MAP Model (Measure, Analyze, Prioritize)

What it is

A three-stage method, developed by Tamara Grominsky, founder of PMM Camp, for deciding which of your existing customer segments actually deserve further investment. Where Segmentation–Targeting–Positioning (STP) makes a strategic choice about which segment to pursue before you have much lived data on it, the MAP Model works in the opposite direction: it starts from segments you are already selling to, with real revenue, retention, and expansion history attached, and ranks them against each other so resourcing decisions rest on evidence rather than on whichever segment shouted loudest in the last planning meeting. The three stages are: Measure (how big is each segment, by volume and revenue), Analyze (how well is each segment actually performing, on retention, expansion, and profitability, not just headline size), and Prioritize (given both, which segments deserve more product, marketing, and sales investment, and which should be actively deprioritised). The model's value is in forcing Measure and Analyze apart: a segment can be large (high Measure score) while quietly unprofitable or churning fast (low Analyze score), and treating size alone as the prioritisation signal is the single most common way this exercise goes wrong.

When to use it

• You sell into more than one segment and resourcing is spread evenly across all of them by default, rather than by evidence of which segment is actually worth the investment.
• A segment that looks impressive by logo count or headline ARR is quietly underperforming on retention or margin, and no one has run the numbers to confirm or disprove the instinct.
• Quarterly or annual planning needs a defensible answer to "which segment gets the next marketing campaign, the next feature, the next sales hire", rather than a decision made on gut feel or on whoever presents most persuasively.
• STP was run some time ago and the segments it named have since diverged in performance, with some pulling ahead and others quietly stagnating, but the go-to-market plan still treats them as equally worth pursuing.
• You are preparing a business case to deprioritise or sunset support for a segment, and need a structured, three-part rationale rather than an anecdote-driven argument that will meet resistance from whoever built that segment's original business case.

How to run it

1. Measure segment volume and revenue. For every segment you currently serve (using the same segment definitions STP already established, don't re-segment from scratch here), pull customer count, total revenue, and average revenue per customer from the CRM or billing system. This stage answers "how big is this segment today", nothing more; resist the temptation to layer in a performance judgement yet.
2. Analyze segment performance. For each segment, pull retention rate (gross and net), expansion revenue, gross margin or cost-to-serve where available, and sales cycle length. A segment that is large on Measure but shows below-average retention or margin on Analyze is a warning sign, not a strength, and this is usually the step that surfaces the gap between a segment's reputation and its actual numbers.
3. Cross-tabulate Measure against Analyze. Plot every segment on a simple two-axis grid: size (Measure) on one axis, performance (a composite of retention, expansion, and margin from Analyze) on the other. Segments high on both are your clearest candidates for further investment; segments high on Measure but low on Analyze are the ones most often mistakenly treated as strategic priorities on size alone.
4. Prioritize based on the grid, not on either axis in isolation. Rank segments into three tiers: invest further (high on both axes, or high-performance-but-currently-small segments with clear room to grow), maintain (solid on one axis but not both), and deprioritise (low on both, or large-but-declining segments where further investment would not be recovered).
5. Translate the ranking into a resourcing decision. Name specifically what "invest further" means for the top-tier segment: a dedicated campaign, a feature on the roadmap, a sales specialisation, a pricing review, and get sign-off from whoever controls that resource before treating the ranking as final.
6. Communicate the deprioritisation call explicitly, not by omission. A segment moved to "deprioritise" should be told to the teams currently serving it, with the Measure and Analyze evidence attached, rather than quietly starved of resource with no one told why support is thinning.
7. Re-run on a fixed cadence. Segment performance shifts as the product, competitive set, and customer base change; treat this as a standing review, not a one-off ranking exercise that gets referenced for years after the data has gone stale.

Cadence & ownership

PMM typically owns pulling and synthesising the Measure and Analyze data (partnering with RevOps or Finance for the underlying revenue and margin figures, since PMM rarely owns the source systems directly) and owns the Prioritize recommendation. The final resourcing call, especially a decision to formally deprioritise a segment, is usually a joint call with the Head of Product Marketing, VP Sales, and Finance at a scaled company, since it commits quota design and roadmap capacity. At a solo or founding-PMM stage, the founding PMM typically runs all three stages and takes the ranking straight to the founder or CEO for a resourcing decision, without a formal cross-functional sign-off step. Run the full cycle at least annually, aligned to the planning calendar, and treat a segment's retention or expansion numbers moving sharply in either direction as a trigger for an off-cycle Analyze refresh on that segment alone.