Customer Success has been around for years, and I am still surprised by how many companies struggle to get it right. They hire a customer success manager (CSM), assign a retention target and expect results, while account ownership, incentives and the unwritten rules about who can speak to whom remain unchanged. Before long, the CSM spends more time managing internal relationships than customer ones. I am talking here about enterprise software and platforms requiring meaningful deployment and adoption. Simpler, self-service products may need a different approach.
Build a business case, not just a department
Before recruiting, understand why customers leave, what prevents them from getting value and where the existing team needs help. Industry benchmarks can inform the budget, but the investment should reflect product complexity, customer needs and the responsibilities assigned to Support, Customer Success and technical account management. Putting everything under “post-sales” does not make the work interchangeable.
The numbers also need explaining. Gross revenue retention (GRR) measures recurring revenue retained after cancellations and downgrades, excluding expansion. Net revenue retention (NRR) also includes expansion and price increases. Neither includes new customers. Take a fictional business with £10 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR): 88% GRR leaves £8.8 million, and £1 million in expansion and price uplifts brings NRR to 98%. An illustrative target of 95% GRR, plus £1.5 million in expansion and uplifts, produces 110% NRR and £11 million from the original customer base. That is £1.2 million more year-end ARR, before considering delivery costs and margins. These are example targets, not universal industry standards, and achieving them requires considerably more than giving one CSM a spreadsheet.
"The math here is worth sitting with — a well-designed Customer Success motion is not a cost center, it is a seven-figure lever on ARR. Too many leadership teams treat it as an afterthought until the retention numbers force the conversation."
More coverage needs a clearer purpose
In a smaller vendor, Sales and presales may already be very involved with a limited customer base. In a larger one, leadership often puts CSMs on the biggest accounts, understandably hoping to protect them. Both approaches can work, but neither explains what the new person will contribute or which responsibilities will change. Soon, people are discussing who contacted the CISO, who should have reviewed an email and whether another customer meeting was necessary. I have seen these discussions take up a remarkable amount of time.
"Territorial disputes over who owns the customer relationship are one of the most common — and most avoidable — organizational failures we hear about from operators. This piece names the pattern precisely."
Salespeople have legitimate reasons to protect relationships they have worked hard to build. CS can also create problems through poor preparation, unrealistic promises or insufficient experience. However, knowing the main contact well does not mean every department, adoption barrier or business objective is covered. A capable CSM develops that wider understanding, provided leadership has made room for the work and hired someone equipped to do it.
Give both roles the recognition they deserve
A technical account manager (TAM) brings expertise that helps customers anticipate technical obstacles, improve operational practices and make informed architectural decisions. They need time for proactive work and the credibility to advise customer technical teams. Treating them as someone to call whenever something breaks wastes a considerable part of that expertise.
The CSM brings an equally important capability: understanding the customer’s objectives, agreeing success measures, coordinating adoption, developing stakeholder relationships and helping demonstrate business value. Conversations with a CIO or CISO about future priorities and the partnership belong here, alongside work with the people using the platform. A technically healthy deployment can still lose executive support if nobody can explain its value. Equally, the best success plan will struggle when technical problems remain unresolved. CSMs need enough technical understanding to connect these conversations, and TAMs need the business context behind their recommendations. Both should be working from the same customer priorities. Neither role should be treated as junior to the other, and both need appropriate investment, seniority and support.
"Treating TAMs as a technical help desk is a mistake we see constantly. This is one of the clearest arguments we have published for why technical and commercial expertise need equal seniority, not a hierarchy."
Start with the gap you actually need to close
For a complex platform where deployment or operational problems are the immediate obstacle, I may recommend starting with TAM capability. That should come with a clear view of when CSM capability is needed, rather than becoming an excuse to postpone it indefinitely. Where the immediate problem is weak sponsorship, unclear outcomes or poor organisational adoption, I would prioritise a CSM. Where both needs are substantial, there is a good case for investing in both from the beginning.
I often favour piloting CS in commercial portfolios where salespeople have too many accounts to give everyone sufficient attention. In one role, a salesperson and I effectively divided the portfolio between us, and the arrangement worked because we both needed it to. This does not confine CSMs to smaller accounts. Strategic enterprise customers can be an excellent starting point when responsibilities are agreed. Coverage should reflect complexity and economics, with pooled expertise where dedicated resources are not justified.
Leadership needs to settle the practical questions
Before approving job descriptions, Sales, CS and technical leaders should agree who leads commercial negotiations, customer outcomes, technical delivery, renewals and expansion. Give CSMs coordinated access to relevant stakeholders, including executives, and give TAMs a proactive remit. Use one account plan, clarify opportunity credit and establish how disagreements will be resolved. Leaving every account team to negotiate these arrangements independently is asking for inconsistent results.
Measure technical progress, adoption and customer-confirmed value, then assess retention over an appropriate renewal cycle alongside cost to serve. The aim is better customer coverage, earlier intervention and more capacity for Sales to pursue opportunities, with CSMs and TAMs properly supported in their work. Recently, I saw versions of these same organisational problems in three companies in a single week. Most people I speak to agree with the principles. I would just like to see these conversations happen before the new CSM or TAM arrives, rather than six months later when everyone is frustrated.
"These conversations should happen before the hire, not six months into the frustration. It is a small sequencing change with an outsized payoff."