Revenue Architecture (Part 2): Why Your Revenue Model Is Quietly Undermining GTM Execution

When revenue performance deteriorates, the organisational response is remarkably consistent. Pipeline targets are raised. Sales activity is scrutinised. Marketing is asked to deliver more volume. Enablement is tasked with sharpening execution.

Pressure is applied at the edges of the system.

What is rarely questioned is whether the revenue model itself — the way money is monetised, realised, and scaled — is fit for purpose. Yet in many B2B SaaS organisations, the most persistent GTM issues are not caused by poor execution or misalignment. They are the downstream effects of revenue model decisions made much earlier, often before the company ever attempted to scale.

Revenue Architecture forces this uncomfortable reality into the open.

From business model to revenue model — an important distinction

In its broadest sense, a business model encompasses everything from product strategy and operating structure to partnerships and delivery mechanisms. Winning by Design's Revenue Architecture does not attempt to solve all of that at once.

Instead, it deliberately narrows the focus to the revenue model: how value is monetised, when revenue is realised, and what economic constraints this places on the GTM system.

This distinction matters. Many companies believe they have a “working business model” because customers buy and revenue grows. But growth alone does not indicate coherence. A revenue model can function in the short term while quietly creating structural friction that later manifests as execution failure.

It is this revenue model — not sales effort, messaging, or tooling — that sets the boundaries within which GTM execution must operate.

Revenue models as economic physics, not labels

Revenue models are often discussed in shorthand: enterprise SaaS, PLG, consumption-based, subscription. But these labels obscure what really matters — the economic physics governing how revenue enters the system.

At one end of the spectrum sit traditional ownership or perpetual licence models, historically characterised by high-value, one-off transactions and long sales cycles. Revenue is largely realised at the point of sale, and GTM effort is justified by deal size. High-touch selling, extended decision processes, and bespoke negotiation are features, not flaws.

At the opposite end are pure consumption-based and product-led models, where revenue emerges gradually through usage. Value must be realised before monetisation can scale. Friction anywhere — onboarding, pricing clarity, product experience — directly suppresses growth. Here, the product is the GTM system.

Between these poles lies the territory most modern B2B SaaS companies inhabit: recurring revenue models built around ARR and MRR, with annual contract values typically ranging from the low tens of thousands to the mid hundreds of thousands. Revenue is neither fully upfront nor purely emergent. It depends on acquisition efficiency, conversion discipline, retention, and expansion working in concert.

This middle ground is also where most architectural tension arises.

A £20k ARR product cannot sustain the same sales intensity as a £250k one. A high-velocity inbound motion collapses under complex pricing and contracting. A PLG motion fails if value realisation lags monetisation. A sales-led model struggles when renewal and expansion economics are left implicit.

These are not execution failures. They are revenue model mismatches.

How revenue model misfit shows up as GTM symptoms

Revenue model problems rarely announce themselves directly. Instead, they surface as familiar operational complaints.

Sales cycles are “too long”, but only at certain deal sizes. Win rates are “disappointing”, but only outside the core ICP. Pipeline coverage appears healthy, yet revenue conversion lags expectations. Customer success teams struggle with retention despite apparent product value.

In each case, execution is blamed. Yet more often than not, the GTM system is being asked to compensate for structural incoherence.

A low-ACV revenue model is paired with a high-touch motion. Complex delivery is priced as if it were transactional. Expansion is expected to rescue weak initial monetisation. Cost to serve rises quietly as exceptions become the norm.

The GTM engine is not failing. It is being forced to overcome friction embedded in the revenue model itself.

The six Revenue Architecture Models by Winning By Design

Pricing is not a GTM lever — it is a revenue model decision

Few aspects of the revenue model create more downstream damage than pricing. In many SaaS businesses, pricing evolves opportunistically — shaped by early customers and competitive pressure rather than deliberate economic design.

The consequences are predictable. Discounting becomes habitual. Deal sizes cluster below sustainable thresholds. Customer acquisition costs rise while gross margins stagnate.

From a Revenue Architecture perspective, pricing is not a tool for closing deals. It is a mechanism for aligning value creation with value capture. When misaligned, GTM teams are forced to reconcile irreconcilable tensions: driving growth while preserving economics, accelerating deals while absorbing complexity.

Late-stage pricing “fixes” rarely work because they attempt to correct architectural flaws through behavioural pressure.

Cost to serve: the hidden constraint

Equally damaging — and often less visible — is cost to serve. In pursuit of growth, many SaaS companies tolerate rising delivery and support costs as a temporary trade-off. Over time, these costs harden into structural reality.

Custom implementations become standard. Support escalations increase as expectations diverge. Engineering capacity is consumed by edge cases rather than roadmap priorities.

Again, this is not accidental. It is the natural outcome of a revenue model that has not been stress-tested against scale. Once more, the GTM system absorbs the impact while the root cause remains unaddressed.

Why Revenue Architecture starts with the revenue model

This is why Revenue Architecture insists on starting here. Not because the revenue model is the most visible component, but because it is the most constraining.

Downstream models — data, mathematics, GTM motion, growth methods — can only operate within the boundaries the revenue model creates. If those boundaries are incoherent, optimisation becomes a form of self-deception.

Many SaaS organisations are asking their GTM teams to achieve outcomes the revenue model does not naturally support. When that happens, effort increases, predictability declines, and frustration becomes systemic.

Revenue Architecture does not eliminate trade-offs. But it makes them explicit — and therefore manageable.

What changes when the revenue model is coherent

When the revenue model is designed with intent, execution becomes easier rather than harder. Conversion improves without heroic effort. Forecasts stabilise. Enablement shifts from remediation to acceleration.

Most importantly, leadership conversations change. Instead of debating symptoms, teams can discuss constraints. Instead of demanding more activity, they can ask whether the system is behaving as designed.

This is not about perfection. It is about coherence.

In the next instalment, we will move from structure to measurement, exploring how the Data Model translates revenue model intent into a shared, operational language for managing growth.

---

Find out more If your GTM challenges feel structural rather than behavioural, a Revenue Architecture Baseline can surface where monetisation design, deal size, motion, and cost to serve are working against each other — and where the highest leverage really lies.