Marketing
Which view is missing when marketing activity cannot explain what constrains, enables, governs, or proves it?
Five views jointly specify this business capability: Principles constrain the work; Processes define its jobs; Platform enables them; Players perform and govern them; Performance proves whether they work.
Need to turn the eight jobs into one focused launch or acquisition cycle? Run the GTM Distribution practice from a bounded bet to an evidence-backed next decision.
Changes my mind: Evidence shows one view can be removed without weakening the capability specification.
The Spine
- Principles — rules and kill signals that constrain every job
- Processes — eight canonical JTBDs and their stable identities
- Platform — software, data, and integration enablers
- Players — accountable human and agent roles
- Performance — gauges that turn claims into observed results
These are public WHAT/WHY views. They do not publish private operating scores, venture evidence, filesystem paths, control instructions, or unproven software claims.
Zoom Out
Context
-
Principles — constraints
-
Platform — enablement
-
Players — authority
-
Performance — proof
-
Purpose — the wider Tight Five
-
depends-on Business Capabilities — the function map
-
applies-to Marketing Processes — the canonical jobs
-
applies-to GTM Distribution — one runnable route across the jobs
Questions
Next question: Which of the five views currently rests on assertion rather than evidence?
- Which process has no accountable player?
- Which platform claim lacks a performance observation?