What the 80/20 Rule Taught Me About B2B GTM Strategy
Achim Klor
August 5, 2025
|
2 min read
I read an interesting article on TechRadar by John-Anthony Disotto. He used the 80/20 rule to create a prompt that “makes learning skills incredibly easy.” It’s not mathematically deep or overly technical. So for fun, I gave it a go using B2B GTM. It worked, but not the way I expected.
Takeaways
The real GTM split is 60/25/15, not 80/20 or 60/40
Most teams know what to do, but don’t do it consistently
AI, brand, and content only work when integrated
Top teams measure what matters, not what’s easy
GTM success is about behavior, not tools
A Simple Prompt
The prompt is dead simple:
“Give me the 80/20 of X.”
Want to learn how to kickflip, cook sugo, or serve a tennis ball? Ask your favorite GenAI tool for the 80/20 and it will spit back a decent analysis based on Pareto’s famous principle.
That said, as with all “absolutes”, take it with a grain of salt and pull out the nuggets you need.
But it got me thinking:
Could this actually work for something as messy and misunderstood as B2B tech GTM?
I gave it a shot.
ChatGPT’s First Take
I first asked ChatGPT this prompt:
“What’s the 80/20 of B2B tech GTM in 2025?”
The answer came back fast using typical AI phrasing.
80% of teams are stuck in the past:
Chasing MQLs, form fills, and attribution hacks
Reporting vanity metrics that don’t tie to revenue
Confusing activity with progress
Marketing is still seen as a support function, not a multiplier
Sales, Marketing, and Product all run separate playbooks
The CFO doesn’t trust GTM data—and for good reason
20% are evolving:
They’re shifting from funnels to buying signals
Treating brand as a reputation asset, not a logo
Aligning around buyer context, not lead scoring
Using Causal AI to explain what actually drives revenue
Marketing drives strategy, not just campaigns
GTM is one integrated motion: Brand > Demand > Revenue
The gist wasn’t wrong, but a few things were headscratchers, like “Using Causal AI” and “Marketing drives strategy.”
It sounded too binary. Too neat.
Fact-Checking the AI
So I then asked ChatGPT:
“Rigorously fact-check your 80/20 assessment for accuracy and credibility.”
The revised output was a bit more grounded.
20% of teams are winning because they:
Use AI tools to scale personalization and content workflows, not just auto-generate flimsy copy
Build brand traction via thought leadership, distinct voice, and clear measurement—even imperfect
Own SEO shift: optimize for AI-driven search discovery, not just keywords
Serve self-directed, digital-first buyers by being top-of-mind before sales ever starts
Stay lean, automate smartly, and avoid manual bloat
80% are plateaued by:
Under-invest in brand awareness and measurement—half don't track brand at all
Relied mostly on outdated content models or inconsistent execution
Can’t prove brand impact, so they funnel more budget into performance channels only
Lack strategic tool adoption—AI used for surface-level drafts, not integrated into workflows
OK, better. But I still wasn’t convinced.
The Peer Review
Still sceptical, I sent the same prompt to Claude.
Claude came back with a softer read. It said it’s more like a 60/40 split. Most teams are adapting, but slowly and inconsistently.
Claude made some good points:
Just because companies use AI doesn’t mean they’ve integrated it.
Most aren’t ignoring brand, they just don’t measure it well.
The gap between winners and laggards is real, but not as extreme as 80/20
I went back and forth with Claude and ChatGPT. Both made valid calls and pointed out where they aligned and where they differed.
ChatGPT pushed back on Claude’s assessment:
“Claude’s response is solid—and mostly accurate. But Claude’s framing underplays the issues.”
After more back-and-forth, we landed somewhere in the middle.
The Real Split
60/25/15 is a more accurate split.
60% are stuck in no man’s land:
Using ChatGPT for email drafts but still manually scoring leads and building reports in spreadsheets
Publishing weekly blogs and case studies but can’t trace which content actually drives pipeline
Talking about “self-directed buyers” in meetings but still gating everything and cold-calling from purchased lists
25% of B2B teams are doing the work:
AI triggers follow-up sequences based on engagement patterns and generates persona-specific outbound variants
They track “How did you hear about us?” in CRM and can show which content correlates with deal velocity
Marketing sits in Sales deal reviews; Sales inputs on content calendar; CS shares churn signals with both
15% are way behind:
Gating basic industry reports, counting form fills as qualified leads while conversion rates stay flat
Brand discussions focus on font choices and logo placement with zero budget for thought leadership
Weekly reports highlight email open rates and social impressions while Sales complains about lead quality
Which one sounds like your Monday morning standup?
If you’re in the 60%, pick one:
AI Integration: Replace one manual weekly task with an AI workflow this month
Brand Reputation: Add three questions to your CRM intake form that connect brand touchpoints to pipeline
GTM Alignment: Have Marketing sit in on Sales deal reviews, have Sales input on content calendar
What Actually Separates the Winners
Every modern B2B GTM team should be asking:
Can we point to three manual tasks AI eliminated this quarter, or are we just using it to write blog posts faster?
Does our brand help buyers remember us when they’re ready or just impress peers on launch day?
Do we know what signals indicate buying intent, or are we still confusing clicks for interest?
If I asked Sales, Marketing, Product, and CS separately to map our buyer journey, would I get the same answer?
AI, brand, content, buyer insight—none of it works in isolation.
What separates the top 25% isn’t access. It’s consistency. They’ve operationalized what the rest are still experimenting with.
Final Thoughts
The “80/20” prompt worked, but not how I expected.
It won’t give you a perfect framework. That’s OK. It doesn’t need to be perfect.
A yardstick that validates what you already know and uncovers some new truths is more than good enough. Whether the actual number is 65.7% instead of 60% doesn’t really matter.
The point is, most GTM teams in 2025 know what to do. They’re just not doing it strategically or consistently. And they’re not proving it works.
That’s the gap.
The teams pulling ahead aren’t chasing leads or trends. They’re going back to the basics, putting insight and strategy ahead of tactics. And they’re doing it better, faster, and with accountability.
They treat brand as a signal, not decoration. AI as infrastructure, not novelty. GTM as shared responsibility, not departmental silos.
And they measure what matters, not what’s easy.
They do the hard part first.
Where does your GTM sit?
If you like this content, here are some more ways I can help:
