【翻譯】本文由陳菜菜學(xué)習(xí)并翻譯自Marty Cagan的文章《Product?Management vs. Product Marketing》，供產(chǎn)品愛好者交流使用。翻譯如有所不妥，歡迎指教探討。

產(chǎn)品管理 vs 產(chǎn)品營銷

由Marty Cagan 2007年8月28日發(fā)布

標(biāo)簽：產(chǎn)品管理，產(chǎn)品營銷，項(xiàng)目管理，產(chǎn)品開發(fā)

行業(yè)專業(yè)人士稱，十個(gè)產(chǎn)品中的九個(gè)產(chǎn)品的發(fā)布是失敗的，因?yàn)樗鼈儧]有達(dá)到自己的目標(biāo)。我不知道這是否是精確的統(tǒng)計(jì)，但我認(rèn)為相差不遠(yuǎn)。我堅(jiān)信大部分的產(chǎn)品發(fā)布是考慮不周的。

無數(shù)的產(chǎn)品發(fā)布循環(huán)被浪費(fèi)，那些產(chǎn)品既不能用也不好用。產(chǎn)品之所以不好，還有很多原因，而我寫的每篇文章力圖闡述一些原因，但我一直坦言，這些無效發(fā)布的根源在于，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理的角色在你的公司如何被定義，和你為這個(gè)角色所選的人。

這一年多里，我一直醞釀這篇文章。這個(gè)話題我想了很久，但我認(rèn)為最重要的一點(diǎn)是去明白產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理工作的核心。這很難寫，因?yàn)槲抑廊ジ淖円粋€(gè)行業(yè)對(duì)角色的認(rèn)識(shí)很艱難，甚至去改變行業(yè)在說到這些角色時(shí)所用的專業(yè)用詞都很難。

因?yàn)槌浞终J(rèn)識(shí)到在很多公司都存在著不同的定義，所以在我們開始之前，為了解釋這個(gè)話題我將定義一些詞匯。首先，我先定義產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理的角色，他們負(fù)責(zé)定義那些研發(fā)團(tuán)隊(duì)即將創(chuàng)造出來產(chǎn)品。我將產(chǎn)品營銷人的角色定義為，負(fù)責(zé)向世界傳達(dá)這個(gè)產(chǎn)品的人。

這兩個(gè)角色如下，正如你所看到的，他們擔(dān)任著完全不同的工作。

我認(rèn)為每一個(gè)產(chǎn)品需要一個(gè)獨(dú)立的、負(fù)責(zé)的產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，完成產(chǎn)品的定義（結(jié)合產(chǎn)品被描述出來的那些產(chǎn)品需求和用戶體驗(yàn)）。

然而，不幸的是，我和一家企業(yè)合作時(shí)經(jīng)常遇到三種不同情況中的一種：

1）產(chǎn)品營銷或產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，其中一個(gè)人被指定去負(fù)責(zé)高水平的產(chǎn)品需求分析，然后產(chǎn)品直接轉(zhuǎn)向研發(fā)，忽略了產(chǎn)品需求的細(xì)節(jié)和很多艱難的抉擇，還經(jīng)常性的忽略用戶體驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)（這是早些系列的話題）。

2）定義產(chǎn)品的任務(wù)，被分解成由產(chǎn)品營銷人員負(fù)責(zé)高水平商業(yè)/產(chǎn)品需求分析、產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理負(fù)責(zé)低水平產(chǎn)品需求分析。

3）產(chǎn)品營銷人員被要求同時(shí)兼顧兩個(gè)角色，企業(yè)有時(shí)稱這些人為產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，有時(shí)稱為產(chǎn)品營銷人員。

