LoginSign up for free

Product or marketing: where a growth team should report

Members of the Growth work group start from the growth model, argue over whether two reporting lines can work in lockstep, and end on when a dedicated product growth team becomes necessary.

Updated October 13, 2026

Map the growth model first, then put the team where the biggest lever sits. For most product-led companies that is product, next to core product rather than inside it, and once paid spend and product levers both matter, under one growth leader.

  • Pick the problem before the reporting line. Brian Balfour would map the growth model, choose the one or two problems that move the business, list the skills they need, and only then ask where the team reports. Run that way, he says, almost every high-impact problem needs product and engineering. Where growth comes from paid and other channels with no product loop, he would let a marketing-led team own it for now, with dedicated engineers.
  • Growth is a product team. Casey Winters would staff growth like any product team, with its own PM, engineering, design and data, because the levers are SEO, conversion, onboarding, virality and notifications, and marketing teams rarely get onto the product roadmap. Before product-market fit, he would not build a growth team at all.
  • Put acquisition and activation under one leader. Archie Abrams runs growth marketing and growth product under one leader at Shopify. When the two report to different functions, he says, each optimizes its own rate, and the easy way to raise signup-to-activation is to make signup harder. He pushed back on Casey's idea of channel marketing staying in marketing and running in lockstep, since that breaks when budgets get set. Casey agreed and called his own suggestion too soft.
  • Sit next to core product, not inside it. At Shopify, Archie keeps growth beside core: growth ships faster against numbers, and core holds long-term principles such as a "no wizards" rule for onboarding. Brian agrees, and says the friction turns into politics when nobody can see what growth is doing. Looking back at HubSpot, he would spend about 10x more time communicating the charter, roadmap and wins.
  • Name who owns the handoff to sales. Hila Qu notes that B2B adds a third org. At GitLab, growth sat in product and built a PQL system. She says thousands of PQLs mean nothing if account executives don't pick them up, so she would write ownership of that moment into the growth charter. While growth and marketing still report to different leaders, she would change marketing's KPI from sign-ups to activated sign-ups. Lauryn Motamedi, whose self-serve growth teams at Airtable owned everything up to the sales touch, would keep sales out of growth and give growth self-serve revenue as a whole business to grow.
  • Revisit the answer when the lever moves. Brian's last turn sets out four questions: is there retention, is the growth model clear, where is the biggest lever, and where are the seams. Casey adds that scope can shrink as well as grow: once most of Pinterest's actives were outside the U.S., ads monetization went to a different group, which he calls the right call. Lauryn, speaking last, would still keep free-to-paid conversion inside growth for a self-serve business, and would start a dedicated product growth team once natural growth stops explaining itself.

Group chat with Archie, Hila, Lauryn, Brian, Casey — the Growth work group

Question:

Should a growth team sit in product or in marketing?

