all

wiki/queries/2026-07-26-eugene-90-day-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+# Eugene's Concrete 90-Day Plan
+
+#query #sales #planning
+
+## Question asked
+
+> Turn the corpus into [[eugene]]'s concrete 90-day channel/niche plan — the dated
+> version [[2026-07-17-best-method-first-client]] stops short of — and resolve the live
+> tension inside it: work the in-person first-client route, or build a
+> [[marketing-system]] early?
+
+## Assumptions this plan rests on
+
+Stated up front so the plan is falsifiable rather than merely plausible. Each is a vault
+inference, not a sourced fact:
+
+| # | Assumption | Status |
+|---|---|---|
+| A1 | [[eugene]] is the vault owner | `tentative` — circumstantial (insin, the harness) |
+| A2 | His target buyers are industrial-equipment vendors / machine-builder integrators needing CV & embedded work | `tentative` — vault inference, never stated by him |
+| A3 | His natural deal shape is few × $10K+, not 100 × $1K/mo | `tentative` — inferred from domain |
+| A4 | He has *some* prior paid work to mine for a result-pattern | **unverified** — if false, Week 1 step 2 drops and Week 2 carries more load |
+| A5 | Enterprise-lite industrial buyers behave closer to [[sebastian]]'s enterprise than to [[dan-martell]]'s SMB | `tentative` — this is the single assumption the channel choice hangs on |
+
+If A2 or A5 turn out wrong, the channel mix below is wrong and the online tier reopens.
+
+## Answer — the short form
+
+**One-to-one, in-person-weighted acquisition is the engine for these 90 days. The
+[[marketing-system]] gets a small fixed time deposit — not because it produces leads in
+this window (it won't), but because its clock is ~6 months long and because publishing
+*is* the articulation practice that may be his actual blocker.**
+
+That is the resolution of the live tension, and it is not a compromise — it follows from
+the vault's own stage reading.
+
+### Why the tension resolves this way
+
+The vault had already half-inferred it; [[oskar-hartmann]] nearly states it outright
+(*one repeatable channel builds the company; multichannel is a resilience property of
+scale*). Three supports:
+
+1. **The three-lever map is addressed to the wrong stage.** [[marketing-system]]'s
+   pick-one-lever rule comes from a clip aimed at a founder with a stalled $1.5M. It
+   omits outbound, [[referrals]], and in-person events entirely — i.e. the whole
+   first-client toolkit — because those aren't *scalable* levers, not because they don't
+   work ([[client-acquisition-channels]]).
+2. **The same author runs one-to-one at $0.** His own $0→$100K blueprint prescribes
+   phone-mining and cold calls ([[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]]). The
+   pick-one-lever rule is stage-scoped by his own practice.
+3. **The two poles agree about *this* buyer.** On enterprise specifically,
+   [[sebastian]] and [[dan-martell]] — who agree on nothing else about channels —
+   both say cold outreach doesn't open the door and trust does; they differ only on
+   built vs. borrowed trust ([[relationships-as-moat]], [[partnerships]]).
+
+**But the system isn't deferred to zero**, for one reason the stage reading alone misses:
+[[marketing-system]]'s six-month lag means "start it when you need it" starts it six
+months late. And publishing doubles as reps at explaining — the fix prescribed by the
+*rival* diagnosis of Eugene's blocker ([[technical-founder-trap]]). A small deposit buys
+both. It is budgeted below as ~2 h/week and explicitly **not** measured on leads.
