary reset and assemble a small cross-functional positioning team (sales, CS, product) on day one rather than soloing it; **优化** by mining win/loss transcripts and CRM closed-won data to derive "true alternatives" instead of brainstorming them; **额外** runs Dunford's two-act *Sales Pitch* (insight → POV on the alternatives) and pressure-tests positioning live against real prospects before it ships to the website.
- **近期变化**: LLMs are used to cluster raw call-transcript language into candidate value themes and to draft category-frame options in minutes; teams now treat positioning as a living doc re-validated against win/loss data quarterly rather than a one-off offsite.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 2–4 周 (first real pass) / 资深 2–4 天 (with transcripts already on hand).
- **关键工具**: Dunford positioning canvas/worksheet, Gong/Chorus transcripts, CRM closed-won export, a shared positioning one-pager (Notion/Coda), LLM for theme clustering.
- **关键人物**: April Dunford (Obviously Awesome, Sales Pitch); category-design thinkers (Play Bigger) as adjacent reference.
- **常见失败**:
  - Skipping competitive alternatives and jumping straight to a slogan/tagline — positioning with no frame of reference, so buyers can't slot you anywhere.
  - Listing aspirational competitors instead of the alternative the buyer actually weighs (often "do nothing" or a spreadsheet).
  - Confusing features with value — listing attributes but never mapping them to why a specific segment cares.

### W2. 写核心 messaging (Messaging house)

**One-liner**: Turn positioning into a reusable messaging house — one topline value proposition, 3–5 supporting pillars, each backed by proof — written in buyer language and validated, not wordsmithed internally.

**入门 SOP**:
1. Write the **topline value proposition / solution statement** — one sentence on the core outcome for the target customer, derived from the positioning (W1).
2. Define **3–5 messaging pillars**, each with a headline, a value statement (the pain it removes), and the audience it speaks to.
3. Attach **proof points** to every pillar — customer outcomes, case studies, third-party stats, demos (not adjectives).
4. **Cut jargon and "we" language** — rewrite in the buyer's words, lead with the problem/outcome, keep it concrete enough to picture.
5. Capture in a one-page messaging framework and **test the draft with real buyers** (see W7) before it propagates to web, sales, and content.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** writing pillars from imagination — start from win/loss verbatims and review-site language so pillars are pre-validated; **优化** by maintaining a single source-of-truth messaging doc that downstream assets inherit from (no per-asset re-invention); **额外** builds variant messaging per persona/segment and A/B-or-message-tests headlines before committing.
- **近期变化**: Teams paste customer-call transcripts into an LLM to extract recurring buyer phrasing, then human-edit; message-testing panels (Wynter) make "test before publish" cheap enough to be standard, shifting messaging from internal opinion to evidence.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 1–2 周 / 资深 2–3 天.
- **关键工具**: messaging-house template, Wynter / message testing, customer-call transcripts (Gong), review-site mining (G2), LLM for verbatim extraction, makeitpunchy / Fletch homepage frameworks.
- **关键人物**: Anthony Pierri & Fletch PMM (homepage/messaging, cut-the-jargon); Emma Stratton / Punchy (jargon-free B2B messaging); Cascade Insights (messaging-framework structure).
- **常见失败**:
  - Internal wordsmithing with no buyer test — the team polishes language nobody outside the building understands.
  - Jargon and feature-speak that fails the clarity bar (buyer can't restate what you do).
  - One generic message for every audience, so no segment feels it is for them.

