I‘ve spent the past several months building a system I couldn’t easily explain to people. Not an AI tool. Not a marketing automation platform. Something more like... an operating system for go-to-market.
Then, in the space of two weeks, four unconnected people published content about essentially the same idea - each calling it something different.
Ben Van Sprundel calls it a “second brain.” Maya Voje’s latest Substack calls it an “AI GTM Brain.” Jason Gong at GrowthX is using “second brain” too. Others are just calling it “agentic GTM” and really, dozens of other posts/videos are popping up around the same topic.
They’re all describing one thing. And nobody’s agreed on a name for it.
My reaction wasn’t “oh, interesting new trend.” It was more like: “oh, everyone else is arriving at the same place I’ve been building in.” Which is either validating or terrifying, depending on how you look at it.
(I’m going with validating.)
Let me try to put words to what this thing actually is - because right now the conversation is scattered across different labels, and most of it focuses on only one piece of a much bigger shift.
One thing worth noting upfront: this isn’t a new SaaS tool. The platform at the center of what we’re building is Claude Code - the same AI coding environment that your engineering team probably already uses to build your software product.
The shift is that this same piece of infrastructure becomes the operating system for your marketing, product and sales team too. You’re not buying new software. You’re setting up, training, and running an environment that already exists - just pointed at go-to-market instead of (or in addition to) code.
The best name I’ve found so far, to capture this thing is GTM as Product.
What “GTM as Product” actually means
Breaking down the buzz and it’s six things:
Centralized memory and rules. Your ICP, positioning, brand voice, messaging frameworks, strategy - codified in one place that every workflow can access. Not in a Google Doc someone opened six months ago. In the system itself, where the work actually happens.
Context and intelligence. The system knows your company, your buyers, your market. When it produces output, it draws on real context - not generic best practices it pulled from a training set.
Predefined workflows. Content creation, prospecting, campaign planning, competitive analysis - these run as repeatable processes with consistent quality. Nobody reinvents the wheel every Tuesday morning.
Guardrails. Rules that prevent drift. A strategy guard that flags when output strays from your positioning. Quality checks that catch inconsistency before it ships. The system enforces discipline even when the humans are moving fast. (Especially when the humans are moving fast.)
Direct connections to your tech and data. CRM, analytics, content platforms, project management - the system reads from and writes to the tools your team actually uses.
Everything tracked and version-controlled in GitHub. Every strategy decision, every workflow, every rule change - tracked, reversible, and auditable. If you don’t know what that means as a marketer, don’t worry - it just means your entire GTM system has a complete history of every change ever made, so nothing gets lost and anything can be rolled back.
That’s it. Those six things together are what makes GTM a “product” rather than a collection of activities people and AI are kind-of-doing.
This is not just automated outbound
One important distinction that most of the conversation is missing.
Right now, the talk around “agentic GTM” is coming from the GTM Engineering crowd and to them, it mostly means automated outbound - AI agents that research prospects, write sequences, send emails.
That’s a real and useful application. But it’s one workflow inside a much bigger system.
What we’re talking about is a platform for orchestrating the entire go-to-market function. Research, strategy, content, product, prospecting, campaign execution, measurement - all running through a system that holds your company’s strategic intelligence.
What makes it a “product” and not just “vibe marketing”
There’s a spectrum here.
On one end, you have what people are calling vibe marketing - working alongside AI to get a lot done fast. You prompt, it drafts, you edit, you ship. That’s productive. Real improvement over doing everything manually.
But take it further. Build actual workflows with defined inputs and outputs. Now you’re systemizing the vibe and adding automation, more predictability. This is where most teams stop, by the way. And it’s where things start to fall apart - because disconnected workflows fade. Someone builds a great prospecting flow, a great content flow, a great reporting flow, and six weeks later none of them are being used because nothing ties them together.
Keep going. Add quality gates. Add strategic guardrails that enforce your positioning and tone. Add memory so the system compounds over time instead of starting fresh every session.
Then put the whole thing under version control - so every change to your strategy, your workflows, your rules is tracked and reversible. Now your GTM has the same engineering discipline as your product.
