Managing Multiple Verticals
Once you’ve run your first campaign, you’ll want to expand to multiple verticals or ICP segments. This guide shows you how to manage multiple campaigns from one company context.
One Context, Many Campaigns
GTM Skills uses a two-level structure:
claude-code-gtm/context/
├── your-company_context.md ← Global: voice, ICP, proof library
└── {vertical-slug}/ ← Per-vertical: research, hypotheses
├── hypothesis_set.md
└── sourcing_research.md
- Voice rules (sender, tone, banned words)
- Product value prop and key numbers
- ICP profiles (all segments)
- Win cases across all verticals
- Proof library (mapped to audiences)
- Campaign history (all campaigns)
Per-vertical context (one folder per campaign):
- Hypothesis set (pain points for this vertical)
- Sourcing research (data points, statistics)
- Email prompt templates
This lets you maintain consistent voice and proof points while customizing pain hypotheses per vertical.
Example: Three Verticals
Your Product
Acme Search: API-first company search and lookalikes for B2B platforms.
Your ICPs
| Vertical | ICP | Core Pain |
|---|
| B2B Marketplaces | 50-500 employees, US/EU, 2+ years old | Stale supplier data, 15-20% decay/year |
| Investment Platforms | Fintech, Series A+, institutional focus | Deal flow discovery, can’t find emerging managers |
| Procurement Software | Enterprise SaaS, 100-1000 employees | Vendor intelligence, competitors lack coverage |
Context Structure
claude-code-gtm/
├── context/
│ ├── acme_context.md ← Shared voice + proof library
│ ├── b2b-marketplace/
│ │ ├── hypothesis_set.md ← Supplier data decay hypotheses
│ │ └── sourcing_research.md ← Marketplace vertical research
│ ├── investment-platform/
│ │ ├── hypothesis_set.md ← Deal flow hypotheses
│ │ └── sourcing_research.md ← Fintech vertical research
│ └── procurement-software/
│ ├── hypothesis_set.md ← Vendor intelligence hypotheses
│ └── sourcing_research.md ← Procurement vertical research
├── prompts/
│ ├── b2b-marketplace/
│ │ └── en_first_email.md
│ ├── investment-platform/
│ │ └── en_first_email.md
│ └── procurement-software/
│ └── en_first_email.md
└── csv/
├── input/
│ ├── marketplace-q1/
│ ├── investment-q1/
│ └── procurement-q1/
└── output/
├── marketplace-q1/
├── investment-q1/
└── procurement-q1/
Workflow: Launch a New Vertical
Research the Vertical
Start with market research to understand the vertical’s pain points.Research the procurement software vertical.
Focus on: vendor intelligence, data coverage, compliance.
claude-code-gtm/context/procurement-software/sourcing_research.mdContains:
- Market size and growth data
- Common workflows and pain points
- Competitive landscape
- Technology stack patterns
- Statistics and benchmarks
Generate Hypotheses
Create pain hypotheses for this vertical.Generate a hypothesis set for procurement software companies.
Use the sourcing research + my context file.
claude-code-gtm/context/procurement-software/hypothesis_set.mdExample:## Hypothesis 1: Vendor coverage gaps
**Pain**: Enterprise procurement tools serve global buyers but vendor
databases skew US/EU (70%+ coverage) with weak APAC/LATAM (30-40%).
**Mechanism**: Vendor data sourced from directories that don't index
emerging markets. Buyers can't find local suppliers.
**Best fit**: Procurement SaaS serving enterprise customers with
international supply chains.
**Evidence**: Coupa, SAP Ariba, and Ivalua customers report 40-60%
manual vendor onboarding for non-US suppliers.
Build Target List
Find companies in this vertical.Find 300 procurement software companies:
- B2B SaaS, 100-1000 employees
- Serve enterprise buyers
- US/EU headquarters
Discovery query: "B2B procurement software for enterprise buyers.
Must have vendor/supplier management features. Selling to F500 or
similar large companies."
Criteria:
1. Serves enterprise segment (grade 1-5)
2. International customer base (grade 1-5)
3. Vendor intelligence features (grade 1-5)
Target: 100 results
Enrich with Vertical-Specific Columns
Add enrichment columns tailored to this vertical.Add enrichment columns to table [table-id]:
1. Geographic coverage (multiselect: North America, Europe, APAC, LATAM, MEA)
2. Primary customer segment (select: SMB, Mid-Market, Enterprise, Mixed)
3. Vendor onboarding workflow (text: how they currently add suppliers)
4. Recent product launches (text: new features in last 12 months)
Segment and Generate
Run the rest of the campaign workflow:1. Segment table [table-id] using procurement-software hypotheses
2. Find decision makers (VP Product, Head of Data, Chief Product Officer)
3. Get emails via Prospeo
4. Build email prompt for procurement-software vertical
5. Generate emails
6. Upload to Instantly campaign: procurement-vendor-intelligence-q1
Shared Proof Library Strategy
Your proof library lives in the global context file and serves all verticals. Map each proof point to audience and hypothesis.
