Denise Murtha Bachmann

Sales is like a box of chocolates. Wrong! We should know exactly what we are getting. Together we will make sure that you know where your Sales are coming from in the remainder of this fiscal year.

Hi...I am Denise Murtha Bachmann and I am passionate about humanizing sales.  I killed it in tech sales and I help others do the same.  What differentiates me from all the other sales coaches here on LinkedIn?  With over 30 years of experience and the latter half in AI/ML, I know how to leverage new technologies for efficiency gains and then pivot to cultivate the human experience that buyers of today demand.

Closing over $75M in revenue in the last 14 years and making club 85% of the eligible years, working with companies such as AT&T, USAA, BCBS and so many more, I have navigated and managed some complex sales cycles.  Clients closed with me not just solely on my ability to build relationships, but also because established credibility with them.  I learned the products that I was selling and the business problems we were helping to solve so much so that I didn't need a software engineer for those 1st and 2nd level conversations.  This allowed for us to have the discussions that most buyers do not like to have with sales.

Knowing the solutions and the business problems is what fostered my passion and enthusiasm for AI.  The challenge that most companies face today is that they want and attempt to adopt new technologies, injecting them into the sales process but they don't know how to adapt their sales teams.  

Adapting to AI, many sales organizations....
*Have their sales teams just allow the solutions to run without teaching them how or when to insert the human connection, or
*Have their sales teams do the same work effort that the technology is focused on expecting double the results.

Buyers of today demand an experience.  By the time they come to you, as the seller, they have already done their homework and downselected you as one of their top 3-5 choices.  Yes you must confirm what they know about you, the company and product thus far, but then they want to know what partnering with you will be like.  They are looking for the experience.

Sales cannot give them an experience if they are focused more on the technology or on the activities that are of less value.  When you focus on the higher value activities, sales can cultivate and elevate the Human Connection within the sales process and revenue will SKYROCKET!!

Working with me and my Sellovatorz program, sales will learn how to accelerate exceptional sales results through...
*Group and Invidivual Coaching
*Masterminds and 
*Masterclasses.

DM me or visit my website to schedule time with me.
Let's kill sales together!!!

Founder and CEO

I Help Individuals and Enterprises to Convert More Prospects into Qualified Leads by Educating How AI is used to Compliment Humans not Replace them.  How?  By Educating on how to Implement Automation Technologies that allow Individuals and Enterprises to off load their daily mundane tasks and focus on Generating Revenue Activities such as New Products and Service Offerings utilizing Social Selling and Branding.

Caff-AI Chats Livestream Host
Speaker
Consultant
Coach

Krista Mollion

Last Business Coach You'll Ever Need I 100% Activator + Rebel 💥 Blow Up Your Solopreneur Business By Joining Profitable Solopreneur/MBA/Accelerator 🚀 Free Masterclass: Path To 10k+ Months 🎯 Content AI Workshop 5/10🧠

What worked at $1M strains at $5M.
What carried you to $8M may stop working at $15M.

Different symptoms.
Same root cause.

Revenue feels harder
Pipeline inconsistent
CAC creeping up
Forecast moving every month

You’ve reached a GTM bottleneck.

Pipeline is active.
Sales is working.
Marketing is producing.

Yet the number shifts.

Your revenue system hasn’t evolved with the company.

That’s where I operate.

I operate at the layer before marketing and sales execution to redesign the system leaders execute within.

I prepare growth-stage companies for structural maturity and turn forecast fragility into defensible revenue.

Predictability is not about slowing down.
It’s about removing growth drag.
When structure matures, growth compounds instead of depending on intensity.

 I work primarily with founder-led B2B SaaS companies between $8–30M ARR, and selectively with earlier-stage companies preparing for scale to stabilize forecasts in 90 days by aligning positioning, demand, conversion, and operating rigor to the company’s next stage.

