Great stuff, Chris - the take away many might miss is the difference between funnels and loops.
While I see the parallel, I personally am not a fan of the military analogy because it’s not “land“ that you’re trying to seize and maintain control of, but the hearts and minds of actual users, given that you’ve effectively solved their unmet needs in distinctive ways.
Super interesting reminder. I'm taking marketing actuals ie size, vertical, etc you're talking about real people, users, buyers with hopes and fears - make those beachhead customers "raving fans" - great reminder Mike 🧡
Thanks Chris, another excellent post. So hard to make sure we don't fall into the trap of scope creep. Taking a page from your own playbook I suppose one way we can protect against this is to make sure that we are always responding to actual 'pain points' of our audience rather than any imagined opportunity for expansion...
I'm curious about the internal, human side of this. How do leaders effectively rally a team around winning a tiny beachhead, especially when the market often rewards the appearance of explosive growth?
Well its important to out the beach head in the context of a wider plan - ie we've identified the right beachhead - market entry point. They're the most attractive market to start (some kind of matrix - probably most pain & easiest to access & you can throw a blanket over them ie small) - we win there, make them raving fans as we transform their business & then rapidly address adjacent segments in SOM, then SAM, then TAM. Having an "uncomfortably narrow" beachhead means you should grow faster not slow because you're concentrating all your resources on a small entry point vs diluting your power (time, money, people, ). I hope this helps ✨
The Deel example is particularly instructive because it highlights something most founders misunderstand about "going global". What looks like simultaneous expansion was actually a tightly sequenced unlock of infrastructure leverage.
The beachhead framework here mirrors what I've observed in successful PLG companies: the initial wedge isn't just about market size, it's about creating a repeatable motion that generates its own expansion signals. When you nail the beachhead, adjacnet markets don't require new playbooks, they require parameter adjustments.
One thing I'd add to the "wrong beach" signals: watch for when your best customers don't exhibit clustering behavior. If each win feels like an isolated event rather than part of a recognizable pattern, you're likely solving individual problems rather than systematic pain. That's a business, but it's not a platform.
The depth before distance framing cuts through a lot of the FOMO that drives premature expansion. Most founders confuse TAM with addressable market on day one. The real question isn't how big the eventual market is, it's how fast you can saturate the first segment while building compounding advantage.
Brilliant comments 👏 thanks for sharing! You're always welcome to my feed! Every paragraph has some gold in it ✅ I publish 3x per week for Founders - don't miss a beat
Reading this felt like watching someone lay out stepping stones across a fast-moving stream.
Most founders try to leap the whole thing in one go, but you’ve shown how much easier it is when the path is placed in the right order.
You’ve named a truth many early-stage teams overlook: the problem isn’t ambition, it’s sequencing. When steps happen out of order, even strong products feel heavy to carry.
I appreciate how clear and steady this is. You give founders a way to breathe, reorganise, and move with far more calm, especially when everything around them feels urgent.
Through the 5 Voices lens, sequencing mistakes often arise from different instinctive pulls:
Nurturers prioritise relationships first.
Guardians focus on structure and process.
Creatives want to refine the idea again.
Connectors want to build buzz early.
Pioneers want to sprint to scale.
When a founder understands these tensions, the sequence becomes a shared rhythm rather than a tug-of-war.
I think it's about commiting to the process of engineering 100 true fans - those first buyers & users who's lives are transformed who pay you back with very positive vibes and loads of deep learnings ✨ thanks for sharing James
Great stuff, Chris - the take away many might miss is the difference between funnels and loops.
While I see the parallel, I personally am not a fan of the military analogy because it’s not “land“ that you’re trying to seize and maintain control of, but the hearts and minds of actual users, given that you’ve effectively solved their unmet needs in distinctive ways.
Super interesting reminder. I'm taking marketing actuals ie size, vertical, etc you're talking about real people, users, buyers with hopes and fears - make those beachhead customers "raving fans" - great reminder Mike 🧡
Thanks Chris, another excellent post. So hard to make sure we don't fall into the trap of scope creep. Taking a page from your own playbook I suppose one way we can protect against this is to make sure that we are always responding to actual 'pain points' of our audience rather than any imagined opportunity for expansion...
"be an student of the customers/audiences pain" - commit to the process of that & solving what you find in neat ways. 👏
I'm curious about the internal, human side of this. How do leaders effectively rally a team around winning a tiny beachhead, especially when the market often rewards the appearance of explosive growth?
Btw, this is an incredibly clarifying framework.
Well its important to out the beach head in the context of a wider plan - ie we've identified the right beachhead - market entry point. They're the most attractive market to start (some kind of matrix - probably most pain & easiest to access & you can throw a blanket over them ie small) - we win there, make them raving fans as we transform their business & then rapidly address adjacent segments in SOM, then SAM, then TAM. Having an "uncomfortably narrow" beachhead means you should grow faster not slow because you're concentrating all your resources on a small entry point vs diluting your power (time, money, people, ). I hope this helps ✨
appreciate a great visual like this, GTM is a popular topic but rarely simplified
I have to simplify because my mind is so chaotic! Thanks for sharing
you're welcome
Such a clear reminder that depth fuels real momentum.
Yep - "uncomfortably narrow" beachhead - market entry point 🎯
The Deel example is particularly instructive because it highlights something most founders misunderstand about "going global". What looks like simultaneous expansion was actually a tightly sequenced unlock of infrastructure leverage.
The beachhead framework here mirrors what I've observed in successful PLG companies: the initial wedge isn't just about market size, it's about creating a repeatable motion that generates its own expansion signals. When you nail the beachhead, adjacnet markets don't require new playbooks, they require parameter adjustments.
One thing I'd add to the "wrong beach" signals: watch for when your best customers don't exhibit clustering behavior. If each win feels like an isolated event rather than part of a recognizable pattern, you're likely solving individual problems rather than systematic pain. That's a business, but it's not a platform.
The depth before distance framing cuts through a lot of the FOMO that drives premature expansion. Most founders confuse TAM with addressable market on day one. The real question isn't how big the eventual market is, it's how fast you can saturate the first segment while building compounding advantage.
Brilliant comments 👏 thanks for sharing! You're always welcome to my feed! Every paragraph has some gold in it ✅ I publish 3x per week for Founders - don't miss a beat
So important to layer in the growth in most cases.
It’s impossible to successfully launch multiple products/services AT A HIGH LEVEL at the same time.
Reading this felt like watching someone lay out stepping stones across a fast-moving stream.
Most founders try to leap the whole thing in one go, but you’ve shown how much easier it is when the path is placed in the right order.
You’ve named a truth many early-stage teams overlook: the problem isn’t ambition, it’s sequencing. When steps happen out of order, even strong products feel heavy to carry.
I appreciate how clear and steady this is. You give founders a way to breathe, reorganise, and move with far more calm, especially when everything around them feels urgent.
Through the 5 Voices lens, sequencing mistakes often arise from different instinctive pulls:
Nurturers prioritise relationships first.
Guardians focus on structure and process.
Creatives want to refine the idea again.
Connectors want to build buzz early.
Pioneers want to sprint to scale.
When a founder understands these tensions, the sequence becomes a shared rhythm rather than a tug-of-war.
I think it's about commiting to the process of engineering 100 true fans - those first buyers & users who's lives are transformed who pay you back with very positive vibes and loads of deep learnings ✨ thanks for sharing James