這三個(gè)情況我們來分開討論：

·營銷導(dǎo)向的產(chǎn)品

這個(gè)情況很容易識(shí)別。產(chǎn)品團(tuán)隊(duì)的其他人員把這個(gè)產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理視為營銷資源，認(rèn)為他/她對(duì)創(chuàng)造數(shù)據(jù)文檔、訓(xùn)練銷售團(tuán)隊(duì)、命名和定價(jià)都起了很大作用。但說到定義產(chǎn)品，這個(gè)角色的重要性普遍被大打折扣、甚至忽略。多部Dilbert卡通都描述了這個(gè)角色，我們也熟知這類產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理。當(dāng)他們?cè)跔I銷領(lǐng)域做得很好時(shí)，他們嘗試去定義一個(gè)可用和好用的產(chǎn)品細(xì)節(jié)，雖然可能已經(jīng)超出自己能力之外了。這種情況下，但愿能夠有團(tuán)隊(duì)中的其他人參與并扮演真正的產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，有時(shí)他/她可能是一個(gè)技術(shù)領(lǐng)頭人，可能是一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)師，可能是一個(gè)經(jīng)理。如果這個(gè)人擁有技能，又有帶寬（精力），那么產(chǎn)品依舊可以成功。然而不管怎么說，在這類情況中，產(chǎn)品還是一開始就已經(jīng)陷入麻煩了。

我第一次在產(chǎn)品管理中敗露陣腳就是這種情況中，所以我一開始就想要遠(yuǎn)離這種角色。但后來我遇到一個(gè)人，他向我展示了真正的產(chǎn)品管理是什么樣子的。于是，我開始行動(dòng)去賦予這個(gè)角色新的含義，但這是一場(chǎng)艱難的戰(zhàn)役，我很快發(fā)現(xiàn)了其中的困難。取而代之，我已經(jīng)致力于表彰成功的產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，和重新定義產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理周圍的人。

·兩個(gè)人，一個(gè)角色

這種情況同樣容易識(shí)別，正如沒有獨(dú)立的產(chǎn)品擁有者所形成的局面。一個(gè)產(chǎn)品營銷人員（有時(shí)在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域里被稱為創(chuàng)業(yè)者）為高水平的商業(yè)需求負(fù)責(zé)，而產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理為低水平的產(chǎn)品需求負(fù)責(zé)。這種角色的安排帶來的麻煩是，這兩者中沒有誰真正地?fù)碛羞@個(gè)產(chǎn)品，更重要的是，沒有誰認(rèn)為自己自始至終是為這個(gè)產(chǎn)品負(fù)責(zé)的，何況去履行所有的職責(zé)。況且，這種角色設(shè)置，來源于對(duì)一種錯(cuò)誤觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為你能夠脫離具體的需求，特別是用戶體驗(yàn)，去定義高層次的產(chǎn)品需求。當(dāng)這種角色設(shè)置存在時(shí)，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理們提供的服務(wù)在本質(zhì)上變得模式化，沒有讓人打起精神的工作容易導(dǎo)致創(chuàng)意的匱乏，很難創(chuàng)造出成功的產(chǎn)品。

很多擁有多重商業(yè)單元的大企業(yè)引入這種角色安排，還在納悶為什么他們不能做出顧客喜歡的創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)品。

·一個(gè)人，兩種角色

合并產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理和產(chǎn)品營銷角色的麻煩是，很難去找到一個(gè)能夠同時(shí)把兩種工作完成好的人。每個(gè)角色都很重要，需要特殊的技能和天賦。創(chuàng)造一個(gè)產(chǎn)品和向世界傳達(dá)一個(gè)產(chǎn)品，是很不一樣的。我知道一些特別杰出的人能夠勝任兩個(gè)角色，但這種人特別少，在組織結(jié)構(gòu)中少之又少。進(jìn)一步說，即使是最簡(jiǎn)單的產(chǎn)品，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理的工作也將是全程營銷、全職工作，需要一個(gè)特別細(xì)心的人。如果你讓營銷人員負(fù)責(zé)產(chǎn)品管理的工作，即使擁有兩者必須的技能和天賦，也很難有充足的帶寬（精力）。

