The criterion people skip is access to the buyer, and it is the one that decides whether your reps close or just collect very pleasant discovery calls. "Version one, meant to be broken" is the right posture too, because ICPs go stale faster than most GTM leaders like to admit.
I think the single best piece of advice I've heard is actually speaking to real humans. The nuances that a short conversation can surface are totally impossible to be replicated by AI.
When someone's eyes light up using the product, their body language shifts, or when you hear them getting excited or nervous about something you just showed them always helps us with our decision making.
JTBD is awesome - especially when dealing with a pragmatic B2B buying unit - agree - sometimes I go with problems or desired benefits instead - but very simila thing if you ask me - have a great weekend- excited to reconnect soon!
A very useful framework, particularly the distinction between a broad target market and a true beachhead segment.
From an in-vitro diagnostics perspective, I would add one more criterion to the five proposed: timing.
A segment may have a burning pain point, willingness to pay, attractive growth potential, good accessibility and expansion opportunities and still be commercially unattractive if most accounts are locked into multi-year reagent-rental contracts or public tenders that will not reopen for another three years.
In IVD, the best beachhead is therefore not simply the segment with the strongest need. It is the segment where need, readiness and a trigger event converge.
That trigger may be a contract expiry, a laboratory consolidation, a new Hub-and-Spoke model, a regulatory change, an incumbent service failure, a shortage of technical staff or the introduction of a new clinical pathway.
I also strongly agree with the idea that validation must go beyond interviews. In healthcare, saying “this technology is interesting” is very different from being willing to allocate budget, involve procurement, engage IT or clinical engineering, and redesign the workflow around it.
For an IVD company, I would therefore define the ideal beachhead as:
a narrow group of laboratories with a measurable clinical or operational pain, sufficient economic value, implementation readiness, accessible decision-makers and a realistic window for change.
That last element is critical. In diagnostics, a market can be attractive in theory and completely inaccessible in practice.
The discipline of choosing where not to compete is often more valuable than expanding the target list.
The criterion people skip is access to the buyer, and it is the one that decides whether your reps close or just collect very pleasant discovery calls. "Version one, meant to be broken" is the right posture too, because ICPs go stale faster than most GTM leaders like to admit.
I think the single best piece of advice I've heard is actually speaking to real humans. The nuances that a short conversation can surface are totally impossible to be replicated by AI.
When someone's eyes light up using the product, their body language shifts, or when you hear them getting excited or nervous about something you just showed them always helps us with our decision making.
This is a great piece!!!
Marketing talks personas, sales talks ICP, boards talk segments.
To me ICP is associated with a job to be done and for whom.
The idea that we can signal the hell out of the B2B buyer was created with the illusion of ‘we can track everything’ with ABM unfortunately.
Buyer journeys are open ecosystems, non linear, highly probabilistic and time lagged.
Triggers are what make ICPs actionable. Not the other way around.
So sooner we agree we are in an open system, sooner our targeting can be based on circumstances and triggers and JTBD!
Lovely piece!!
Oh wow - you are reading my Substack?! Honored <3
JTBD is awesome - especially when dealing with a pragmatic B2B buying unit - agree - sometimes I go with problems or desired benefits instead - but very simila thing if you ask me - have a great weekend- excited to reconnect soon!
Of course I do - it is one of my favorites actually…That’s why I reached out :-)) Same, I will ping you next week. Have a fab weekend!
A very useful framework, particularly the distinction between a broad target market and a true beachhead segment.
From an in-vitro diagnostics perspective, I would add one more criterion to the five proposed: timing.
A segment may have a burning pain point, willingness to pay, attractive growth potential, good accessibility and expansion opportunities and still be commercially unattractive if most accounts are locked into multi-year reagent-rental contracts or public tenders that will not reopen for another three years.
In IVD, the best beachhead is therefore not simply the segment with the strongest need. It is the segment where need, readiness and a trigger event converge.
That trigger may be a contract expiry, a laboratory consolidation, a new Hub-and-Spoke model, a regulatory change, an incumbent service failure, a shortage of technical staff or the introduction of a new clinical pathway.
I also strongly agree with the idea that validation must go beyond interviews. In healthcare, saying “this technology is interesting” is very different from being willing to allocate budget, involve procurement, engage IT or clinical engineering, and redesign the workflow around it.
For an IVD company, I would therefore define the ideal beachhead as:
a narrow group of laboratories with a measurable clinical or operational pain, sufficient economic value, implementation readiness, accessible decision-makers and a realistic window for change.
That last element is critical. In diagnostics, a market can be attractive in theory and completely inaccessible in practice.
The discipline of choosing where not to compete is often more valuable than expanding the target list.