Navigating Competitive Markets

I have spent years in the highs and lows of the consumer goods industry but never seen a pricing climate quite like this. Manufacturers are getting squeezed from every direction-tariffs, skyrocketing raw material costs, and relentless supply chain disruptions. The old playbook of raising prices to cover costs? That’s dead. Why? Because consumers are feeling the pressure too. A 2024 Nielsen report makes it clear: today’s shoppers are scrutinizing every dollar they spend, and brands that aren’t strategic about pricing risk losing market share fast. Here’s what I’m seeing from top CPG brands that get it: 1️⃣ Walmart is investing heavily in AI-driven pricing models to keep costs competitive-e-commerce now makes up 18% of total revenue. 2️⃣ PepsiCo is doubling down on pack-size innovation, offering smaller, affordable options to maintain volume without excessive discounting. 3️⃣ Luxury brands are using price elasticity models, testing demand thresholds before rolling out increases-avoiding consumer pushback. 4️⃣ Supply chain resilience is non-negotiable. Companies are shifting manufacturing away from China, despite short-term cost spikes, to avoid future geopolitical risks. The smartest brands aren’t just reacting. They’re rethinking. They’re moving toward Revenue Growth Management (RGM) frameworks that help them: ✅ Optimize pricing and promotions (because blanket price hikes are a losing game) ✅ Focus on margin-smart growth, not just revenue ✅ Leverage data analytics to make smarter, faster pricing decisions Brands that don’t evolve risk eroding profitability or pricing themselves out of the market. CPG leaders who master strategic pricing, operational efficiency, and consumer-driven value creation will own the future of this industry. Are you adjusting your strategy, or just reacting to rising costs? Because in 2025, only the most adaptable brands will win. #CPG #FMCG #PricingStrategy #RevenueGrowth #ConsumerGoods

Canva and Lucidpress started with the exact same insight. One became a $40B company. The other pivoted away. I saw this play out firsthand as Head of Marketing at Lucidpress, where I spent six years leading our go-to-market strategy. Here's what we both knew: non-designers needed help creating beautiful designs. But that's where our paths diverged dramatically. Here's what we did: → Built features for multiple use cases → Created messaging for different personas → Spread ourselves across various channels → Tried to please everyone who showed interest Meanwhile, Canva was ruthlessly focused. They took that same insight and turned it into their entire strategy: → Every feature solved that core problem → All messaging spoke to that pain point → SEO/search was their primary channel → They dominated where these users looked for help The result? They became a $40B company. We eventually pivoted to a different market entirely (and I led that repositioning). Here's what I learned about GTM strategy: → Having a clear insight isn't enough → Success comes from ruthless focus on that insight Why is this so hard? Because saying no feels like leaving money on the table. Every new feature request seems urgent. Every potential customer segment looks promising. Every marketing channel appears worth testing. But the companies that win aren't the ones that chase every opportunity. They're the ones with the discipline to stay focused on one clear vision. This lesson fundamentally changed how I approach go-to-market strategy today. Hindsight is 20/20, but man, what a lesson. #startup #marketing