Example Proof Library
## Proof Library
| Proof Point | Best Audience | Best Hypothesis | Source Win Case |
|-------------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|
| PS. Shopify runs 50K lookalike searches/mo to find acquisition targets in emerging markets. | Investment platforms, Corporate dev | Deal flow discovery | Shopify case study |
| PS. ThomasNet added our supplier search to their platform and saw 40% more international matches in the first month. | B2B marketplaces, Procurement software | Vendor coverage gaps | ThomasNet partnership |
| PS. Coupa uses our API to backfill APAC suppliers—saved 200 hours/mo of manual onboarding. | Procurement software | Vendor onboarding efficiency | Coupa integration |
- Peer relevance: Proof company ≥ prospect size
- Hypothesis alignment: Proof validates the P1 angle
- Non-redundancy: Don’t repeat stats from P2
This lets you reuse the same proof points across verticals while keeping them contextually relevant.
Voice Consistency Across Verticals
Voice rules live in the global context and apply to all campaigns.
## Voice
**Sender**: Sarah Chen, Acme Search
**Tone**: Technical peer. Direct, no fluff. Assume the reader is smart.
**Language level**: Use industry terms (API, enrichment, lookalike) without explaining them. Avoid marketing speak.
**Hard constraints**:
1. No superlatives ("best", "leading", "cutting-edge")
2. No rhetorical questions
3. No more than 2 sentences per paragraph
4. Word limit: 120 words max for 4-paragraph structure
5. Never say "I noticed" or "I saw" - just state the observation
**Scope boundaries**:
- We ARE: company search, lookalikes, enrichment API
- We ARE NOT: CRM, email tool, full GTM platform
ICP Profiles: Shared vs. Vertical-Specific
Store all ICP profiles in the global context, even if some are vertical-specific.
## ICP
| Profile | Company Size | Geo | Roles | Vertical |
|---------|--------------|-----|-------|----------|
| B2B Marketplace Ops | 50-500 | US/EU | VP Ops, Marketplace Ops, VP Sales | B2B marketplaces |
| Investment Platform Product | 20-200 | US | VP Product, Head of Data, Founder/CEO | Fintech, Investment |
| Procurement Software Leadership | 100-1000 | US/EU | VP Product, Chief Product Officer | Enterprise SaaS, Procurement |
Campaign History: Cross-Vertical Learnings
Track all campaigns in the global context.
## Campaign History
| Campaign | Vertical | List Size | Reply Rate | Top Hypothesis | Learnings |
|----------|----------|-----------|------------|----------------|----------|
| marketplace-q1 | B2B marketplaces | 250 | 8% | Stale supplier data | CEO/founders reply 2x more than VPs |
| investment-q1 | Investment platforms | 180 | 12% | Deal flow discovery | "Emerging managers" keyword drove 60% of replies |
| procurement-q1 | Procurement software | 300 | 6% | Vendor coverage gaps | Enterprise segment (1000+ employees) had 3x reply rate |
- Founder/CEO titles outperform VP titles
- Specific keywords (“emerging managers”, “APAC suppliers”) drive engagement
- Larger companies = better data coverage = higher reply rates
Use these learnings to refine future campaigns across all verticals.
Scaling: 3 → 10 Verticals
Month 1-2: Validate 3 Verticals
Run small campaigns (150-200 companies each) in 3 verticals. Track:
- Reply rate by vertical
- Hypothesis performance
- Email structure that works
Month 3-4: Double Down + Add 2 More
- Scale the best-performing vertical to 500+ companies
- Add 2 new verticals based on ICP overlap
- Start building a hypothesis library (patterns that work across verticals)
Month 5-6: Systematize
- Templatize enrichment column sets (“Standard B2B SaaS enrichment”)
- Build reusable research prompts per vertical category
- Create hypothesis templates (e.g. “Coverage gap” pattern, “Workflow inefficiency” pattern)
Month 7+: Scale to 10+ Verticals
At this point you have:
- Proven email structures per role type
- Hypothesis library with 20+ validated pain points
- Enrichment playbooks per vertical category
- Voice rules refined by 5000+ sent emails
New verticals take 2-3 hours instead of 2-3 days.
Multi-Vertical Best Practices
Reuse enrichment column prompts: Once you’ve built a good “Primary customer segment” prompt, save it as a snippet and reuse across verticals.
Track hypothesis performance in Campaign History: Which pain points drive replies? Double down on those.
Don’t over-personalize: If you have 10 verticals and write 10 completely different email structures, you lose the ability to A/B test. Keep voice and structure consistent, vary only the pain hypothesis.
Batch vertical launches: Research and build hypothesis sets for 3 verticals at once, then run campaigns in parallel. This surfaces shared patterns faster.
When to Split the Context File
You might need multiple global context files if:
- Different brands/products - If you’re running campaigns for two separate products, use two context files
- Radically different ICPs - If one campaign targets startups and another targets F500, voice and proof points diverge enough to warrant separate contexts
- Different senders - If Sarah sends to technical buyers and John sends to executives, their voice rules differ
Otherwise, stick with one global context. The per-vertical folders give you enough flexibility.
Next Steps
