The CPO Coalition Map
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.
The template
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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 and The Cannibalization Decision Framework. Free to use, modify, and share.