Competitive landscape for targeted therapies in oncology (TO) 425 assets across 19 pharma companies, segmented by tumor type, phase of development, modality and ownership If you'd like a PDF copy or if I missed any key assets, let me know below! Some takeaways & stats: • TO includes drugs designed to treat cancer with a specific driver mutation, most often requiring patients to take a specific companion diagnostic test to confirm eligibility. ~50% of all cancers have a potential driver mutation and ~30% of these have an approved drug (Source: GS) • TO drugs are traditionally associated with small molecules, but this analysis uses the term in a broader context, encompassing antibody biologics (i.e. CKIs, mAbs, ADCs, etc.) as well to show a more picture of active development across Pharma pipelines • This is a mature market, with 147 marketed assets (~35% of the total) represented here alone. The rest by dev stage: Ph 1/2 (172 assets, ~40%), Ph 2 (58 assets, ~14%) and Ph 3 (48 assets, ~11%) • The vast majority of assets are wholly owned: 337 or ~79%. The only companies with primarily partnered assets are Merck (~61%) and Sanofi (~75%) • The overall split between biologics and small molecules here is roughly even (~48% vs ~52% respectively) • Sales for small molecule TO drugs are >$30B globally, with '26E estimates at >$40B (although historically, these have been overly optimistic) Antibodies are on a different scale - global sales for the class exceed $100B, with Keytruda alone anticipated to reach $30B by 2028 As the space has evolved, we've seen a few recurring themes: • The initial playbook was finding a validated target and getting to market as fast as possible, oftentimes via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway (showing impressive ORR in a Phase 2 with maximum tolerated dose) • FDA reforms around the AA pathway (i.e. getting tougher on starting a RCT), Project Optimus (dosing) + kinase targets getting picked over have changed this. Innovation has shifted towards higher risk, higher reward plays: less validated targets, drugging approaches & technology Examples include Amgen's Lumakras and Mirati's Adagrasib (KRAS G12C) or novel approaches within ADCS or bispecific antibodies • The space is overall incredibly competitive. Emblematic of broader crowding across the industry, nearly every target / approach has H2H data • Lastly, a lot of initial acquisitions in this space (i.e. Lilly / Loxo, Pfizer / Array) were done on overly optimistic forecasts that later saw significant downward revisions. M&A had been slow, but perhaps now reversing, headlined by BMS / Mirati earlier this year ($5.8B) That's all - if you found this insightful, follow for more biotech charts, musings and breakdowns. Analysis powered by Sleuth.

During and in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, the home improvement and gardening market was on fire – growing by double digits. Come 2023, that exuberance had fizzled and the market shrunk by 3.1%. Last year, it did grow, but only by an incredibly modest 0.2% - and all of that, plus some, was inflation. The outlook is also soft, largely thanks to more expensive financing for big projects and a gummed-up housing market. Any home improvement retailer wanting to grow basically has to do so through taking market share. And for Home Depot, with a huge 22.3% of the market, that’s far from easy. That is one of the reasons why Home Depot is looking more to the professional market, buying market share via acquisitions – first of SRS and now of GMS. Both deals allow Home Depot to extend its reach into more specialist areas of the pro market. The pro market is more fragmented, and it is, currently, faster growing than the consumer segment. Of course, the move was also partly defensive. The other bidder for GMS was QXO, which is trying to expand its reach in the building segment. Home Depot is keen to prevent that from happening. I chatted with the NYT about the move. Link to article in the comments. #retail #retailnews #HomeDepot #GMS #homeimprovement #DIY #construction

Today's episode will make you better at developing a strategy, and evaluating other people's strategies. Roger Martin is one of the world’s most sought-after experts on strategy, and the author of "Playing to Win", one of the most popular (and most actionable) books on learning the art of strategy. He’s written extensively for the Harvard Business Review; consulted for dozens of Fortune 500 companies, including P&G, Lego, and Ford; and written 11 other books on strategy, leadership, and clear thinking. In our conversation, we cover: 🔸 The five key questions you need to answer to develop an effective strategy 🔸 How most companies get strategy wrong 🔸 How to avoid “playing to play” instead of playing to win 🔸 Real-world strategy examples from Figma, Lego, Procter & Gamble, and Southwest Airlines 🔸 Why you need to either differentiate or be the lowest cost 🔸 Shortcomings of current strategy education 🔸 Much more Listen now 👇 - YouTube: https://lnkd.in/gTyPQZus - Spotify: https://lnkd.in/gKWWm-Fp - Apple: https://lnkd.in/gCing92Q Some key takeaways: 1. Strategy is an integrated set of choices that compels a desired customer action. 2. Great strategists aren’t born; they’re made through practice. Even if you see yourself as more operational than strategic, remember that strategy is a skill that anyone can develop over time. Just like any skill, it improves with practice. 3. To win in business, you must be either a low-cost provider or differentiated. If you’re neither, competitors can “bully” you and take market share. Two questions can help you figure out whether you’re winning in these ways. First, could you match competitor price decreases and remain more profitable than them? If not, you’re not a low-cost provider. Second, could customers essentially flip a coin between you and a competitor? If so, you’re not differentiated enough. 4. Use the Strategy Choice Cascade to define and implement effective business strategies. This framework consists of five essential questions: a. What is our winning aspiration? Clarify what you aim to achieve with your strategy. This guides all subsequent decisions and actions toward a clear objective. b. Where will we play? Select specific markets, segments, or niches where you will compete. Focus is crucial; trying to be everywhere can dilute effectiveness. c. How will we win? Determine your competitive advantage. You must either offer customers superior value or operate at a lower cost than competitors in your chosen areas. d. What capabilities must be in place to win? Identify and build capabilities that are critical for executing your chosen strategy effectively. These should be distinctive strengths that set you apart from competitors. e. What management systems are required to ensure the capabilities are in place?