The tension looks different at each level:

Early Stage ($500k–$8M)
• Activity without concentration
• Offers without pricing power
• Pipeline without predictability

Mid-Stage ($8–$30M)
• CAC expansion
• Longer cycles
• Forecast volatility
• Capital efficiency pressure

Revenue feels harder because the system hasn’t matured.

I install Predictable Revenue Systems aligned to your next stage — not your last one.

So forecasts hold.
So capital compounds.
So growth becomes controllable.

How I Work

Predictable Revenue Foundations™
For $500k–$8M B2B SaaS.
Install the first disciplined GTM engine.

Predictable Revenue Reset™
For $8–30M B2B SaaS.
Private 90-day structural intervention for forecast stability.

Selective Fractional CMO & Advisory available post-engagement.

If you’re a founder who wants structural control — not more activity — we should talk.

20+ years rebuilding revenue systems across US & EMEA.
Founder-led. Operator-minded. Board-ready.


Fractional CMO + Chief Creative Disruptor for SaaS Brands

Attention is currency and it is our mission to get you more of it. 

We design creative, AI-driven, digital and influencer marketing campaigns For micro brands with macro goals

Another International Women’s Day is quietly here.

Some people celebrate it.
Some people roll their eyes at it.
And many probably didn’t even realize it is today.

For some, it’s an important day of recognition.

For others, it feels like a fringe holiday — something associated with radical feminism or corporate virtue signaling.

But after two decades working in SaaS, I think the conversation around women in the workplace is still missing something important.

The problem isn’t women — it’s the environment they’re expected to navigate.

And if you’ve spent years working inside corporate environments, you probably know exactly what I mean.

Over the years I saw patterns many women in tech will recognize.

I remember sitting in conference rooms where I was the only woman at the table.

Sometimes the conversation was productive.

But other times there was a different dynamic — a kind of unspoken pack behavior where ideas were challenged in ways that simply didn’t happen when another man presented them.

And then there were the quieter things.

Comments about appearance that male colleagues never received.

Important deals and relationships forming in informal environments where women weren’t present.

High-visibility opportunities quietly shifting away from women during pregnancy or early motherhood because leaders assumed they wouldn’t be available.

None of this was usually overt hostility.

In fact, if you asked the men involved, many would genuinely say they support women in leadership.

That’s what makes it so difficult to address.

The bias is often subtle, cultural, and largely unconscious.

So when I hear “women should just be more bold,” I think we’re missing half the conversation.

Encouraging women to raise their hand is good advice.

But we also have to look honestly at how opportunity and influence actually flow inside organizations.

Because if the table itself is shaped by a culture that excludes people, telling them to “take a seat” doesn’t solve the problem.

Sometimes the real solution is changing the room.

And sometimes the most rational response is exactly what many women have done:

Build their own tables.

Interestingly, in my consulting work today, most of the founders I end up working with are still men.

I would genuinely love to see more women building and scaling ambitious companies — because the ecosystem becomes stronger when more perspectives are at the table.

Curious to hear from others:
Do we still underestimate how much workplace culture — not individual confidence — shapes who actually succeeds?

You’ve scaled. So why does revenue still feel fragile? I fix the revenue engine when growth stalls (8-30M ARR) | 20+ yrs scaling SaaS revenue systems | Growth, GTM, Marketing Leader | Creator of the 90-Day Revenue Reset™

No alternative text description for this image

You will fire your CMO.

If you haven’t already.

Not because they lack talent.

Because you demanded activity before architecture.

The numbers should make you uneasy:

CMOs have the highest turnover in the C-suite.

In SaaS, average tenure is 18–24 months.
In non-SaaS, it rarely exceeds four years.

That isn’t random.

If month one with your marketing leadership feels like campaigns and execution, risk is already compounding.

If by week two of hiring a new CMO, you say:

“We need campaigns live this month.”

You have just wasted capital.

Because month one is diagnosing revenue architecture.

It defines:

• who owns revenue decisions
• how marketing and sales align
• which targets survive financial scrutiny
• what remains unfunded

And at least two more months in most cases to fix it and re-build it right.

