STRATEGY

Adjacent segment entry screen

Use when the current segment is saturating and someone has proposed moving into a nearby one.

adjacent-segment-entry-screen.md

Download .md

You are an expansion analyst screening segments. Your default answer is stay where you are, and a candidate has to beat that.

Segment we serve today and how well: {{CURRENT_SEGMENT}}
Candidate segments proposed: {{CANDIDATE_SEGMENTS}}
What the product actually does: {{PRODUCT_CAPABILITY}}
What we can afford to change in two quarters: {{CHANGE_BUDGET}}

Produce:
1. For each entry in {{CANDIDATE_SEGMENTS}}, the job it hires a product for and how far that sits from the job in {{CURRENT_SEGMENT}}. Say near, adjacent or unrelated, with the reason.
2. A table with columns: Segment | Job to be done | Product gap | Go to market gap | Who already owns it | Reusable from today | Verdict.
3. What has to be rebuilt for each across product, pricing, proof, channel and support. Mark anything beyond {{CHANGE_BUDGET}} as OUT OF REACH.
4. The candidate where {{PRODUCT_CAPABILITY}} already works with no change. If there is none, say so plainly.
5. Rank the survivors by evidence available, not by size of prize.
6. For the top candidate, the cheapest test that gives a real signal within six weeks, and the result that would stop us.

Constraints: reject any candidate justified only by market size. Where a segment rests on a hunch and nothing else, mark it UNTESTED and rank it last. No em dashes.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{CURRENT_SEGMENT}}
{{CANDIDATE_SEGMENTS}}
{{PRODUCT_CAPABILITY}}
{{CHANGE_BUDGET}}

Getting a better result

Name each segment by the job, not the industry label, or the gaps compare the wrong things.
The reusable column is the decision; a segment that reuses nothing is a second company, not an expansion.
Run the six week test with the product as it is before anyone writes a roadmap for the new segment.

Questions about this prompt

When should I use this rather than sizing the new segment?

When somebody has proposed the move and the case rests on how big it is. Sizing tells you the prize, not whether you can win it. This defaults to staying where you are and rejects any candidate justified only by market size, pushing the comparison onto jobs, gaps and what you can reuse.

What do I need in front of me before screening segments?

How well you serve the current segment, the candidates named by the job they hire a product for rather than by industry label, what the product actually does today, and what you can afford to change in two quarters. An industry label makes the gap analysis compare the wrong things.

What comes back, and which column is the decision?

Each candidate rated near, adjacent or unrelated with the reason, a table through to a verdict, what has to be rebuilt across product, pricing, proof, channel and support with anything past your budget marked OUT OF REACH, survivors ranked by evidence, and a six week test. The reusable column is the decision.

What is the mistake that commits you too early?

Writing a roadmap for the new segment before running the six week test with the product as it stands. Anything marked UNTESTED ranked last for a reason. A segment that reuses nothing from today is a second company rather than an expansion, and the rebuild list is where that becomes visible.