Every growth strategy contains a hidden set of assumptions. But are they still true?
It may not appear in the financial model, the board presentation or the three-year plan. But underneath every decision to enter a market, reposition a brand, launch a product or increase marketing spend sits a collection of assumptions about the future. Peter Drucker called it the Theory of Business (although his definition was more internally focused).
Customers will continue to value what they valued before. The category will evolve broadly as expected. Competitors will behave rationally. The brand’s reputation will remain an asset. Distribution will continue to provide access. Pricing power will hold. What worked yesterday will, with some optimisation and additional investment, work tomorrow.
This is how companies plan. It is also how they get into trouble. It has been said that the nr.1 reason companies fail is because they base the business on outdated assumptions about the market, customers, and their own capabilities. I don't have a stat to back it up, but my intuition says this is probably accurate.
The uncomfortable reality is that most growth strategies are assembled using a market picture that is already ageing. Management teams may believe they are discussing the future, but they are often doing so through the lens of customer research commissioned twelve months ago, category definitions established five years ago and beliefs about the brand that have circulated internally for even longer.
The spreadsheet may be current. The assumptions underneath it are not.
This matters because markets do not usually announce that they have changed. There is rarely a ceremonial moment when consumers declare that a former advantage is now merely expected, that a new competitor has reset the standard or that a once-distinctive proposition has become interchangeable.
Instead, change appears gradually and then all at once.
Acquisition becomes more expensive. Conversion weakens. Customers grow more price-sensitive. Campaigns require more weight to produce the same result. Sales teams report that buyers are taking longer to decide. A competitor that once appeared marginal begins winning important accounts. None of these signals is individually catastrophic. Together, they suggest that the company’s understanding of the market may no longer match the market itself.
The usual corporate response is to adjust execution.
Marketing is asked to produce a stronger campaign. Sales is given a more ambitious target. Product teams add features. Prices are discounted. Agencies are invited to refresh the brand. The organisation becomes busier without necessarily becoming wiser.
This is the strategic equivalent of pressing harder on the accelerator because the map is wrong.
Strategy has an expiry date
Executives are accustomed to thinking of strategy as a durable asset. Considerable time and money are invested in defining a direction, and once approved, the strategy is expected to guide the organisation for several years.
The logic is understandable. Constantly changing direction is expensive, confusing and usually a sign of weak leadership. But there is an important distinction between strategic consistency and strategic rigidity.
A company can maintain a clear direction while continuously updating its understanding of the environment. In fact, it must.
The problem is not that strategies are designed to last. The problem is that the assumptions supporting them are rarely assigned an expiry date.
Consider the standard strategy process. A company conducts research, reviews performance, interviews customers, assesses competitors and holds a series of management workshops. A strategic thesis emerges. The organisation then moves into execution.
Over time, however, the research is cited more often than it is refreshed. Customer segments become permanent fixtures in presentations. Competitor maps are copied from one planning cycle to the next. The original strategic choices gradually harden into institutional truths.
Eventually, the organisation stops asking whether the assumptions are still valid and begins using them to explain away evidence that they are not.
This is how corporate folklore develops.
“Our customers value quality over price.”
“Our brand is trusted.”
“That competitor serves a different segment.”
“Our buyers are not ready for that.”
“We win because of our service.”
Any of these statements may be true. The danger lies in how little evidence is usually required for them to remain true inside the company.
Markets are less sentimental.
Customers do not preserve a company’s positioning because it appeared in a board-approved brand platform. They compare the business with whatever alternatives are available at the moment of choice. Those alternatives may include direct competitors, new business models, cheaper substitutes, internal workarounds or simply doing nothing.
The competitive frame can change while the company’s category definition stays the same.
The half-life of commercial knowledge is shrinking
This problem has become more severe because the useful life of market knowledge is getting shorter.
Consumer expectations now travel quickly across categories. A customer who becomes accustomed to the convenience of one digital service does not confine that expectation to the original category. The experience becomes a reference point elsewhere.