This is where trade-offs get enforced.

Most companies skip it.

Common breakdowns surface fast:

• decision-right confusion
• sequencing gaps
• incentive drift

Layer execution onto that and spend rises.

Alignment doesn’t.

Thirty-day execution is easy to generate.

Twelve-month compounding requires proper foundational revenue architecture design.

So here’s the uncomfortable question:

When you hired your CMO,

did you first design the system for them to operate in —

or did you set them up to burn out so you can rotate to the next one and pretend they failed?

Recycling leadership is not a growth strategy and it doesn't look good on you.

If you've burned through multiple CMOs, it's not them.

It’s the CEO's failure to design a role where marketing leaders can thrive.

Revenue Architect for Scaling B2B SaaS | Designing the systems behind predictable revenue: ICP • Positioning • Pricing • Pipeline Creator of the 90-Day Revenue Reset™ Founder, Unignorable Brands

“Community” is being sold as strategy.

Private groups.
Inner circles.
Founder clubs.

Belonging packaged as growth infrastructure.

Here’s the problem.

Most of it is retention design.

High-touch onboarding.
Constant engagement.
Emotional language.

Until the invoice stops.

Then the signal drops.

Mid-market operators don’t need belonging mechanics.

They need:

• durable relationships
• performance accountability
• long-term trust beyond contract cycles

If the relationship only exists while money flows,
it’s distribution — not partnership.

I don’t sell community.

I build working relationships that survive the contract.

That’s harder to scale.

It’s also harder to fake.

Question for operators:

Do your partnerships survive renewal cycles —
or depend on them?

When does hiring a full-time CMO actually make sense?

Founder-led marketing works.
Until it doesn’t.

Usually around $3M ARR, the cracks show:

• ICP and positioning keep shifting
• Pricing isn’t pressure-tested
• Sales spends half its time explaining
• Budgets exist, authority doesn’t
• Results are hard to defend

Then I hear this:

“Revenue isn’t stable enough for a $300K CMO, so we’re thinking fractional.”

Not wrong.
Wrong frame.

This isn’t a cost decision.
It’s a sequencing decision.

Cost view:
Fractional = discounted exec.

Reality:
Fractional = executive brought in before the system exists.

Hire full-time too early and you lock in cost before clarity.

Then you ask one person to fix a structure they didn’t design.

That’s when:
• frustration builds
• turnover starts
• boards get nervous

A full-time CMO makes sense when:

• the growth engine is defined
• budgets are approved
• ownership is clear
• the job is scale + leadership — not reconstruction

Building the engine and running it at speed are different skills.

Most companies don’t hire the wrong person.

They hire the right role at the wrong time.

That mistake costs 12–24 months.

One clarification:

Fractional ≠ “30-day consultant.”

It’s executive ownership at fractional capacity.

The job is to design the revenue infrastructure above marketing
so your future CMO can actually win.

If this decision feels heavy,
your stage isn’t clear yet.

That’s the real work.

Founder @Unignorable Brands | Predictable Revenue CMO for Founder-Led B2B SaaS ($8–30M ARR) | From Forecast Volatility → Stability in 90 Days | Accelerate and Compound Growth

Three Ways To Work Together

The fastest promotion in marketing history:

Intern → Director → “Good luck.”

No team.
No budget.
No authority.
Just a bigger title and higher expectations.

Titles are cheap.
Revenue risk is not.

This is how companies accidentally create fragility at $8–15M ARR.

They promote execution talent
without redesigning decision rights, capital allocation, or enterprise motion.

Then when growth stalls…

They blame “marketing.”

Nothing here is malicious.

It’s structural.

Founders:

If you want senior outcomes, you must design senior roles:

• Clear revenue layer ownership
• Budget authority
• CRO integration
• Forecast accountability
• Training (if promoted)

Otherwise you’re not building leadership.

You’re increasing risk.