### W3. 跑一次产品发布 (Product launch)

**One-liner**: Match launch effort to launch impact by assigning a tier, then run a cross-functional plan from pre-launch through post-launch adoption — not just a press-day spike.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Assign a launch tier** — Tier 1 (game-changing, all-hands), Tier 2 (new product or new market, standard channels), Tier 3 (improvement/release), Tier 4 (bug/UI, internal enablement only) — using criteria like newness, customer pain solved, and alignment to company goals.
2. Build a **cross-functional launch plan / team charter** — name owners across product, marketing, sales, CS; set the date, goals, and the who/what/why/how.
3. Produce the **content matrix / asset list** mapped to audiences and channels (web, email, blog, sales deck, demo, enablement, FAQ) sized to the tier.
4. **Execute the launch** across pre-launch (enable sales/CS, beta, internal comms), launch day, and the announcement push.
5. **Run a post-launch review** — track adoption and pipeline over weeks/months, debrief what worked, and feed misses back into the plan.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** full-blown launch ceremony for Tier 3/4 — deliberately under-launch (changelog/newsletter line) instead of pulling everyone in; **优化** with a reusable tiered playbook + charter template so each launch starts from a baseline, not a blank page; **额外** instruments adoption metrics and a sales-enablement readiness gate before launch day, and runs a structured retro feeding the next launch.
- **近期变化**: AI drafts the launch content matrix (blog, emails, social, enablement one-pager) from a single brief; PMM is increasingly measured on post-launch **adoption**, not announcement reach, per the product-operating-model view of PMM contribution.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 4–8 周 for a Tier 1/2 / 资深 1–3 周 with playbook + adoption tail measured over months.
- **关键工具**: launch-tier framework + GTM template + launch team charter (Product Marketing Alliance), project tracker (Asana/Linear/Notion), enablement platform, product analytics for adoption.
- **关键人物**: Product Marketing Alliance / Go-to-Market Alliance (tier + GTM templates); SVPG / Marty Cagan (PMM contribution, product operating model).
- **常见失败**:
  - Treating every feature as a Tier 1 launch — over-launching exhausts the audience and dilutes the big moments.
  - No cross-functional owners, so sales and CS are blindsided on launch day with no enablement.
  - Declaring victory at announcement and never measuring adoption — the launch "spiked" but nothing got used.

### W4. 做竞品分析 + 出 battlecard (Competitive analysis & battlecards)

**One-liner**: Turn competitive intelligence into a sales-usable battlecard built on Know / Say / Show — honest differentiation reps can actually deploy in a deal, kept current.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Gather intelligence** on the competitor — pricing, positioning, strengths/weaknesses — from public sources, win/loss, and the field; verify before you write.
2. Identify the **win and loss scenarios** — when do we beat this competitor, when do we lose, and what triggers each.
3. Build **honest differentiation** using the Know-Say-Show structure: what reps must know, what to say (talk track), what to show (proof) — using objective facts only.
4. **Enable sales** — deliver the battlecard inside the tools reps already live in (CRM/Slack) so it surfaces when the competitor is mentioned, not in a separate repository.
5. **Maintain and update** on a cadence — assign an owner, refresh as the competitor changes, and retire stale claims.
6. *(optional)* Pull buyer quotes from win/loss directly into the card as proof points.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** the static one-time card — stand up a continuous CI feed and auto-surfacing battlecards instead; **优化** by sourcing claims from win/loss buyer quotes (objective proof) rather than internal opinion; **额外** builds per-competitor "competitive plays" (holistic talk tracks/stories, not bullet lists) and tracks which cards reps actually open and whether they correlate with competitive win rate.
- **近期变化**: AI competitor-monitoring (Klue, Crayon) auto-detects competitor messaging/pricing changes and drafts battlecard updates; the field is consolidating CI and win-loss onto one platform so buyer quotes flow straight into cards.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 1–2 周 per competitor / 资深 2–4 天 to spin up, then ongoing maintenance.
- **关键工具**: Klue, Crayon, Kompyte (CI + battlecards), CRM/Slack integration for delivery, win/loss quotes, competitor public docs/pricing pages.
- **关键人物**: Klue (Know-Say-Show); Crayon (State of Competitive Intelligence benchmark).
- **常见失败**:
  - Stuffing the card with FUD / biased "facts" — one debunked claim destroys rep credibility with the buyer.
  - A static repository of facts with no "so what" — reps can't apply it in a live call, so they ignore it.
  - Never updating — the card describes a competitor's product from a year ago and quietly misleads reps.

