Go to market strategy

Skill Avyayalaya/agent-prime/shared/toolkits/skills/go-to-market-strategy

A persistent AI operating system. 13 specialized agents + a runtime-portable 5-agent quality gate (Agent Council), 12 skills, 8 guardrails, 4 workflows. Built entirely from markdown files. Zero dependencies.

Install

npx -y skills add Avyayalaya/agent-prime --skill go-to-market-strategy

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when planning a product launch, market entry, or GTM strategy — segment selection, channel strategy, launch sequencing, pricing validation, competitive positioning, or launch readiness assessment. Encodes wedge identification, channel unit economics, launch gating, and failure criteria. Produces a GTM strategy document, not a launch checklist.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

82.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Purpose

Produce an elite-tier go-to-market strategy document that identifies the market wedge, selects and scores beachhead segments, designs channel strategy with unit economics, sequences launch phases with gates and kill criteria, positions against competitors, and defines success metrics with explicit failure conditions — a GTM strategy a PM cannot produce unaided. The output is a GTM Strategy Document — not a launch checklist, but a structural argument for how to win the first customers and compound from there.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

Launching a new product or feature into a market (new or existing)
Entering a new market with an existing product
Pivoting an existing product's GTM motion (e.g., sales-led to product-led)
Evaluating whether a market entry is viable (go/no-go decision)
Designing channel strategy with unit economics constraints
Planning launch sequencing with explicit gates and kill criteria
Assessing launch readiness before committing budget

Do NOT use this skill when:

You need a competitive analysis without a launch plan (use Competitive Market Analysis skill)
You need a product specification (use Specification Writing skill)
You need to validate a problem exists before solving it (use Problem Framing skill)
You need to run experiments to validate assumptions (use Metric Design & Experimentation skill)
You need a marketing campaign plan (this produces strategy, not execution assets)
The product is already at scale and you need retention/growth optimization (this is for market entry, not market defense)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

Marketing copy, email sequences, or campaign assets (downstream of GTM strategy)
Pricing model design in isolation (pricing is one dimension of channel economics here, not the sole output)
Organizational design for GTM teams (team structure follows strategy, not the other way around)
International expansion playbooks (this covers market entry logic; localization is a separate discipline)

Context Gate (Step -1: Is GTM Strategy the Right Artifact?)

Before applying any framework, verify that a GTM strategy document is what the situation actually needs. The most common failure mode is producing an excellent GTM strategy for a product that shouldn't be launched yet.

Run these checks BEFORE proceeding:

Check	Question	If NO → Redirect
Problem validated?	Has the problem been validated with ≥5 target users?	→ Problem Framing skill first. A GTM strategy for an unvalidated problem is a plan to efficiently deliver something nobody wants.
Product exists or is specced?	Is there a product, prototype, or detailed spec to launch?	→ Specification Writing skill first. GTM without a product is strategy theater.
Market is external?	Is the target market external customers, not internal adoption?	→ For internal rollout (enterprise feature adoption, internal tool deployment), GTM frameworks over-engineer the problem. Use a simpler adoption playbook.
Competitive landscape known?	Do you know who the alternatives are (including "do nothing")?	→ Run Competitive Market Analysis skill first, or do lightweight competitor scan. GTM positioning requires knowing what you're positioning against.
Decision authority exists?	Is there someone who can act on this GTM strategy?	→ If this is exploratory ("should we even consider this market?"), produce a market entry memo instead of a full GTM strategy.

If all checks pass: Proceed to Framework Selection (Step 0).

If 1-2 checks fail: Note the gaps explicitly in the output header and proceed with caveats. Flag which sections are hypothetical.

If 3+ checks fail: Stop. The right artifact is not a GTM strategy. Recommend the upstream skill.

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Document

Time Available	What to Read	What You'll Get
5 minutes	Executive Summary + Segment Selection table + Failure Criteria table	Go/no-go signal, who to target first, when to stop
15 minutes	Above + Market Entry Thesis + Channel Strategy + Launch Sequence	Full strategic logic: why this market, how to reach customers, what order
30 minutes	Full document	Complete GTM strategy with all frameworks, unit economics, positioning, and self-critique

Your Role	Start Here	Focus On
VP/GM	Executive Summary → Failure Criteria → Assumption Registry	Decision: fund this GTM or not. Kill criteria tell you when to pull the plug.
PM	Full document, sequentially	You own execution. Every section has specific actions, timelines, and gates.
Marketing Lead	Positioning section → Channel Strategy → Launch Sequence	Positioning statement, channel selection, launch phases and messaging per phase.
Sales Lead	Segment Selection → Channel Strategy (direct sales row) → Battlecards	Who to call, what to say, how to handle objections.
Finance/Ops	Channel Unit Economics → Launch Sequence (budget per phase) → Failure Criteria	CAC, payback period, budget gates, kill thresholds.

Notation Key

Symbol	Meaning
H / M / L	Confidence level: H = >70% confident, M = 40-70%, L = <40%
(T1)-(T6)	Evidence tier: T1 = behavioral data, T2 = primary research, T3 = expert analysis, T4 = industry reports, T5 = executive statements, T6 = inference
O→I→R→C→W	Observation → Implication → Response → Confidence → Watch indicator (mandatory cascade for all recommendations)
`[POTENTIALLY STALE]`	Claim based on data >6 months old — verify before acting
`[EVIDENCE-LIMITED]`	Key conclusion rests on T4-T6 evidence only — validate with T1-T2 before committing budget
████░░░░░░	Progress bar showing relative strength (1-10 scale)
✅ / ⚠️ / ❌	Gate passed / gate at risk / gate failed

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are quality enforcement mechanisms, not style preferences.

Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words. "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from conclusions. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: H (>70% confident), M (40-70%), L (<40%). Example: "The beachhead segment is 10-50 person design agencies hitting Figma collaboration limits (H)" not "SMBs could be a good target market."
Per-cell evidence tier annotation is mandatory in all comparison matrices. Every cell in a segment scoring table, channel economics comparison, or positioning matrix must carry an inline evidence tier tag: (T1), (T2), (T3) etc. Where evidence is absent: (T6: inferred). A matrix with untagged cells is incomplete.
The O→I→R→C→W cascade applies to ALL strategic recommendations, not just final sections. Format: Observation [evidence tier] → Implication [mechanism] → Response [specific action + owner + timeline] → Confidence [H/M/L + assumption] → Watch Indicator [observable signal + threshold].
Begin with Framework Selection (Step 0) before applying any framework. Identify the stage (new market entry, expansion, feature launch, pivot); select the 3-4 load-bearing frameworks; note which to skip.
Contradictions between frameworks are signal, not noise. When two frameworks reach different conclusions (e.g., segment scoring says enterprise but channel economics says PLG/SMB), surface the contradiction explicitly and state which to weight more heavily and why.
Flag time-sensitive claims. Any claim based on data older than 6 months must carry [POTENTIALLY STALE — verify before presenting]. Market conditions change faster than competitive positions.
Flag thin-evidence conclusions. If a key strategic conclusion rests only on Tier 4-6 evidence, prepend it with [EVIDENCE-LIMITED: validate with Tier 1-2 before acting].
First reference to any framework includes a one-line explanation. Not everyone reading a GTM strategy knows what "PLG" or "CAC" or "beachhead" means. Example: "Product-led growth (PLG) — users adopt the product through self-serve trial before any sales contact." This makes the document navigable by non-creators.
The Executive Summary uses zero framework jargon. A VP who has never heard of "beachhead strategy" or "CAC payback period" must be able to read the Executive Summary and make a decision. Framework terms appear in the body, not the summary.

Output Template (Mandatory Document Skeleton)

Every GTM Strategy Document MUST follow this exact structure. Copy this skeleton and fill it in. Do not reorder sections, skip sections, or invent new top-level sections. If a framework was skipped in Step 0, note "Skipped — not load-bearing for this stage" in that section.

# GTM Strategy: [Product — e.g., "Vanta Analytics Self-Serve Launch"]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Stage:** [new_market_entry / existing_market_expansion / feature_launch / pivot] | **Confidence band:** [Overall H/M/L] | **Staleness window:** [Date after which key claims need revalidation]

---

## How to Read This Document

[Reader Navigation table — by time available and by role. See Reader Navigation section above.]

## Notation Key

[Symbol definitions table. See Notation Key above.]