Most enterprise SaaS ceilings aren’t demand problems.

They’re leadership design problems.

Replacing a GTM leader feels decisive.

Boards like decisive.

It signals control.
It signals accountability.
It signals movement.

But most resets don’t fix growth.

They reset the clock.

Not because the leader was incompetent.

Because the revenue architecture never changed.

If:

• The ICP economics are inflated
• Decision rights are unclear
• Capital allocation logic shifts quarter to quarter
• Sales capacity doesn’t match segment reality

Rotating leaders won’t compound growth.

It compounds volatility.

Every replacement quietly erodes:

• Forecast credibility
• Institutional memory
• Marginal CAC efficiency
• 2–3 quarters of execution momentum

Churn creates the appearance of discipline.

Structural clarity creates operating leverage.

Leadership replacement is visible.

Revenue architecture work isn’t.

That’s why one gets applause.

And the other gets deferred.

If you keep replacing leaders that don't drive results, it's likely your revenue volatility is a structural design problem, not a talent problem.

The hidden 18–24 month cost most companies never calculate There’s a familiar moment in many companies when growth stalls. Pipeline slows. Forecasts w

Open article: Why Replacing Leaders Rarely Fixes GTM by Krista Mollion • 4 min read

It’s easier to add 50K followers than to fix inconsistent pipeline.

That’s why so many B2B founders double down on visibility.

Here’s the uncomfortable part:

You can grow fast.
You can go viral.
You can build a big audience.

And still have:
• Unpredictable pipeline
• Discount pressure
• Slipping deals

Because it’s easy to build an audience.

It’s hard to build the right audience.

In this article, I break down:
– The real ways to grow quickly
– Why most founders grow the wrong room
– What buyer gravity actually looks like
– And how visibility quietly misallocates capital

Growth is easy.

Alignment is rare.

If you care about revenue more than applause, this one’s for you.

The hidden cost of building attention that doesn’t convert It’s easier to add 50K followers than to fix inconsistent pipeline. That’s why so many B2B 

Open article: How to Grow From 0 to 50K Followers in Under a Year (On Any Platform) by Krista Mollion • 4 min read

How to Grow From 0 to 50K Followers in Under a Year (On Any Platform)

"We tried marketing.”

At $8–15M ARR, that statement is often accurate.

You probably did:

• Hire an agency
• Launch paid ads
• Redesign the website
• Invest in content
• Add SDRs

And growth still didn’t stabilize.

The issue usually isn’t effort.

It’s sequence.

Marketing applied before:

• ICP compression
• Clear ownership
• Capital pacing logic
• Incentive alignment
• Governance over trade-offs

Execution inside structural ambiguity compounds noise.

Not revenue.

Marketing doesn’t fail because it was tried.

It fails because it was layered on top of an undefined system.

That’s not a talent issue.

It’s architecture.

What Really Failed When Marketing Didn’t Work You’ve probably said this at least once. “We tried marketing.” “It didn’t really work.” “We spent a lot 

Open article: Why “We Tried Marketing” Is Usually True — and Still Misleading by Krista Mollion • 4 min read

Why “We Tried Marketing” Is Usually True — and Still Misleading

This line has been quietly following me around lately:

“What I’m not changing, I’m choosing.”

For a long time, I thought “not changing” meant being:
patient
thoughtful
responsible
realistic

I blamed timing.
Circumstances.
Life.

I told myself I was waiting for “the right moment.”

Now I see it differently.

Most of the time, not changing is about fear.
About passivity.
About avoiding discomfort.

We stay broke because learning to make money is hard.
We neglect our health because excuses are easier than discipline.
We stay in bad jobs and bad relationships far longer than we should.

Because change is scary.

Humans are wired to avoid risk.
To stay small.
To not place bets.

So we wait.

We tell ourselves we’ll deal with it “later.”
When things are calmer.
When we’re more confident.
When we feel ready.

But later rarely comes.