Now you have a product. Not a tool you use - a system you own.
That’s what we build for client companies with Growth OS. We set up Claude as the central nervous system for a marketing and sales team - the same infrastructure their engineers already use for product development, now configured with strategy, rules, workflows, and guardrails for GTM.
It’s not new software. It’s a way to train and run an environment that already exists. The kind of setup where you feed it a new competitor and it updates your battlecards, your positioning, and your outreach sequences - because the intelligence is connected.
The part nobody’s spending enough time on
You already feel this, right? The nagging sense that it’s really easy to scale mediocre stuff and bad strategy with these tools?
You’re right.
Here’s the problem with 10x output: it’s also 10x wrong when your strategy is off.
If your positioning is slightly misaligned and you’re producing content manually, you publish 2-3 pieces a week. You notice the drift within a few weeks. Course correction means revisiting maybe a dozen pieces. Annoying, but manageable.
Now run that through an agentic system. Twenty social posts, ten deep-dive articles, a full campaign - all shipped in the same timeframe. Two weeks later you realize your positioning needs adjustment. You’ve got dozens of pieces that thousands of people have already consumed, all pointing slightly in the wrong direction. The cleanup is brutal. Talk about brand confusion at scale.
Same problem with mediocre context and instructions producing and distributing mediocre content.
The faster you move, the more certain you need to be about direction. And you need to be honest about what you’re still uncertain about - because the system will amplify your uncertainty just as efficiently as it amplifies your confidence.
When it all comes together
Having said this - when strategy, positioning, and messaging are locked in, when they’re not in a deck but encoded into the system itself, then GTM built as a product is the most powerful growth engine a B2B company can build right now. Full stop.
This is early. The concept doesn’t even have a settled name yet. Multiple smart people are converging on it from completely different directions. That’s usually the phase right before something breaks through.
If you want to see what this looks like when it’s actually built - not theorized about, but running in real companies - take a look at Growth OS. We go heavy on:
First build the foundations, and then set up the agentic infrastructure on top of Claude Code.
Because the speed is only valuable when the direction is right.
Are you building anything like this? Talk to me. ‘Till next week:
Dan Renyi - founder at Klear, editor of The Electric B2B Newsletter
I've been making a similar case for a while now, coming at it from the product side. I crossed over into GTM from a product background and kept reaching for tools and mental models that didn't exist. The thing that struck me most in your post is where you talk about putting GTM under version control so every change to strategy, workflows, and rules is tracked and reversible. That's exactly the thread I've been pulling on.
My framing goes one layer up from the execution/tooling system you're describing into the strategy itself. The argument I'm building is that GTM should be versioned the way software is versioned: a coherent configuration of ICP, positioning, channels, motion, pricing, and enablement that gets deliberately iterated, documented in a changelog, and evolved through major, minor, and patch releases. Not just the AI orchestration layer - the whole strategic system underneath it.
I think we're arriving at the same building from different doors - you from the engineering/execution layer, me from the strategy/versioning layer. Would love to compare notes. The space needs both.
This resonates deeply, and the timing is uncanny.
I've been making a similar case for a while now, coming at it from the product side. I crossed over into GTM from a product background and kept reaching for tools and mental models that didn't exist. The thing that struck me most in your post is where you talk about putting GTM under version control so every change to strategy, workflows, and rules is tracked and reversible. That's exactly the thread I've been pulling on.
My framing goes one layer up from the execution/tooling system you're describing into the strategy itself. The argument I'm building is that GTM should be versioned the way software is versioned: a coherent configuration of ICP, positioning, channels, motion, pricing, and enablement that gets deliberately iterated, documented in a changelog, and evolved through major, minor, and patch releases. Not just the AI orchestration layer - the whole strategic system underneath it.
I just published the introduction to a series on exactly this on my substack - https://growthmosaic.substack.com/p/youd-never-ship-product-without-iteration
I think we're arriving at the same building from different doors - you from the engineering/execution layer, me from the strategy/versioning layer. Would love to compare notes. The space needs both.