---

## Executive Summary

[≤300 words. Zero jargon. A VP reads only this and decides whether to fund the GTM. Must answer: What are we launching? For whom? Why now? What's the entry point? What does success look like in 6 months? What kills this? Final sentence = the recommended action in bold.]

---

## Step 0: Framework Selection

| Stage | Primary frameworks (apply in full) | Supporting frameworks (scan only) | Skipped (why) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "New market entry"] | [e.g., Market Entry Thesis, Segment Selection, Channel Strategy] | [e.g., Distribution & Growth Mechanics] | [e.g., "Competitive Positioning — no direct competitors yet"] |

---

## 1. Market Entry Thesis

### Why This Market

[Market selection rationale — size, growth, structural opportunity]

### Why Now (Timing Thesis)

| Timing Signal | Evidence | Confidence |
|--------------|----------|------------|
| [e.g., "Regulatory change creating demand"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L |
| [e.g., "Incumbent distracted by platform migration"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L |
| [e.g., "Cost curve crossing — AI makes X viable at Y price"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L |

### The Wedge

[What is the specific gap in the incumbent's armor? What gives you disproportionate advantage in a specific segment? This is NOT "we're better" — it's "we can win THIS slice because of THIS structural advantage."]

### Wedge Defensibility Assessment

| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence |
|-----------|-----------|----------|
| Time to replicate | [months/years] | (TX) |
| Capital to replicate | [$X] | (TX) |
| Structural barrier | [what prevents copying — counter-positioning, data moat, regulatory, network effects] | (TX) |
| **Verdict** | [Durable moat / Temporary arbitrage / Speed-dependent] | H/M/L |

### Go/Wait/Pivot Decision Table

| Signal | Market Ready | Market NOT Ready |
|--------|-------------|-----------------|
| Product readiness | → **GO**: launch beachhead | → **WAIT**: build MVP, re-assess in [X weeks] |
| Product NOT ready | → **BUILD**: market is ready, accelerate product | → **PIVOT**: wrong market or wrong product |

---

## 2. Segment Selection & Prioritization

### Beachhead Candidates

| Segment | Description | Size (est.) | Evidence |
|---------|------------|-------------|----------|
| [Segment A] | [Specific enough to find 100 prospects by name] | [$ or # users] (TX) | [How you know this segment exists] |
| [Segment B] | [Same specificity] | [$ or #] (TX) | [Evidence] |
| [Segment C] | [Same specificity] | [$ or #] (TX) | [Evidence] |

### ICP Scoring Matrix

| Criterion | Weight | Segment A | Segment B | Segment C |
|-----------|:------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:|
| Acute pain (validated) | 25% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| Willingness to pay | 20% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| Accessibility (can you reach them?) | 20% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| Reference-ability (will they tell others?) | 15% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| Expansion potential (leads to adjacent segments?) | 10% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| Competitive vacuum (incumbents weak here?) | 10% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) |
| **Weighted Score** | | **[X.X]** | **[X.X]** | **[X.X]** |

### Expansion Path

[Beachhead → Adjacent Segment 1 → Adjacent Segment 2 → Mainstream]
[For each transition: what evidence or milestone triggers expansion? What do you carry from the previous segment (references, product features, channel)?]

---

## 3. Channel Strategy with Unit Economics

### Channel Selection Matrix

| Channel | Segment Fit | CAC (est.) | Payback (mo.) | LTV/CAC | Scalability | Evidence |
|---------|:-----------:|:----------:|:-------------:|:-------:|:-----------:|:--------:|
| [Direct sales] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |
| [PLG / self-serve] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |
| [Content/SEO] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |
| [Paid acquisition] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |
| [Partnership/channel] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |
| [Community] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |

### Primary Channel Deep-Dive

[For the #1 selected channel: full conversion funnel, unit economics at each stage, evidence requirements before scaling budget]

### Channel Sequencing

| Phase | Channel | Budget | Success Criteria to Add Next Channel |
|-------|---------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Phase 1 | [ONE channel] | [$X] | [Metric ≥ threshold, e.g., "CAC < $200 on 50+ conversions"] |
| Phase 2 | [Add second] | [$X] | [Metric ≥ threshold] |
| Phase 3 | [Add third] | [$X] | [Metric ≥ threshold] |

---

## 4. Launch Sequencing & Gating

### Phase Plan

| Phase | Duration | Audience | Gate Criteria (must ALL be true to proceed) | Kill Criteria (if ANY true, stop) |
|-------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| **Alpha** (internal) | [X weeks] | [Internal team, N users] | [List specific metrics] | [List specific thresholds] |
| **Closed Beta** (design partners) | [X weeks] | [N design partners] | [List specific metrics] | [List specific thresholds] |
| **Open Beta** (waitlist) | [X weeks] | [N users from waitlist] | [List specific metrics] | [List specific thresholds] |
| **GA** (general availability) | [X weeks] | [Target segment] | [List specific metrics] | [List specific thresholds] |
| **Scale** | [Ongoing] | [Expansion segments] | [List specific metrics] | [List specific thresholds] |

### Launch Risk Register

| Risk | Phase | Severity (1-5) | Probability (H/M/L) | Mitigation | Owner |
|------|-------|:--------------:|:--------------------:|------------|-------|
| [Risk 1] | [Phase] | [X] | [H/M/L] | [Specific action] | [Role] |
| [Risk 2] | [Phase] | [X] | [H/M/L] | [Specific action] | [Role] |

---

## 5. Competitive Positioning for Launch

### Positioning Statement

> For **[target customer]** who **[need/job-to-be-done]**, **[product]** is a **[market category]** that **[key benefit]**. Unlike **[primary alternative]**, we **[key differentiator]**.

### Battlecards (per competitor)

**vs. [Competitor A]:**
| They'll Say | You Say | Evidence |
|------------|---------|----------|
| "[Objection 1]" | "[Counter + proof point]" | (TX) |
| "[Objection 2]" | "[Counter + proof point]" | (TX) |

**vs. [Competitor B]:**
[Same structure]

### Positioning Validation Checklist

- [ ] Tested with ≥5 prospects before launch
- [ ] Positioning resonates with target segment (not just internal team)
- [ ] Differentiation is verifiable (not aspirational)
- [ ] Category choice is intentional (creating new vs. entering existing)

---

## 6. Success Metrics & Failure Criteria

### Leading Indicators (weekly review)

| Metric | Target | Goodhart Countermeasure | Antidote Metric |
|--------|--------|------------------------|-----------------|
| [e.g., Activation rate] | [≥X%] | [How it could be gamed] | [What to also watch] |
| [e.g., Time-to-value] | [≤X days] | [How it could be gamed] | [What to also watch] |

### Lagging Indicators (monthly review)

| Metric | Target (6-mo) | Target (12-mo) |
|--------|:-------------:|:--------------:|
| [e.g., Revenue] | [$X] | [$X] |
| [e.g., Retention] | [≥X%] | [≥X%] |

### Failure Criteria (HARD stops — not "reassess")

| Condition | Timeframe | Action |
|-----------|-----------|--------|
| [e.g., "<50 beta signups after 4 weeks of outreach"] | [By date] | **STOP:** [Specific action — pivot, kill, or redesign] |
| [e.g., "CAC >3x target after 100 conversions"] | [By date] | **STOP:** [Specific action] |
| [e.g., "NPS <20 from design partners"] | [By date] | **STOP:** [Specific action] |

### Review Cadence

| Cadence | What's Reviewed | Decision Authority | Escalation |
|---------|----------------|-------------------|------------|
| Weekly | Leading indicators | PM | Flag to VP if 2+ metrics miss for 2+ weeks |
| Monthly | Lagging indicators + gate criteria | PM + VP | Kill/pivot decision if failure criteria met |
| Quarterly | Full GTM strategy review | VP/GM | Strategy re-architecture if market conditions shift |

---

## 7. Distribution & Growth Mechanics

### Growth Model

| Model | Applicability | Evidence | Investment Required |
|-------|:------------:|----------|:-------------------:|
| Viral (user invites user) | [H/M/L/N/A] | [Why or why not] (TX) | [$X] |
| Content (SEO/thought leadership) | [H/M/L/N/A] | [Why or why not] (TX) | [$X] |
| Sales-led | [H/M/L/N/A] | [Why or why not] (TX) | [$X] |
| Product-led (PLG) | [H/M/L/N/A] | [Why or why not] (TX) | [$X] |
| Platform/marketplace | [H/M/L/N/A] | [Why or why not] (TX) | [$X] |

