# The CPO Coalition Map **A stakeholder grid for the five-seat coalition you need before the seven-decision sequence can move.** By Falk Gottlob — falkster.com --- ## How to use this template The cannibalization, dual transformation, or pricing migration decisions don't move themselves. They move because a coalition of five executive seats agrees to move them. Fill in this map for each of the five seats. The column headers are the same; the answers are different per person and per company. Time required: 60 minutes once you've gathered the names. Most of the work is honest assessment of where each person actually stands. --- ## The five seats | Seat | Name | Reports to | Tenure | |---|---|---|---| | CEO | | | | | CFO | | | | | CRO | | | | | CCO / VP Customer | | | | | CPO (you) | | | | --- ## The map (per seat) For each seat, fill in the four columns. ### CEO - **What they know about the proposal:** _What you've shared so far._ - **Where they currently stand:** Supportive / Neutral / Skeptical - **Their reason to fight:** _e.g., feels like CPO empire-building, worried about board reaction._ - **The argument that wins them:** _e.g., walk in with seven decisions structured, make the option-value argument, ask "do you want me to lead this or escalate to the board?"_ - **Conversation cadence:** _Weekly 1:1 / quarterly business review / ad-hoc?_ - **Decision deadline:** _When does the CEO need to commit?_ ### CFO - **What they know about the proposal:** _What you've shared so far._ - **Where they currently stand:** Supportive / Neutral / Skeptical - **Their reason to fight:** _e.g., revenue becomes variable, gross margin trough hits the financials, board reporting becomes harder._ - **The argument that wins them:** _e.g., model both scenarios in unit economics terms, propose hybrid pricing with committed minimums, co-author the board narrative._ - **Conversation cadence:** _3 sessions in 6 weeks for first commitment._ - **Decision deadline:** _Before any external move._ ### CRO - **What they know about the proposal:** _What you've shared so far._ - **Where they currently stand:** Supportive / Neutral / Skeptical - **Their reason to fight:** _Comp plans are tied to legacy. Renewal economics are familiar. Sales team would have to retrain._ - **The argument that wins them:** _Outcome pricing typically 1.5x-3x SaaS price for the same customer. Their quota math gets better, not worse. Comp plan rewrite makes them the hero of the new motion._ - **Conversation cadence:** _2 sessions plus comp plan rewrite._ - **Decision deadline:** _Comp plan published in Q2 of the migration._ ### CCO / VP Customer Success - **What they know about the proposal:** _What you've shared so far._ - **Where they currently stand:** Supportive / Neutral / Skeptical - **Their reason to fight:** _CS metrics tied to seat-based usage. Team isn't trained on dispute mechanics or outcome SLAs._ - **The argument that wins them:** _CS becomes strategic again. Owns outcome SLAs, dispute resolution, customer migration. Senior CS leaders get a real budget._ - **Conversation cadence:** _Weekly during transition._ - **Decision deadline:** _CS retraining begins in Q2._ ### CPO (you) - **What you know about the proposal:** _All of it._ - **Where you currently stand:** Honest answer. The CPOs who lose this are the ones who haven't honestly asked themselves whether they're willing to cannibalize the product they built. - **Your reason to fight yourself:** _Loyalty to the product. Fear of being seen as failing at what you launched. Worry about the team morale of the legacy product team._ - **The argument that wins you:** _The legacy was the right answer for its time. The successor is the right answer for the next time. Both can be true. Loyalty to a product is not a virtue when the world has changed._ - **The check:** _Have you committed to the sunset date in writing somewhere your CFO can see it?_ --- ## The 90-day coalition assembly plan Once the map is honest, execute it. ### Days 1-30 - Three CFO sessions for first commitment. - One CEO 1:1 to flag the work and get tacit support. - Initial CRO conversation. Frame, not commitment. ### Days 31-60 - Comp plan draft with CRO. Walk through legacy at 50%, successor at 150%. - Board pre-read (just the option-value memo, not the full plan). - CCO conversation about the new CS shape. ### Days 61-90 - Comp plan published. - 30-minute board slot in quarterly review. - Lead customer pilot signed. By day 90 the coalition has committed. The seven-decision sequence is what runs from there. --- ## Common political failures Five patterns I've seen kill a coalition before it forms. 1. **The CPO skips the CFO conversation.** Result: the CFO finds out via the board pre-read. Trust evaporates. The transition stalls. Solution: CFO is the first conversation, always. 2. **The CRO co-opts the comp rewrite to keep the legacy comp high.** Result: salespeople keep selling legacy at velocity. Successor revenue stalls. Solution: the CEO has to hold the line on the comp asymmetry, not just the CPO. 3. **The CEO is "supportive" but never commits to backing the trough publicly.** Result: when the gross margin compresses, the CEO distances themselves and the CPO eats the political cost alone. Solution: get the CEO's commitment to the trough in writing (a memo, an email, an internal post). 4. **The CCO is treated as out-of-scope.** Result: when migration intensifies in Q3, CS is overwhelmed and starts pushing back operationally. Solution: CCO is in the coalition from day one, not added in Q2. 5. **The CPO fights themselves quietly without resolving it.** Result: the transition gets re-litigated internally every quarter. Solution: write your own commitment to yourself. The check question above is real. If you can't answer "yes, the date is in writing," you haven't committed. --- *This map pairs with [The Cannibalization Playbook](https://falkster.com/blog/cannibalization-playbook) and [The Cannibalization Decision Framework](https://falkster.com/handbook/cannibalization-decision-framework). Free to use, modify, and share.*