When revenue stalls, leadership wants to know which function owns the problem. T. Collie has spent 20-plus years inside that question. Here is what the actual diagnostic looks like.
Revenue is down. Pipeline looks soft. The team is busy. Nothing is closing the way it used to. The first question in every leadership meeting is some version of the same one: do we have a sales problem or a marketing problem?
It almost never has a clean answer. And the instinct to grab the closest lever, hire another rep, run another campaign, switch to a different CRM, is usually how a revenue stall becomes a revenue plateau.
T. Collie has spent 20-plus years inside this question. He is the Managing Partner at Vantage Sales Partners, where he and his team build, lead, and diagnose sales organizations across stages and industries. He came on the Grow Rogue Podcast to walk through how to figure out which side of the house owns the problem, and just as importantly, how to avoid the wrong answer.
When revenue drops, leadership tends to do one of three things: hire another sales rep, pour budget into the top of the funnel, or switch tools. All three are responses to a feeling, not a diagnosis.
During the episode, T described how companies "glump sales and marketing together" into a single bucket, then hand someone the bucket and say "go fix it." The work that follows is usually accurate motion in the wrong direction.
The harder question is the one most leadership teams skip. Where are deals actually stalling, and which team is closest to it?
"I'd love there to be a magic pill," T said on the episode. "But there's no magic pill."
His diagnostic move is to look at where deals are actually closing, not through a CRM dashboard summary and not anecdotally. Talk to the salespeople. Ask them who closed, why they closed, and what the buyer said in the conversation that mattered.
The pattern almost always surprises leadership. The leads they were spending money on weren't producing the deals that closed. Closed deals often traced back to something that wasn't on the marketing spend report at all. He described one version of it that comes up often: the source of closed business turns out to be the neighbor of someone on the customer support team, not the campaign the company was funding.
When the actual signal gets surfaced, the diagnosis writes itself. The problem often lives in how the company is reading its own data. Sales and marketing are usually working with whatever they were handed.
Marketing is roughly twenty different jobs filed under one word: brand, demand generation, content, SEO, paid media, sales enablement, email, CRM administration, and more. When a leadership team says "we have a marketing problem," they often mean they're frustrated with one of those twenty disciplines and are about to make a budget decision based on that frustration alone.
The tool landscape makes it worse. Scott Brinker's annual MarTech Landscape counted 15,384 sales and marketing tools in 2025, up from 200 when he started tracking the category in 2011. That is almost a 100x increase. T's number from the conversation was the 2024 count, and even that was 14,106.
The volume of choice produces a specific failure mode. Companies pick a tool because they have heard of it, not because it fits how they actually sell. They pick HubSpot because everyone has HubSpot. They pick Salesforce because it is the safe enterprise choice. Then they spend the next two years working around the gaps the tool created.
His read was sharp: HubSpot "is inexpensive until it's not." And Salesforce, the foundation of more sales careers than any other CRM, also has the design tension that aggregated CRM research keeps surfacing. Less than 37% of sales reps actively engage with their CRM, and only 34% of sales leaders believe their CRM helps them deliver the experience their customers expect. The platforms work as designed. The selection process usually didn't match how the company actually sells.
The pressure to "add AI" is the latest version of the same trap. Leadership feels behind. The team is told to bring AI into the workflow. People jump in to "be part of the team," as T put it, and hit a wall.
The version that actually works is narrower. His framing: take existing workflows the team is already running and embed AI to make those workflows more productive. AI works as a power tool inside a process that already makes sense. Treating it as the strategy itself usually produces noise.
This matters more than usual right now because the underlying volume is exploding. 77% of new MarTech tools introduced in 2024 were AI-native. The tool problem and the AI problem are now the same problem. A company that hasn't figured out where it's losing deals is now also being asked to pick AI tools to fix it, which tends to produce a lot of motion, a lot of subscriptions, and very little change in the number.
T shared one of the sharpest observations from the conversation about why so many sales organizations stall when they scale. Most top salespeople, when promoted into sales management for the first time, fail. He put it at 99%. He included himself in that group when he made the move years ago.
The reason is structural. A top seller who becomes a manager assumes the path that worked for them will work for everyone on the team. They build the team around their own style, their own pitch, their own cadence. They don't yet see that every seller is a different professional, and the manager's job is to figure out what each seller is uniquely good at, then build the system around that strength.