### Flywheel Design

[Which actions create compounding advantages? Draw the loop: More X → More Y → Better Z → More X]

### Reference Customer Strategy

| Slot | Target Profile | Selection Criteria | Storytelling Value |
|:----:|---------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| 1 | [Specific company type] | [Why this customer matters as a reference] | [What story they tell] |
| 2 | [Specific company type] | [Why] | [Story] |
| 3-5 | [Remaining slots] | [Criteria] | [Stories] |

---

## Strategic Recommendations (O→I→R→C→W Cascade)

**Recommendation 1: [Title]**
- **Observation** [TX]: [What we see]
- **Implication**: [Why it matters — the mechanism]
- **Response**: [Specific action + owner + timeline]
- **Confidence**: [H/M/L] — assumes [key assumption]
- **Watch**: [Observable signal]; if [threshold], re-assess

**Recommendation 2: [Title]**
[Same structure]

**Recommendation 3: [Title]**
[Same structure]

---

## Cross-Framework Contradictions

| Contradiction | Framework A says | Framework B says | Resolution / Which to weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Segment scoring vs. channel economics"] | [Segment A scores highest] | [Channel economics favor Segment B's motion] | [Which matters more and why] |

---

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Framework it underpins | Confidence | Evidence | What would invalidate this |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 2 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 3 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |

---

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[Steelmanned argument against this GTM strategy. What assumption is made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this launch is catastrophically wrong.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

---

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to re-assess | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| [Observable event — e.g., "Competitor launches competing product"] | [Which sections break] | [When to check] |
| [e.g., "Key assumption invalidated"] | [Which sections break] | [When to check] |

---

## Sources

[All sources cited in the strategy, with evidence tier and date.]

Rules for using this template:

Do not skip sections. If a section isn't applicable, write "Skipped — [reason]" and move on.
Every table cell with a rating, estimate, or claim must have an evidence tier tag — (T1) through (T6).
Section headers are conclusions, not labels. Replace generic headers (e.g., "Channel Strategy") with insight headers (e.g., "PLG Is the Only Viable Channel — Direct Sales CAC Is 5x Too High") after completing the section.
The Executive Summary is written last but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
Failure Criteria must be specific and time-bound. "Revenue is too low" is not a failure criterion. "<$50K ARR after 6 months with ≥$200K GTM spend" is.

Domain Frameworks

This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces a GTM strategy that requires these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to a generic launch plan.

Framework 1: Market Entry Thesis

The structural argument for why this market, why now, and what gives you a disproportionate right to win a specific slice. Without a market entry thesis, a GTM strategy is a plan to spend money without a theory of why it will work.

The Three Pillars:

Pillar	Question	What "Good" Looks Like	What "Bad" Looks Like
Why This Market	Is there a structural opportunity, not just a large TAM?	"Regulatory change X creates $Y of newly addressable demand in segment Z"	"The market is $50B and growing"
Why Now	What timing signal makes this the right moment?	"Incumbent is mid-platform migration; 18-month window before they stabilize"	"AI is changing everything"
What's the Wedge	Where is the gap in the incumbent's armor?	"Design agencies with 15+ Figma users hit collaboration limits the incumbent can't fix without re-architecting"	"Our product is better"

Timing Thesis — The Four Forces:

Force	Signal	Example	Evidence Tier Needed
Technology shift	New capability makes previously impossible product viable at target price	"LLM costs dropped 90% in 12 months — AI-native analytics now viable at $50/user/mo"	T1-T2 (cost data, product benchmarks)
Regulatory change	New rules create demand or remove barriers	"GDPR created demand for privacy-first analytics; EU AI Act will do the same for explainable AI"	T1 (regulatory text, enforcement timeline)
Behavior change	User expectations shifted by adjacent products	"Users now expect natural language interfaces after ChatGPT — SQL-based tools feel broken"	T2-T3 (user research, adoption data)
Cost curve crossing	Economics that didn't work now work	"Cloud compute at $X means we can offer real-time analytics at SMB pricing"	T1 (pricing data, unit economics model)

Decision Table — Should We Enter?

Market Ready?	Product Ready?	Decision
✅ Yes	✅ Yes	GO — launch into beachhead segment
✅ Yes	❌ No	BUILD — market window is open; accelerate product; set deadline
❌ No	✅ Yes	WAIT — monitor timing signals; re-assess in [X weeks]
❌ No	❌ No	PIVOT — wrong market or wrong product; return to Problem Framing

Wedge Identification Method:

A wedge is not "our product is better." A wedge is a structural advantage in a specific segment that incumbents cannot easily replicate. The wedge is what gets you the first 10 customers without competing on brand, distribution, or scale — advantages you don't have yet.

Wedge Type	Mechanism	Example	Durability
Counter-positioning	Incumbent can't copy you without cannibalizing their core	Canva vs. Adobe: self-serve design threatens Adobe's enterprise sales motion	High — structural
Underserved segment	Incumbent ignores a segment because it's too small or too different	Notion serving individual knowledge workers while Confluence focuses on enterprise IT	Medium — until segment grows large enough to attract attention
Technology discontinuity	New technology enables 10x better/cheaper solution in a niche	AI-native code review replacing manual reviewer workflows	Medium — until incumbents adopt the same technology
Distribution advantage	You can reach the segment cheaper than incumbents	Built-in marketplace distribution (Shopify apps, Salesforce AppExchange)	Low-Medium — marketplace rules change
Regulatory arbitrage	New regulation creates requirements incumbents aren't built to meet	GDPR-compliant analytics when incumbents are built on data collection	Medium — until incumbents adapt

Anti-pattern: "Large TAM Therefore Enter"

The sentence "The market is $50B so even 1% = $500M" contains zero strategic content. It doesn't explain:

Why you can capture any share at all
Which segment of the TAM is accessible to you
What your wedge is against players who already have distribution, brand, and scale
Why now rather than 2 years ago or 2 years from now

If your market entry thesis is "big market + good product = success," you don't have a market entry thesis. You have a hope.

Framework 2: Segment Selection & Prioritization

The single most consequential GTM decision: who to target first. Get this wrong and everything downstream fails — wrong channels, wrong messaging, wrong product priorities. A beachhead segment (the first market niche you dominate completely before expanding) must be specific enough to find 100 prospects by name.

Segment Definition Rules:

Rule	Bad Example	Good Example	Why
Name 100 prospects	"SMBs"	"10-50 person design agencies using Figma who hit collaboration limits at 15+ users"	If you can't name 100 companies that fit the definition, the segment is too vague to target
Observable behavior	"Companies that need better analytics"	"Companies posting Looker admin job postings while complaining about LookML complexity on forums"	Behavior is targetable; need-states are not
Willingness to pay	"Price-sensitive small businesses"	"Design agencies paying $15+/user/mo for Figma who would pay $10/user/mo for a collaboration add-on"	Willingness to pay must be specific enough to model unit economics
Reachable	"Enterprise companies globally"	"US-based mid-market SaaS companies whose Head of Data attends dbt community events"	You need a channel to actually reach these people

ICP Scoring Rubric:

Criterion	Weight	Score 5	Score 3	Score 1
Acute pain	25%	Validated with ≥5 interviews; customers actively seeking solutions	Some evidence of pain from secondary sources	Assumed pain; no direct validation
Willingness to pay	20%	Customers have budget allocated; comparable products exist at target price	Budget exists but not allocated; price sensitivity unclear	No evidence of willingness to pay
Accessibility	20%	Clear channel exists; can reach 80%+ of segment through 1-2 channels	Reachable through 3+ channels, none dominant	No clear way to reach the segment efficiently
Reference-ability	15%	Segment is vocal (conference speakers, bloggers, community participants)	Moderately connected; will provide references if asked	Private; won't be public references
Expansion potential	10%	Adjacent segments are 5x+ larger and share buying criteria	Adjacent segments exist but different buying criteria	Dead-end segment; no expansion path
Competitive vacuum	10%	No incumbent actively serving this segment	Incumbent serves it poorly; opportunity to displace	Strong incumbent with high switching costs

Decision Table — Beachhead Selection:

Weighted Score	Decision
≥4.0	Strong beachhead — proceed to channel strategy
3.0-3.9	Viable but risky — validate the weakest scoring criterion before committing
<3.0	Weak beachhead — find a better segment or return to Problem Framing

Expansion Path — Crossing the Chasm Connection:

The beachhead is not the destination. It's the first pin in the bowling alley (Geoffrey Moore's metaphor for sequential niche domination that builds to mainstream adoption). Each segment transition must be planned:

Transition	Trigger to Expand	What Carries Over	What Changes
Beachhead → Adjacent 1	[Metric threshold — e.g., "50%+ share in beachhead, ≥10 references"]	[Product features, brand in adjacent community]	[Messaging, channel mix, possibly pricing]
Adjacent 1 → Adjacent 2	[Next metric threshold]	[Broader product, more references]	[New channel, enterprise motion?]
Adjacent 2 → Mainstream	[Market pull — inbound exceeds outbound]	[Brand, product maturity, reference library]	[Everything — this is the chasm crossing]

Framework 3: Channel Strategy with Unit Economics

Channels are not "marketing tactics." Channels are the economic engine of your GTM. A channel that doesn't have viable unit economics is a way to lose money efficiently.