This topic came up in a recent conversation with execs—and it’s one of the most important (and misunderstood) lessons in scaling go-to-market teams. As companies move from product-market fit to the scale-up stage, one pattern I’ve seen repeatedly is:   ➡️ GTM success is inversely proportional to the number of buyer centers you target for landing. So what’s a buyer center?  This is a distinct group inside a company with its own budget, priorities, and buying process (e.g., IT, Finance, Sales, Marketing). When you’re a platform, the good news is: you can open many doors. The bad news? You can open too many doors. Here’s what each buyer center needs: its own positioning and messaging, contextual seller enablement, distinct marketing campaigns (even website real estate), and a unique solution lens. That complexity can overwhelm your GTM engine during scale-up. A critical point: The kicker here is that once you “land” one buyer center, from there you can potentially expand into additional areas within the organization. The key thing to remember here is to keep your buyer centers focused initially, then go broader. Two common counterpoints I hear during the Scale Up stage: 1.  How do you expand categories? You expand capabilities within the same buyer center (say IT), or maybe just one degree adjacent (e.g., Procurement → Finance). Look at ServiceNow in its early years. Or Coupa in its scaling years. Depth first, then breadth. 2.  Why can't we be like Salesforce and Oracle? Yes, they go wide across buyer centers—but *after* achieving massive scale. If you want to get rich, study what the rich did to become rich—not what they do now. I’ve been the burnt victim from doing this the wrong way. Curious—what’s been your experience with this during scale-up? #GoToMarket #RevenueGrowth #GTMLeaders #chandarGTM

Throughout my career, I’ve seen companies (mine included) inefficiently spend tens of millions of dollars on sales and marketing (S&M). At one company I worked for, we quantified $6M in inefficient S&M spending in one year. Did we lose all of that money? No. Could we have driven better returns? Absolutely. These are some of the biggest inefficiency drivers that I’ve seen. Believing Quota Capacity = Bookings Attainment Too many sales leaders build their plans around quota capacity. “If my quota is $X, I need Y sellers carrying $Z in quota.” This only works if you’ve found a product market fit (PMF) and are already generating the pipeline to feed new sellers. If PMF and the needed pipeline are absent, your sellers will be highly inefficient. Running Sales and Marketing in Parallel I’ve been in more than one Board Meeting where marketing declared success across all metrics, but Sales missed bookings targets. Assuming quality marketing and sales organizations, this indicates a broken “revenue factory.” Marketing and sales are likely pursuing unique agendas rather than working closely together. The result? Monies spent upstream in marketing are not converted to downstream sales. Next Quarter is a Champagne Problem “Make every month” was a mantra when I worked at Salesforce. I still believe in it. However, when improperly deployed, it becomes “make THIS month.” Organizations get so focused on the current fiscal period that they ignore the future and create future pipeline gaps. Solving next quarter's pipeline problems today is not a “champagne problem.” Solving for next quarter today is blocking and tackling – if you value efficiency, that is. Big, Dynamic, Thoughtless Shifts This is my personal favorite. Suddenly changing business direction without exploring impacts. For example, announcing, “We are going to reorient this business around enterprise sales in the new year” when the new year is <30 days away. We just won our second enterprise deal, right? We will crush it! No discussion of PMF. No discussion of sales capability and capacity. No discussion of impacts on marketing strategy. "Just do it" guarantees inefficiency. Throughout my career, I’ve been a culpable stakeholder in each of these examples. Trust me when I say: 1). Don’t build your sales budget around quota capacity alone. 2). Make sure sales and marketing are best friends, working together. 3). Make every month, but devote at least 10% of your time to subsequent quarters. 4). Make big moves, but think them through. Be bold --not rash-- in decision-making.

