Are you still applying a one-for-all GTM?

Most B2B teams run one GTM (go-to-market) motion everywhere and hope it works. That’s how you end up “doing ABM” with a lead-gen mindset, or calling lead-gen “demand gen” because it sounds better on a slide. The fix isn’t another acronym. It’s choosing the right motion for the buying process in front of you—and being honest about your capacity.

On a recent episode of the ForgeX Files, host Davis Potter interviewed Tania Saez, B2B Growth Advisor for ABM, Demand Generation and RevOps, about this exact problem: organizations trying to force one GTM across very different markets and deal shapes. Their conversation is a useful gut check for any team mixing lead gen, demand gen, Growth ABM, and Enterprise ABM (1:few, 1:1). The short version: stop casting nets for whales.

Two universes, two motions

Tania draws a clean line most teams blur:

• Short, simple buying processes (few stakeholders, transactional, faster velocity) →  lead gen, inbound, or outbound GTM can work.
• Long, complex buying processes (many stakeholders, high ACV, consensus) → you need ABM and demand creation GTM, not just lead capture.

That’s it. If you’re selling bluefin tuna, don’t bring a net.

This maps to how I structure account-based work with clients: first understand the buying process reality, then select the motion. Don’t start with the tool. Start with the deal shape, your team’s capacity, and the outcomes you actually need this quarter.

Growth ABM vs. Enterprise ABM

Davis adds a practical split that I’ve found essential in GTM execution:

• Growth ABM (1:many): hundreds or thousands of accounts, tiered by priority and capacity. Tier 1 gets the most personalization and tactic eligibility; Tier 2 gets less; Tier 3 is scaled. It’s still account-based, but it’s designed for coverage and throughput.
• Enterprise ABM (1:few, 1:1): deep plays for a handful of accounts over 9–18 months. High craft, high cost, high coordination. This is where “ABM as spearfishing” fits.

Crucially, these motions should feed each other. Growth ABM surfaces the patterns, signals, and Tier 1 accounts worth graduating into 1:few or 1:1. Enterprise ABM validates messaging and buying-committee learning you can push back down into Growth ABM at scale. One doesn’t replace the other.

In my work, this is where teams unlock compounding returns: Growth ABM gives predictable surface area; Enterprise ABM delivers outsized wins; the learning loops between them improve both.

Demand gen vs. lead gen

The slippage between demand gen and lead gen happens when teams relabel lead capture as “demand gen.” Demand gen means you’re creating demand in your category and capturing it. Lead gen is primarily capture.

If your “demand gen” motion is just gated ebooks and retargeting form fills, call it what it is. There’s nothing wrong with lead capture—just don’t expect it to move complex deals through six stakeholders.

If you’re selling into a long, complex process, demand creation plus ABM is the only honest route. If you’re in a shorter, simpler process, lead-gen can still be efficient. Choose, but don’t mush them together.

How to choose a GTM

The best part of the episode is Tania’s selection exercise with a complex client: many segments and sub-segments, different ACVs, and mixed sales cycles. She used five variables to approach this:

• Industry-specific indicators (ad spend, website traffic).
• Pipeline velocity (how fast deals move).
• Margin / ACV (is it worth the effort?).
• Difficulty (stakeholders, complexity, competitive pressure).

Result: enterprise segments (brands, retailers) clearly belonged in ABM; “growth” segments behaved more like 1:many. Even within ABM, retailers had faster pipeline velocity—so they were prioritized for earlier impact.

This mirrors how I build the account mix: use concrete variables (plus buying signals) to decide motion and priority by segment. Then map that to capacity. No net-new wish lists, no “everything is Tier 1,” no pretending 1:1 ABM to work with one marketer and a dream.

Prioritize by quarter

Another underrated point highlighted in the conversation: sequence your plays by quarter by building a visual map of all segments, their best-fit GTM (lead gen, demand gen, Growth ABM, Enterprise ABM), and then pick P1/P2 for this year—with the rest staged for next.

Discipline is everything. Most teams fail not because the idea is bad, but because they try to run all motions everywhere, then drown in half-built campaigns and context switching. Pick fewer plays. Finish them. Learn. Then expand.

At ABX Stack, we make the same call early: what will we finish this quarter? What can we credibly run next quarter once we have the learnings?

Start with GTM pilots that prove something

Davis notes a pattern I’m seeing too: Enterprise ABM pilots often act as a Trojan horse for the broader shift. Why? Because a real 1:few or (carefully) 1:1 play forces account-based attribution, deep sales alignment, and actual buying-journey design. It exposes how thin “generic sequences” really are in enterprise sales.

The warning: true 1:1 is risky as a pilot—per practitioner you might cover only 3–5 accounts. One-to-few gives you more at-bats without losing depth. I agree. If you’re proving out ABM, run 1:few around cross-sell/upsell where odds are higher, win visibly, then graduate that motion outward.

From there, the natural question becomes: how do we scale the account-based approach? That’s where Growth ABM comes in—structured tiers, shared metrics, and consistent orchestration across hundreds or thousands of accounts. Enterprise ABM then feeds off Growth ABM’s Tier 1/Tier 2 list instead of chasing random whales.

Where signals fit

None of this works if your targeting is vibes. The selection variables above tell you which motion fits a segment. Signals tell you which accounts belong in Tier 1 versus Tier 3—and when to act.

• In Growth ABM, signals help you choose and tier at scale (hiring trends, tech adoption, funding, leadership changes, and product-usage clues where you have them).
• In Enterprise ABM, signals help you sequence touches across the buying committee and time your escalation.

This is where I tie the episode back to our ongoing theme: ABM without signal discipline devolves into rebranded demand gen. ABM with signal discipline becomes a focused growth engine. Same tools, different outcome.

Be honest about capacity

The tiering just described is only useful if it matches capacity. If sales can only work 20–40 accounts well, no Growth ABM spreadsheet with 4,000 “targets” will save you. If marketing can’t sustain 1:1 personalization, don’t pretend otherwise. You’ll ship half-baked plays and burn trust.

My rule is: let capacity set the ceiling, not ambition. Then instrument SLAs so accounts don’t rot in queues.

A simple way to put this into motion

If you need a starting path that won’t collapse under its own weight:

Instrument alignment: shared definitions, shared metrics, account-based reporting. If Sales and Marketing aren’t reading the same page, fix that before scaling.

Segment by reality: use velocity, margin/ACV, and difficulty (plus 1–2 industry signals) to assign motions per segment.

Map to capacity: tier accounts inside Growth ABM; cap Enterprise ABM to a sane 1:few pilot.

Sequence by quarter: pick P1/P2 plays; park the rest for later—on purpose.

Wire signals: Define which signals promote an account up tiers or trigger outreach timing.

The difference between teams that “do ABM” and teams that win with ABM is simple: fit the motion to the buying process, prioritize by impact and capacity, and let signals sort the list.

GTM Takeaways