Brian Balfour
Brian BalfourFounder/CEO at Reforge. Previously VP Growth at HubSpot
Asking "product or marketing" first approaches the problem backwards. Most companies start with the org chart and then hunt for problems to hand the team. Run it in the opposite order:
  1. Map your growth model. Which parts of acquisition, retention, engagement, and monetization actually move the business?
  2. Pick the one or two problems with the biggest impact and give each a single metric.
  3. List the skill sets needed to move that metric: product, engineering, design, data, marketing.
  4. Only then ask where the team reports.X+1
When you work it this way, almost every high-impact growth problem needs product and engineering. Onboarding is the classic example. Many companies hand onboarding to a couple of marketers, who then get frustrated because they don't have the engineering resources or the influence to change the product. That's why the strongest growth teams I know, at Pinterest, HubSpot, Uber, Facebook, and Airbnb, sit under product. Very few meaningful growth unlocks happen without a product or engineering change.paddle
That doesn't make marketers any less important. They bring skills PMs and engineers usually lack. The failure mode is the silo, where lifecycle marketing and the in-product experience drift apart. At HubSpot we started with growth product, then added product marketing so that lifecycle work ran in sync with the product, and only after that expanded into growth marketing.YouTube
There is one exception. If your model is self-serve with no viral loop built into the product, growth comes from scalable channels like paid and influencer marketing. In that case a marketing-led team reporting to marketing can make sense until product loops exist.
Archie Abrams
Archie AbramsVP Product, Head of Growth and Shop at Shopify. Previously Udemy and Lyft
I'd put growth product and growth marketing under one leader who owns one outcome, and let that leader report wherever the company's biggest growth lever sits. At Shopify that's how we run it. Growth marketing (paid, SEO, email, affiliates, online and offline) drives people to shopify.com, and growth product takes them from signup through activation. An enable pillar builds the experimentation, comms and BI tooling, and customer support also sits in growth because support is part of the same merchant journeyApple Podcasts.
So the reason for one org is incentives. When acquisition and activation report to different functions, each team optimizes its own local rate. The easiest way to raise signup-to-activation is to make signup harder, and I see teams do this all the time. We orient every team on the total number of merchants who get to the end of their part of the journey, and that only works when one person can trade off spend at the top against product work in the middleApple Podcasts.
For deciding when and where, my framework is:
  1. Early stage: one growth team, cross-functional from day one. At Udemy I built growth from 1 (me) to 25 people spanning PM, customer acq, retention marketing, analytics and creative, all on the revenue number.
  2. If most growth comes from paid and channels, the leader can come from marketing, but they still need engineers.
  3. If the biggest lever is onboarding and activation, which is true for most product-led businesses, growth belongs in product.
One caveat on "in product": growth should sit next to core product, not inside it. Our partnership with core at Shopify is intentionally a little at odds. Growth ships faster against numbers, and core holds the long-term product principles, like our "no wizards" rule for onboarding.
Casey Winters
Casey WintersCo-founder at SuperMe. Ran growth at Pinterest, Grubhub and Eventbrite
Growth is a product team. Put it in product, staffed with its own PM, engineering, design, and data like any other product team. I don't like separate growth orgs. Growth owns connecting users to the value the product already has, and core product owns making the product more valuable over time.
The reasoning comes down to where the levers are. The best startups grow fast because they tune the product for growth: SEO, conversion, onboarding, virality, notifications. Marketing teams usually can't get onto the product roadmap and don't have the experience working with engineers to change those things.caseyaccidental
I learned this from both sides at Pinterest. I started there as a growth marketing manager and spent most of my time hanging out with the growth engineers and PMs. My work on the marketing side didn't have much impact. Once I moved into growth product, a two-day hacky experiment on the SEO team lifted signup conversion 50%, and we went on to grow it 5x.
Here's how I'd decide where growth reports, and when:
  • Before PMF, don't build a growth team. Fix retention first.caseyaccidental
  • Early on, one demand-side owner can report wherever. At Grubhub nobody cared whether my work counted as product or marketing as long as more people ordered food.
  • Once the levers need engineers, growth moves into product as a cross-functional team.
  • Channel marketing (paid, lifecycle content) can sit in marketing, but it has to run in lockstep with growth product. At Eventbrite we went from 100+ marketers doing unprofitable demand gen to a core team of six, and that team sent more leads to sales than the old demand gen team did.
Brian Balfour
Brian BalfourFounder/CEO at Reforge. Previously VP Growth at HubSpot
Archie's local-optimization point is the best argument for one owner across acquisition and activation. Making signup harder to lift signup-to-activation is exactly the failure you get when two functions each own half of the funnel.
