Market Segment Exclusion Review
Decide which buyer situations your software should not pursue yet, using task fit, supported capabilities, evidence gaps and delivery capacity.
Read this resource as Markdown
When to use this template
Use this when several buyer groups request different outcomes and your team cannot responsibly support them all. Define segments by their tasks and necessary product conditions, then inspect actual evidence and capacity.
Choose another approach when: You want to infer product fit from demographic stereotypes, dismiss an accessibility problem as an unwanted customer, or claim an unresearched segment has no demand.
Gather these inputs
- The candidate buyer situation and evidence of the task they need to complete.
- Verified product capabilities, access conditions and material delivery limits.
- The effort and evidence needed to serve the segment responsibly, including unresolved assumptions.
Copy and adapt the template
Edit the text below and copy it into your own document. Edits stay in this browser field and are not submitted or saved by this page.
Worked example
Illustrative example, not a Crany customer result. Replace every example detail with facts you can verify.
Fictional example: Handoff Notes supports small text checklists. A prospective organization needs a fully audited knowledge base with a mandatory approval workflow. The founder has evidence of that requirement but no tested audit capability. The review defers this buyer situation because the current offer cannot meet it, and records what would need to change before reconsidering. It does not conclude that larger organizations dislike checklists or that this market is unprofitable. A separate report that keyboard navigation fails is treated as a product accessibility defect to fix, not a reason to exclude keyboard users. The eventual public fit statement is a different deliverable from this internal decision.
How to use it
- Describe the task situation and necessary conditions before applying a broad segment label.
- Compare supported value with real requirements and the work needed to close material gaps.
- Record a reversible decision, its acquisition consequence and an evidence-based revisit trigger.
Check before using it
- A capability gap is distinguished from missing market evidence.
- Task and delivery conditions drive the decision; demographic assumptions do not.
- Accessibility barriers remain product issues rather than excuses to reject affected users.
What to measure
Track deferred opportunities, the requirements behind them and whether revisit triggers actually occur. The review can prevent an unsupported promise; it cannot determine a segment’s size, profitability or long-term potential from a few conversations.
Research and sources
Dunford links supported value to customers who care about it. GOV.UK beta research guidance includes varied needs and assistive-technology users. This original internal review uses those principles without claiming commercial segment validation or imposing government-service rules on private software.
- April Dunford: A Quickstart Guide to Positioning — checked 2026-10-24. Author’s 2021 explanation of buyer alternatives, differentiated capabilities, customer value and category expectations; no universal growth or numeric claims adopted.
- GOV.UK Service Manual: User research in beta — checked 2026-10-24. Research with likely users across the end-to-end service, support and varied access needs. Government-specific obligations are not generalized to private businesses.
About Crany
Crany is an AI marketing co-founder in development for software founders and vibe coders, designed to strategize, execute approved marketing and improve based on results. This free resource is usable independently of the product. Join the public waitlist.