Channel Taxonomy with Fit Indicators:

Channel	Best For	Worst For	Typical CAC Range	Time to Signal
Direct sales	Enterprise ($50K+ ACV), complex products, relationship-driven	SMB, self-serve products, price-sensitive segments	$5K-$50K	3-6 months
PLG (product-led growth)	SMB, developer tools, prosumer products, low ACV with high volume	Enterprise (long sales cycles), regulated industries	$50-$500	1-3 months
Content/SEO	Considered purchases, educational buyers, long sales cycles	Impulse purchases, time-sensitive launches	$100-$2K	6-18 months
Paid acquisition	Proven unit economics to scale, retargeting, brand awareness	Unproven products (too expensive to learn via paid), low-LTV products	$200-$5K	1-4 weeks
Partnership/channel	Established ecosystems, marketplace distribution, co-selling	Products without clear partner value prop, early-stage products	$500-$5K	3-12 months
Community	Developer tools, PLG products, identity-driven products	Enterprise B2B, transactional products	$200-$2K	6-18 months
Outbound	Mid-market, defined ICP, products with clear ROI story	Mass-market consumer, products without clear buyer persona	$1K-$10K	1-3 months
Events/conferences	Enterprise, relationship-driven sales, brand-building in niche	Broad consumer, low ACV, early-stage products without demo-ready product	$2K-$20K	1-6 months

Per-Channel Unit Economics Template:

For the primary channel, calculate:

Awareness → Interest → Trial/Demo → Activation → Paid Conversion → Retention → Expansion

Funnel Stage          | Volume    | Conversion | Cost/Stage  | Cumulative CAC
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Awareness (impressions)| [X]      | [X%]       | $[X]       | $[X]
Interest (clicks/signups)| [X]   | [X%]       | $[X]       | $[X]
Trial/Demo            | [X]      | [X%]       | $[X]       | $[X]
Activation            | [X]      | [X%]       | $[X]       | $[X]
Paid conversion       | [X]      | [X%]       | $[X]       | $[X] ← This is your CAC
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Payback period: [X months] = CAC / (Monthly revenue per customer)
LTV/CAC: [X:1] = (ARPU × Avg. lifetime months × Gross margin) / CAC

Minimum Viable Channel Rule:

Start with ONE channel. Prove it works (positive unit economics on ≥50 conversions). Then add a second. Multi-channel from day 1 is a failure mode — you learn nothing because no channel gets enough investment to produce statistically meaningful signal.

Channel Count	Stage	Criteria
1	Launch → Product-market fit	Primary channel producing repeatable conversions
2	Growth	Primary channel proven; second channel shows early positive signal
3+	Scale	First two channels have positive unit economics at scale

Evidence Requirements Before Scaling:

Evidence Level	What It Means	Budget Implication
Hypothesis (no data)	You think this channel will work based on analogy or logic	$0 — don't spend until you have signal
Signal (<50 conversions)	Early data suggests viability but sample size is too small	Cap at 10% of GTM budget
Proof (50-200 conversions)	Unit economics are clear; conversion funnel is mapped	Scale to 30% of GTM budget
Proven (200+ conversions)	Repeatable, predictable, scalable	Unlimited (within LTV/CAC constraints)

Framework 4: Launch Sequencing & Gating

Every launch has phases. Every phase has gates. Every gate has kill criteria. A launch without gates is a launch without learning — you'll discover problems at GA that should have been caught in beta.

Phase Taxonomy:

Phase	Purpose	Audience	Duration	What You Learn
Alpha	Internal validation	Internal team (10-50 users)	2-4 weeks	Major bugs, UX failures, performance issues
Closed Beta	Design partner validation	5-20 hand-picked customers	4-8 weeks	Product-market fit signal, activation flow, early retention
Open Beta	Broader validation	50-500 from waitlist	4-8 weeks	Channel viability, support load, pricing validation
GA	Market launch	Target segment	Ongoing	Growth rate, unit economics, competitive response
Scale	Expansion	Adjacent segments	Ongoing	Cross-segment fit, channel economics at scale

Gate Criteria Rubric:

Each phase transition requires ALL gates to pass. If any gate fails, you stay in the current phase, fix the issue, and re-evaluate.

Gate Category	Alpha → Beta	Beta → Open Beta	Open Beta → GA	GA → Scale
Usage	≥X DAU/WAU ratio	≥X activation rate	≥X retention (day 30)	≥X retention (day 90)
Satisfaction	No P0 bugs open	NPS ≥X from design partners	NPS ≥X from open beta	NPS ≥X from GA cohort
Economics	N/A	Design partners willing to pay	CAC < $X on ≥50 conversions	LTV/CAC ≥ 3:1
Support	<X tickets/user/week	<X tickets/user/week	Support scalable (self-serve ≥80%)	Support cost < X% of revenue
Positioning	N/A	Positioning tested with ≥5 prospects	Win rate ≥X% vs. primary alternative	Win rate stable or improving

Kill Criteria — Hard Stops:

Kill criteria are not "reassess" criteria. They are specific, time-bound conditions that mean "stop spending money on this GTM." The purpose of kill criteria is to prevent sunk cost escalation — continuing a failing launch because you've already invested.

Kill Signal	Threshold	What It Means	Action
Zero activation	<5% of beta users complete core action after 30 days	Product doesn't deliver value quickly enough, or value prop is wrong	Kill or pivot product, not GTM
No willingness to pay	<10% of beta users willing to pay any amount	Product is useful but not valuable enough to pay for	Re-examine pricing or pivot to different monetization
CAC death spiral	CAC > LTV after 100+ conversions	Channel economics are fundamentally broken	Kill channel, try different channel, or reduce CAC via product improvement
Competitive wipeout	Primary competitor matches your wedge within beta period	Wedge was speed-dependent and you lost the race	Pivot to different wedge or different segment

Minimum Viable Launch (MVL):

The MVL is the smallest launch that produces learning, not the biggest launch you can afford. The purpose of each phase is to answer a specific question:

Phase	Question It Answers	MVL Size
Alpha	Does the product work?	10-50 internal users
Beta	Do target customers want this?	5-20 design partners
Open Beta	Can we acquire customers through our primary channel?	50-200 users via primary channel
GA	Do unit economics work at scale?	200+ customers

Framework 5: Competitive Positioning for Launch

Positioning is not messaging. Positioning is the strategic decision about what mental real estate you occupy in the buyer's mind relative to alternatives. Messaging is how you communicate that position. Get positioning wrong and no amount of brilliant messaging will fix it.

April Dunford's Positioning Framework (adapted for GTM):

Element	Question	Output
Competitive alternatives	What would customers use if your product didn't exist? (Include "do nothing" and "manual workaround")	List of 3-5 real alternatives
Unique attributes	What do you have that alternatives don't? (Be specific — "AI-powered" is not unique in 2026)	2-3 genuinely differentiated capabilities
Value for customer	What does your unique capability enable the customer to do? (Customer language, not product language)	Value statement in customer's words
Target customer	Who cares most about this value? (This should match your beachhead segment)	Specific ICP definition
Market category	What frame of reference helps the customer understand what you are?	Category name — existing or new

Positioning Statement Template:

For [target customer with specific pain] who [currently do X with Y limitations], [product] is a [market category] that [delivers specific value]. Unlike [primary competitive alternative], [product] [key differentiator that matters to this segment].