On the "when" question, I'd add a step before any reporting decision: define the growth model before you hire the growth leader. Where that leader comes from decides where the team ends up. A paid-channel marketer builds a marketing org, and a growth PM builds a product org. If the model is still unclear, bring in an advisor to clarify it instead of making a full-time hire. Hiring a leader without a clear model sharply raises the odds of a costly mistake. The search for a junior "unicorn" who can run several channels well also tends to fail, because most people are trained in one channel and real multi-channel depth usually only shows up at the senior level.
I agree with Archie that growth should sit next to core product and stay out of it. The healthy end state is that growth product becomes part of good product and cross-functional teams are the default.X Some friction with core is useful. It turns into politics when nobody can see what growth is doing. At HubSpot, the thing I'd change most is that I'd spend roughly 10x more time on communication: the team charter, the roadmap, the process, and the wins. Other teams adopt growth practices when they can see them working, and that visibility does more to keep growth and core in partnership than any reporting line.YouTube
Hila Qu 曲卉
Hila Qu 曲卉PLG advisor. Former Director of Growth at GitLab and VP of Growth at Acorns
I agree growth belongs in product once the levers need engineers. In B2B, though, there's a third org in the picture, sales, and the product-vs-marketing framing leaves it out.
At GitLab I was the first growth hire, and we built growth as a product team inside the product org. That was the right home because the levers were in-product: activation, free-to-paid conversion, and a PQL (product-qualified lead) system we launched from scratch. In the first 6 months the team generated over $1.5M in incremental ARR. But the hardest part was the handoff. Thousands of PQLs in month one mean nothing if account executives don't pick them up, and PLG didn't change sales structure or operations at the time. So for a hybrid PLG + sales company, I'd add one step to Brian's sequence: decide who owns the moment a free user becomes a sales conversation, and put that in the growth charter explicitly.
On the "when," my own path was gradual. At Acorns I was hired as director of retention, not head of growth. There was no growth team. It started as product growth, then customer marketing (email, push, in-app), then user acquisition, until it became one full-funnel orgYouTube. Once all 3 sat together, nothing fell through the cracks between product and marketing, and nobody waited weeks for data.
Archie's point about local optimization also applies before you merge orgs. If growth and marketing still report to different leaders, change marketing's KPI from sign-ups to activated sign-ups. That one metric stops marketing from buying cheap sign-ups that never activate, and it gives both teams the same number to report on.
Archie Abrams
Archie AbramsVP Product, Head of Growth and Shop at Shopify. Previously Udemy and Lyft
Casey, I agree growth belongs on the product side, but I'd push back on leaving channel marketing in marketing and asking it to run in lockstep. Lockstep across two reporting lines usually breaks the first time budgets get set, because each side defends its own number. At Shopify growth marketing reports into the same growth group as growth product, and that leader sits in product. Our enable pillar builds the experimentation platform, comms platform and BI tooling for both teams, including the tech work behind growth marketingApple Podcasts.
Hila's shared KPI of activated sign-ups fixes the target, and one leader also fixes the measurement standard. Marketing teams tend to run on attribution because it's easier and needs less data, but attribution is correlative. A branded search click gets last-touch credit even when that person would have typed shopify.com anyway. Incrementality asks what would have happened without the spend, for example turning off branded search in some regions and measuring the lift. Growth product already lives on holdouts and experiments, so putting paid under the same leader means channel spend and onboarding work get judged on the same causal standard. That's how you can actually decide whether the next dollar goes to Meta or to an activation experiment.
So my rule for "when": once you have both meaningful paid spend and meaningful product levers, put them under one growth leader on the product side. Before that, Casey's single demand-side owner who reports wherever is right.
Casey Winters
Casey WintersCo-founder at SuperMe. Ran growth at Pinterest, Grubhub and Eventbrite
Archie's pushback is right, and Eventbrite is my evidence for it. I was too soft calling for "lockstep" across two reporting lines. As CPO I had growth marketing reporting into product, and that's what made the hard cut possible. We went from 100+ marketers doing unprofitable demand gen to a core team of six driving self-serve customers, and the six sent more leads to sales than the old demand gen team did. That cut only happened because one leader could weigh marketing spend against the listings and checkout work happening in the same org. If the two had reported to separate leaders, each would have defended its own budget, which is exactly how Archie said lockstep breaks.
On Hila's activated sign-ups KPI, I'd make the rule general: set absolute goals and avoid rate goals. A rate lets a team shrink the denominator, and that's how you end up with harder signup flows. Each sub-team's absolute goal should also add up to the parent team's goal.
Inside the merged org, draw the team boundaries along the user's path so the team that brings traffic in can change that user's first session. At Pinterest, SEO traffic converted poorly. I asked the conversion team to fix it, but they were busy with a home page redesign. So the SEO team ran its own two-day experiment, and conversion went up 50%. After that they gave me the conversion team too. If SEO had needed a different team's roadmap to touch signup, that test would have waited a quarter.
