ByIN COOPERATION WITH DANIEL ASHKENAZI

JULY 19, 2026 13:51

Introducing a new product resembles sending a rocket into space. Observers witness only the dramatic ascent, yet the outcome is decided well in advance of ignition. Marketing follows the same logic. Most setbacks occur not once the item reaches buyers, but during the planning phase itself. We discussed with Product Marketing specialist Liliia Beliaeva the recurring errors firms repeat, how to tell a robust GTM plan apart from polished visuals, and the current influence of AI together with data.

- Hello, Liliia. Why do numerous GTM plans fall short even prior to rollout?

- Hello. This is a recurring issue I encounter, and it nearly always stems from one core problem.

Many organizations begin GTM efforts with execution details instead of core planning. They settle on promotion methods before clarifying who actually requires the item and for what reason. They judge launch performance through views, impressions, and engagement rather than the sole meaningful measure: whether customers purchase the product. All other figures represent activity, not commercial results. A solid GTM plan starts not by asking what is being introduced, but by determining who gains value, why, and whether they will pay.

- How frequently do firms introduce items without thorough audience knowledge?

- Much more often than most acknowledge. Organizations assume they grasp their audience after a handful of conversations or dashboard reviews. Yet that differs from true comprehension.

Real audience insight means describing not merely who they are, but their emotions when seeking a solution. What runs through their mind? What barriers exist? What prior attempts have they made? In D2C this matters greatly, since only seconds exist in a feed for someone to recognize relevance, amid numerous similar offerings. Absent this depth, firms launch broad messages that suit no one in particular. They offend nobody yet connect with few. The outcome includes costly visits, low conversion, and the sense that the item is solid yet something is off. That element is missing audience insight.

- What indicators reveal a GTM plan was constructed poorly even before launch?

- Several warning signs appear early.

First, an unclear audience outline. If the target description fits one sentence of general traits, it is merely a demographic category rather than a profile. D2C needs behavioral detail: the life moment when someone begins searching, the events leading there, and previous solutions tried. Lacking this, messages fail to connect.

Second, positioning drafted ahead of genuine competitor review. Many mix positioning with messaging. Positioning clarifies why the offer stands out among alternatives, including inaction. Without this work, messages blend with rivals.

A practical test involves listing buyer decision factors and rating how each rival, including your own, addresses them. Areas where everyone already excels prove costly to contest. More valuable are gaps no one covers well - these offer genuine distinction.

This approach guided the Ultra4 Kit launch at Mira. The hormone-tracking space centered on women pursuing pregnancy, an established segment competitors already served. Yet broad research revealed rising demand among women in perimenopause and those with hormonal issues, segments with limited options. We targeted these groups early, developing tailored messages, triggers, and channels rather than one shared method. These areas now form part of core growth plans, and the launch ranked as Mira's strongest to date.

Third, poor channel selection. Dividing effort across too many channels without enough support leads to weak results everywhere. Strong allocation resembles an investment mix: most resources to proven options, some to emerging ones, and minimal to experiments. Every major channel began as a test, yet not every test succeeds.

Fourth, absent success measures before launch. If the team cannot name exact figures that define success thirty days later, no plan exists - only an activity list.

- Which matters more: a strong product or strong positioning?

- Both, yet in proper order.

A strong product without positioning stays unnoticed. I have witnessed this repeatedly. The item addresses a genuine issue and the team supports it, yet the market overlooks it because no one clarified the audience, the value, or the timing. In D2C this proves vital, since no sales team explains details personally. If the message misses, the viewer scrolls past.

Still, positioning cannot rescue a weak product. It may secure an initial sale, but repeat buys and retention convert a sales spike into lasting growth. Without them, unit economics may appear viable yet lack a base for expansion.

I view this as an interconnected system. The product forms the base. Positioning communicates to the market why the item fits and for whom. GTM converts that into sales via suitable channels and messages. Pricing mirrors perceived value and operates both directions: too low erodes confidence just as too high blocks entry. All parts link, yet a weak base undermines the rest.

- How have GTM plans evolved with AI, data, and shifting consumer habits?

- AI has altered GTM development, above all through speed.

Customer research, competitor reviews, segmentation, positioning, channel ideas, and initial messaging - tasks once requiring weeks - can now be outlined in hours. I treat this as a starting point to refine for specific contexts rather than a final answer.

One method I apply is requesting AI to review a completed plan for flaws, inconsistencies, and open issues. This shortens the hypothesis-test-conclusion loop and prevents attachment to untested ideas.

Beyond strategy tools, AI serves as a fast-growing acquisition channel. More people discover products via AI instead of traditional search - estimates suggest one in three now use it during discovery. This emerging field, Generative Engine Optimization, means how a brand appears in AI responses already shapes purchase choices.

- Can a plan be corrected once flaws appear during preparation?

- Yes, and sooner is better. Adjusting before launch involves time. Adjusting after spending and after incorrect perceptions form is far costlier.

Correction does not always mean completing the original path. Sometimes stopping and restarting proves necessary. Persisting in an incorrect direction simply because work began ranks among marketing's costliest errors.

This highlights why the PMM starting point counts. As Mira's first PMM, one early choice was joining the product process immediately. Rather than receiving a finished item, I helped shape it alongside the team. Marketing integrated from the outset. Insights from priority segments informed the product roadmap, and pricing reflected clear willingness-to-pay data.

When PMM joins later, they promote an existing item. If the product targets the wrong issue, price, or audience, no campaign resolves it.

- What three pre-launch steps lower GTM failure risk?

- First, speak with actual people rather than relying solely on data about them. Before planning, conduct live interviews with potential buyers. These yield context and insights dashboards and surveys miss. The key question is not whether they would buy, but to describe the last time they encountered the problem. Focusing on a real past event reveals actual behavior over polite replies. Responses nearly always adjust initial ideas. This is ongoing, not a single pre-launch step.

Second, perform candid competitor analysis to identify a true differentiator. Not one that appears impressive in slides, but one relevant to buyers at decision time. View yourself and rivals through customer eyes to locate the gap where you become the clear choice. Include the option of doing nothing, often the strongest D2C rival.

Third, set success metrics before launch, not afterward. Not vague awareness gains, but concrete targets: required sales volume and the LTV-to-CAC ratio that supports healthy economics. This enables rapid iteration decisions and distinguishes activity from business impact.

All three steps center on decisions grounded in reality rather than assumptions. Before launch, an error costs time. After launch, it costs money and standing.

This article was written in cooperation with Daniel Ashkenazi