Positioning Validation:

Test positioning with ≥5 prospects from the target segment BEFORE launch. Iterate based on:

Signal	Interpretation	Action
Prospect immediately understands what you do	Category choice is correct	Proceed
Prospect says "oh, like [competitor]?" correctly	Positioning is clear relative to alternatives	Proceed
Prospect says "oh, like [wrong category]?"	Category choice is wrong	Reframe the category
Prospect doesn't understand why they'd switch from current solution	Value for customer is unclear or insufficient	Sharpen the differentiation
Prospect says "that's interesting but not for us"	Target customer is wrong, or you're talking to wrong person	Check segment selection

Battlecard Structure:

For each primary competitor, build a battlecard that sales and marketing can use:

Section	Content
Quick take	2-sentence summary of how we win against this competitor
Their pitch	What they'll say about themselves (and what's true vs. marketing)
Our wedge	Where we're structurally better for this segment specifically
Their attack	What they'll say about us (and the honest counter)
Landmines	Topics to avoid because the competitor genuinely wins on them
Proof points	Customer quotes, data points, or demos that close the deal against this competitor

Anti-pattern: Positioning Against Yourself

A common failure: comparing your new product to your OLD product or your internal status quo. Your customer doesn't care about your internal journey. They care about the competitive alternatives they're evaluating TODAY. Position against the alternative they'd choose if you didn't exist — which might be a competitor, a manual process, or doing nothing.

Framework 6: Success Metrics & Failure Criteria

Metrics without failure criteria are vanity metrics. If you don't define the conditions under which you'd stop, you'll never stop — even when the GTM is failing. This framework encodes Goodhart's Law countermeasures into every metric (when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure).

Leading Indicators (review weekly):

Metric	What It Measures	Goodhart Risk	Antidote Metric
Activation rate	% of signups who complete core action within X days	Team optimizes onboarding to count trivial actions as "activated"	Time-to-value (are activated users actually getting value?)
Time-to-value	Days from signup to first "aha moment"	Team removes friction without ensuring comprehension	Day-30 retention (did they come back?)
Referral rate	% of users who refer another user	Incentivize referrals with discounts → low-quality referred users	Referred user activation rate (are referrals actually good users?)
Conversion rate	% of free/trial users who become paid	Lower price to boost conversion → revenue per customer drops	Revenue per customer + LTV
Pipeline velocity	Average days from first touch to closed deal	Sales rushes deals → lower deal quality → higher churn	90-day retention of closed deals

Lagging Indicators (review monthly):

Metric	Formula	Benchmark (varies by category)
Revenue	MRR or ARR	[Target based on segment size and pricing]
Market share	Your revenue / Total segment revenue	Meaningful only after GA; track trend, not absolute
Retention	% of customers still active after X months	SaaS benchmark: >85% annual gross retention
NPS	Promoters - Detractors (as % of respondents)	>40 = strong; >60 = exceptional
LTV/CAC	Lifetime value / Customer acquisition cost	≥3:1 for sustainable growth; ≥5:1 for venture-scale

Failure Criteria Design:

Every failure criterion must pass the "SMART-K" test:

Element	Requirement	Bad Example	Good Example
Specific	Names the exact metric	"Engagement is low"	"DAU/MAU < 15%"
Measurable	Can be pulled from a dashboard	"Users don't like the product"	"NPS < 10 from beta cohort"
Actionable	Leads to a specific decision	"Reassess the strategy"	"Kill the self-serve channel; pivot to direct sales or kill GTM entirely"
Realistic threshold	Not so high you always fail, not so low you never trigger	"<$1M ARR after 30 days"	"<$50K ARR after 6 months with ≥$200K GTM spend"
Time-bound	Has a deadline	"Revenue isn't growing"	"MoM revenue growth <10% for 3 consecutive months after GA"
Kill-linked	Specifies what stops if triggered	"We need to think about this"	"STOP: no new channel investment; redirect team to [alternative]"

Review Cadence Design:

Cadence	Metrics	Decision Authority	Key Question
Weekly (PM-led)	Activation, time-to-value, pipeline, conversion funnel	PM decides tactical adjustments	"Are we on track to hit this phase's gate criteria?"
Monthly (VP-level)	Revenue, retention, CAC, LTV/CAC, NPS	VP decides phase transitions and budget	"Should we proceed to next phase or stop?"
Quarterly (GM/Exec)	Market share, competitive position, GTM ROI	GM decides strategy-level changes	"Is this GTM fundamentally working?"

Framework 7: Distribution & Growth Mechanics

How the product spreads after initial launch. Distribution is not a post-launch afterthought — the growth model must be designed into the product and GTM from day 1.

Growth Model Taxonomy:

Model	Mechanism	When It Works	When It Fails	Product Requirements
Viral	User invites user (inherent to product usage)	Collaborative products, communication tools, network-effect products	Single-player products, enterprise tools, regulated industries	Built-in sharing/invite flow, value increases with more users
Content	SEO, thought leadership, educational content	Considered purchases, long sales cycles, "how to" searches	Impulse purchases, products with no educational angle	Content team, 6-18 month investment horizon
Sales-led	Outbound sales, demos, relationship building	Enterprise, high ACV, complex products, regulated industries	SMB, low ACV, self-serve expectations	Sales team, CRM, demo environment
Product-led (PLG)	Free trial/freemium → paid conversion	Developer tools, prosumer products, products with fast time-to-value	Products requiring implementation, long time-to-value	Self-serve onboarding, usage-based or freemium pricing
Platform/marketplace	Distribution through existing platform (Shopify, Salesforce, etc.)	Products that enhance existing platforms, niche integrations	Standalone products, products competing with platform features	API integration, marketplace listing, platform compliance

Network Effects Assessment:

Question	If Yes	If No
Does usage by one user make the product more valuable for others?	Genuine network effect — invest heavily in user acquisition	Not a network effect — don't confuse with scale economies
Can the effect be achieved at small scale (5-50 users)?	Local network effects — viable for beachhead	Requires critical mass — risky for early launch
Do users need to be in the same organization or can they be independent?	Same-side network effect — expansion within accounts	Cross-network effect — requires broader adoption
Can users get value from the product alone?	Network effect is additive (good)	Network effect is prerequisite (risky — chicken-and-egg)

Flywheel Design Method:

Every sustainable growth engine has a flywheel — a self-reinforcing loop where the output of one stage feeds the input of another. Design yours explicitly:

[User action A] → produces [Asset B] → attracts [New users C] → increases [Value D] → drives more [User action A]

Example (Figma):
Designer creates in Figma → Shares design link with stakeholders → Stakeholders see Figma in action → Request Figma for their team → More designers create in Figma

Flywheel Strength Assessment:

Dimension	Score 1 (Weak)	Score 3 (Moderate)	Score 5 (Strong)
Automaticity	Requires deliberate user effort to trigger	Semi-automatic (sharing is natural but not required)	Fully automatic (product usage inherently creates distribution)
Speed	Takes months per cycle	Weeks per cycle	Days or real-time
Compounding	Linear growth per cycle	Modest compounding	Strong compounding (each cycle is larger than the last)
Defensibility	Easy to replicate	Requires data or network to replicate	Data + network + community moat

Reference Customer Strategy:

The first 5-10 customers must be selected for storytelling value, not just revenue. These customers are the proof points that unlock the next 100 customers.

Selection Criterion	Why It Matters
Recognizable brand in segment	"If [Brand X] uses it, it must be good" — reduces perceived risk for prospects
Vocal about tools/process	They'll speak at conferences, write blog posts, share on social
Acute pain + measurable outcome	You need a before/after story with numbers, not a vague endorsement
Adjacent to next segment	Their endorsement should carry weight in the segment you expand to next
Willing to be named	Anonymous references have 80% less impact than named ones

Evidence Standards

Evidence Quality Tiers

Tier	Source Type	Weight	Example
Tier 1	Direct behavioral data (what people DO)	Highest	Usage analytics, conversion data, revenue, app store data, beta metrics
Tier 2	Primary research, credible methodology	High	Customer interviews (≥5), well-sampled surveys, usability tests
Tier 3	Expert analysis with disclosed reasoning	Medium-High	Industry analysts with methodology, experienced GTM operators with data
Tier 4	Industry reports from reputable firms	Medium	Gartner, IDC, Forrester (useful for market sizing, less for GTM tactics)
Tier 5	Executive statements and analogies	Low-Medium	"Slack did this" — analyze for strategic signaling, not as GTM evidence
Tier 6	Inference and analogy	Low	"Companies like ours typically..." — hypothesis generation only

Triangulation Rule: No GTM decision (segment selection, channel choice, pricing) rests on a single evidence tier. Minimum 2 tiers, ideally 3.

