joint-gtm-planning

The saved excerpt is a snapshot from when this skill was listed. The external source remains the complete and most current version.

---
name: joint-gtm-planning
description: Plan one joint go-to-market motion with one already-chosen partner - the joint value proposition, co-marketing campaign shape, launch sequencing, budget and market-development funds, the lead-sharing and attribution agreement, and the closing debrief. Covers B2B vendor-to-vendor co-marketing, consumer co-branding, and creator collaborations. Use whenever the user mentions a joint GTM plan, partner co-marketing, a joint webinar or integration launch, or a better-together story with a named partner, even if they never say GTM. Macro strategy only, no ad copy, email bodies, or asset production. Do NOT use for direct-vs-partner deal policy - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@co-selling-strategy instead.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Maya-Beth Finotti
  version: "1.4.1"
---

# Joint GTM Planning

Plan one joint go-to-market initiative with one specific partner. The partner is already chosen - ranking candidates belongs to `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@alliance-prioritization`. What gets planned here is a single motion:

- The customer-facing "better together" story.
- The campaign shape.
- Who does what, with which budget.
- The launch sequence both sides commit to.
- The lead-sharing and attribution agreement.
- The debrief that decides whether to repeat.

The output is a joint GTM plan both companies can sign - a decision artifact, not campaign assets. Ad copy, email bodies, webinar scripts, and landing pages are tactical work downstream of this plan. Note the boundary with the ecosystem sibling: its joint-value-proposition workshop filters whether a partner _category_ can articulate joint value at all; this skill drafts the actual customer-facing claim for one named partner and one initiative.

## Interview

Ask before proposing anything. One question per message; offer multiple-choice options when possible. Skip anything the user already answered. If your harness has persistent memory, check it first for a previously approved plan with this partner and confirm what changed instead of re-interviewing.

- Which partner, and what state is the relationship in: newly signed, signed but dormant, active with prior campaigns, or a strategic alliance with executive ties?
- What is the initiative, and what business objective drives it: pipeline generation, an integration or product launch, entering a new segment or market, brand association, a shared event?
- Who is the target audience, and what account or audience overlap is verified - mapped overlap data, customer-interview evidence, or assumption?
- What can the two companies credibly claim together that neither can alone? A draft joint value proposition, or a blank page?
- What assets does each side already have: integration, content, customer stories, audience channels, event presence, house lists?
- What budget does each side commit, and are market-development or co-op funds available - with what claim rules and deadlines?
- What is each side's effort ceiling: hours available, headcount assigned, how much approval capital the owner can spend, and how reversible the commitment must stay? Money is not the constraint that picks the campaign shape - two-company coordination is.
- What is the timeline, is any date fixed (an event, a product release, a quarter close), and by what date must results actually land? A launch date and a results date are different constraints.
- Is the goal a one-off win this quarter, or a compounding asset that keeps earning after launch? Never let this stay implicit - it flips the campaign-shape ranking outright.
- Who is the named owner on each side, and who is the executive sponsor on each side? Four names.
- What lead-sharing and data-protection constraints apply: regions covered, consent regime, each side's CRM, any existing data-sharing agreement?
- What does success mean to each side _separately_? Never accept one merged "shared goal" - asymmetry hidden now becomes the post-mortem later.

## Workflow

Hold