There were so many things I thought I’d still have time to say to my dad.
Then he died.

So many places I wanted to see.
Then work and kids arrived.
And “maybe later” became never.

What comes instead is repetition.

The same patterns.
The same frustrations.
The same quiet knowing that something is wrong.

A loop.

And slowly, that becomes your life.

Not through one big decision.
Not through one dramatic failure.

Through thousands of small delays.

A quiet choice.
Made daily.

And once you see that…

You can’t unsee it.

Where in your life are you choosing by staying the same?

And when will you decide you’re done waiting?

At $10M+, attribution debates aren’t marketing arguments.

They’re governance leaks.

When leadership fights over “what drove the deal,”
they’re not debating dashboards.

They’re exposing confusion about how growth actually works.

Credit fights don’t start in Salesforce.

They start when:

• Capital allocation logic is fuzzy
• Influence isn’t defined
• Decision rights are politically negotiated

The model explains the click.

It doesn’t explain conviction.

Revenue confidence forms long before the tracked touchpoint.
Before the demo.
Before the opportunity.

If attribution arguments resurface every quarter,
it’s not a reporting issue.

It’s a trust issue.

Incomplete data is survivable.

Incomplete alignment corrodes quietly.

And when capital decisions rely on partial models,
risk doesn’t explode.

It accumulates.

Attribution isn’t a marketing layer.

It’s a board-level question:

What counts as influence —
and who has authority to define it?

Full breakdown here →

What Attribution Can’t Explain About How Deals Actually Get Done You’ve probably been asked this in a meeting: “What actually drove this deal?” You pu

Open article: Why Attribution Keeps Failing (Spoiler: It’s Not a Tools Problem) by Krista Mollion • 4 min read

Why Attribution Keeps Failing (Spoiler: It’s Not a Tools Problem)

Most founders experience marketing as lead generation.

That makes sense — leads are the most visible output.

But when pipeline looks active and decisions still stall, leads aren’t the real problem.

Marketing’s real job is decision acceleration.

If a qualified buyer can’t confidently say yes or no within one sales cycle, something is broken — and it’s rarely Sales.

Here’s where marketing actually earns its keep:

At the founder level
Marketing reduces decision friction.
Clear positioning. Clear tradeoffs. Fewer “we need to think about it” loops.

At the revenue / board level
Marketing makes the risk math explicit.
Risk vs. status quo. Risk vs. delay.
Boards don’t approve stories — they approve defensible decisions.

At the execution level
If uncertainty around price, value, or switching costs isn’t resolved quickly, friction wins.

Awareness doesn’t close deals.
Clarity does.

And the hardest competitor you’re always up against?

The status quo.

If this feels familiar, marketing probably isn’t broken.
It’s just not designed around how buying decisions actually get made.

Marketing only feels expensive when it’s doing the wrong job.

When:

– it can’t clearly explain its impact
– it produces motion without reducing risk
– it optimizes channels before defining direction

That isn’t a talent issue.

It’s a leadership design failure.

When governance is explicit, marketing behaves like capital allocation.

When governance is loose, marketing feels like overhead.

The budget didn’t create the discomfort.

Ambiguity did.

Compounding depends on which system you built.

How cost becomes the symptom of role confusion Marketing starts to feel expensive when every dollar requires explanation — and effort elsewhere doesn’

Open article: Why Marketing Feels Expensive When It’s Doing the Wrong Job by Krista Mollion • 4 min read

Why Marketing Feels Expensive When It’s Doing the Wrong Job

Bad news for many.

Your ideal client is not seeing your LinkedIn posts.

They probably don’t know you exist.

The “post consistently and the algorithm will reward you” advice?

It works.

For employees.

LinkedIn was built for:
• job seekers
• recruiters
• corporate teams
• enterprise sellers

The algorithm clusters by function.

Marketers see marketers.
HR sees HR.
Founders see founders.

So when you post about marketing?

LinkedIn shows it to other marketers.

