group

An investigation of {{anchor}}'s own site just finished. It read the pages itself and submitted every product it could establish; the list below is what it found, each line naming the page that establishes it. Your job is the judgement that list does not carry: group the products into the markets they actually sit in.

the company sells   {{sells}}
to                  {{buyer}}

The products the investigation established

{{products}}

Group them into capabilities

A company's product list is a sales artifact. It splits one job into several SKUs because that is how it prices, and it bundles several jobs into one SKU because that is how it packages. Neither split tracks where its competitors live, and competitors are the thing being mapped. So the grouping test is exactly one question: would these have different competitors?

Two SKUs a buyer chooses between inside a single purchase are ONE capability. Two things bought by different teams for different reasons are TWO, however similar the words look. Give each capability a name in the market's words — no brand, no product name, nothing a buyer would have to already know this company to type — and say plainly what job it does.

Mark each capability core or adjacent. Core is what buyers come to this company for. Adjacent is a side line, an integration or an add-on they would not switch vendor over. Be strict: most companies have one to three core capabilities and everything else is adjacent.

This grouping is what the run's search budget is divided across, so it decides what gets mapped. Too coarse and distinct markets get merged and never searched for; too fine and one market takes several shares of the budget while another takes none. And an adjacent line marked core is worse than either: a transactional email company that listed an AI-protocol integration alongside its email API spent a third of a small budget on the integration and got back eight pages about AI protocols and nothing about email.