| name | market-research |
| description | Conducts TAM/SAM/SOM market sizing, competitive landscape analysis, and market entry timing for startup founders. Includes the T-Score Market Entry Timing Equation and Trend-Spotting OS. Use proactively whenever a founder mentions market size, TAM, "how big is this market", competitive analysis, market timing, "why now", "are we too early", "when should we launch", or preparing market slides for investors. |
| used_by | ["market-analyst","gtm-strategist","investor-agent"] |
Market Research — Founder OS
TAM/SAM/SOM sizing, competitive analysis, market timing, and trend intelligence. Investor-ready outputs.
Phase 1: Market Definition
Before sizing, define boundaries. VCs will probe these assumptions.
## Market Definition
Geographic Scope: [Initial] → [Expansion]
Target Customer: [Specific buyer persona]
Problem Category: [Narrow problem definition]
Product Category: [Existing / Creating new]
Time Horizon: [X] years
Phase 2: TAM/SAM/SOM
| Level | Definition | Method |
|---|
| TAM | Everyone who could theoretically buy | Top-down from reports OR bottom-up from unit economics |
| SAM | Segment you can actually reach | TAM × geographic + segment filters |
| SOM | Realistic capture in 3–5 years | SAM × market share % (typically 1–5%) |
Method 1: Top-Down
Search: "[industry] market size [year]" — Gartner, Forrester, IBISWorld, Statista, Grand View Research.
Red flag: Using top-down alone. Investors run a bottom-up sanity check internally. Surprise them by doing it first.
Method 2: Bottom-Up (Investor-Preferred)
Potential customers: [count] [specific ICP definition]
ACV: $[X]/year (based on pricing model)
TAM: [count] × $[ACV] = $[X]
SAM (reachable in 3 years): [filtered count] = $[X]M
SOM (realistic capture): [X]% of SAM = [X] customers = $[X]M ARR
Why bottom-up wins: Math is auditable. Shows ICP depth. More defensible in due diligence.
Investor-Ready Output Template
# Market Size: [Company Name]
Summary:
- TAM: $[X]B — [one line]
- SAM: $[X]M — [one line]
- SOM (3-year): $[X]M — [one line]
Methodology: [Bottom-up / Top-down / Hybrid]
TAM Calculation: [show math with sources]
SAM Calculation: [filters + reasoning]
SOM Calculation: [capture assumptions]
Key Assumptions:
1. [Assumption — why reasonable]
2. [Assumption — why reasonable]
Sources:
- [Source + date]
Risks: [Risk → mitigation]
Phase 3: Competitive Landscape
Identify All Competitor Types
- Direct: Same solution, same problem
- Indirect: Different solution, same problem
- Substitutes: What customers do today (spreadsheets, manual process)
- Potential entrants: Incumbents who could enter
"We have no competitors" = signal you haven't done the research (or there's no market).
Competitive Matrix
| Dimension | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Incumbent |
|---|
| Target customer | | | | |
| Pricing | | | | |
| Key differentiator | | | | |
| Key weakness | | | | |
| Funding/stage | | | | |
Positioning Statement
For [target customer] who [have this problem],
[Product] is a [category]
that [key benefit].
Unlike [competitor],
we [key differentiator].
Phase 4: The T-Score — Market Entry Timing Equation
"Pioneers had a 47% failure rate, averaged 10% market share, and were the market leader in just 11% of categories. Early leaders had failure rates around 8%, averaged 28% market share, and led in a majority of categories." — Golder & Tellis
The lesson: Being first doesn't win. Entering at the right time wins.
The T-Score Formula
T-Score = Market Readiness Score (MRS) + Defensibility Index (DI) + CAC Volatility Adjustment (CVA)
Scoring range: 0–30. Act on 12+. Above 20 = strong window.
Component 1: Market Readiness Score (MRS) — 0 to 10
| Signal | Low (1-3) | Medium (4-7) | High (8-10) |
|---|
| Technology enablers | Theoretical | Available but expensive | Democratized |
| Buyer awareness | Don't know they have the problem | Aware, no clear solution | Actively searching |
| Regulatory environment | Blocking | Neutral | Enabling |
| Infrastructure readiness | Missing key pieces | Mostly there | Complete |
MRS Quick Test: Can your target customer articulate the problem without you explaining it? Yes = MRS 7+. No = MRS <5.