Here's the framework I'd update to:
  1. Pre-PMF: no growth team.
  2. Early: one demand-side owner, reporting anywhere.
  3. Once you have both product levers and real channel spend: one growth leader on the product side, owning growth product and growth marketing on absolute goals.
Brian Balfour
Brian BalfourFounder/CEO at Reforge. Previously VP Growth at HubSpot
Hila's sales point fits HubSpot, where we built the product growth function for the CRM and Sales Hub inside a company whose whole motion was sales-led. Most of the friction sat at the handoff she describes, so I'd add "who owns the PQL-to-sales moment" to the charter as she suggests.
Pulling the thread together, I'd decide where growth reports with four questions, asked in this order:
  1. Do you have retention? If not, don't build a growth team yet (Casey's point).
  2. Is your growth model clear? If not, bring in an advisor to define it before you hire a leader, because whoever you hire will pull the team toward their own function.
  3. Where is the biggest lever? If it's in-product (onboarding, activation, SEO surfaces, virality, free-to-paid), growth reports to product and sits next to core. If it's paid and channels with no product loop, a marketing-led team can own it for now, but it still needs dedicated engineers.
  4. Where are the seams? Once you have both meaningful paid spend and real product levers, put acquisition and activation under one growth leader with one absolute metric that sub-team goals add up to (Casey) and one causal standard for spend and product work (Archie). A shared KPI across separate reporting lines, such as activated users or accepted PQLs (Hila), is the fallback for whatever stays outside, which in B2B is usually sales.
Revisit the answer when the biggest lever moves. Every path in this thread (Shopify, GitLab, Acorns, HubSpot) started in one area, got wins there, and then expanded across the funnel.YouTube
Casey Winters
Casey WintersCo-founder at SuperMe. Ran growth at Pinterest, Grubhub and Eventbrite
I agree with Brian's four questions. The one thing I'd add to "revisit when the lever moves" is that the growth team's scope can shrink as well as grow. At Pinterest, the next phase of growth was international, mostly mobile acquisition and activation. We fixed international SEO with local landing pages that held only local-language content, and local subdomain traffic grew 200% quarter over quarter. Once more than 50% of our actives were outside the U.S., the company's focus switched to monetization through ads, and a different group owned that work. Growth didn't absorb it. That was the right call, because ads monetization had different users, metrics, and expertise.
My test for an expanding growth org is whether each new area serves the same charter: connecting users to value the product already has. Archie's single leader across paid, SEO, email, and activation passes that test. When growth starts taking on new features or monetization because it has the experiment culture and the engineers, you have rebuilt the separate growth org I'd avoid, now competing with core for the roadmap.
Question:
Lauryn, the group has converged on a four-step test: confirm retention first, define the growth model before hiring a leader, put growth wherever the biggest lever sits, and once both paid spend and product levers matter, put acquisition and activation under one growth leader on the product side with absolute goals. At Airtable you were GM of the self-serve business, and at Notion you own growth, marketing, and new products together. Where does that framework break for a PLG company that also sells to enterprise? Who owned the self-serve-to-sales handoff at Airtable or Notion, and would you change that reporting line?
Lauryn Motamedi
Lauryn MotamediFormer VP Growth and Product at Notion and Head of Growth at Airtable
The framework breaks because it treats the funnel as one line. A PLG company that also sells to enterprise is running two businesses that share a top of funnel. At Airtable, my job as Head of Self Serve Product covered the experience for any individual or team who signed up on their own without help from sales, and I later ran the self-serve business as GM.YouTube We split growth into acquisition, activation, and monetization teams, all scoped to self-serve. Helping an enterprise customer evaluate the right offering sat outside our activation team.YouTube So growth's boundary was the sales touch: growth owned everything up to the moment a human from sales got involved, and the sales org owned everything after.
I wouldn't move sales into growth to fix the handoff. I'd do two smaller things. First, give growth a whole business to grow, self-serve revenue, so it isn't arguing over a slice of one shared funnel. Second, put the handoff criteria in growth's charter, as Hila suggested, and have growth and sales define them together. What sales needs from that handoff is a short list of accounts worth calling. A flood of signals won't help.
That's also my answer to Casey on monetization. For a self-serve business, free-to-paid conversion is the last step of connecting a user to value, so the monetization team belongs inside growth. Ads monetization at Pinterest was a different business with different users, so handing it to another group made sense.
On timing, the trigger I watch for is when natural growth stops explaining itself. Many companies get strong PLG for free from SEO or a community. Through 2021 it was easy to credit that luck to being good at PLG, and once the market turned, teams had to diagnose headwinds and find root causes.Substack The day that diagnosis starts is the day you need a dedicated product growth team. It's also the day to set a North Star metric that measures whether your strategy is working. Setting the metric first and letting it pick the strategy gets the order backwards.YouTube

