How to Choose a Go to Market Consultant (and What They Should Deliver in Ten Weeks)

The order matters more than the list. A go to market consultant should deliver positioning first, then the argument that carries the positioning into a room they are not in, then the machinery that distributes that argument. Anything that arrives before the positioning is a guess with a template around it. A messaging architecture built on an unexamined category is a very tidy way to be wrong at scale.

April Dunford puts the components of positioning in a fixed order: competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value, who cares a lot, and only then market category. Alternatives come first because they are the yardstick. Your buyer does not evaluate you against an abstract ideal; they evaluate you against what they would do instead, including doing nothing, including the spreadsheet somebody on the risk team already maintains. If your provider wants to start with your category, or with the brand, or with the channel mix, they have started at step five.

That ordering has a cheap consequence you can test on yourself tonight. Pick five to eight of your best customers, the ones who bought quickly, paid full price and defend you internally, and ask them what they would actually do if you did not exist. It takes about an hour. If a prospective consultant has never proposed anything like that exercise, ask how they plan to learn what you are compared against.

None of this compresses a procurement cycle by decree. In one of those five companies, closing a new customer can take more than a year, and no consultant changes the calendar of a committee. What good work changes is how many of those long cycles end in a yes, and how many of them survive without the founder personally carrying every call.

Four different businesses answer the same search. A consultant sells a decision and the documents that hold it; an agency sells production; a fractional operator rents you a senior brain by the month; an advisor sells access to judgement in small, recurring doses. All four are legitimate. Only one of them is what you want when the thing you lack is a position, and the expensive mistake is buying one while believing you bought another.

Consultant

“Delivers a decision and the documents that carry it. Ends on a stated date.”

Afterwards: your team, if the handoff was built in. Nobody, if it was not.

Agency

“Delivers production: campaigns, assets, pipeline activity. Ends when the retainer does.”

Afterwards: the agency. Output stops with the invoice.

Fractional operator

“Delivers presence: someone senior in the room each week, deciding. Ends when you stop paying monthly.”

Afterwards: the person. The knowledge leaves with them.

Advisor

“Delivers judgement in small doses: a call, a review, a second opinion. Open ended.”

Afterwards: you. Advisors answer questions; they do not build.

1

Only one of the four is defined by ending. Ask which one you are buying.

Notice what the figure is really sorting. Not quality, not seniority, not price. Dependency. Three of those four columns are designed to continue, and continuation is a reasonable thing to buy if you know you are buying it. What founders between seed and Series A usually need first is the one column that is designed to finish, because a position you cannot operate without the author is not a position. It is a rental.

So the practical screening question for go to market consulting services is blunt. If at the end of the engagement I still depend on you, what did I buy that a retainer would not have given me more cheaply?

A first call should be mostly questions, and most of them about your own calls. A good go to market advisor spends the first conversation extracting your raw material rather than presenting theirs: who bought recently and why, who said no and what they said instead, which deals stalled at which stakeholder, what your champion repeats back to you when they are selling you internally. A deck in the first hour is a bad sign. Not fatal. Just a sign that the diagnosis is going to arrive pre written.

Here is the short list I would want to hear, in some form, from anyone asking for ten weeks of your company:

1. Which deals did you lose in the last two quarters that you believe you should have won, and what did the buyer say at the end?
2. When procurement asks your champion why you and not the alternative, what exactly do they say?
3. What were your best customers doing before they went looking for anything like you?
4. Which of your four public descriptions of the company is the one your buyers use?
5. Who on the committee kills deals, and what are they protecting?

Those questions are unpleasant in the right way. The second one in particular tends to produce a silence, because most founders have never heard the sentence their champion uses when they are not in the room. In one of those five companies, after pilots run against two other vendors, the criterion that decided the purchase was described as "price and quality". That is what a buying committee says when nobody gave them a better reason, and it is the most expensive sentence in B2B.

Three signs of weak positioning are worth memorising as symptoms, because they are the ones you can measure in your own CRM before you hire anyone: long sales cycles, losing deals you should win, and price pressure. All three look like sales problems. All three are usually consequences of an unresolved comparison. If you want the mechanics of the connection, I wrote about how to connect positioning to pipeline separately.

Ten weeks should leave a running go to market, not a document. Concretely: by week four you should hold the positioning decision in writing, with the competitive alternatives and the value argument that follows from them. By week ten the pipeline work should be happening without the consultant and, more importantly, without you on every call. Those are two different dates for two different reasons, and a provider who cannot name them is selling time.

Picture what that second date is for. It is a Tuesday in February. The committee meets and you are not in the room: risk has the objection responses in front of them, the champion makes the value argument in the words your own customers used, procurement asks what the alternative is and gets an answer that does not need a call with the founder. You learn it happened when the champion emails you afterwards. Nobody can promise you that meeting. It is what week ten exists to make possible, and it is the only reason a handoff is worth paying for.

This is the shape of the work I run, in four hands. Unravel: three hours of the right questions in week one, and by week two a map of the points where your go to market is bleeding, named and ranked. Spin: a positioning that holds, and a value argument your champion can carry into the committee without you. Weave: the deck, the narrative by stakeholder, the channels switched on. Tension: your go to market actually running. That method is called The Loom, and the ten week version is built in two phases, Position in weeks one to four and Build in weeks five to ten.

What should land in the building falls into three piles, and any proposal in your inbox can be read against them.

1. The decision: a map of the competitive alternatives, and the positioning document that follows from it.
2. The argument: the value narrative, the messaging architecture with headline, pillars, proof points and objection responses, and the ideal buyer profile.
3. The machinery: the go to market plan, the sales deck, the outbound sequences and a 90 day content calendar.

Then there is the pile that only matters in week eleven, when I am no longer answering anything. Three objects carry the work after the last meeting. An internal enablement guide, which is what your team opens when a new salesperson is about to go off message. A recorded walkthrough of every deliverable with the implementation guidance attached, so the person who joins in March can watch why each decision was made instead of reconstructing it from a slide. And the automation installed into the workflow you already run, where an LLM carries the repetitive weight, rather than described in an appendix and never built. In week eleven the team holds the document, the recording and a machine that is running, and the only missing piece is me.

That recording is the whole argument in one line. A recording is only valuable to someone who intends to leave. Most of this market sells you a document, or rents you a senior brain by the month, and both of those arrangements have a quiet interest in your continued dependence. The raw material is yours in either case: your calls, your wins, your words. The question is who holds the ability to use it in February.

The best proof I have of that design is a calculator. LAYERS, the AgTech platform whose marketing I built at HEMAV, sold satellite yield prediction to sugar mills, and the product worked. Its value lived in the language of the people who built it. Mills do not buy resolution, models or per parcel accuracy. They buy tons, days, and dollars per hectare.

So the translation was built as a chain: feature, operational lever, industry KPIs, financial impact, cost of inaction. Then the same chain was published as a public calculator where the visitor sets their own crop, hectares, yield and price. A claim made by the vendor becomes arithmetic done by the buyer, and arithmetic does not need anyone from the vendor in the room to work. Xavier Silva, the chief executive I reported to, described the result this way: “you helped us define the value proposition so that it was far simpler, clearer and easier to communicate.”

This is the work I do. Twenty years of building marketing across EMEA, the Middle East, the Maghreb and LATAM, now pointed at one job: founders selling to committees who need a position that survives their absence. If you want to test the last week before you commit to the first, book a call and bring your three worst lost deals; I will tell you in half an hour whether what you need is a go to market strategy consultant or something cheaper.