A bank is compared not only with other banks but with the best digital experiences its customers use. A restaurant is judged against changing expectations around health, convenience and hospitality. An industrial supplier may still compete on engineering expertise, but buyers increasingly evaluate it through standards of responsiveness, transparency and ease borrowed from consumer technology.
Categories used to set their own rules. Increasingly, customers import the rules from somewhere else.
Meanwhile, competitive boundaries have become more porous. A company may monitor the organisations it has historically regarded as rivals while missing a new alternative that solves the customer’s underlying problem differently.
This is particularly dangerous for established firms. Their market intelligence systems are usually organised around existing categories, existing competitors and existing customer definitions. They are excellent at describing the game the company believes it is playing.
They are less capable of recognising that the game has changed.
Technology has added another layer of volatility. Artificial intelligence, automation and cheaper access to sophisticated capabilities are allowing smaller competitors to look larger, move faster and personalise more effectively. Advantages that once required scale can now be rented. Expertise can be embedded into software. Production costs fall. The premium attached to certain forms of knowledge erodes.
This does not mean every business is about to be disrupted by a teenager with a laptop. It does mean that past competitive assumptions deserve less deference than they once did.
The tyranny of internal evidence
Management teams rarely lack information. They lack an integrated view of what the information means.
The chief executive has investor conversations, customer meetings and performance data. The chief marketing officer has brand tracking, campaign results, consumer research and agency reports. Sales has CRM data and anecdotes from the field. Product teams have usage information. Customer service hears complaints. Finance sees where margins are moving.
Each function owns a piece of the market. Nobody necessarily owns the whole picture.
This fragmentation creates two problems.
The first is that organisations tend to overweight evidence that is easy to measure and internally available. Revenue, leads, campaign performance and customer satisfaction are useful, but they mostly describe outcomes inside the company’s existing commercial system.
They are less effective at revealing emerging shifts outside it.
The second problem is political. Evidence is rarely interpreted neutrally. Sales sees a lead-quality problem. Marketing sees a conversion problem. Product sees an adoption problem. Finance sees a cost problem. Each diagnosis points towards investment in a different function.
The strategy meeting becomes a contest between partial truths.
In the absence of a shared external fact base, hierarchy and confidence fill the gap. The most senior person, the most persuasive presenter or the department with the cleanest dashboard often wins.
This is not strategy. It is organisational theatre with charts.
A credible growth plan requires more than internal performance data. It requires a current view of how the market is changing across multiple dimensions: the macro environment, cultural shifts, category conventions, competitive behaviour and customer choice.
Most companies monitor some of these forces. Few connect them.
A growth strategy is only as good as its theory of choice
One reason outdated assumptions survive is that many companies still organise their market understanding around customers rather than choices.
They know who the customer is. They may have segmentation models, personas, demographic profiles and detailed descriptions of attitudes and needs. Yet they often know surprisingly little about the actual decision.
What causes the customer to enter the market? What alternatives are considered? What trade-offs are made? Which risks matter? What creates urgency? What creates hesitation? Who else influences the decision? What makes the easiest option attractive, even if it is not objectively superior?
Growth happens when more people choose the company, choose it more frequently or pay more when they do. This sounds almost insultingly obvious. Yet much of corporate strategy operates several steps removed from this basic reality.
Companies discuss audiences, propositions, channels, content and customer journeys while leaving the central question underexplored: why should the customer choose us now?
The word “now” matters.
A proposition that was compelling three years ago may no longer be distinctive. A benefit that once created preference may have become the category standard. A customer problem may still exist, but the preferred solution may have changed. A brand can remain familiar and respected while becoming less relevant to the decision.
This is why revenue performance can be deceptive. Growth can continue for a period through distribution, price increases, acquisition, category momentum or sheer marketing weight. The numbers may appear healthy even as the underlying strength of customer choice deteriorates.