這是軟件企業(yè)最常見的困難，軟件企業(yè)本身在為銷售團(tuán)隊(duì)提供支持就是一項(xiàng)大工程。產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理們?cè)絹碓搅?xí)慣性地以為，那些來自大客戶的需求能夠簡(jiǎn)單地傳遞向銷售人員，然后傳遞到產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理，最終傳遞到開發(fā)人員。這樣認(rèn)為的結(jié)果是幾乎不會(huì)產(chǎn)生可用和好用的產(chǎn)品。

認(rèn)識(shí)到上述組織安排的緣由固然重要，但我認(rèn)為很多企業(yè)遭受的損失已經(jīng)比他們預(yù)料到更多。他們荒廢了整條產(chǎn)品線，顧客不喜歡他們的產(chǎn)品，或是迫不得已而用。

解決這個(gè)問題的思路是，在企業(yè)中清楚定義產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理和產(chǎn)品營銷兩種角色的邊界。產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理有責(zé)任細(xì)致定義產(chǎn)品，確認(rèn)產(chǎn)品真正的顧客和用戶。產(chǎn)品營銷人負(fù)責(zé)向世界傳達(dá)產(chǎn)品，管理產(chǎn)品的發(fā)布，提供營銷渠道和銷售產(chǎn)品，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)關(guān)鍵項(xiàng)目（如線上市場(chǎng)）、管理市場(chǎng)項(xiàng)目。

請(qǐng)注明，本文沒有絲毫字句能被拿來解釋為產(chǎn)品營銷不重要。我很清楚，杰出的產(chǎn)品營銷能夠帶來極重要的價(jià)值。而這和我在此闡述的產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理角色不是同個(gè)話題。

一般來說，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理和產(chǎn)品營銷人員需要經(jīng)常溝通合作，隨時(shí)在特定的話題交流。在此有兩個(gè)主要的互動(dòng)：第一，產(chǎn)品營銷人員是向產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理傳達(dá)產(chǎn)品需求的來源之一，即使產(chǎn)品需求原本為產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理所擁有；第二，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理是向產(chǎn)品營銷人員傳達(dá)市場(chǎng)信息的來源之一，即使市場(chǎng)信息原本為營銷人員所擁有。

不管怎樣的任命和組織結(jié)構(gòu)，在偉大的產(chǎn)品背后，我保證你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)那些負(fù)責(zé)定義產(chǎn)品的人。記住，不管你研發(fā)團(tuán)隊(duì)多優(yōu)秀，沒有人（產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理）告訴他們做什么可用和好用，也將無濟(jì)于事。

【原文】

Product Management vs. Product Marketing

Posted by Marty Cagan on August 28, 2007

Tags:product?management,product?marketing,program?management,product?discovery

Industry pundits claim that 9 out of 10 product releases are failures in that they don’t meet their goals. I don’t know if that’s the exact stat or not,but I bet it’s not far off. I do believe strongly that most releases are ill-conceived. Countless release cycles are wasted on products that are either not useful or not usable. There are many reasons for these bad products, and each article I write is intended to address some aspect, but I have long argued that the root cause of these wasted releases can most often be traced to how the role of product manager is defined at your company, and the capabilities of the people you choose for this role.

I have been meaning to write this article for over a year now. It’s a topic I’ve been thinking about for a long time, but one that I consider critically important as it gets to the core of what the job of the product manager truly needs to be. It is hard to write because I know how tough it is to try to get an industry to change the way it thinks of roles, and even to change the nomenclature it uses in talking about these roles.

Before we get started, to explain this issue I will have to define some terms, fully aware that these definitions will contradict their use in many companies. I define the role of the product manager first and foremost as the person responsible for defining – in detail – the product that the engineering team will build. I define the role of product marketing as responsible for telling the world about this product.

More about each role below, but as you can see, these are extremely different jobs.

To be clear right from the start, I argue that every product needs a single, accountable product manager, responsible for the product definition(the combination of product requirements and user experience that describe the product to be built).