Component 2: Defensibility Index (DI) — 0 to 10
| Moat Type | Score | Example |
|---|
| Network effects | +3 | More users → more value |
| Data advantage | +2 | Proprietary data flywheel |
| Switching costs | +2 | Integration depth |
| Brand/trust | +1.5 | Category association |
| Patents/IP | +1.5 | Unique tech |
DI Warning: If DI < 3, even good timing won't protect you from well-funded fast-followers.
Component 3: CAC Volatility Adjustment (CVA) — -5 to +5
| Market Condition | Adjustment |
|---|
| Market education required (too early) | -3 to -5 |
| CAC stable, proven channels exist | 0 |
| Strong organic demand pulling (right on time) | +3 to +5 |
| Market saturation increasing CAC rapidly | -2 to -3 |
T-Score Interpretation
| T-Score | Signal | Recommendation |
|---|
| < 8 | Too early | Wait or build distribution infrastructure |
| 8–12 | Early window | Soft launch, build waitlist, educate selectively |
| 12–20 | Optimal window | Launch and move fast |
| 20–25 | Prime window | Accelerate — competition incoming |
| > 25 | Late entry risk | Must have differentiation or niche angle |
T-Score Calculator Prompt
Calculate my T-Score for market entry timing.
My product: [description]
My target customer: [specific ICP]
My market: [category]
For each component, assess:
MRS (Market Readiness Score, 0-10):
- Technology enablers: [current state]
- Buyer awareness level: [current state]
- Regulatory environment: [current state]
- Infrastructure readiness: [current state]
DI (Defensibility Index, 0-10):
- Network effects potential: [yes/no, type]
- Data advantage: [yes/no, type]
- Switching costs: [high/medium/low]
- Brand building opportunity: [yes/no]
CVA (CAC Volatility, -5 to +5):
- Market education required?: [yes/no]
- Organic demand signals: [yes/no]
- Channel saturation: [current state]
Output:
1. MRS score with explanation
2. DI score with explanation
3. CVA score with explanation
4. Total T-Score
5. Interpretation and recommended action
6. Biggest risk to timing assumption
Phase 5: "Why Now?" Analysis
Investors always ask this. Answer with evidence.
| Category | Evidence to Find |
|---|
| Technology enabler | What's newly possible in last 18 months? |
| Regulatory change | New laws, compliance, policy shifts? |
| Market shift | Changing buyer behavior, new personas? |
| Economic factor | Cost pressures, new budget categories? |
| Cultural shift | Remote work, AI adoption, generational? |
## Why Now?
Technology Catalyst:
[What's newly possible that wasn't 3 years ago?]
Market Catalyst:
[What's changed in buyer behavior or market structure?]
Timing Evidence:
- [Specific data point showing acceleration]
- [Specific data point showing acceleration]
Risk of Waiting:
[What changes if we delay 12 months?]
Phase 6: Source Quality
| Quality | Source | Use For |
|---|
| High | Analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester) | TAM baseline |
| High | Government data (Census, BLS) | Customer counts |
| High | Company filings (SEC, S-1) | Revenue/market data |
| Medium | Industry associations | Segment data |
| Medium | Quality news (WSJ, TechCrunch) | Trends |
| Low | Blog posts | Directional only |
Always include year in searches. Treat reports >2 years old with skepticism.
Red Flags to Fix
| Red Flag | Fix |
|---|
| Suspiciously round TAM | Show calculation |
| No sources cited | Cite everything |
| SAM = TAM | Apply real filters |
| SOM requires >10% market share | Revisit assumptions |
| T-Score < 8 but launching anyway | Document the risk mitigation |
| "We have no competitors" | Find indirect ones |
Integration with Other Skills
- After market research →
skills/public/gtm-strategy/SKILL.md for channel + ICP planning
- After market research → for market slides + investor narrative
- For trend identification →
skills/public/head-of-growth/SKILL.md Trend-Spotting OS
- To validate assumptions →
skills/public/problem-validation/SKILL.md for customer interviews
