A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First | HackerNoon
🔗 **Source:** [A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First | HackerNoon](https://hackernoon.com/a-devrel-led-funnel-that-puts-developers-first)
> [!note]+ Document Notes
> tags: [devrel, developer-marketing, marketing-funnel, product-marketing, demand-generation]
> author: Leon Adato
> source: HackerNoon
> reference: https://hackernoon.com/a-devrel-led-funnel-that-puts-developers-first
> date created: 2026-08-13
>
> > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written
> > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author.
> > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author.
>
> # 🏷️ Title: A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First
>
<!-- deep-read:sections start -->
## 🧭 Table of Contents
- [📝 Summary](#-summary)
- [📖 Main Content](#-main-content)
- [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes)
- [📚 References](#-references)
- [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase)
- [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter)
- [✅ Action Items](#-action-items)
- [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses)
- [📊 Methodology](#-methodology)
- [❓ Questions](#-questions)
- [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research)
- [💡 Implications](#-implications)
- [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment)
- [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment)
- [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment)
- [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity)
- [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis)
- [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion)
### 🔗 References
- [How To DevRel series (Adato Systems)](https://www.adatosystems.com/category/how-to-devrel/)
- [The Texas Sharpshooter technique (Adato Systems, 2025-03-24)](https://adatosystems.com/2025/03/24/how-to-devrel-the-texas-sharpshooter/)
## 📝 Summary
- What happened: Leon Adato, drawing on 11 years in DevRel, proposes a four-stage "conversational funnel" — DevRel at the top (vendor-agnostic problem storytelling), Product Marketing next (same story, now vendor-specific), Demand Gen third (follow-up "gifts of knowledge" that let the audience self-select), and Sales last (a contextual, low-friction close).
- Why it matters: It resolves the perennial "where does DevRel report?" debate by declaring org placement mostly irrelevant — what matters is how conversational moments hand off between functions so the audience experiences one coherent thread instead of four disconnected pitches.
- Key stakeholders: DevRel advocates, product marketing managers, demand generation teams, sales, and — centrally — the developer/practitioner audience whose trust the whole sequence depends on.
- Risks and tradeoffs: The model assumes readers actually follow the content chain in order; attribution across the stages is hard to instrument; DevRel's credibility is spent the moment the top-of-funnel content reads as disguised sales collateral. Adato himself flags that it's not foolproof.
- Bottom line: Sequence the sales motion so that each stage earns the next one's permission — vendor specificity, outreach, and the sales call each become the reader's own logical next step rather than an interruption.
## 📖 Main Content
- The article opens with the org-chart question — DevRel gets slotted under Sales, Demand Gen, PMM, or Marketing depending on company and season — and dismisses it: placement matters far less than how each function's conversation with the audience connects to the others.
- Stage 1, DevRel (top of funnel): the broadest, most varied, and most vendor-agnostic conversation. The advocate tells a true-to-life practitioner story so recognizable it provokes a visceral "that was ME last week" reaction. The advocate may leave the problem unsolved (the "Texas Sharpshooter" technique from an earlier post in the series) or show a solution in vendor-neutral terms — the employer's tool can appear in screenshots, but the writing addresses problem, solution, and technique without pitching the tool.
- Stage 2, PMM: Adato frames PMMs as close relatives of advocates, expecting equal technical acumen and persona fluency. The PMM should retell the same story with one tweak — explicitly picking up the advocate's post and showing how to solve the problem in the company's product. The reader's click is treated as consent: by choosing to read the follow-up, the reader has bought into a vendor-specific conversation, so specificity is now earned rather than intrusive.
- Stage 3, Demand Gen: beyond promoting the earlier content, Demand Gen tracks engaged readers and reaches out with another "gift of knowledge" — a whitepaper, related post, ebook, or webinar — not a pitch. This simultaneously broadens the conversation and narrows the funnel, letting the audience self-select between one-off curiosity and needs a company would pay to fix.
- Stage 4, Sales: as the final step of an already-consented sequence, the call or email arrives with context. The prospect's problems and the company's relevance are known quantities validated upstream, so far less time is wasted on discovery, and the interaction feels like the agreed next step.