+
+### The channel count, settled for this case
+
+[[ab-analytics]] says 3 channels × 90 days; [[dan-martell]] says 1 lever × 90 days
+(`the vault's standing conflict`). Under the units reading the vault infers — a *lever*
+is a discipline, a *channel* is a venue — both are satisfiable at once: **one lever
+(relationship-mediated one-to-one), three venues.**
+
+| Venue | Tier ([[client-acquisition-channels]]) | Why this one |
+|---|---|---|
+| **1. Warm mining of existing contacts** | Common / [[referrals]] | The only referral-shaped motion that needs no past client; cheapest, fastest |
+| **2. One recurring industry room** — machine-builder / automation association, regional trade fair, not a generic Chamber | Low-key (in-person) | The tier both [[ab-analytics]] and [[sebastian]] rate highest; "3× = regular, 6× = trusted" needs *recurring*, so pick by calendar not prestige |
+| **3. Partner-archetype recruiting** — integrators & equipment vendors who already hold the buyer | Out-of-the-box | [[partnerships]]: borrowed credibility. Per [[oskar-hartmann]]'s warning, court **many small partners, never one anchor** |
+
+Deliberately excluded: cold email/LinkedIn campaigns at volume (A5 says this buyer
+ignores them, and it is the effort that already failed him for ~6 months); the 100 × $1K/mo
+money map (wrong deal shape, A3); building anything before payment.
+
+## The plan — 2026-07-26 → 2026-10-24
+
+### Week 1 (Jul 26 – Aug 1) — Name the target, fix the words
+
+1. **Write the SOM in one sentence** and list **10 named prospects** — companies, not a
+   category ([[tam-sam-som]], [[sell-before-build]]). If the list can't reach 10, the
+   niche is wrong or too narrow; that failure is the week's most valuable output.
+2. **Old-client mining** (per A4): call 3–5 past clients/employers — *"what result were
+   you paying me to get?"*, never *"why did you choose us?"* ([[pain-discovery]]).
+3. **Offer formula:** *"we do X for [ICP] to close Y pain and get Z result."*
+4. **Commodity test:** strip the words "development", "computer vision", and every
+   technology name. What's left? If nothing, there is no offer yet
+   ([[productized-service]]).
+5. **The articulation rep:** say the offer to one non-engineer and have them repeat it
+   back. A [[referrals|referral]] only travels if the referrer can restate it in a
+   sentence — which is why this sits in Week 1 and not in the content bucket
+   ([[technical-founder-trap]]).
+
+### Week 2 (Aug 2 – Aug 8) — The diagnostic that costs an afternoon
+
+Run the **phone mine**: go through existing contacts and *ask past the person* — "do you
+know anyone dealing with [the pain]?" Often lands on "yeah, me"; otherwise yields
+warm, name-carrying intros ([[referrals]], [[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]]).
+
+**This is also the experiment that discriminates between the vault's two rival diagnoses
+of his 6-month blocker** — a test the vault has flagged as needed but never specified:
+
+| What happens | Diagnosis | What to fix in Weeks 3+ |
+|---|---|---|
+| Contacts engage warmly but **can't restate** what he does | [[technical-founder-trap]] — articulation | Reps at explaining; the content deposit earns its keep |
+| Contacts restate it fine but **know nobody** to send | [[relationships-as-moat]] — network reach | Weight venue 2 & 3 harder; the rooms are the work |
+| Neither — low response | Relationship decay, not either diagnosis | Rebuild contact-by-contact before scaling any channel |
+
+Vault synthesis; no source proposes this test.
+
+### Weeks 3–4 (Aug 9 – Aug 22) — Open the three venues
+
+- Book the **recurring** industry room through December. Recurrence is the mechanic, not
+  attendance ([[relationships-as-moat]]).
+- Identify 5–10 candidate **partner** organizations; approach as peers, not as a vendor
+  ([[partnerships]]).
+- First touches on the 10 named prospects, **each customized** — the template is a
+  starting point, never a mass send ([[2026-06-15-linkedin-mail-template]]).
+- **Follow-up cadence: Day 0 → 3 → 7 → 14 → 30**, 5 touches minimum, on every lead
+  ([[sales-discipline]]).
+- Start the **~2 h/week content deposit**. Measured in reps, never views. Scrambled order
+  if published as know-how ([[information-vs-implementation]]).