By the time this becomes visible in the income statement, the strategic problem is already mature.
From annual planning to continuous intelligence
The answer is not to commission more reports.
Most executives already have more material than they can use. The typical organisation produces a steady stream of dashboards, studies, presentations, trend reports, competitor updates and agency recommendations. The issue is not information scarcity. It is interpretation.
What matters is the ability to identify which changes are commercially significant, connect them to the company’s strategic assumptions and determine what decision follows.
This requires a shift from episodic research to continuous intelligence.
Traditional research is designed to answer a question. Continuous intelligence is designed to keep the organisation’s understanding of the market current.
The distinction is important.
A market study might reveal how customers view the brand at a particular moment. An intelligence system asks whether those perceptions are changing, why they are changing, which external forces are driving the shift and what the implications are for growth.
A competitor report describes what rivals are doing. Intelligence asks whether those moves are changing customer expectations or altering the basis of competition.
A trend report identifies cultural signals. Intelligence determines whether those signals are relevant to the company’s category, proposition or strategic choices.
The value lies not in seeing more, but in knowing what deserves attention.
For mid-sized companies, this capability is often missing. They are large enough to face complex markets, multiple competitors and significant strategic risk, but too small to maintain the research and insights infrastructure of a multinational.
They may have a capable marketing team, but not a dedicated intelligence function. They rely on agencies whose perspective is shaped by the work they sell, data providers that describe rather than interpret and occasional consulting projects that produce a moment of clarity before the market moves again.
The result is an intelligence gap between the importance of the decisions being made and the quality of the evidence informing them.
The cost of being wrong
Executives sometimes treat market intelligence as a supporting activity: useful, but secondary to action.
This reverses the sequence.
The most expensive decisions in business are not usually badly executed small decisions. They are well-executed large decisions based on faulty assumptions.
A company launches into the wrong market with discipline and energy. It invests heavily behind a proposition customers no longer find distinctive. It hires a sales team before validating demand. It refreshes the brand without addressing the underlying relevance problem. It increases promotional spending when the real issue is that the basis of choice has shifted.
Execution does not rescue a flawed premise. It compounds it.
This is especially important for chief executives under pressure to produce growth and chief marketing officers under pressure to prove commercial impact. Both have incentives to move quickly. Neither can afford to confuse speed with certainty.
The objective is not perfect foresight. Markets are too complex, competitors too unpredictable and customers too inconsistent for that.
The objective is better decision confidence.
That means knowing which assumptions matter most, how current the evidence behind them is and what signals would indicate that the strategy needs to evolve.
It also means creating a shared view of the market across leadership. When the chief executive, chief marketing officer, sales leader and product team work from different versions of reality, alignment workshops will not solve the problem. They need better common evidence.
The question behind the strategy
Every leadership team should be able to answer a deceptively simple question:
What has changed in the market since we last changed our strategy?
Not what has changed in the company. Not what has changed in the marketing plan. Not which campaigns performed well or which projects were completed.
What has changed in the world of customer choice?
Have new needs emerged? Have old expectations become more demanding? Have competitors altered the standard? Has the category expanded or fragmented? Have cultural values changed what customers reward or reject? Have economic pressures changed the trade-offs they make?
If the answer is vague, the growth strategy is resting on faith.
That may be sufficient when markets are stable and competitors predictable. It is a poor basis for capital allocation when both are moving quickly.
Companies do not need to reinvent their strategy every quarter. They do need to stop treating market understanding as something that can be completed.
Strategy is a set of specific choices you make to get specific customers to choose you over alternatives. Intelligence keeps those choices connected to reality.
Without it, even the most elegant growth plan eventually becomes a historical document.
-
P.S Reach out to me if you'd like to discuss setting up a custom intelligence system for your brand and business. Our intelligence system pits external market forces against your strategy, brand, and customer profile to capture not just "what is changing", but what to do about it, before it shows up on your P&L.
Written by