### W5. 跑 win/loss 分析 (Win/loss analysis)

**One-liner**: Interview won AND lost buyers via a neutral interviewer, code the themes systematically, and route findings to product, sales, and messaging — to learn why deals actually move.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Select a balanced sample** — both won and lost (and churned) decision-makers, recent enough that the decision is fresh, with executive sponsorship to get access.
2. Conduct **neutral, candid interviews** — ideally a third party unaffiliated with the company, using open questions about the real decision criteria (not leading questions).
3. **Code the themes** — tag meaningful quotes and recurring themes consistently across every transcript.
4. **Analyze frequency and sentiment** of themes to find genuine strengths and gaps (not anecdotes).
5. **Route the findings** — feed product (roadmap), sales (objection handling/battlecards), and messaging (W2) with the specific themes that decide deals.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** the ad-hoc "ask the AE why we lost" — replace with a standing program and a neutral interviewer to remove bias; **优化** with a fixed theme taxonomy tracked over time so trends (not one-offs) drive action; **额外** runs an always-on program (vendor or in-house), wires a feedback loop with named owners per finding, and ties themes back to win-rate movement.
- **近期变化**: AI transcribes and auto-tags interview themes and clusters quotes, cutting the manual coding load; win-loss is increasingly bundled with CI tooling so insights feed battlecards directly.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 2–4 周 for a first batch / 资深 ongoing program with rolling interviews; even ~10 interviews can surface clear patterns (业内估).
- **关键工具**: Clozd, DoubleCheck (by Klue), Wynter (research), call recording/transcription, a theme taxonomy + tracker.
- **关键人物**: Clozd (four pillars: exec sponsor, neutral 3rd party, balanced sampling, systematic theming).
- **常见失败**:
  - Interviewing only won deals — survivorship bias paints a rosy picture and hides why you lose.
  - The sales rep on the deal runs the interview — buyers won't be candid, and theming is biased.
  - One-off transcripts with no consistent coding — anecdotes pile up but no trend ever gets acted on.

### W6. 建 ICP + buyer persona (ICP & buyer persona)

**One-liner**: Derive the Ideal Customer Profile (company fit) and buyer personas (the humans) from closed-won data and real interviews — including JTBD switch interviews — not from assumptions.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Analyze closed-won + best-customer data** in the CRM — find shared firmographic/behavioral traits of the accounts that buy fast, stay, and expand → draft the **ICP** (company-level).
2. **Interview real customers** in that ICP to build **buyer personas** — the decision-makers and influencers (role, goals, pains, buying triggers), grounded in quotes not stereotypes.
3. Run **JTBD switch interviews** on recent buyers — reconstruct the buying timeline (first thought → passive → active looking → decision) and the **four forces** (push of the situation, pull of the new, habit of the present, anxiety of the new).
4. **Document** ICP + persona + the job-to-be-done so product, sales, and marketing share one definition of who the customer is.
5. **Test and refresh** quarterly against new closed-won data so the profile stays a living document.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** the demographic-cardboard persona — go straight to JTBD/forces because the *job* and switch triggers predict buying better than demographics; **优化** by deriving ICP from quantitative closed-won/retention data first, then using interviews to explain the "why"; **额外** maintains negative/anti-personas, segments ICP by fit-and-intent scoring, and re-derives the profile each quarter.
- **近期变化**: AI clusters CRM/firmographic data to surface ICP traits and transcribes switch interviews; teams are layering intent data onto the ICP and moving toward a "living profile" refreshed continuously rather than an annual artifact.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 2–4 周 / 资深 1–2 周 then quarterly refresh.
- **关键工具**: CRM closed-won export, JTBD switch-interview guide (Rewired/Re-Wired), call transcription, ICP/persona template (Product Marketing Alliance), intent-data tools.
- **关键人物**: Bob Moesta & Chris Spiek / The Re-Wired Group (JTBD switch interview, four forces); Clayton Christensen (Competing Against Luck) as theory anchor.
- **常见失败**:
  - Inventing personas from internal opinion ("拍脑袋") instead of deriving them from closed-won data and interviews.
  - Building demographic personas that never explain the buying trigger — pretty cards that don't predict who buys.
  - Treating ICP as a one-time artifact and never refreshing it as the actual customer base shifts.