- Uncertainties and contested claims: the model is presented from experience, not data — no conversion metrics, cohort comparisons, or counterexamples are offered. The "click as consent" premise is asserted, not tested, and the framework presumes an unusually tight content-handoff discipline between four teams that often have conflicting KPIs.
## 🗒️ Notes
- Opening disclaimer sets the epistemic register: 11 years of experience and observation, explicitly not universal truth (the author jokes he doesn't have "all the Pokemon").
- The funnel is described as *conversational*, not organizational — the unit of analysis is the thread of conversations with customers, prospects, and users, not reporting lines.
- Top-of-funnel goal is a specific emotional response: the reader recognizes their own last week in the story. Credibility is the KPI, even if unmeasured.
- Two DevRel content modes: (1) problem-only, solution withheld (Texas Sharpshooter); (2) solution shown but framed vendor-agnostically — the "my toolbox has to have SOMETHING in it" latitude allows employer screenshots without a pitch.
- The PMM stage contains a model script — a follow-up post that names the advocate's piece, credits its points, and pivots to solving the same issue in the company's own software. The mechanism is explicit continuity: naming and linking the upstream post.
- "Earned the privilege to be vendor-specific" is the article's core permission mechanic: each stage's engagement licenses the next stage's escalation.
- Demand Gen's dual motion — broaden the conversation, narrow the funnel — reframes lead qualification as audience self-selection rather than scoring.
- Sales is "less intrusive and a lot more natural" precisely because everything upstream removed the need for cold discovery; context is a "known quantity."
- Closing framing: not the One True Sales Funnel, just another tool in the tool belt — conditional on believing in an authentic, human, problem-forward voice.
## 📚 References
- [A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First — HackerNoon](https://hackernoon.com/a-devrel-led-funnel-that-puts-developers-first)
- [How To DevRel series — Adato Systems](https://www.adatosystems.com/category/how-to-devrel/)
- [The Texas Sharpshooter — Adato Systems](https://adatosystems.com/2025/03/24/how-to-devrel-the-texas-sharpshooter/)
## 🗣️ Paraphrase
- Companies argue endlessly about which department should own DevRel, but the argument misses the point: what determines success is whether DevRel, product marketing, demand gen, and sales carry one continuous conversation with the audience, each stage building on the last.
- The sequence works on earned permission. DevRel tells a vendor-neutral story so true to the practitioner's life that it wins attention honestly; PMM retells it with the product named, licensed by the reader's own click; demand gen follows engaged readers with more useful material instead of a pitch, letting them sort themselves; and by the time sales calls, the prospect already agrees the call makes sense. No stage skips ahead of the trust the previous one built.
## 📰 Newsletter
- If you've ever wondered whether DevRel belongs under Marketing, Sales, or its own island, Leon Adato's answer is "wrong question" — his four-stage conversational funnel (DevRel → PMM → Demand Gen → Sales) is a tidy blueprint for WordPress product companies too. Picture it: a Learn WordPress-style tutorial that solves a real builder problem tool-agnostically, a follow-up post showing the fix in your plugin, a webinar invite for the folks who clicked, and only then an outreach email. Each step earns the next.
- For plugin and theme shops, the "vendor-agnostic first" rule maps neatly onto contributing docs, WordPress TV talks, and Playground demos before the upsell — the community trust you bank at the top is the only currency the bottom of the funnel spends.
- Worth pairing with the [How To DevRel series](https://www.adatosystems.com/category/how-to-devrel/) for the Texas Sharpshooter storytelling technique it references.
## ✅ Action Items
#### DevRel
- Developer advocacy: build a portfolio artifact for the job search — a one-page "conversational funnel" diagram showing how you'd hand off from advocacy content to PMM to demand gen, using a real WordPress example (e.g., a performance-debugging story → product-specific tutorial → webinar).
- Education: draft one vendor-agnostic "that was ME last week" problem story from recent WordPress release-testing work and publish it on courtneyr.dev; keep the tool out of the prose per Adato's rule.
- Developer experience: in interviews, use this framework to answer "how do you work with marketing?" — describe the click-as-consent handoff and where advocacy content stops and PMM content starts.
