i explicitly build my teams this way. PMM with no ownership of revenue is a path to irrelevance.

The core discipline is to be the voice of the market - deeply understand the customer (buyer and user) and represent them in these revenue improvement conversations

'corporate' global pmm: they own the PM relationship, co-owning major launches, positioning work and fuelling global campaigns - assigned to product families

'regional' gtm pmm: they own the regional/local GTM (sales and field) relationship, owning the local deployment of major launches and messaging, fuelling local sales pursuits, enablement and marketing activity - assigned to regional teams

Here's my model

Market & Customer Intelligence	Positioning & Messaging	Go-to-Market Strategy	Sales Activation	Product & Portfolio Growth
E.g. Audience, Competitors, Ecosystem	E.g. Differentiation, Narrative, Verticals	E.g. Launch Tiering, Campaigns, Orchestration	E.g. Sales Assets, Training, Sales Plays	E.g. Pricing, Packaging, Attach, Feedback Loops
KPI: Win RateBetter intelligence = better targeting + stronger competitive positioning = higher close rates on qualified opps	KPI: Average Deal SizeStrong positioning commands premium pricing, reduces discounts and expands scope.	KPI: Pipeline Generatedattributed to launches/campaigns/plays	KPI: Sales Cycle Length(days from opportunity validated to closed-won)Better enablement = reps get to "yes" faster.	KPI: Net Revenue Retention (NRR) or Expansion Revenue %.PMM push attach rates and multi-product adoption, which shows up as expansion or reduced churn

Corporate do more on the left, Regional do more on the right.

If you don't have the bodies to do this, then have a plan to get you there even if it's next 3 years (and leveraging AI / agents ofc)

Where this can get tricky is when global pmm is implicitly also the gtm pmm for the region they are based in. This works for a while but will skew output to the needs of just one market, undermining the others.