### W7. 用真实买家测 messaging (Message testing with real buyers)

**One-liner**: Validate messaging variants with a panel of real target buyers — measure clarity, relevance, value, and differentiation — and iterate, instead of trusting internal opinion.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Recruit / target the right buyers** — filter a B2B panel by job title and seniority so respondents match the actual ICP/persona (W6).
2. **Submit the message to test** — paste a live URL or upload the copy/creative (homepage, value prop, headline variants), highlighting the sections you want granular feedback on.
3. **Test the message against the components** — Clarity (do they get it?), Relevance (does it matter to them?), Value (do they want it?), Differentiation (why you?), and Brand.
4. **Read the playback** — check whether buyers can restate what you do in their own words and where they get confused; that confusion is the signal.
5. **Iterate** — revise the weak components and re-test variants until clarity and value land; then promote the winner to web/sales.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** subjective internal debate — go straight to the panel; **优化** by testing competing message *variants* head-to-head and isolating which component (clarity vs differentiation) is failing rather than rewriting everything; **额外** runs message testing as a standing pre-publish gate for every major page, and triangulates panel feedback with live A/B tests and win/loss language.
- **近期变化**: Turnaround collapsed to <48 hours (often hours) on panels like Wynter (官方); AI is used to generate message variants to test and to summarize open-ended playback responses, making "test before you ship" a routine step.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 ~2 days end-to-end (setup ~2 min, results <48h per Wynter, 官方) / 资深 same panel turnaround, faster because variants and audience are pre-built.
- **关键工具**: Wynter (B2B message testing), UserTesting / Maze (broader user testing), live A/B testing, LLM for variant generation and response summarization.
- **关键人物**: Peep Laja / Wynter (B2B message testing method, five components).
- **常见失败**:
  - Testing on the wrong audience (anyone, not the ICP buyer) — you optimize for people who'll never buy.
  - Asking "do you like it?" instead of testing comprehension/playback — likeability hides the clarity problem.
  - Treating a single test as final and never iterating or re-testing the revised version.

### W8. 定价与打包评审 (Pricing & packaging review)

**One-liner**: Set price and packaging from customer willingness-to-pay and value — pick a value metric, design good-better-best tiers, and arm GTM to communicate it — not by copying competitors.

**入门 SOP**:
1. **Measure willingness to pay (WTP)** for the target segments via customer research — surveys, conjoint analysis, interviews — quantifying value, not guessing.
2. **Choose a value metric** — the unit you charge on (seats, usage, outcomes) that scales with the value the customer receives.
3. **Design good-better-best packaging** — bundle features into tiers aligned to segment WTP, so each tier is an obvious fit for a buyer type.
4. **Set prices** anchored to perceived value (and segment differences), not to cost or to the competitor's list price.
5. **Communicate to GTM** — equip sales/CS/web with the value story, tier rationale, and discounting guardrails so pricing lands as value, not negotiation.

- **资深路径**: **跳过** cost-plus and "match the competitor" math — start from value/WTP segmentation; **优化** by tying the value metric to a usage signal you can instrument and meter, and modeling tier migration; **额外** runs willingness-to-pay studies (conjoint/Van Westendorp) per segment, sets up price experiments and periodic price reviews, and models packaging changes against expansion/churn before rollout.
- **近期变化**: Shift toward **usage- and outcome-based pricing** as AI features make consumption variable and value metrics harder to fix; vendors model AI-era "price-model shifts" and use AI to analyze WTP-survey and usage data faster.
- **典型耗时**: 入门 3–6 周 for a first value-based pass / 资深 ongoing with periodic price reviews; major repackaging modeled over weeks.
- **关键工具**: Simon-Kucher / value-pricing frameworks, conjoint & Van Westendorp survey tools, ProfitWell/Paddle price-intelligence, usage analytics for metering, CRM/billing for tier modeling.
- **关键人物**: Simon-Kucher (value-based pricing, WTP, value metric); Patrick Campbell / ProfitWell (SaaS pricing data) as adjacent reference.
- **常见失败**:
  - Copying the competitor's price list without testing your own buyers' WTP — you inherit their mistakes and leave money on the table.
  - Cost-plus pricing that ignores perceived value entirely, so price is decoupled from what the buyer would pay.
  - Choosing a value metric that doesn't scale with customer value (or can't be metered) — tiers feel arbitrary and erode on every deal.