- Developer marketing: audit one past piece of your content against the funnel — did it try to be all four stages at once? Note the fix.
- Community management: when evaluating prospective employers, ask how DevRel-sourced engagement is attributed downstream; a company with no handoff mechanic is the org-placement trap Adato describes.
- Internal/external/cross-project: propose shared definitions with PMM/demand-gen counterparts — what counts as "engaged," and what the next-stage offer is for each top-funnel piece.
#### OSPO
- Strategic Alignment: adapt the earned-permission ladder for upstream engagement — vendor-neutral contribution first, product positioning only after community trust is established; useful framing for any OSPO-adjacent role conversations.
#### Community
- Maintainers: apply the Texas Sharpshooter pattern to release notes and dev blogs — lead with the reproduced problem, not the feature.
- Contributors: the "same story, more detail" handoff is a model for onboarding content: intro post (agnostic) → contributor-day walkthrough (project-specific).
- Sponsors: pitch sponsors on funnel-stage-appropriate visibility rather than logo placement — top-of-funnel credibility content vs. bottom-funnel offers.
- Ecosystem: not applicable to this source — the article addresses single-company funnels, not cross-project coordination.
#### WordPress
- Marketing: the four-stage handoff is a ready-made critique/improvement frame for how WordPress.org announcement posts hand off (or fail to) into Learn, Developer Blog, and hosting-partner content.
- Training: Learn WordPress content is structurally top-of-funnel and vendor-agnostic — this article gives language for defending that neutrality when commercial pressure appears.
- Documentation: examples-first, problem-forward doc patterns match Adato's stage-1 storytelling; cite this framing in Developer Blog pitches.
- Core and other teams: not applicable to this source — the article concerns go-to-market sequencing, not core development, accessibility, or infrastructure work.
#### The WPOCC
- Programs: the earned-permission funnel is a useful template for The WP Open Community Collective's own outreach — governance-neutral education first, membership/funding asks only after engagement; note for future program design.
#### FAIR
- Not applicable to this source — the article has no bearing on federated repository governance or technical independence work.
## 🧪 Hypotheses
- H1: Sales conversations preceded by the full DevRel→PMM→Demand Gen chain close faster (shorter discovery phase) than cold or single-touch outbound conversations.
- H2: PMM posts that explicitly name and link the upstream vendor-agnostic post convert engaged readers at a higher rate than standalone product posts on the same topic.
- H3: Vendor-agnostic top-of-funnel content generates higher developer trust scores (survey-measured) than equivalent content with product mentions, even when screenshots show the vendor's tool.
- H4: Demand Gen follow-ups framed as "gifts of knowledge" (whitepaper, webinar) produce lower unsubscribe/opt-out rates than pitch-framed follow-ups to the same audience segment.
- H5: Organizations with an explicit content-handoff protocol between DevRel and PMM show higher DevRel retention, because advocates spend less time defending their vendor-agnostic mandate.
### 📊 Methodology
- A/B test PMM follow-up posts with and without explicit linkage to the upstream DevRel post; compare click-through, scroll depth, and downstream MQL conversion.
- Cohort analysis in CRM data: tag leads by number of funnel stages touched before first sales contact; compare cycle length and win rate.
- Developer trust survey (e.g., adapted SlashData or DX methodology) across matched content pairs varying only in vendor specificity.
- Interview study of DevRel practitioners on handoff mechanics, mapping reported org placement against reported funnel coherence.
### ❓ Questions
- What instrumentation actually captures "click as consent" without violating developer privacy expectations — and does tracking itself erode the trust the funnel depends on?
- Where does community-led growth (forums, Discord, meetups) fit? The model is content-centric; community touchpoints don't sequence as cleanly.
- What happens when readers enter mid-funnel (landing on the PMM post first via search) — does the permission ladder break?
- Who arbitrates when Demand Gen wants to gate the "gift of knowledge" behind a form and DevRel objects?
### 🔮 Future Research
- Attribution models that credit vendor-agnostic content for pipeline it never directly touches — the perennial DevRel-metrics gap this framework sharpens but doesn't solve.