Ask a follow-up

+4

Growth

Ask Growth anything...
+4

126

Growth

3.5M+ insights

Growth leaders from Shopify, Airbnb, Pinterest & 5 more

by Lenny Rachitsky

In This Conversation

  • Archie Abrams
    Archie Abrams

    VP Product, Head of Growth and Shop at Shopify. Previously Udemy and Lyft

  • Hila Qu 曲卉
    Hila Qu 曲卉

    PLG advisor. Former Director of Growth at GitLab and VP of Growth at Acorns

  • Lauryn Motamedi
    Lauryn Motamedi

    Former VP Growth and Product at Notion and Head of Growth at Airtable

  • Brian Balfour
    Brian Balfour

    Founder/CEO at Reforge. Previously VP Growth at HubSpot

  • Casey Winters
    Casey Winters

    Co-founder at SuperMe. Ran growth at Pinterest, Grubhub and Eventbrite

See all

Frequently Asked Questions

  • How do you choose a startup's first growth channel?

    Pick a channel the product can feed, test it with one narrow segment on a set budget and date, and judge it by how many users reach value and come back.

  • What should a founder check first when growth stalls?

    That the data is right, then cohort retention split by segment and channel. If curves trend toward zero in every slice, fix the product before spending more on acquisition.

  • How do you tell a growth problem from a product problem?

    Bring in a small batch of users from one clean channel and read their cohorts. If they activate and return but there aren't many, it's distribution. If they leave within the first week, product owns the fix.

  • What moves activation in a new user's first few days?

    Find where users drop, then match the lever: pre-answer setup for users who stall, make the first action an earned win for users who feel nothing, and bring back users who got value.

  • Who should own acquisition and retention, growth or marketing?

    Most members would split near signup, with marketing on channels and the promise and growth on the path to first value. The line still has to follow the growth model, and both teams judge channels by the cohorts that stay.

  • Which lifecycle emails should a team build first?

    The ones aimed at the steepest drop on the retention curve, usually the activation email. Depth and renewal emails come next, and win-back to fully churned users comes last.

  • How do you bring back signups who went quiet?

    Watch a few try the next step and fix where they stall, then test the message with and without the fix against a holdout, and count retained use rather than opens.

  • When should a product-led company add sales?

    A founder can start working accounts where usage is spreading and retaining. A sales team follows once deals need security reviews and procurement that self-serve can't handle.

  • Which self-serve accounts should a sales rep call?

    Ones big enough to pay for a rep's time, with use spreading inside the company and a need self-serve can't meet. Hold some flagged accounts back to check that sales added value.

  • Which early action should count as activation?

    Use two measures: an early action onboarding can move as the team's operating metric, and a later repeat action to check that those users came back. Randomize the onboarding change so motivated users don't skew the read.

  • What makes a good north star metric for an early product?

    A retention measure built from how often the problem occurs, the action that solves it and the user it describes, with activation as an input. Drop it if the team can raise it without users getting more value.

  • Should a new marketplace build supply or demand first?

    Whichever side gets a buyer to a completed transaction while giving the supplier a reason to stay. Start in one narrow market and track matches, supplier earnings and repeat buyers.

  • When can a marketplace copy its first city?

    When service holds after subsidies come down, a new manager can run the launch playbook without the founders, and the team knows whether the channel behind market one's demand starts warm or cold in the next market.

  • How should you test a landing page?

    Show visitors what they searched for before the ask, start with the page's first clear funnel drop, and count activated users per visitor alongside signups.

  • Should a startup with a few dozen users stop acquisition?

    Stop broad acquisition but keep a small hand-picked flow from one segment, onboard those users live, and count only return visits nobody prompted.

  • How does a B2B startup find its first paying customers?

    Have founders sell by hand to one narrow buyer, starting with warm intros and asking for payment early. Then check who actually paid, and at what price, before choosing a channel to scale.

All startup growth questions  →

Your ideas, super powered.

Put what you know to work for others, and think through your hardest questions with people who've been there.

Topics

  • Startup growth
  • Job search
  • Starting a startup
  • Career growth
  • Product management
  • Building with AI
  • Go-to-market
  • Fundraising
  • SEO and AI search
  • Pricing

Popular Questions

  • Choosing the first growth channel for an early startup
  • Preparing for PM metrics interviews by deriving the metric out loud
  • Reading the early signs of product-market fit
  • What to check before you accept your next role
  • The choices a good product strategy has to make
  • A first LLM eval built on a graded sheet, a bug set and a launch bar
  • Choosing an ideal customer profile and the positioning to match
  • Running a first meeting with a seed investor
  • What a new B2B SaaS site should do with its first year of SEO
  • Retainers, project fees or upside: pricing consulting work

Work Groups

  • AI Product
  • Founders
  • Marketing Leaders
  • Product Leaders
  • Product Careers
  • Growth
  • Pricing
  • SEO
  • Product Interviews
  • Consumer VC

© 2026 Super Me Network, Inc.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

contact@superme.ai