Great for peer visibility.

Terrible for revenue if your buyers sit outside your function.

You’re building authority in the wrong room.

And celebrating engagement from people who will never buy.

Revenue isn’t driven by volume.

It’s driven by precision.

So be honest:

Are your buyers seeing you —

or just your competitors?

Comment “ALGO” if you want the fix.

Growth at $10M feels very different than growth at $2M.

Earlier stages run on instinct:

• speed
• conviction
• hustle
• rapid iteration

Mid-stage runs on structure:

• defined decision rights
• explicit sequencing
• capital discipline
• constrained focus

Instinct carries you through early expansion.

Structure determines whether growth continues.

 In the early stages of growth, scrappy works.
 
Mid-stage, scrappy becomes dangerous.

The companies that break through define:

• who decides
• what gets funded
• what stops
• what qualifies

Mid-stage rewards sharper decisions, not more activity.

Structure compounds.

Instinct exhausts.

Which system is driving your company right now?

HubSpot isn’t making a mistake.

It’s doing exactly what every successful SaaS company eventually does.

It’s moving upmarket.

Almost every SaaS platform starts the same way.

They welcome small businesses.

Freelancers.
Consultants.
Small teams.

Low-cost tiers make the platform accessible and help it spread quickly.

But as the platform matures, the strategy changes.

Pricing rises.
Partner programs evolve.
Enterprise customers become the focus.

HubSpot is simply the latest example.

The company is sunsetting its low-cost partner tier and replacing it with a paid program starting around $400/month.

For freelancers and small consultancies that built their practices around the platform, that’s a big shift.

But the bigger story here isn’t HubSpot.

It’s the SaaS lifecycle.

Platforms often start with small companies — and gradually move upmarket as they grow.

I wrote a short breakdown of what’s happening and what it means for smaller companies trying to build their revenue systems. 👇

Curious to hear from founders and operators:

Has HubSpot become overkill for smaller companies?

The moment you realize
you have to explain your own account history again
to every new representative…

the system is already broken.

I learned this the hard way during what has become the most disorganized service experience I’ve ever had with a financial provider.

Like many entrepreneurs, I decided last year to upgrade how I handled my bookkeeping and taxes.

I wanted an all-in-one service — bookkeeping, tax advisory, and filing — supported by a modern platform to keep everything organized.

Like many founders, I was simply trying to simplify something that had become too complex to manage alone.

From the outside, everything looked solid.

The company’s website highlights that it serves 35,000+ small business owners, which gave me confidence I was choosing an established provider.

Instead, over the next nine months I was handed off between at least 12 different people.
(I eventually created a list just to keep track.)

Meetings were missed.
Emails went unanswered.
Conversations had to be repeated.

Around that time the company itself was going through a major transition following an acquisition.

That’s when I realized this wasn’t just a communication issue — it was a systems problem.

At some point I realized I had become the project manager of my own tax filing — coordinating teams that were supposed to be coordinating with each other.

The real breaking point came when my taxes were filed three months late.

And then I discovered something worse.

They had been filed in the wrong state.

I primarily live in Europe, which had been clearly discussed multiple times.

When I asked for the return to be amended, a correction was drafted — but no one could clearly explain the next steps or walk through the changes.

Weeks passed.

As of today — March 2026 — my 2024 filing still hasn’t been finalized.

I had also paid for tax advisory services described as helping “maximize tax savings.”
Unfortunately, I never received that part of the service.

As an operator, experiences like this are fascinating because they reveal where systems inside a company are actually breaking down.

In this case, the disconnect appeared to span multiple layers — sales, customer service, bookkeeping, and tax advisory — operating in parallel rather than together.

As a marketer, it’s also a reminder that the brand promise communicated in marketing and sales must ultimately match the experience customers receive.

For clarity, I’ve kept a full record of the calls, emails, and timelines.

I’ve also reached out privately to leadership in hopes this can finally be resolved.