- Whether the funnel survives AI-mediated discovery: if developers reach answers via LLM summaries, the click-chain that carries consent may never occur.
- Comparative study of this handoff model against product-led growth motions where the product itself is the top of funnel.
### 💡 Implications
- Practice: DevRel job candidates can use this framework to negotiate role boundaries up front — what the advocate will and won't write is a stage-1 constraint, not insubordination.
- Policy: marketing leadership should codify the handoff (naming conventions, linking discipline, shared engagement definitions) rather than reorganizing DevRel's reporting line again.
- Education: developer-education content earns its neutrality; commercializing it directly (stage-skipping) liquidates the asset.
- Funding models: DevRel headcount justification shifts from lead attribution to funnel-integrity metrics — coherence of the thread, not last-touch credit.
### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment
- Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid grade ~9–10; conversational syntax with marketing jargon (Demand Gen, PMM) assumed rather than defined for outsiders.
#### 👀 Visual learners
- Present: a single featured image; no diagrams of the funnel itself.
- Improve: a four-stage funnel diagram with handoff arrows and the "permission earned" annotation at each transition would carry most of the argument in one visual.
#### 🔊 Aural learners
- Present: none — text only.
- Improve: a 3-minute narrated version; Adato's conversational voice would translate directly to audio.
#### 🗣️ Verbal learners
- Present: strong — model scripts (the PMM's follow-up-post opener), vivid analogies, in-voice reader reactions.
- Improve: a short glossary for PMM/Demand Gen for readers outside marketing orgs.
#### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners
- Present: implicit templates a practitioner could copy (the PMM opener).
- Improve: a fill-in-the-blank worksheet — your problem story, your product tweak, your knowledge gift, your sales-context summary.
#### 🧠 Logical learners
- Present: clear sequential structure with a stage-by-stage causal chain (engagement → permission → escalation).
- Improve: a table mapping stage → owner → content type → success signal; explicit failure modes per stage.
#### 🧑🤝🧑 Social learners
- Present: series framing invites following along; blockquoted reader/PMM voices simulate dialogue.
- Improve: discussion prompts for a DevRel team retro ("where does our thread break?").
#### 🧘♀️ Solitary learners
- Present: reflective, experience-based essay suits solo reading.
- Improve: self-audit questions after each stage section.
#### 🌿 Naturalistic learners
- Present: none.
- Improve: an ecosystem framing — trust as renewable resource, funnel-skipping as overharvesting — would suit this audience.
### 📊 Accessibility Assessment
#### Screen reader semantics
- Present: proper heading hierarchy (H3 section heads), semantic blockquotes, descriptive link text.
- Improve: the featured image alt text merely repeats the title; a decorative marking or meaningful description would be better.
#### Keyboard navigation
- Present: static article, standard link navigation; no interactive widgets in the captured content.
- Improve: nothing specific in the article body; platform chrome not captured.
#### Contrast and readability
- Present: HackerNoon's default typography (not in captured HTML); prose itself is short-paragraph and readable.
- Improve: ALL-CAPS emphasis ("SOMETHING", "THIS blog") is read aloud letter-by-letter by some screen readers; italics or strong tags would be safer.
#### Text resizing and reflow
- Present: responsive image srcset provided.
- Improve: not assessable beyond markup; no fixed-width elements in the captured body.
#### Media and captions
- Present: single image, no audio/video.
- Improve: not applicable to this source — no time-based media to caption.
#### Forms and interactions
- Not applicable to this source — the article contains no forms or interactive elements.
#### Standards reference
- Main gap maps to WCAG 2.2 AA 1.1.1 (Non-text Content — weak alt text); ALL-CAPS emphasis touches 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships — meaning conveyed by presentation).
### 🌍 DEIB Assessment
#### Cultural breadth
- Present: examples are US-tech-industry generic; the "OH MY DOG" wordplay and Pokemon reference are Anglophone-culture bound.
- Improve: acknowledge that outreach norms (cold calls, email cadence) vary sharply by region and culture.
#### Inclusive language
- Present: gender-neutral throughout ("the reader," "the PMM," "the individual").
- Improve: define insider acronyms (PMM, Demand Gen) on first use for readers entering DevRel from nontraditional paths.
