How To Turn Sales-Marketing Misalignment From A Culture Problem Into A Revenue Fix

Justin Dorfman on shared KPIs, launch timing, and what it actually costs when sales can “live without you.”

Justin Dorfman was Co-Founder and CEO of AssetMule, a sales enablement platform built squarely at the intersection of sales and marketing, when he contributed commentary to The Launch That Almost Worked. He is now the host of The Micro Collector podcast.

When I sent Justin the research, he had pointed opinions to share — particularly about why so many leaders treat sales-marketing misalignment as folklore rather than a fixable revenue problem. Below are selected insights from that exchange, edited for length and flow.

75% of sales professionals say they could manage without marketing. What does that number tell you?

It tells you that in many organizations, marketing still hasn’t earned its place in the room.

When sellers feel they can live without marketing, it almost always means marketing hasn’t gone deep enough into the sales process to understand what’s creating friction. The response to that, instead of running more campaigns or better brand awareness, is getting into the weeds with reps: sitting in on calls, understanding where deals stall, co-creating resources that solve the actual problem.

By making itself useful in ways sales can feel is how marketing builds credibility with sales.

Two-thirds of organizations have experienced a failed launch or missed opportunity due to sales-marketing misalignment. Leaders tend to treat this as a fact of life. What’s your take on why?

Because it’s easier to shrug at a cultural problem than to fix a structural one.

Too many leaders treat sales and marketing misalignment as ‘a tale as old as time’ — just the way it’s always been. But when two-thirds of companies admit it’s having a real financial impact, you’ve stopped talking about culture. Now it is a revenue problem with a structural solution.

The companies that get this right don’t do it by hoping the two teams will start getting along. They build shared KPIs, hold joint pipeline reviews, and make both sales and marketing accountable for revenue — not just their own departmental metrics. That changes the incentive structure, and the incentive structure is what actually changes behavior.

Nearly half of respondents cited lack of structured process as the top blocker to alignment. Is that the real problem?

Sales feels unheard, marketing feels dismissed, both sides retreat into their corners and optimize for their own metrics. Then someone commissions a new process, or a new tool, or a new alignment framework, and six months later both teams are still working in parallel without talking to each other.

The fix is building a partnership grounded in shared goals, rapid feedback loops, and a commitment to move at the pace of the customer. That’s slower to build and harder to measure than a new project management tool — but that’s also the only thing that works.

Less than half of sales teams receive coordinated support before launch. What’s the consequence?

Without coordinated enablement for sales before the launch, you launch into the market and not into the field. Why, if the field is where revenue comes from?

Too many launches are built as campaigns, not to start conversations. So when the announcement goes out and the press release hits the wire, reps are supposed to be having the first conversations with prospects, and without proper enablement from marketing, most of the time sales are scrambling to figure out what they’re selling.

A great launch gives reps the training and tools they need to translate strategy into revenue on day one. Not day thirty, when the initial launch momentum has already faded.

60% of reps receive launch materials at the eleventh hour or after go-live. What does that timing actually cost?

It costs trust before anything else.

Dropping materials on sales the night before a launch is a trust-killer. It signals that sales is an afterthought rather than a partner.

And once sales internalizes that signal, they stop expecting anything different. They start working around marketing instead of with it, which produces worse messaging, less consistent positioning, and a longer sales cycle.

The reps who get materials early don’t just sell with more confidence — they instill more confidence in customers too, and that shows up in good win rates.

What does enablement actually need to look like to move the needle?

Not more of everything, but the right: right assets, right delivery, right moment.

Too often, enablement is treated as a content checklist: produce the value prop, write the battlecard, build the deck, send it over the wall. That’s information transfer, not enablement.

Sales need to be able to answer the hard question live, without reaching for a PDF. That requires assets that are specific enough to be useful, delivered in a way that creates real understanding, timed to when the rep is actually going to use them. Not a folder of PDFs dropped into a Slack channel the morning of launch.

Customer stories close deals but don’t rank as high for building rep confidence. What’s going on there?

Competitive decks and messaging frameworks help reps feel ready. They answer the internal question of every rep before prospecting starts: do I understand this well enough to not embarrass myself? But that’s not what moves a buyer.

What moves a buyer is evidence that reduces risk. A prospect who likes your product still has to sell that purchase internally. They need something that works without a rep in the room to narrate it — something a skeptical colleague, a finance lead, or a legal team can read and understand on their own. Customer stories do that. A well-built competitive framework doesn’t travel the same way.

So — confidence is internal, proof is external. We need to enable both sides.

Sales mostly points at execution when launches fail: poor positioning, weak enablement, insufficient training. Only a quarter point to product-market fit. Is that a useful lens?

It’s a useful signal about where the weight of expectation lands. Whether it’s the right diagnosis is a different question.

When sales sees poor positioning and weak enablement as the primary reasons products fail, while marketing sees product-market fit as the real limiter, you’ve got two teams with fundamentally different definitions of what a successful launch requires.

The answer isn’t to argue about whose diagnosis is correct — it’s to build alignment at the source: ensuring sales, marketing, and product share the same definition of launch readiness before anything goes live. That conversation should happen at the beginning of a launch cycle, not at the post-mortem.

Follow Justin Dorfman on LinkedIn