Rethinking ICP Segmentation

When Company Size Stops Mattering

I’ve been wrong about something for years.

Well probably several things fit into that statement, but for the sake of specificity, we’ll keep this article to just one topic in particular. 😅

Not entirely wrong. Just wrong enough that it’s been bothering me.

For the last decade, I’ve been preaching a pretty standard gospel when it comes to segmenting ICPs for Account-Based programs: start with geography, layer in company size, add vertical specificity, then customize messaging for enterprise versus mid-market problem sets.

It’s worked. I’ve built successful programs this way at Chili Piper, Campaign Monitor, Brightwheel, and for dozens of clients since going solo.

But lately? I keep running into situations where this framework breaks.

---

👋 Hi, it’s Kaylee Edmondson and welcome to Looped In, my newsletter covering demand gen and growth in B2B SaaS. Subscribe to join 2k+ readers who get Looped In delivered to their inbox every Sunday.

---

The Cracks in Traditional Segmentation

A few months ago, I was working with a client selling GTM software. We’d built out their ICP segmentation the “right” way: companies with 10000+ employees got one set of campaigns, companies with 1000 - 9999 got another, and 150-999 another.

But something weird started happening.

A 180-person company that had tripled headcount in 18 months was asking the exact same questions, facing the exact same problems, and responding to the exact same messaging as an 8,000-person company that had barely grown in three years.

Meanwhile, another 180-person company that had been stable for five years needed completely different positioning. They weren’t even close to the same buyer journey as the high-growth 180-person company.

The common denominator wasn’t size. It was growth velocity and the operational chaos that comes with that. Seems obvious maybe as I write it, but truth be told I have just never open-mindedly thought this way.

What We’re Actually Segmenting

When you segment by company size, you’re making assumptions about:

• Budget availability

• Decision-making complexity

• Operational maturity

• Tech stack sophistication

• Team structure

But these assumptions fall apart when you account for growth rate.

A 200-person company growing 200% year-over-year is dealing with:

• Hiring and onboarding chaos

• Process breakdown at scale

• Tool sprawl and integration nightmares

• Cross-functional alignment issues

An 8,000-person company with 5% annual growth might have:

• Established processes

• Mature tech stack

• Clear roles and responsibilities

• Predictable operations

Same problem intensity. Very different company sizes.

The Problem-State Framework

What if we stopped segmenting primarily by static firmographics and started segmenting by problem intensity and operational state? (Or whatever this might translate to based on what you’re selling.)

This has me starting to think about segmentation in three dimensions instead of the traditional one:

1. Growth Velocity

• Hyper-growth (>100% YoY)

• High-growth (50-100% YoY)

• Steady-growth (<50% YoY)

• Maintenance mode (flat or declining)

2. Problem Acuteness

• Critical pain (operations breaking, revenue at risk)

• Active pain (inefficiencies causing measurable issues)

• Latent pain (aware of problem, not urgent)

• Future pain (anticipating upcoming challenges)

3. Operational Maturity

• Building (establishing first processes)

• Scaling (processes exist but breaking)

• Optimizing (processes work, seeking efficiency)

• Transforming (rebuilding for next phase)

A company’s position across these three dimensions could tell you way more about their buying journey than their employee count might.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Let me show you how this shifts messaging for that GTM client:

Old approach:

• Mid-market: “Get visibility into your pipeline”

• Enterprise: “Enterprise-grade analytics for complex sales orgs”

New approach:

• Hyper-growth + Critical pain: “Stop losing deals in the chaos of rapid scaling”

• Steady-growth + Latent pain: “See patterns you’re missing in your sales data”

• Mature + Optimizing: “Fine-tune what’s already working”

Same product. But different convos based on where the company is in their growth and operational journey.

The Messy Reality

Here’s where I admit this gets complicated fast.

You can’t just flip a switch and start segmenting by problem-state instead of firmographics. The data isn’t always readily available. Your CRM probably isn’t set up for it. Your sales team is used to the old buckets.

And yes, company size still matters for things like:

• Contract value potential

• Sales cycle complexity

• Implementation resources needed

• CAC thresholds for campaign budgets

I’m not suggesting we throw out firmographics entirely. What I’m suggesting is that we stop letting them be the primary organizing principle when they might not be the most predictive variable.

Still Figuring This Out

I’m sharing this because I’m actively working through it, not because I have it all figured out.

Maybe in six months I’ll have more conviction. Maybe I’ll realize this only applies to certain product categories or GTM motions. Maybe traditional segmentation works just fine for most companies and I’m overthinking it.

👆 It could very well be this. IYKYK.

But I do know this: when a 150-person company and an 11,500-person company are asking me the exact same questions in discovery calls, our segmentation model is missing something important.

And that’s worth exploring.

Ooh, also worth exploring! A dear friend of mine, Jason Widup, is climbing 5 volcanoes this summer to raise money for youth mental health. Please consider sharing his story, donating to this critically important cause, or just leaving him a note of encouragement on his journey. 🫶

See ya next week,
Kaylee ✌