Most forecasts fail before they’re even built.
Not because of bad data. Because of bad thinking… upstream.
That’s what Mark Stouse, CEO of Proof Causal Advisory, and I were chatting about even before we got into our latest Causal CMO chat.
Before models, cadence, or tooling, GTM teams need to deal with something harder: the thinking that makes a forecast worth defending.
Most GTM teams don’t want to hear this:
“The temptation is to try and follow every move that the graph makes with some sort of counter to it. The problem is that if you do that, you’re always behind your externalities. You’re never going to get ahead of them.”
In other words, stop reacting to every signal.
Pick investments that hold up across a wide range of conditions. In B2B right now, especially tech, that means brand and reputation. Not because it’s comfortable. Because it’s what’s working.
The catch is time lag.
Mark put it at 9 to 24 months before brand investment shows up in real results. I’ve seen similar timeframes (18 to 36 months). That’s why so many leaders cut it. They couldn’t connect the cause to the effect. So they called it worthless. The lag was hiding the impact.
We’ve covered time lag before. It's a core part of my End of MQLs series.
Right now, buyers aren’t shopping for the best pitch. They’re managing downside risk. They gravitate toward names they already trust, especially in times of crisis when headwinds are strongest. If you haven’t been building up your brand reputation before the pressure hits, you’re starting from zero when it matters most.
This connects to what we covered in our previous Causal CMO chat on the 95:5 rule. Only 5% of your market is in-market at any given time. The other 95% are forming impressions with or without you.
Brand is what stays in the room when your sales team isn’t.
“For 20 years in B2B, marketers and salespeople agreed on very few things. But one was that demand gen was real and you could somehow make somebody want to buy your product. The main reason why that appeared to work for so long is that money was cheap.”
When capital was abundant and risk tolerance was high, activity looked like causation. You pushed, things happened, you took credit.
But when capital tightened, the model broke. The activity stayed. The results didn’t follow.
“This whole idea of making the quarter based on what marketing is doing in that same quarter was always a fantasy. Always. The time lags are too long for that to be true.”
As Rohan Light shared, “cheap money equals lazy thinking”. The constraint we’re in now is forcing a more honest accounting.
These systems weren’t built by idiots. They were built for different conditions. Those conditions are gone.
We covered similar threads in The GTM Reality Gap and The Illusion of Control.
To be clear, this isn’t a tooling problem.
“This is a mindset issue. It’s not a technology issue. One of the things you have to confront is just how much we think in patterns. When we do that, we assume the past is prologue. It’s not.”
Patterns help… until the market changes and you’re still using the old map. Stack enough of them and you get a house of cards. Either very right or very wrong, with no middle ground.
Right now, reality is moving fast enough that the patterns expire before most teams notice.
“Your strategy is the most important thing. Do you have a durable strategy? Can it survive a lot of different changes, a lot of volatility? The planning, the ops, the tactics: that can easily change and should change and will change all the time. Strategy should not.”
Strategy is the what. Not the how.
Most companies don’t have a business strategy. If your org runs a marketing strategy, a sales strategy, a data strategy, and an IT strategy in parallel, that’s usually a sure giveaway there’s nothing unified sitting above them.
A recent HBR study of 500 organizations found that firms with stronger foresight capabilities — built around continuous signal detection and updating, not one-off planning exercises — report a meaningful performance edge. That finding matches what Mark said: durable strategy isn’t a static document. It’s a capability.
Without a durable strategy, you’re not forecasting. You’re decorating a guess.
Not the one rooted in the past. Conditions change. A model that can’t update isn’t a model.
“The definition of a trustworthy model is the one that gets closest to reality. You have to have a good model that represents reality, and then you have to be able to update it with whatever cadence is right for your business.”
The GPS analogy Mark often uses is the right frame. It doesn’t refuse to work when there’s an accident ahead. It recalculates. And it tells you why you’re going to be late.
That’s the test: not just accuracy, but explainability.
“If you have a gap between your projection and reality but can explain what caused it, you’re there. If you can’t explain the variance, you’re not done yet.”
One more thing: real-time data sounds valuable but often works against you. People slow down when flooded with signals. What you need is the right data at the cadence your decisions actually require, not a dashboard that keeps everyone busy and nobody clear.
The standard is not prettier, louder dashboards. Not more pipeline theater. Not false certainty dressed up as confidence.
It’s a model that updates. A strategy that holds. A variance you can explain.
That’s a forecast worth taking to your leadership team.
That’s a forecast everyone can trust.
Missed the session? Watch it here.
If you like this content, here are some more ways I can help:
Cheers!
This article is AC-A and published on LinkedIn. Join the conversation!
