Buyer-state,
Brand & Demand

The GTM World Model's most structurally important revision from v1.x to v2.0 was adding Tier 0: buyer-state (B) and brand stock (B_r). The funnel is Tier 1. Measure buyer-state before the action being evaluated. Prior seller relationships, product experience, peer information and earlier marketing can all contribute to that state.

Tier 0 (buyer-state): At any given moment, a prospect is in one of three states — unaware (no recognized problem), latent (problem recognized, not yet seeking), or active (actively evaluating vendors). Estimate the proportions for the target category and time window; 60% / 35% / 5% is not a calibrated universal split. Marketing, product experience and seller interactions may affect both entry into evaluation and later choices.

The T12 structural claim: Funnel conversion rates mix customer selection, prior state and actions. An observed shortlist-to-win association does not identify the effect of brand investment or seller contact. Compare actions on eligible accounts using pre-action information and a credible counterfactual; selecting only opportunities created after contact can distort that comparison.

The T13 structural claim: Brand stock (B_r) is a useful hypothesis about accumulated memory and credibility. Nerlove-Arrow dynamics specify accumulation and decay, but the rate and the response to investment require local measurement. Mental availability — how readily a brand comes to mind in a specific buying situation — is built by consistent, category-entry-point-linked creative. It is not a lagged conversion event inside last-touch attribution.

Budget choices need evidence about incremental contribution, feasible changes and costs. Buyer timing can motivate longer-term demand work without establishing an optimal brand-versus-capture split. Evaluate both their immediate results and effects on later cohorts.

Day-1 shortlist formation happens during the latent phase, before any vendor knows a prospect is interested. Analysts, peer recommendations, content found via search, and category associations formed over years all shape the list a buyer writes down (or recalls) on Day 1 of evaluation. A reported initial shortlist is a useful observation, but its formation and stability vary by category. Distinguish who was considered, who was ranked first and who ultimately won; the survey association is not a seller-action experiment.

Brand as a Nerlove-Arrow stock means investment has a decay rate. Companies that pause brand spend — typically to protect short-term pipeline numbers — burn down a stock that took years to build. Track recall, consideration, category-entry-point associations and later conversion with explicit lags. Neither a universal brand half-life nor a six-to-eighteen-month damage horizon is established by the stock metaphor.

Estimate buying-window prevalence for your category. Observe how latent buyers learn and which information they need when they become active, then evaluate programs across the appropriate horizon.

Partly observed discovery. Buyers consume content, search, consult peers and use AI assistance. A CRM captures only part of that activity; intent providers cover selected domains and events. A brand mention, AI citation, website visit, shortlist inclusion and purchase are separate outcomes. Survey coverage and missing activity must be recorded.

Category entry points (CEPs). Mental availability is linked to specific buying situations, not generic awareness. A buyer thinking "we need to improve sales forecasting accuracy" is in a specific CEP. Test whether content, peer mentions and search presence improve recall and consideration in that situation. AI-mediated recommendations also depend on interface design, candidate exposure, attributes and authority to act.

Demand creation programs (brand content, community, influencer, always-on paid) plant the seeds harvested later by demand-capture programs (SEM, SDR, PQL routing). Practitioner budget splits are starting hypotheses. Test allocation using local incremental effects, lags, customer quality and contribution; buying prevalence alone cannot determine the split.

The most consequential strategic split in modern B2B marketing is not brand vs performance, or inbound vs outbound — it is creation vs capture. They operate on different populations, different timescales, and different economic logics.