Many tech companies don't have a product problem, they have an architecture problem

The tech is solid. But what reaches the market is… a blur.

👉 Features, products, and solutions get mixed up. Messaging is vague. Customers don’t get it.

The real issue? There’s no clear Offer Architecture.

We see this at every stage — from early-stage scaleups to $500M+ firms. Without structure, GTM becomes guesswork.

Here’s how the layers should actually work:

▶ 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 (𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗣) — Underlying science or tech: precise, credible, and engineering-led.

▶ 𝗙𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 (𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿) — What the user feels: named clearly, reusable, and partner-friendly.

▶ 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 (𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴)— What you sell: positioned, pitched, and priced for the customer.

▶ 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝘁) — What you deliver: tailored for real-world needs or verticals.

✅ When it’s clear:

– Your story flows.

– Partners know where they fit.

– Sales stops improvising.

– You’re ready to scale.

❌ When it’s not:

– Tech is mistaken for product.

– Features overpromise.

– Messaging falls apart.

We use this structure in our strategic GTM work at Futurable — and it’s helped clarify the commercial narrative for several tech companies.

📩 DM me for the editable template — happy to share.

Or follow along, we’ll unpack more examples.