Annotation Convention: Inline tags throughout — (T1: beta conversion data) or (T5: competitor CEO interview) or (T6: inferred from analogous company). Per-cell annotation in all matrices.

Application Method

Step 0: Route to Framework Subset (Do This First)

Identify the launch stage and select load-bearing frameworks. Applying all 7 frameworks to a simple feature launch is overkill; applying only 3 to a new market entry is dangerous.

Launch Stage	Prompt Signals	Primary Frameworks	Supporting	Skip
New market entry	"entering a new market", "no existing customers in this space", "greenfield"	Market Entry Thesis, Segment Selection, Channel Strategy, Launch Gating	Competitive Positioning, Metrics & Failure Criteria	Distribution Mechanics (premature until initial traction)
Existing market expansion	"new segment", "adjacent market", "upsell motion"	Segment Selection, Channel Strategy, Competitive Positioning	Launch Gating, Metrics	Market Entry Thesis (market is known), Distribution (refine existing)
Feature launch	"new feature", "product update", "GA of capability"	Launch Gating, Metrics & Failure Criteria, Competitive Positioning	Channel Strategy (existing channels, new tactics)	Market Entry Thesis, Segment Selection (already known)
Pivot	"changing direction", "GTM isn't working", "new motion"	Market Entry Thesis, Segment Selection, Channel Strategy	All others	None — a pivot needs full re-evaluation

Quick Version (8 steps for experienced practitioners)

Route to framework subset — Identify launch stage from the table above. Select 3-4 primary frameworks.
Build the Market Entry Thesis — Why this market, why now, what's the wedge. Complete the Go/Wait/Pivot decision table.
Select and score segments — Define 3+ candidate beachheads with ICP scoring. Choose the highest-scoring segment. Map the expansion path.
Design channel strategy — Select ONE primary channel with full unit economics. Define evidence thresholds for adding channels.
Sequence the launch — Alpha → Beta → Open Beta → GA → Scale. Set gate criteria and kill criteria per phase.
Position against alternatives — Dunford positioning framework. Build battlecards for top 2-3 competitors. Test with ≥5 prospects.
Define metrics + failure criteria — Leading (weekly) and lagging (monthly) indicators. Hard kill criteria that are SMART-K.
Design the growth engine — Growth model selection, flywheel design, reference customer strategy.
Cascade every recommendation to O→I→R→C→W — Observation → Implication → Response → Confidence → Watch indicator.

Full Version (detailed steps with decision points)

Step 1: Build the Market Entry Thesis

The market entry thesis is the foundation. Everything else — segments, channels, positioning — depends on the structural argument for why this market, why now, and what's the wedge.

Why this market: Identify the structural opportunity. Not "big market" but "specific structural change creating X opportunity in Y segment." Use the Timing Thesis Four Forces table.
Why now: At least one timing signal must be present and supported by T1-T3 evidence. If no timing signal exists, question whether "now" is the right time — maybe you should wait.
What's the wedge: Identify the structural advantage using the Wedge Identification Method. The wedge must be specific to a segment, not a generic product superiority claim.
Defensibility check: Complete the Wedge Defensibility Assessment table. If the verdict is "Temporary arbitrage," acknowledge it — your GTM must be fast enough to build durable advantages before the arbitrage closes.

Decision point: Complete the Go/Wait/Pivot decision table. If the answer is not "GO," stop. The rest of the GTM strategy is premature.

Step 2: Select and Score Segments

Define 3+ candidate beachhead segments using the Segment Definition Rules. Each must pass the "name 100 prospects" test.
Score each segment using the ICP Scoring Matrix with evidence tiers per cell.
Select the highest-scoring segment as your beachhead. If two segments score within 0.5 points, choose the one with higher accessibility (easier to reach = faster learning).
Map the expansion path: beachhead → adjacent 1 → adjacent 2 → mainstream.

Decision point: If no segment scores ≥3.0, return to Problem Framing. Your product may not have a viable beachhead.

Step 3: Design Channel Strategy

For the selected beachhead segment, evaluate all channels using the Channel Selection Matrix.
Select ONE primary channel based on segment fit + unit economics viability.
Build the full conversion funnel for the primary channel with cost-per-stage estimates.
Calculate CAC, payback period, and LTV/CAC ratio.
Define evidence thresholds for adding a second channel.

Decision point: If no channel has estimated LTV/CAC ≥ 2:1, the unit economics may not work. Before proceeding, validate pricing (can you charge more?) or product costs (can you deliver cheaper?).

Step 4: Sequence the Launch

Define phases from the Phase Taxonomy.
Set specific gate criteria per phase using the Gate Criteria Rubric.
Set hard kill criteria per phase using the Kill Criteria framework.
Set time limits per phase — every phase has a deadline, not just success criteria.
Assign ownership for each gate review.

Decision point: If kill criteria trigger during any phase, execute the specified action. Do not negotiate with kill criteria — that's what they're for.

Step 5: Position Against Alternatives

Apply April Dunford's positioning framework to define competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value, target customer, and market category.
Write the positioning statement.
Build battlecards for the top 2-3 competitive alternatives (including "do nothing" if relevant).
Test positioning with ≥5 prospects from the target segment. Iterate based on the Positioning Validation signals.

Decision point: If positioning doesn't resonate after testing with 5+ prospects, the problem is likely segment selection (wrong audience) or wedge definition (insufficient differentiation), not messaging.

Step 6: Define Metrics & Failure Criteria

Select 3-5 leading indicators from the Leading Indicators table. For each, define the Goodhart countermeasure and antidote metric.
Select 3-5 lagging indicators. Set 6-month and 12-month targets.
Define ≥3 hard failure criteria using the SMART-K framework.
Design the review cadence: weekly (PM), monthly (VP), quarterly (GM).

Step 7: Design the Growth Engine

Assess each growth model from the taxonomy for applicability to your product and segment.
Design the flywheel explicitly. Diagram the self-reinforcing loop.
Score flywheel strength on the four dimensions (automaticity, speed, compounding, defensibility).
Select 5-10 target reference customers using the selection criteria.

Step 8: Cascade to Recommendations

For every major finding, apply the O→I→R→C→W cascade:

OBSERVATION [evidence tier] → IMPLICATION [mechanism] → RESPONSE [specific action + owner + timeline] → CONFIDENCE [H/M/L + key assumption] → WATCH INDICATOR [observable signal; if threshold crossed, re-assess]

Bad: "We should target design agencies through content marketing."

Elite: "Design agencies with 15+ Figma users spend $200+/mo on collaboration tools [T2: 8 customer interviews], creating a $12K+ ACV opportunity in a segment with <$500 CAC via targeted Figma community content [T6: estimated from analogous community channels]. Response: hire one content marketer focused exclusively on Figma community content — estimated 3-month payback at 5 conversions/month [owner: Head of Marketing, timeline: start within 2 weeks]. Confidence: M — assumes Figma community allows vendor content without backlash [check community guidelines before starting]. Watch: community engagement rate on first 3 posts; if <2% engagement or community pushback, pivot to partnership channel instead."

Mandatory Output: Assumption Registry

Every GTM strategy must end with a standalone assumption registry. List every load-bearing assumption:

Assumption	Framework it underpins	Confidence	Evidence	What would invalidate this
[e.g., "Design agencies will pay $10/user/mo for collaboration features"]	Segment Selection, Channel Economics	M	8 interviews said "probably"	≤2 of first 20 beta users convert to paid
[e.g., "Figma community content can produce $500 CAC"]	Channel Strategy	L	Analogous to dbt community results	CAC > $1,500 after 50 conversions
[e.g., "Primary competitor won't launch competing feature for 12+ months"]	Market Entry Thesis (timing)	M	No job postings, no patent filings	Competitor announces competing feature

Minimum 3 assumptions. Any L-confidence assumption must be flagged [EVIDENCE-LIMITED] in the section where it appears.