#### Neurodiversity support
- Present: short paragraphs, consistent per-stage structure, clear headings.
- Improve: a summary table or TL;DR up top; the humor-heavy disclaimer may read as ambiguous signal for some readers.
#### Representation
- Present: author speaks only from his own perspective; no other practitioners quoted.
- Improve: citing DevRel voices across genders, regions, and company sizes would strengthen the experience-based framing.
#### Psychological safety
- Present: self-deprecating disclaimer lowers the stakes; explicitly anti-pushy sales stance respects audience autonomy.
- Improve: nothing significant; the piece models the respectful tone it advocates.
### ✅ Logical Validity
#### Strong reasoning
- Causal chain (stages 1→4): each stage's escalation is licensed by observable audience behavior at the prior stage (a click, an engagement). The mechanism is coherent and falsifiable — track cohorts by stages touched.
- Analogical strength (PMM section): framing PMMs as close relatives of advocates is grounded in a shared competence claim (technical acumen, persona knowledge), making the same-story-one-tweak prescription follow naturally.
- Epistemic honesty (opening disclaimer, closing summary): the author explicitly bounds his claims as experience-based and non-universal, which strengthens rather than weakens the argument's credibility.
#### Fallacies
- Hasty generalization (mild, throughout): the framework rests on one practitioner's 11 years without supporting data; fix by citing even anecdotal counterexamples or conversion evidence. The author's disclaimer partially self-corrects this.
- Assumed premise (PMM section): treating a click as informed consent to vendor content is an unargued leap; fix by acknowledging mid-funnel entrants and accidental clicks.
- False dilemma avoided: notably, the piece does not claim org placement is wrong, only that it matters less — a nuance that dodges the usual either/or framing of DevRel-reporting debates.
#### Tone of voice
- Conversational, self-deprecating, and direct: the Pokemon joke in the disclaimer, the "OH MY DOG" reader reaction, and "The Mostly Unnecessary Summary" heading set a practitioner-to-practitioner register while the stage sections stay instructional.
### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis
- Not applicable to this source — the article is a practice framework with no accusations, defenses, or victim/offender dynamics to analyze; the disclaimer preemptively concedes fallibility rather than deflecting critique.
## 🎯 Conclusion
- Bottom line: DevRel's value in the go-to-market motion is positional, not organizational — it opens a vendor-agnostic conversation so credible that every subsequent, more commercial touch feels like the audience's own next step. The funnel works by earned permission: click by click, the reader consents to escalation.
- Next steps for readers: map your own content (or your prospective employer's) onto the four stages; find where the thread breaks — usually PMM content that doesn't acknowledge the upstream story, or demand gen that pitches instead of gifting; and codify the handoff before reorganizing the org chart. For a DevRel job seeker, this framework doubles as interview language for how advocacy coexists with revenue accountability.
## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First
> Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4).
> Defaults: 3 Literature, 1 Permanent. Resonance filter: if you can't
> articulate in one line why a claim matters, drop it.
>
> Konik claim-header rules: present tense, declarative, ≤10 words when
> possible, searchable, unique, mirrors annotation focus if present.
>
> Atomicity: one declarative sentence per atom. "and"/"also" → split.
>
> Tag pool: #bmf · #addendum · #xref · #articleseed · #storystem · #share · #aphorisms
### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3)
### [H1] Vendor-agnostic storytelling defines DevRel's top-of-funnel role
> [!quote] ID:rw_pending
> The key is to talk about the problem, the solution, and the techniques without mentioning the tool.
**Context & use**:
- Top of Funnel: DevRel section, closing the stage-1 description.
- The operational rule that separates advocacy from marketing; usable verbatim in interviews when asked where DevRel content stops.
**Tags**: #xref #aphorisms
**Highlight**: view highlight link pending Reader sync
<!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ -->
### [H2] A reader's click licenses vendor-specific content
> [!quote] ID:rw_pending
> the PMM has effectively earned the privilege to be vendor-specific
**Context & use**:
- Same Story, More Detail: PMM section.
- The funnel's core permission mechanic — escalation is earned by observable engagement, not asserted by the brand. Connects to consent-based marketing and community trust models.