+- In every conversation, surface budget *before* presenting anything — obstacles, not
+  objections ([[sales-discipline]]).
+
+### Month 2 (Aug 23 – Sep 19) — Sell the smallest paid thing
+
+This answers the vault's own open question — *what is the smallest paid test for a
+dev-services offer?* ([[sell-before-build]], flagged there as arguably this plan's
+missing first step):
+
+> **A fixed-price, fixed-scope paid diagnostic** — a feasibility audit or discovery
+> sprint on **one** inspection line / one device / one process.
+
+It satisfies four constraints at once: money lands **before** the build (the services
+analogue of the paid waitlist — unpaid interest doesn't count); it is small enough to
+clear without procurement (dodging the whale-client trap [[oskar-hartmann]] documents);
+it manufactures the **Before/After case study** the corpus has flagged as missing for
+him; and it is a legitimate entry rung of an [[offer-ladder]].
+
+Also this month:
+
+- **Wizard-of-Oz the delivery.** First results produced semi-manually; automate only what
+  repeats ([[sell-before-build]]).
+- **Pricing-power probe** on the second quote — raise it and watch. Cheapest PMF test in
+  the vault ([[pricing-from-value]]).
+- **Ask for referrals immediately on delivery**, while the enthusiasm window is open —
+  91% would, 11% are asked ([[referrals]]).
+
+### Month 3 (Sep 20 – Oct 24) — Standardize only what repeated
+
+- After **2–3 similar paid audits**, fix scope/price/name → a productized package
+  ([[productized-service]]). Not before: the offer-first vs delivery-first dispute is
+  unresolved, and this side of it costs nothing to obey.
+- Write the case study as outcome + accountability, not scope
+  ([[outcome-based-selling]]).
+- Try the Zendesk motion on the warmest prospect: *"how much do you spend on X?"* →
+  *"and if it were 10× less, would we talk?"* ([[2026-06-15-rodenko-selling-development-expensively]]).
+- **Do not add a fourth venue.** Channel-hopping is the failure mode both rules agree on.
+
+## The Day-90 gate (2026-10-24)
+
+Review on **inputs**, decide on **outputs** — the reps-not-views substitution applied to
+the plan itself ([[sales-discipline]], [[marketing-system]]).
+
+**Inputs — did the plan actually run?** (target: all four yes)
+
+- ≥ 10 named prospects worked to 5 touches each
+- ≥ 6 appearances in the recurring room (the "trusted" threshold)
+- ≥ 5 partner conversations opened
+- ≥ 3 paid diagnostics *offered* (offered, not necessarily sold)
+
+**Outputs — what they mean for the next 90 days:**
+
+| Outcome | Read | Next |
+|---|---|---|
+| ≥ 1 paid diagnostic sold | Channel works | Repeat, productize, keep the system deposit small |
+| 0 sold, but inputs all hit | The channel or A2/A5 is wrong | Change **one** variable — niche before channel |
+| Inputs missed | No evidence either way | Re-run; nothing has been tested yet |
+| Sold, but only via venue 1 | Warm network worked, cold rooms didn't | This is the [[referrals]] ceiling arriving early — *now* the [[marketing-system]] decision becomes live |
+
+Thresholds are vault-inferred, not sourced. Their function is to be pre-committed, not
+to be correct.