Mandatory Step: Adversarial Self-Critique

After completing the strategy, execute this step before delivering output:

"Now identify ≥3 genuine weaknesses in this GTM strategy. For each: what assumption is being made? What evidence would disprove it? Is there a scenario where this launch is catastrophically wrong?"

If you cannot find real weaknesses, you haven't looked hard enough.
Bear cases must be steelmanned — argued as forcefully as possible, not listed as probability-weighted caveats.
Each weakness should link to a specific Watch Indicator that would trigger re-assessment.
The adversarial critique is not optional and should not be folded into the risk register — it is a distinct, explicitly adversarial voice.

Quality Gradients

Intern Tier

Lists a target market and some channels
Uses "large TAM" as the primary rationale for market entry
No segment selection — targets everyone broadly ("SMBs" or "enterprise")
Channel selection based on familiarity, not unit economics
No launch gates or kill criteria — "launch and see what happens"
Metrics are vanity metrics (downloads, page views) without connection to business outcomes
No competitive positioning beyond "we're better"
Missing: wedge identification, unit economics, failure criteria, evidence tiers

Consultant Tier

Market entry thesis exists with some timing logic
Segments are defined (though may lack the "name 100 prospects" specificity)
Channel strategy includes basic unit economics (CAC, LTV/CAC)
Launch has phases but gates may be vague ("good retention" instead of "≥40% day-30 retention")
Competitive positioning uses a framework (Dunford or similar)
Metrics exist with targets and some failure criteria
Evidence is tiered — distinguishes customer interviews from analyst reports
Missing: Goodhart countermeasures, expansion path design, flywheel mechanics, adversarial self-critique

Elite Tier

Market entry thesis with wedge identification, timing forces, and defensibility assessment
Segments scored with ICP matrix, evidence tiers per cell, expansion path mapped
Channel strategy with full conversion funnel unit economics, evidence thresholds for scaling
Launch sequencing with phase-specific gate criteria AND hard kill criteria (SMART-K)
Competitive positioning validated with ≥5 prospects, battlecards per competitor
Metrics include Goodhart countermeasures and antidote metrics for every leading indicator
Failure criteria are specific, time-bound, and linked to kill actions
Growth engine designed with explicit flywheel and reference customer strategy
Every recommendation follows O→I→R→C→W cascade with H/M/L confidence
Assumption Registry with ≥3 load-bearing assumptions
Adversarial self-critique with ≥3 steelmanned weaknesses
Cross-framework contradictions surfaced explicitly
Document is navigable by non-creators (Reader Navigation, Notation Key, zero-jargon Executive Summary)

Failure Modes

FM-1: TAM Fantasy What it looks like: "The market is $50B so even 1% = $500M." Strategy document leads with market size as the primary rationale. No wedge, no segment selection, no evidence of ability to capture any share. Why it happens: Large TAM feels like a strong argument because it implies headroom. But TAM without a wedge is like saying "there's a lot of ocean, so we should be able to catch fish" without a net. Detection: If the market entry thesis can be reduced to "big market + good product = success," it's TAM Fantasy. Correction: Require a wedge (structural advantage in a specific segment) before any market sizing. Ask: "What specific thing about us makes us able to win 10 customers in this segment that [incumbent] can't easily match?"

FM-2: Channel Spray What it looks like: "We'll run content marketing, paid ads, outbound sales, partnerships, and community simultaneously." All channels get thin investment. After 6 months, none has produced statistically significant signal. Why it happens: Fear of missing out on the "right" channel. Desire to show investors a comprehensive plan. Confusion between strategy (choosing) and planning (listing). Detection: If the channel strategy includes 3+ channels in Phase 1, or if no channel has a full unit economics breakdown, it's Channel Spray. Correction: One channel in Phase 1. Prove it (50+ conversions with positive unit economics). Then add the second. The Minimum Viable Channel rule exists for this reason.

FM-3: Positioning Without Wedge What it looks like: Clear value proposition ("we make analytics easy") but no explanation of how you get the first 10 customers. The positioning describes why you're good but not why you win against the specific alternative the customer is currently using. Why it happens: Positioning work focuses on messaging rather than competitive displacement. "We're great" is not a wedge. "We solve X that [incumbent] can't solve without re-architecting" is a wedge. Detection: If you can't complete the sentence "Customers will switch from [alternative] because [structural reason the alternative can't match]," there's no wedge behind the positioning. Correction: Go back to Market Entry Thesis, specifically the Wedge Identification Method. Position against the alternative the customer would choose if you didn't exist.

FM-4: Launch Without Gates What it looks like: GA launch without beta validation. No kill criteria. No "what must be true before we proceed" checkpoints. The launch plan is a Gantt chart of marketing activities, not a learning sequence. Why it happens: Gates feel like delays. "We need to move fast" overrides "we need to learn before scaling." Pressure to show investor traction by a specific date. Detection: If the launch plan has dates but no metrics-based gates between phases, it's a timeline without learning. Correction: Add phase-specific gates using the Gate Criteria Rubric. Add hard kill criteria using the SMART-K framework. Every phase has a purpose (what question it answers) and a gate (what must be true to proceed).

FM-5: GTM by Analogy What it looks like: "Slack did bottoms-up adoption, so we should too." "Zoom grew through PLG, and we're also a SaaS product." The GTM strategy is built on analogy to a successful company without examining whether the analogy transfers. Why it happens: Analogies are compelling stories. Investors respond to "we're the Uber of X." But analogies fail when: the product is different, the market is different, the timing is different, or the distribution advantage is different. Detection: If removing the analogy collapses the strategic rationale, the strategy is built on the analogy, not on evidence. Correction: Every analogical claim must pass the transfer test: "What specific structural condition made this work for [Company], and do we have the same condition?" If you can't answer that, the analogy is decoration, not evidence.

FM-6: Feature Launch Disguised as GTM What it looks like: A "GTM strategy" that's actually "build feature X, then blog about it." No channel economics, no segment selection, no competitive positioning. The entire strategy is: ship → announce → hope. Why it happens: PMs who are strong on product and weak on GTM default to what they know (features) and bolt on a thin distribution layer. Detection: If the strategy could be summarized as "build it and they will come," it's a feature launch, not a GTM strategy. Correction: Apply the full framework set. Who is the segment? How will you reach them? What are the unit economics? What kills this? A GTM strategy without channel economics is not a strategy.

FM-7: Segment Confusion What it looks like: Target customer is "enterprise companies" or "small businesses" or "people who need better analytics." You can't name 100 prospects that fit the definition. The segment is so broad that channel strategy, positioning, and pricing all become generic. Why it happens: Fear of leaving revenue on the table by being specific. "What if we're wrong about the segment?" — but being vague about the segment guarantees you're wrong about everything else. Detection: Apply the "name 100 prospects" test. If you can't, the segment is too vague. Correction: Narrow using the Segment Definition Rules. Add observable behaviors, specific company attributes, and reachability criteria until you can generate a prospect list.

FM-8: Metrics Without Failure Criteria What it looks like: Success metrics are defined ("1,000 users in 6 months") but no conditions under which you'd stop or pivot. Success is the only planned outcome. When metrics miss, the response is always "give it more time" or "invest more." Why it happens: Failure criteria feel like planning to fail. Optimism bias. Organizational pressure to be "committed" rather than "disciplined." Detection: If the metrics section doesn't include a table of hard stops with specific actions, failure criteria are missing. Correction: Apply the SMART-K framework. For every success metric, define the failure threshold, the timeframe, and the action (kill, pivot, or redesign — not "reassess").

FM-9: Expert-Only GTM Document What it looks like: Strategy document uses framework jargon (PLG, CAC, LTV/CAC, beachhead, bowling alley, JTBD) without explaining terms. Stakeholders who need to execute the strategy can't parse the document. A marketing lead reading "our PLG motion targets the beachhead via a content flywheel with 3:1 LTV/CAC" would need a glossary. Why it happens: The strategist writes for themselves or for other strategists. The document becomes an internal artifact rather than an execution guide. Detection: Give the document to someone who will execute it (sales lead, marketing lead, product engineer). If they need to ask "what does this mean?" more than twice, it's expert-only. Correction: Reader Navigation section (How to Read + Notation Key), zero-jargon Executive Summary, and one-line explanations on first reference to every framework term (Format Rule 8).