**Tags**: #xref #articleseed
**Highlight**: view highlight link pending Reader sync
<!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ -->
### [H3] Demand Gen broadens conversation while narrowing the funnel
> [!quote] ID:rw_pending
> At this stage, Demand Gen is both broadening the conversation and narrowing the funnel
**Context & use**:
- Offer More Value: Demand Gen section.
- Reframes qualification as audience self-selection via "gifts of knowledge" — a lead-scoring alternative worth citing in DevRel-marketing alignment conversations.
**Tags**: #xref
**Highlight**: view highlight link pending Reader sync
<!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ -->
### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4)
#### [P1] Funnel stages run on earned permission
**Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Each stage of a developer-first funnel earns the next stage's escalation through the audience's own observable engagement.
**Evidence pointer**: [[#H2]]
**Scope & conditions**: Holds when content stages are explicitly linked and readers enter at the top; breaks for mid-funnel entrants (search, AI summaries) who never granted the upstream consent, and when top-of-funnel content is already covertly promotional.
**Links** (≥1 with annotation):
- [[Developer trust as currency]] — because extends
- [[Product-led growth]] — because contrasts on where the funnel's first touch lives
- [[WordPress plugin go-to-market]] — because applies-in plugin-shop content strategy
<!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ -->
### ✏️ Fleeting Queue
- [F1] Where does community-led growth (forums, Discord, meetups) slot into a content-sequenced funnel? — https://hackernoon.com/a-devrel-led-funnel-that-puts-developers-first #fleeting #inbox
- [F2] Read the Texas Sharpshooter post and compare with problem-forward WordPress release-audit writeups — https://adatosystems.com/2025/03/24/how-to-devrel-the-texas-sharpshooter/ #fleeting #inbox
### → Things 3 (max 2 actions)
- [ ] Draft funnel-handoff diagram as a DevRel interview portfolio artifact — job search #things
- [ ] Write one vendor-agnostic "that was me last week" story from WP release-testing work — courtneyr.dev #things
```
Processed: A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First
- Literature atoms: 3 / 5 cap
- Permanent candidates: 1 / 3 cap
- Fleeting items: 2
- Things 3 actions: 2 / 2 cap
- Konik tags used: [#xref, #aphorisms, #articleseed]
- Triage callouts populated: [Cross Reference, Article Ideas]
- Quality gates: [verbatim ✓, atomicity ✓, link annotations ✓, YAML hygiene ✓, triage ✓, view-highlight links pending Reader sync ✗]
- Override conditions triggered: none
```
<!-- deep-read:sections end -->
📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First HackerNoon.md|A DevRel-Led Funnel That Puts Developers First | HackerNoon by hackernoon.com]]
## Highlights
- Or I might write about a an actual solution, putting it into the most vendor-agnostic terms. Even if the screenshots show my employer’s software, there’s a bit of latitude because my toolbox has to have SOMETHING in it, and these are just the tools I happen to have at my disposal. The key is to talk about the problem, the solution, and the techniques without mentioning the tool. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kzxrqyws4zy46cbfhbwqf6df))
- Note: The DevRel top-of-funnel rule: problem, solution, techniques — never the tool.
- Tags: atom/literature/h1
- Presuming the reader is coming to this blog having read the first one (or if they take a moment to read it now), the PMM has effectively earned the privilege to be vendor-specific. By virtue of their click, the reader has bought into the idea that THIS blog (compared to the last one) is going to talk about a product, feature, or module. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kzxrr28wh2znf7nwsnxa7vmn))
- Note: "Earned the privilege to be vendor-specific" — the handoff moment from DevRel to PMM in the funnel.
- Tags: atom/literature/h2
- At this stage, Demand Gen is both broadening the conversation and narrowing the funnel – helping the audience to self-select whether they are only interested in a single specific problem or use-case, or if their needs extend beyond that, into the realm of things a company would pay money to fix, if a solution was available. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kzxrr6f0n9e7xzk87j5qb515))
- Note: Demand Gen's role: broaden conversation, narrow funnel, let developers self-select.
- Tags: atom/literature/h2