Most GTM teams think they have a messaging problem.

They rewrite subject lines. They A/B test openers. They debate tone in Slack for days.

And then… nothing changes.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Most teams don’t have a messaging problem. They have a research bottleneck.

Messaging answers what you say. Research answers who you’re talking to. Signals answer when to show up.

If you get the first two wrong, no amount of clever copy will save you.

I see this constantly in SalesMint projects. Reps are doing “research,” but it looks like this:

• 12 open tabs
• Half-read LinkedIn profiles
• A quick scan of the website
• Guessing whether now is a good time to reach out

That’s not strategy. That’s heroics.

And worse… it doesn’t scale.

The best sellers already know what to look for:

• Who actually fits the ICP (and who doesn’t)
• What changed recently
• Why this account might care now

The problem isn’t that teams don’t know what good research looks like. It’s that it lives in people’s heads instead of systems.

So instead of automating messaging, we start by automating:

• Account research
• Enrichment
• Narrow segmentation
• Buying signal monitoring

Once those are in place, messaging becomes obvious.

You’re no longer asking, “What should I say?” You’re responding to context that already exists.

This is why “spray and pray” feels broken. Because it is.

Your reps aren’t underperforming. They’re buried in tabs, Google searches, and CRM gaps.

And every minute they spend hunting for context is a minute they’re not talking to prospects.

If this resonates, I’m curious:

• Where does research break down in your GTM motion?
• Is it who you’re targeting… or when you’re reaching out?

Reply and tell me. I read every response.

Next edition, I’ll break down how we turn best-seller behavior into repeatable systems (without turning your team into robots).