Go-To-Market or Go-To-Bed: Stop Making Slides That Set Investor Money on Fire
“All right. All right. All right.” That’s how this episode of Zero to Traction kicks off—equal parts hype and oh no, we’re doing this again—as Josh David Miller (JDM) and Cameron Law return with recurring chaos-agent Cass for a game they lovingly call:
“Go to Market or Go to Bed, would you please?”
The premise is simple: Cass reads a “go-to-market slide” from a pitch deck (usually a Franken-slide of buzzwords and wishful thinking), and Josh + Cameron react in real time—what’s good, what’s broken, and how to fix it without needing a bonfire permit.
Why bad GTM slides are so common
Cameron points out something founders hate hearing but need anyway:
Most feedback you get on a GTM slide (“I don’t get it” / “this feels unclear” / “walk me through it again”) often gets blamed on delivery—how you said it, how you presented it.
But the real issue is usually more brutal:
The slide is exposing a mismatch between your business model and your go-to-market strategy.
In other words, the investor isn’t confused by your speaking voice. They’re confused because your plan is… not a plan.
So the goal of this episode is to help you recognize when your GTM slide is signaling a deeper strategic problem—not just “needs cleaner copy.”
GTM Slide #1: “Let’s market to… everyone!”
Cass drops the first “strategy” and it’s basically a startup trying to win every audience on every channel with one vague message.
Target audience includes:
Gen Z professionals
side hustlers
remote teams
creators
small businesses
HR departments
nonprofits
educators
Channels include:
TikTok, webinars, LinkedIn, Clubhouse
paid search
IRL events
Messaging:
“We help future-forward teams thrive in a hybrid-first world.”
Goal:
“Viral growth, organic buzz, creator partnerships.”
Cameron’s immediate diagnosis: no clear target audience.
Not “a little broad.” More like “shotgun marketing into the ocean and hoping the fish Venmo you.”
Josh goes harder: even the audiences listed aren’t specific enough, and the audiences don’t even belong in the same slide. Marketing to HR departments vs. Gen Z professionals is not one strategy—it’s multiple companies pretending to be one.
And the line that lands:
Channels are not a go-to-market strategy.
They’re just places you can light money on fire in public.
Fix (in plain English):
Pick one early adopter segment you can win first.
Make the messaging specific to the pain and buyer.
Choose one primary channel where that buyer already looks for solutions.
Build from wedge → expansion. Don’t cosplay as Walmart.
GTM Slide #2: “Millennial parents + hashtags + hope”
This one is cleaner on paper, but still has some classic “startup-influencer” energy.
Target market:
Tech-savvy millennial parents looking for simplicity in a complex world.
Wedge:
Sponsor parenting podcasts + Instagram reels with emotional quotes.
Funnel:
See ads
Download mindfulness checklist
Join email drip series (“Less Stress, More You”)
Buy annual subscription
Flywheel:
Users share journey using hashtag #parentflow
Josh gives credit where it’s due: one target market (progress!) and a legit funnel structure (ads → lead magnet → drip → convert).
But the key critique is savage and correct:
This looks like awareness, not acquisition.
You can’t “emotionally resonant quote” someone into an annual subscription unless:
the problem is real,
the pain is sharp,
and the product is clearly the solution.
Also… the lead magnet and paid product feel disconnected. If your free offer is mindfulness and your paid offer is a platform subscription, you need a stronger through-line that connects:
problem → quick win → deeper value.
Cameron adds a subtle but important pitch-deck point:
Calling it a “Launch and Grow Plan” is trying to be cute in a place where investors want pattern recognition and clarity.
Josh nails it:
Launch and growth are different phases.
If you’re launching, you’re testing “is this a thing?”
If you’re growing, you’ve already proven it.
Trying to combine them signals you don’t understand the startup lifecycle—or you’re pretending you’re past “scrappy reality” already.
Fix:
Make the pain and payoff explicit.
Tie the lead magnet directly to the paid outcome.
Don’t put “growth” on the slide unless you’ve earned it with actual traction.
GTM Slide #3: The B2B logistics one that’s… fine, but bland
This is the one that finally resembles something you’d see in a real pitch deck.
ICP:
Operations managers at midsize logistics companies with dispatch workflow inefficiencies.
Assumption:
They’re actively looking for software to improve communication + reduce delivery delays.
Acquisition strategy:
Cold LinkedIn + email outreach
Sponsor industry newsletters/podcasts
Attend supply chain trade shows
Messaging:
“Work smarter, not harder with dispatch software that just works.”
Cameron likes the specificity and agrees it’s a real start.
But he wants the slide to show what happens after outreach—are you driving to demos? pilots? referrals? what’s the activation path?
Josh’s take:
It’s not wrong. It’s just milk toast (yes, he says it, and yes, Cameron calls him out for it).
This is the key insight:
This GTM strategy could be pasted into any B2B SaaS deck. It’s a list of channels with no advantage, no unique wedge, and no execution strategy.
Trade shows and sponsorships can work—but:
a trade show is a channel, not a strategy
sponsorship can create credibility—but only if it’s tied to a conversion plan
cold outreach only works if you can explain why you can do it better than every other founder spamming inboxes
Fix:
Show what happens after acquisition: demo → pilot → expansion.
Make at least one channel “unfair” (access, credibility, partnerships, distribution).
Replace generic messaging with a specific pain/outcome claim.
The real lesson
If your GTM slide is vague, bloated, or channel-listy, it’s not just “bad marketing.”
It’s a symptom.
A good GTM slide proves:
you know who buys
why they buy
where they already are
how you reach them
and what the next step is after they raise their hand
And if you can’t explain that?
Cass says it best:
You’re not a movement.
You’re a hypothesis with a Squarespace account.
(Still a respectable place to start. Just don’t put “viral growth” on the slide like it’s a feature you can toggle on.)
Closing vibes
Cass brings the pop culture frivolous thought: if Fast & Furious can go from DVD player heists to launching cars into space, your pivot is probably fine.
Josh goes on a mini-rant about franchises that don’t know when to quit (Hollywood: stop squeezing every last nickel out of IP), and Cameron brings it back to the Kings saga—because hope is irrational, but tradition matters.
They close by inviting folks in the Sacramento area to office hours at Connect Labs at Aggie Square.
And then Josh gets roasted one last time:
“Your participation was milk toast at best.”
Josh: “I concur.”
About Josh David Miller
Over the past decade, Josh David Miller has empowered over 100 startup founders and innovators to launch and scale their ventures. As the driving force behind the Traction Lab Venture Accelerator,
Josh specializes in guiding early-stage startups through the intricate journey from ideation to product-market fit. His expertise lies in transforming innovative concepts into viable, market-ready solutions, ensuring entrepreneurs navigate the challenges of the startup ecosystem with confidence and strategic insight.
About Cameron R. Law
Cameron R. Law is a Sacramento native dedicated to building community, growing ecosystems, and empowering entrepreneurs.
As the Executive Director of the Carlsen Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship at California State University, Sacramento, he leverages his passion for the region to foster innovation and support emerging ventures. Through his leadership, Cameron plays a pivotal role in shaping Sacramento's entrepreneurial landscape, ensuring that innovators and builders have the resources and support they need to succeed.
