176 Every 6c93af32

# Pain Intensity & Prioritization Rubric

## Pain Intensity Scale (1-5)

Every pain score requires **observable evidence**.

### Score 5: Hair-on-Fire

**Definition:** Actively seeking solutions, budget allocated, buying now.

**Evidence signals:**
- Active RFPs or vendor evaluations
- Job postings for roles to solve this problem
- Public statements about the pain (earnings calls, interviews)
- Competitor solutions gaining rapid traction
- Regulatory deadline forcing action

**Example:**
> "Pain: 5 — 47 job postings for 'Returns Manager' in this segment. Loop Returns raised $65M indicating market validation. CFPB regulations effective Q2 forcing compliance spend."

### Score 4: Significant Pain

**Definition:** Recognized problem, budget exists, will buy within 6-12 months.

**Evidence signals:**
- Problem mentioned in industry reports
- Workarounds in place (spreadsheets, manual processes)
- Partial solutions adopted
- Leadership acknowledges issue

**Example:**
> "Pain: 4 — 73% of surveyed retailers cite returns as top-3 operational challenge (NRF 2024). Most using manual RMA processes indicating workaround behavior."

### Score 3: Acknowledged Problem

**Definition:** Knows it's a problem, no urgency, "someday" priority.

**Evidence signals:**
- Appears in industry trend reports
- Discussed at conferences
- No dedicated budget or headcount
- Solving with existing tools "good enough"

**Example:**
> "Pain: 3 — Topic featured at Shoptalk 2024 sessions. No dedicated roles emerging yet. Current ERP modules considered adequate."

### Score 2: Mild Inconvenience

**Definition:** Minor friction, low priority, wouldn't pay much.

**Evidence signals:**
- Rarely mentioned unprompted
- Small efficiency gain if solved
- Many acceptable alternatives exist

**Example:**
> "Pain: 2 — Occasional complaints in support tickets. Workarounds take <5 min. Not worth dedicated solution."

### Score 1: Unaware

**Definition:** Don't know they have this problem.

**Evidence signals:**
- No search volume for related terms
- Not discussed in industry forums
- Requires education before sales

**Example:**
> "Pain: 1 — Zero Google Trends signal. Must create awareness before demand exists."

---

## Evidence Sources by Type

| Evidence Type | Where to Find | Strength |
|---------------|---------------|----------|
| Job postings | LinkedIn, Indeed | Strong — budget allocated |
| Funding rounds | Crunchbase, news | Strong — market validated |
| Industry reports | Gartner, Forrester, trade pubs | Medium — directional |
| Conference topics | Event agendas | Medium — trending |
| Review complaints | G2, Capterra, app stores | Medium — user voice |
| Search volume | Google Trends, SEMrush | Weak — awareness only |
| Social mentions | Twitter, Reddit, LinkedIn | Weak — anecdotal |

**Rule:** Require at least one **strong** or two **medium** evidence sources for scores 4-5.

---

## Willingness to Pay (WTP)

### High WTP

- Direct P&L impact (saves money or makes money)
- Clear ROI calculation possible
- Budget already exists for this category
- Switching costs acceptable

**Signals:**
- Paying for inferior alternatives
- Budget line item exists
- Procurement process defined

### Medium WTP

- Indirect benefits (efficiency, experience)
- ROI requires assumptions
- Budget requires reallocation
- Some switching friction

**Signals:**
- Using free/cheap workarounds
- Would need business case
- "Nice to have" positioning

### Low WTP

- Intangible benefits
- ROI unclear or long-term
- No existing budget
- High switching costs

**Signals:**
- Never paid for this category
- Extensive internal solutions
- "Not a priority this year"

---

## Accessibility Rating

### High Accessibility

- Concentrated in known channels
- Clear buying process
- Short sales cycle (<90 days)
- Decision maker reachable

**Examples:**
- Trade show attendees
- Platform marketplace (Shopify apps)
- Industry association members

### Medium Accessibility

- Multiple channels needed
- Moderate sales cycle (90-180 days)
- Multiple stakeholders
- Some outbound required

### Low Accessibility

- Fragmented, no clear channel
- Long sales cycle (>180 days)
- Complex procurement
- Gatekeepers block access

---

## Prioritization Formula

```
Priority Score = Pain × WTP × Accessibility
```

| Factor | High | Medium | Low |
|--------|------|--------|-----|
| Pain | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| WTP | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Accessibility | 3 | 2 | 1 |

**Score ranges:**
- **P0 (Primary):** 27-45 — Go now
- **P1 (Secondary):** 12-26 — Expand to
- **P2 (Tertiary):** <12 — Deprioritize

**Example calculation:**

| Segment | Pain | WTP | Access | Score | Priority |
|---------|------|-----|--------|-------|----------|
| High-volume fashion | 5 | 3 | 3 | 45 | P0 |
| DTC Shopify | 4 | 2 | 3 | 24 | P1 |
| Enterprise retail | 4 | 3 | 1 | 12 | P2 |

---

## Prioritization Rationale Template

Document the "why" behind prioritization:

```markdown
**Prioritization Rationale:**

Primary segment (High-volume Fashion) selected because:
1. Highest pain intensity (5) — active hiring for returns roles
2. Proven WTP — paying $X/month for inferior solutions
3. High accessibility — concentrated at [trade show], reachable via [channel]

Secondary segment (DTC Shopify) for expansion because:
1. Same problem, earlier stage (pain 4 vs 5)
2. Platform-specific GTM (Shopify app store)
3. Natural growth path from primary segment learnings
```

---

## Red Flags

Reconsider segment if:

- [ ] Pain score 4-5 but no evidence cited
- [ ] High WTP claimed but segment uses free alternatives
- [ ] Large size but low accessibility
- [ ] Multiple segments scored identically (differentiate harder)
- [ ] Primary segment <1,000 potential customers