However, unfortunately, all too often when I begin working with a company I encounter one of three different situations:

1) there is a product marketing or product manager titled person responsible for the high-level product requirements, and then the product goes straight to engineering – bypassing detailed product requirements and the many tough decisions that go along with that (and also very often bypassing user experience design, but that’s the topic of an earlier set of articles)

2) the product definition role is split between a product marketing person responsible for the high-level business/product requirements, and a product manager person responsible for the low-level product requirements

3) a product marketing person is asked to cover both roles (and the company sometimes calls these people product managers and sometimes product marketing)

Let’s discuss each of these three problem situations:

- Marketing-driven Product

This situation is pretty easy to spot. The rest of the product team views this person as “the marketing resource” that might be useful for creating datasheets, training the sales force, and coming up with the naming and pricing,but in terms of defining the product, this person is largely discounted and ignored. There are plenty of Dilbert cartoons portraying this person, and we’ve all known this type of product manager. While these people might be great at marketing, they are in way over their heads in trying to define in detail a useful and usable product. In this situation, hopefully someone else on the product team steps in and performs the true product management function,sometimes a lead engineer, sometimes a designer, and sometimes a manager. If that person has the skills, and also the bandwidth, the product may still succeed. More often, however, the product is in trouble right from the start.

My first exposure to product management was with this situation, and it initially kept me from wanting to have any association at all with this role,but then I met a guy that showed me what product management was really all about. So then my reaction was to rename the role to something different, but that’s a battle I soon realized had its own problems, so instead I’ve worked to highlight the successful product managers and work to redefine the role around these people.

- Two People, One Role

This situation is also easy to spot, as there is no single product owner.A product marketing person (sometimes in this model called the “business owner”) is responsible for the high-level business requirements, and a product manager is responsible for the low-level product requirements. The problem is that neither person truly owns the product, and more importantly, neither person feels and behaves like they are the one ultimately responsible for the product. Further, this model is based on a flawed view of software that believes that you can define high-level product requirements independent of detailed requirements and especially the user experience. When you have this model, the product managers become essentially a spec-generation service. It is a frustrating job that tends to stifle innovation, and rarely produces winning products.

Many larger companies with multiple business units evolve into this situation and then wonder why they can no longer come up with innovative products that their customers love.

- One Person, Two Roles

The problem with combining the product manager role with product marketing is that it is very hard to find someone who can do both types of jobs well.Each of these roles is critical, and each requires special skills and talents.Creating a product is much different than telling the world about that product.I have known some truly exceptional people that can excel in both roles, but these people are very rare and as an organizational model it doesn’t scale.Further, for all but the simplest of products, the role of product manager as defined here is an all-consuming, full-time job, requiring a dedicated person.If you ask the product marketing person to cover the product management role,even if the person has the skills and talents required for both, it is unlikely he will have the bandwidth to do both jobs well.

This is most frequently a problem at enterprise software companies where supporting the sales force is a big job in itself, and there is a strong tendency for the product managers simply to pass along (perceived) requirements from the big customers, to the sales reps, to the product managers, and then to the engineers. Almost never results in useful and usable products.

It is important to recognize that there are reasons for each of the organizational models described above, but I argue that the companies are sacrificing far more than they realize. They are wasting entire product release cycles. They are creating products that customers don’t want, or must struggle with to use.

The way out is to clearly define the distinct roles of product manager and product marketing in your company. The product manager is responsible for defining – in detail – the product to be built, and validate that product with real customers and users. The product marketing person is responsible for telling the world about that product, managing the product launch, providing tools for the sales channel to market and sell the product, and for leading key programs such as online marketing and influencer marketing programs.

Please note that nothing in this article should be construed as claiming that the product marketing role is unimportant. I have learned that it is, and great product marketing is extremely valuable. But it has little to do with the product manager role that I have described here.

In general the product manager and product marketing person will communicate often and collaborate occasionally on specific topics, but there are two main interactions. First, the product marketing person will be one of the several sources of input to product requirements owned by the product manager. Second, the product manager will be one of the several sources of input to marketing messages owned by product marketing.

By whatever title or organizational model, behind every great product, I promise you that you will find someone responsible for the definition of that product. Remember that it doesn’t matter how great your engineering organization is if you don’t give them something useful and usable to build.