The same pattern shows up in marketing decisions at the leadership level. A founder who built the company on cold outreach assumes the next quarter of growth needs more cold outreach. A CEO who watched paid media work in the early days assumes it will work the same way at the next stage. The trap is identical. Assuming that one approach is the approach stops the diagnostic before it starts.
His framing from the conversation: leadership's job is to support the professional, not to clone yourself. Figure out what is actually working, and build the system around the people who are actually closing.
The diagnostic that produces real answers has four steps. None of them involve buying a new tool or running a new campaign.
One of those four answers reveals the dominant constraint. The other three sharpen it.
If you have run the four questions and are still not sure which stage is costing you deals, that is what the Marketing & Revenue Assessment is built for.
Book a strategy conversationReade brought up Donald Miller's Building a StoryBrand on the episode, which adapted Joseph Campbell's 1949 hero's journey into a brand storytelling framework. The core insight is the same: in any compelling story, the customer is the hero, and the business is the guide.
Companies in a revenue stall usually have the roles reversed. The marketing speaks about the company. The sales conversation centers on the offering. The buyer ends up feeling like a target, not the protagonist of their own decision.
Companies that diagnose well start from the other side. The buyer is the hero of their own story. The product is the tool that gets the buyer through their journey. The sales rep is the guide. Marketing's job is to make sure the right hero finds the right guide at the right moment.
When that frame is intact, "sales versus marketing" stops being the right question. The right question becomes "where in the buyer's journey are we losing them?" That question has a specific answer and points to a specific fix.
There is a logging proverb often attributed (probably incorrectly) to Abraham Lincoln. The line is some version of: if I had five minutes to chop down a tree, I would spend the first two and a half sharpening the axe.
The misattribution is interesting on its own. The first documented attribution to Lincoln didn't appear until 1960, nearly a century after his death. The principle is older and more honest. It comes from working woodsmen who knew what every operator eventually learns: the setup determines how far the first swing goes.
The diagnostic is the sharpening. It is the work you do before you spend the next quarter chasing leads or rebuilding pipeline or replatforming CRMs. Companies skip it because they feel behind. The companies that skip it stay behind.
Start with the sales conversation, not the dashboard. Pull the list of closed-won deals from the last two quarters and trace each one back to its actual origin and decision moment. If salespeople are consistently re-explaining things that marketing should have answered, the constraint sits in messaging or positioning. If qualified buyers are entering the pipeline but not advancing, the constraint is downstream in the sales motion or the trust-building process. The pattern in the data almost always points to one stage.
Because adding volume to a system with a structural constraint creates more pressure against the same bottleneck. If the messaging is wrong, more leads produces more unqualified conversations. If the sales motion has a trust gap, more reps means more deals that stall at the same stage. The fix has to match the actual constraint, which is usually narrower and less expensive than the broader initiative leadership wants to launch.
A marketing problem usually involves execution: a campaign isn't producing, content isn't landing, traffic isn't converting. A positioning problem is upstream. The company hasn't clearly articulated why a specific buyer should choose them over the alternatives. A lot of what gets diagnosed as a marketing problem is actually a positioning problem that no amount of marketing activity will fix.
Almost never. CRMs rarely cause the problems leadership tends to blame them for. The 2025 MarTech Landscape counts 15,384 sales and marketing tools, and 77% of new tools introduced in 2024 were AI-focused. The volume itself creates a selection problem: companies pick a platform because they have heard of it, then realize months later that the tool doesn't match how they actually sell. Diagnose the workflow first. The tool is rarely the constraint.
A Marketing & Revenue Assessment maps how revenue actually moves through the business across all five stages (Demand, Pipeline, Deals, Customers, Expansion), then identifies the dominant constraint and names it specifically. The output is one constraint, named clearly, with a plan to address it. At Rogue Pine, the diagnostic typically takes two to four weeks when run systematically. The deliverable is a written plan, not a deck.
Not on its own. The version that actually produces results is when AI gets embedded into existing workflows that already make sense. Adding AI to a broken workflow produces a faster, more expensive broken workflow. Diagnose what is actually working first. Then decide where AI can compress the time it takes to do that thing well.
The Marketing & Revenue Assessment maps every stage of how your business creates and closes revenue, identifies the real constraint, and produces a clear plan that addresses it directly. The constraint is almost never where the client expected it.
Book a strategy conversation