+
+## Evidence trail
+
+- Stage reading (one-to-one starts, systems scale); three-lever map's omissions — [[client-acquisition-channels]], [[marketing-system]]
+- One channel then multichannel; SOM > TAM; whale-client trap; partner-hope warning — [[2026-07-26-how-to-build-a-billion-dollar-company-2027]] ([[oskar-hartmann]]), [[tam-sam-som]], [[partnerships]]
+- Signal hierarchy, Wizard-of-Oz, paid-waitlist analogue, duration-without-revenue red flag — [[sell-before-build]], [[2026-07-26-main-principle-of-successful-business]]
+- 3-tier channel taxonomy, 3×90, 3×/6× recognition, Day 0→3→7→14→30, 91%/11% — [[2026-06-15-17-ways-first-client]] ([[ab-analytics]]), [[sales-discipline]]
+- In-person trust mechanics; "Big zero" on online outreach — [[relationships-as-moat]], [[2026-07-06-sebastian-interview-ai-and-software-engineering]] ([[sebastian]])
+- Phone mining / ask past the person; obstacles-not-objections; offer → pre-sell → build — [[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]] ([[dan-martell]])
+- Six-month lag, reps-not-views, referral dependency as ceiling — [[2026-07-20-referrals-will-sink-your-business]]
+- Borrowed credibility, partner-archetype recruiting — [[2026-07-22-stop-cold-calling-do-this-instead]], [[partnerships]]
+- Week-1 sequence (old-client mining, offer formula, commodity test) — [[2026-06-15-meta-analysis-selling-dev-in-ai-era]]'s 90-day roadmap, [[pain-discovery]], [[niche-selection]]
+- Pricing-power probe, guarantee test — [[pricing-from-value]]
+- Predecessor query (method, undated) — [[2026-07-17-best-method-first-client]]
+- Eugene's blocker, deal shape, prior LinkedIn/articles effort — [[eugene]]
+
+**Caveat on evidence quality.** Every channel and sales claim underneath this plan traces
+to promotional YouTube videos and stage talks — *attributable, not verified*
+([[overview]] Contradictions). The vault still holds **no failure-case source for the
+productized / sell-dear model itself**, so nothing here has been tested against a
+documented loss. The one adversarially-verified source in the vault
+([[ai-productivity-evidence]]) touches the AI-capability premise, not these tactics.
+Treat this as a pre-committed experiment design, not a playbook known to work.
+
+## Follow-up questions
+
+- **Which specific association / trade fair** serves machine-builders and industrial
+  integrators in his region, and does it meet often enough for the 3×/6× mechanic? The
+  plan's venue 2 is unnamed and that is its weakest joint.
+- **Will an industrial buyer pay for a diagnostic at all**, or is a free feasibility
+  assessment the market norm? If free is the norm, the smallest paid test must move
+  downstream and Month 2 needs redesign.
+- Does the net-60/90 enterprise payment reality break the pre-payment rule for services
+  buyers of this size? (Open on [[sell-before-build]].)
+- Is industrial CV/embedded a **beachhead or a fortress** niche? Changes what winning
+  the SOM should lead to (open on [[tam-sam-som]]).
+- Still outstanding and cheap: confirm/refute the two suspected [[dan-martell]]
+  attributions — several rungs of this plan rest on his corpus, and it matters whether
+  they are 5 or 7 of 20 sources. *(Updated by lint 2026-07-29: a third anonymous
+  source — the Claude-Code short — was owner-attributed to him that day, moving the
+  confirmed count 4 → 5 and making this plan's reliance on his corpus heavier, not
+  lighter.)*
+
+## Whether this output changed existing pages
+
+Yes — five pages updated, no source claim altered. This page is synthesis over existing
+pages plus four vault-original contributions: the **stage-based resolution of the
+one-to-one vs. system tension** (with the six-month-lag exception that keeps the deposit
+non-zero), the **phone mine as the discriminating test between the two rival diagnoses**
+of Eugene's blocker, the **paid diagnostic as the smallest paid test for dev services**
+(an open question on [[sell-before-build]]), and the **pre-committed Day-90 gate**. All
+four are inference, marked as such.
+
+Updated: [[eugene]] (Next Questions closed; Related Pages), [[sell-before-build]] (its
+smallest-paid-test question now has a proposed answer), [[client-acquisition-channels]]
+(its Eugene channel question now answered), [[2026-07-17-best-method-first-client]]
+(forward link to its dated successor), [[overview]] ("Application is unstarted" thread).
+Cataloged in [[index]], logged in [[log]].