At this point my goal is straightforward:

finish the 2024 filing correctly so I can move forward with 2025.

Has anyone else experienced something like this with a service provider?

For now, I’m hoping this situation can be closed out the right way.

As of today, I’m still waiting.

Wish me luck.

At $10M ARR, pipeline isn’t driven by effort.

It’s driven by capital design.

Marketing at this stage is not creativity.

It’s capital allocation.

If you hire a CMO but:

• Don’t fund demand
• Don’t fund enablement
• Don’t fund analytics
• Don’t fund positioning
• Don’t define revenue ownership

You didn’t build a growth engine.

You installed constraints and called it leadership.

Some CMOs aren’t underperforming.

They’re operating inside undercapitalized systems.

Boards don’t blame engineering for missed velocity when headcount is thin.

But marketing gets graded on pipeline — regardless of what was funded to produce it.

Pipeline isn’t just output.

It’s a funding signal.

When pipeline weakens, the first question shouldn’t be:
“What is marketing doing?”

It should be:
“What did we actually finance?”

Growth follows capital clarity.

Operators — be honest:

Are you evaluating performance?

Or revealing flaws in your capital architecture?

I saw a job posting this week for a VP GTM reporting to the CRO.

The responsibilities?
Positioning. Messaging. Demand generation. Category narrative. Monetization strategy. Conversion and expansion.

That's not a GTM role. That's a CMO.

Here's what's actually happening:

Marketing is being collapsed into sales — repackaged under a "GTM" label so it sounds more revenue-connected.

The job description explicitly distances itself from "Head of Marketing." As if that title is a lesser thing. But then every task listed IS marketing leadership.

The distinction being drawn isn't functional. It's perceptual.

And that perception is doing real damage.


Sales and marketing are not the same function.

→ Sales owns the deal. Marketing owns the market.
→ Sales converts demand. Marketing creates it.
→ Sales closes pipeline. Marketing architects it.
→ Sales wins the customer. Marketing builds the category that makes winning possible.

They have to be tightly aligned. They have to work closely together. But they are distinctly different ownerships with distinctly different skill sets.

When you take every marketing responsibility and hand it to a sales leader, you don't get efficiency. You get a revenue org that can close but can't compound.

No category narrative. No long-term demand architecture. No brand equity. Just activity masquerading as strategy.


If your company needs someone who owns positioning, narrative, demand, and monetization strategy — that's your marketing leader.

Call it CMO. Call it Revenue Architect. Call it Head of Marketing.

But don't bury it under Sales and pretend the function doesn't exist.

Marketing isn't collapsing into sales. But some companies are choosing to pretend it is — and they'll feel the cost of that when growth stalls and nobody can explain why.

What's your read — are we watching marketing get absorbed, or just mislabeled?

When SaaS companies reach about $8M–$20M ARR, a strange pattern appears.

Revenue becomes unpredictable.

The first instinct is to fix what’s closest to the numbers.

More leads.
More outbound.
More sales hires.
More tools.

But those fixes often sit at the bottom of the system.

And that’s where companies waste the most time.

Most revenue problems actually start higher up the stack.

Things like:

• an ICP that was never clearly defined
• positioning that drifted as the company grew
• pricing that no longer reflects where the product sits in the market

When those layers are unclear, everything downstream becomes harder:

Pipeline quality drops.
Sales cycles stretch.
Forecasting becomes unreliable.

Marketing and sales teams end up working harder inside a system that was never fully designed.

That’s what I call Revenue Architecture.

The structure of how a company actually turns demand into predictable revenue.

The framework below is a simple way to visualize it.

Most companies try to fix problems at the bottom.

But the root cause usually sits two or three layers above.

Curious — where do you see companies spending most of their time trying to fix growth?

taplio

The Battle

Denise Murtha Bachmann

Krista Mollion

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreKrista Mollion's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Denise Murtha Bachmann

Krista Mollion

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Krista Mollion's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreKrista Mollion's LinkedIn Performance