Opportunity area · theme founders discuss · intermediate

Distribution approach for thinking

Distribution · Thinking spreads when the artifact (checklist, report, invite, invoice) pulls the next user—not when the landing page gets adjectives. First metric beats first feature. Original insight: the competitor is the buyer’s tolerance for chaos around “thinking.”

Problem

In martech, the default stack almost works—until “thinking” forces spreadsheet archaeology and Slack archaeology at the worst moment. Unexpected challenge: English-language threads overstate global demand; local budgets and compliance may differ. Hidden cost: permissions, exports, and “who owns this spreadsheet?” politics.

Target user

Operators accountable for outcomes when “thinking” breaks

Proposed solution

Treat “thinking” as one path: intake → decision → output for a single ICP in martech. Charge for the outcome, not “platform access.” Distribution rule: track conversations started and pilots dated, not impressions. Counter-intuitive advice: say no to custom work that does not teach the core path. Distribution bottleneck: warm intros dry up; build a boring weekly motion you can run alone. One caution: shipping unreliable automation in a trust-sensitive job burns the only channel that mattered. One recommendation: ship a concierge version, log exceptions, automate only the repeats. Practical next step: rewrite the offer in one sentence without “platform,” “ecosystem,” or “AI-powered.” Real-world pattern: community-led tools often start as templates and services before they become SaaS. Straight take: green-light only if you already have access to operators between jobs or a scar that makes “thinking” personal. Cold pure-tech starts in noisy martech categories are a grind.