Get to know your competitors. I don't mean study their website, product offering, and pricing model (though that's certainly useful). Actually get to know the human beings. I'm shocked more people don't do this. Why? 1️⃣ You can learn a lot from each other. When we were building Paladin, I spent time getting to know the founders of other influencer marketing software companies all over the world. We were tackling similar challenges, so it was helpful to compare notes and share learnings. Or just talk shop and empathize with a fellow entrepreneur. We often had a lot in common. Several of them became friends. 2️⃣ You can adapt and differentiate. In a growing space, there's usually plenty of business to go around. Rather than compete for the same slice of the pie, you can identify underserved market needs. If everyone else is focused on enterprise customers, maybe there's an opportunity in SMB/prosumer. Or in a different vertical / audience segment / territory. You get the idea. 3️⃣ Things change. You never know who could become a future partner. At Paladin, we had a few opportunities to acquire former competitors, all because I took the time to get to know them. One of these deals ended up being a pretty significant catalyst for our future growth. Bottom line: Your competitors shouldn't be feared or villainized. They're people you can potentially learn a lot from, if you give them a chance. Hit like to help me 👍 Repost to help others 🔥 #competition #competitors #entrepreneurship

Why do they say "never compete on price"? Because it prevents you from doing something better – and much more profitable. Here's the mindset — When you compete on price, you surrender being different from your competition in more important ways. It says: “Yes, we offer the same thing as our competitors… but we’re cheaper.” And sure, you’ll win some customers that way. But when someone cheaper comes along, they’ll drop you in a heartbeat. — So what do you do instead? Smart businesspeople try to compete on value — that is, the benefit the customer gets for the price they pay. Let's say you're selling clothing and have a fictional company called "Nordstrom." Rather than try to sell brands for the cheapest, you offer a no-questions-asked return policy and the best-trained salespeople in the world. You're selling the same product, but your value is much higher. So, you get to charge more -- and maintain better margins. — So the next time a customer complains about your prices, retrain your automatic reaction. Don’t lower the price. Instead, offer more value. This can be anything from extra service ("we'll visit you to help make sure it's installed correctly") to a better sales process ("we have a 1-page no-nonsense contract"). We did this with Hire With Near— they’re not the cheapest staffing agency. Instead, they became niche experts in Latin America, with boots on the ground and rigorous vetting. Get your whole company in the value mindset. Offer more, don’t ask for less. Thoughts?

Reflecting on my journey with Fond, I'm reminded of a powerful lesson: it's better to create a product passionately loved by a select few than merely liked by many. This focus often translates into securing higher pricing power and reduced customer churn. Finding Product-Market Fit is like navigating through a maze—it requires listening closely to customers to identify their real pain points. Avoid falling into the trap of endless spreadsheets and forgetting the essence of the customer voice. Choosing the right market is critical. Aim to become the go-to solution in a smaller, specialized market before setting your sights beyond. In the US, competition is fierce. It's wise to hone in on niche segments where you can establish a formidable presence rather than attempting to conquer the whole market overnight. These insights, shaped by my experiences, are what I share with entrepreneurs looking to carve out their path—a roadmap through the intricate journey of building impactful companies.