What's Next

← This skill works best after: Problem Framing (validates the problem exists before you plan to sell the solution) and Competitive Market Analysis (provides the competitive landscape the GTM must navigate) → This skill's output feeds well into: Narrative Building (uses positioning and wedge to build the product story), Specification Writing (GTM requirements inform product priorities), Metric Design & Experimentation (GTM metrics become experiment targets) ⊕ Start here if: You have a product ready to launch, a market to enter, or a GTM motion that isn't working 💡 For a full product cycle: Problem Framing → Discovery & Research → Competitive Market Analysis → [THIS SKILL] → Narrative Building → Spec Writing → Metric Design

Chain interface:

Receives: Validated problem definition with target market (from Problem Framing), competitive landscape assessment (from Competitive Market Analysis), or raw context (product to launch, market to enter, GTM motion to design)
Produces: GTM Strategy Document with market entry thesis, segment prioritization, channel strategy with unit economics, launch sequence with gates and kill criteria, competitive positioning, and success/failure metrics
Handoff artifact: The GTM Strategy's "Positioning" section maps directly to Narrative Building's input. The "Metrics & Failure Criteria" section maps to Metric Design's input. The "Segment Selection" informs Spec Writing's audience definition.

Appendix: Quick-Reference Checklist

Use this to verify output completeness:

Worked Example

Input

"We're launching Collab Canvas — a real-time collaborative whiteboarding tool designed for remote product teams. The core differentiator is AI-generated templates that auto-structure brainstorming sessions (competitive analysis, sprint retro, user journey mapping) based on the meeting context. Primary competitors: Miro, FigJam, Lucidspark. We're a seed-stage startup with $2M funding, 4-person team, and 6 months of runway. We need a GTM strategy to get our first 100 paying customers."

Output (abbreviated — demonstrates key formats; a full GTM strategy would cover all sections)

Executive Summary (≤300 words):

Collab Canvas should target remote product teams at companies with 20-100 employees who currently use Miro's free tier and hit the 3-board limit during sprint planning. These teams spend 2-3 hours per week setting up whiteboards that AI templates could generate in 30 seconds — a time savings worth $200-400/month per team that Miro cannot easily match without cannibalizing their high-margin enterprise pricing model.

The entry point is Miro's free tier cliff: teams that need more than 3 boards but can't justify Miro's $8-16/user/month enterprise pricing for a tool they use 4-6 hours/week. Collab Canvas at $5/user/month with unlimited AI-generated boards targets this exact gap.

This is viable now because LLM costs dropped 85% in the past 12 months, making AI template generation feasible at SMB pricing — a cost structure that wasn't possible 18 months ago.

The primary channel is Product Hunt launch followed by product-led growth through the Figma and Slack integration ecosystems. Direct sales is not viable at seed stage with a 4-person team and $5/user/month pricing.

Launch sequence: 4-week closed beta with 15 design partners, 4-week open beta via Product Hunt, then GA. Kill criteria: if fewer than 10 of 15 design partners use the product weekly after 3 weeks, or if CAC exceeds $300 after 50 signups, stop and pivot the approach.

The strategy's biggest risk: Miro adds AI templates as a feature within 6 months, neutralizing the wedge before Collab Canvas builds enough switching costs. If Miro announces AI templates, immediately pivot positioning from "AI whiteboarding" to "the whiteboarding tool built for how remote teams actually work" — shifting the wedge from technology to workflow.

Segment Selection — ICP Scoring:

Criterion	Weight	Remote product teams (20-100 emp.)	Design agencies (5-30 emp.)	Enterprise innovation labs (500+ emp.)
Acute pain	25%	5 (T2: 8 interviews)	3 (T5: forum posts)	4 (T3: analyst report)
Willingness to pay	20%	4 (T2: 6/8 said "probably")	3 (T6: inferred)	2 (T4: long procurement)
Accessibility	20%	5 (T6: Slack/ProductHunt)	3 (T6: fragmented)	1 (T6: gated by IT)
Reference-ability	15%	4 (T6: vocal on Twitter)	5 (T6: portfolio-driven)	2 (T6: NDA-restricted)
Expansion potential	10%	4 (T6: → larger teams)	2 (T6: niche)	5 (T6: → enterprise)
Competitive vacuum	10%	4 (T2: Miro free tier gap)	2 (T3: FigJam dominates)	1 (T3: Miro enterprise)
Weighted Score		4.3	3.0	2.4

Decision: Remote product teams (20-100 employees) score 4.3 — strong beachhead. Design agencies are a viable adjacent segment (3.0). Enterprise innovation labs score below threshold (2.4) — skip for now.

Channel Unit Economics — PLG via Product Hunt + Slack Integration:

Funnel Stage              | Volume    | Conversion | Cost/Stage  | Cumulative CAC
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Product Hunt impressions  | 50,000    | 2%         | $500 (prep) | $0.01/impression
Landing page signups      | 1,000     | 25%        | $0           | $0.50/signup
Free trial starts         | 250       | 40%        | $0           | $2.00/trial
Activation (1 AI template)| 100       | 30%        | $0           | $5.00/activation
Paid conversion           | 30        | —          | $0           | $16.67/customer (T6: estimated)

Payback period: $16.67 CAC / ($5/user × 5 users avg = $25/mo) = 0.7 months (T6: estimated) LTV/CAC: ($25/mo × 18mo avg × 80% margin) / $16.67 = 21.6:1 (T6: estimated — optimistic)

⚠️ [EVIDENCE-LIMITED: All channel economics are T6 estimates. Actual numbers from beta will replace these. Do not commit budget based on these projections.]

Failure Criteria:

Condition	Timeframe	Action
<10 of 15 design partners use product weekly after 3 weeks	Beta Week 3	STOP: Product doesn't deliver value fast enough. Pivot to different core feature or different segment.
<30 free trial signups from Product Hunt launch	Open Beta Day 3	STOP: Product Hunt channel failed. Pivot to Slack app directory or direct outbound to Miro free-tier users.
CAC > $300 after 50 paid conversions	GA Month 2	STOP: Unit economics don't work at this price point. Raise price or reduce CAC before continuing.
Miro announces AI templates feature	Any phase	PIVOT: Immediately shift positioning from "AI whiteboarding" to workflow-first differentiation. Re-run competitive positioning framework.

Why This Works

This output was produced by running Steps 1-4 and Step 6 of the Full Application Method: Market Entry Thesis (wedge = Miro free tier gap + AI cost curve crossing), Segment Selection (ICP scoring with evidence tiers), Channel Strategy (PLG unit economics), Launch Sequencing (gated phases), and Failure Criteria (SMART-K format). It satisfies the Elite Tier Quality Gradient: every strategic conclusion has evidence tiers, H/M/L confidence, and O→I→R→C→W structure; the executive summary is zero-jargon; and failure criteria are specific, time-bound, and kill-linked. The biggest weakness (Miro adding AI templates) is named upfront, not buried.

References

Framework Sources:

April Dunford, Obviously Awesome (2019) — competitive positioning framework
Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm (1991; 3rd ed. 2014) — beachhead strategy, bowling alley, whole product concept
Hamilton Helmer, 7 Powers (2016) — counter-positioning as wedge strategy
Marc Andreessen, "The Only Thing That Matters" (pmarchive.com, 2007) — product-market fit as GTM prerequisite
Brian Balfour, "The Three Fits" (Reforge, 2017) — market-product fit, product-channel fit, channel-model fit
Andrew Chen, The Cold Start Problem (2021) — network effects, viral growth, marketplace dynamics
Lenny Rachitsky, "How the Biggest Consumer Apps Got Their First 1,000 Users" (lennysnewsletter.com, 2021) — channel-specific early traction patterns
Charles Goodhart, "Goodhart's Law" — metric gaming countermeasures

Related Skills in PM Skills Arsenal:

Problem Framing — upstream (validates the problem before GTM planning)
Competitive Market Analysis — upstream/parallel (provides competitive landscape)
Discovery & Research — parallel (demand-side primary research for segment validation)
Narrative Building — downstream (uses positioning and wedge for product story)
Specification Writing — downstream (GTM requirements inform product priorities)
Metric Design & Experimentation — downstream (GTM metrics become experiment targets)

Created: 2026-03-12 | PM Skills Arsenal v1.0 | go-to-market-strategy Quality tier: Elite (1200+ lines, 7 encoded frameworks, quality gradients, 9 failure modes) License: MIT