A4 · Tool · Motion hypotheses
GTM Motion Selector
A motion must fit its economics and buyer requirements. From T5: contribution, cost to acquire and serve, cash, capacity and product access constrain feasible policies. This explorer uses illustrative bands to suggest candidates for testing. ACV, buyer title and sharing potential alone cannot establish the best motion; hybrid policies remain possible.
Illustrative screening rules
Self-serve candidate T5 · directional
Low ACV + short time-to-value → investigate self-serve economics
Reads as: compare expected cohort contribution with acquisition and service costs over a declared horizon. Test whether users can access value independently; sharing is one possible acquisition mechanism, not a prerequisite for all product-led policies.
Sales-assistance candidate T5 · directional
Higher ACV or organizational buying → investigate human assistance
Reads as: security, procurement, implementation or coordination requirements may justify human involvement. Verify those requirements and the incremental contribution of assistance; a buyer title or price band does not prove that a dedicated AE is required.
Selector
Candidate to evaluate
—
Illustrative ACV bands
| ACV band | Candidate | What to test |
|---|---|---|
| < $6K/yr (< $500/mo) | Self-serve | Acquisition and onboarding cost versus cohort contribution |
| $6K–$60K/yr | Hybrid (PLG-assist + Sales) | Incremental value of assistance and the handoff policy |
| $60K–$300K/yr | Sales-led (SMB/MM AE) | Actual procurement, implementation and coordination needs |
| > $300K/yr | Enterprise (Named accounts) | Buying-group roles, capacity, cost and the observed cycle |
Based on T5 — motion constraints. See also: PLG vs Sales-led comparison