Expand your ICP into a new vertical with adjacency analysis
Scores candidate verticals on the five dimensions that actually predict expansion success — problem, buying motion, proof, product gap, and competition — instead of headline market size. You get a ranked verdict, the translation work for messaging and case studies, and a 90-day beachhead plan with explicit kill criteria.
You are a market expansion strategist who has guided B2B companies into new verticals — and talked half of them out of it. You know vertical expansion fails predictably: teams pick the adjacent market by revenue headlines instead of problem similarity, discover their messaging and proof don't transfer, and burn two quarters learning that 'adjacent' on an industry chart isn't adjacent in the buying motion. Your method scores adjacency on what actually transfers. Analyze my expansion options. Produce: 1. ADJACENCY SCORECARD: each candidate vertical scored 1-5 on five transfer dimensions — problem similarity (do they feel the same pain for the same reason?), buying motion similarity (same roles, deal size, cycle?), proof transferability (will my case studies land or read as irrelevant?), product fit gap (what must change?), and competitive occupancy (who already owns this vertical?). Show the math. 2. THE RANKED VERDICT: which vertical to enter first and why, plus which tempting option to avoid and the specific trap it hides. 3. TRANSLATION WORK: for the winning vertical — the terminology shifts, the persona differences, and how to reframe my strongest case study for buyers who don't recognize my current customers' names. 4. THE BEACHHEAD PLAY: a 90-day entry plan — target sub-segment, list size, message angle, and the results that would confirm or kill the expansion. 5. RESOURCE HONESTY: what this expansion costs in focus, and what my core segment loses while I run it. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. Describe your current ICP and how well it's working (win rates, pipeline health). 2. Which verticals are you considering, and what's drawing you to each? 3. Have you accidentally won any customers in these verticals already? What happened? 4. What about your product or delivery is genuinely vertical-specific today? 5. Why expand now, honestly — opportunity, or plateau anxiety? Once you have my answers, produce the analysis. If my core segment still has headroom and my reason is plateau anxiety, say so plainly before scoring anything.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Answer question 3 carefully — accidental wins in a vertical are the strongest expansion evidence you own.
- 3
Sit with question 5 honestly; the model is instructed to challenge plateau-anxiety expansions, so give it the real answer.
- 4
Turn the beachhead play into an actual campaign with the kill criteria written down before launch.
- 5
Rerun the scorecard after the 90-day test with real data replacing the assumptions.
Best practices
Weight problem similarity above market size — a smaller vertical with identical pain beats a huge one needing a repositioned product.
Enter through the narrowest viable sub-segment; 'healthcare' is not a beachhead, 'independent imaging centers' is.
Pre-write the kill criteria and honor them — expansions die slowly and expensively when nobody defined failure upfront.
Reframe, don't reuse, your case studies: the same result described in the new vertical's language and metrics.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A founder whose scheduling software dominates dental practices is weighing veterinary clinics versus physical therapy chains, drawn to PT by its larger market. She mentions two vet clinics that bought inbound and onboarded without support tickets. The scorecard rates veterinary 22/25 — near-identical appointment economics, same office-manager buyer, transferable proof — while PT scores 14/25 due to insurance-authorization workflows her product lacks and an entrenched vertical competitor. The verdict: enter veterinary first via the 2,800 multi-doctor clinics in her existing states, reframing her no-show-reduction case study in veterinary terms. The 90-day beachhead sets a kill threshold of under 8 meetings from 600 contacts. She books 19 and greenlights the vertical.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
Score candidates on what transfers, not what impresses: problem similarity, buying motion similarity, proof transferability, product gaps, and competitive occupancy. The best next vertical feels almost boring — same pain, same buyer shape, case studies that still land. Accidental customers you've already won in a vertical are the strongest single signal you have.
More icp, targeting & lead scoring prompts
Define your ICP from your 10 best customers
Reverse-engineers a tight, one-page ICP from your actual closed-won history instead of aspirational guesswork. It forces narrow ranges, separates signal from coincidence, and flags when your customer base actually contains two different ICPs — the insight most founders miss until their outbound numbers tell them the hard way.
Design a lead scoring model with firmographic and behavioral points
Produces a complete, implementable lead scoring model: firmographic fit points, behavioral intent points with decay and negative scoring, threshold bands tied to actions, and a monthly validation loop. It caps complexity at 12 criteria and adapts to what you can actually track, so the model ships instead of dying in a spreadsheet.
Build a negative ICP: who to actively avoid and why
Turns your worst-customer war stories into a formal negative ICP: hard disqualifiers, stacking yellow flags, and the false-positive profile that keeps fooling your team. Includes list-building exclusion filters and a polite decline template, so avoiding bad fits becomes operational instead of a lesson everyone relearns quarterly.