Analyzing Market Size And Timing
When To Use
- Evaluating a startup's market opportunity during due diligence for seed or Series A investment
- Validating founder claims about addressable market in a pitch deck or investment memo
- Assessing whether market timing supports the investment thesis (too early, right window, too late)
- Comparing market size across competing deals in the same vertical
- Stress-testing SAM/SOM assumptions before presenting to an investment committee
Inputs To Gather
- Company data: product description, target customer profile, pricing model, current revenue/ARR if any
- Founder claims: any TAM/SAM/SOM figures from the pitch deck or data room
- Industry reports: analyst estimates from Gartner, IDC, PitchBook, CB Insights, or vertical-specific sources [VERIFY availability and recency of cited reports]
- Comparable companies: public comps, recent exits, or late-stage private companies in the same market
- Regulatory/macro context: relevant policy shifts, technology adoption curves, or demographic trends that affect timing
- Geographic scope: whether the analysis is US-only, multi-market, or global
Workflow
-
Define the market boundary
- State the product category and end-user segment precisely (e.g., "cloud-based LIMS for contract research organizations," not "lab software")
- Distinguish between the broader category (TAM) and the segment the company can realistically address (SAM) given its product, geography, and go-to-market
-
Run top-down sizing
- Start with a credible industry-level revenue figure from an analyst report or public filing
- Apply segmentation filters: geography, customer type, price tier, use case
- Arrive at a top-down TAM and SAM; note every filter and its source
-
Run bottom-up sizing
- Count addressable customer units (companies, users, transactions) from a primary or secondary data source
- Multiply by realistic average revenue per unit based on the company's pricing or comparable pricing
- Cross-check the bottom-up SAM against the top-down SAM; flag divergences greater than 2x
-
Derive SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market)
- Estimate realistic market share at 3-5 year horizon based on: competitive density, sales capacity, distribution advantages, switching costs
- Anchor SOM to comparable company trajectories at similar stage — avoid assuming >5% share in a fragmented market without justification
-
Assess market timing
- Technology readiness: Is the enabling technology mature enough for mainstream adoption, or still early-adopter phase? Reference adoption S-curve position
- Demand signals: Customer pull (inbound interest, RFPs, organic search trends) vs. requiring heavy evangelism
- Regulatory tailwinds/headwinds: Pending legislation, enforcement trends, or compliance deadlines that accelerate or delay adoption [VERIFY jurisdiction-specific regulatory timelines]
- Competitive window: Are incumbents asleep, pivoting, or already building? Is the window opening, open, or closing?
- Classify timing as: Too Early (market needs 3+ years of development), Right Window (demand inflecting, competition nascent), or Late (dominant players established, commoditization underway)
-
Triangulate and stress-test
- Compare top-down, bottom-up, and founder-claimed figures side by side
- Identify the weakest assumption in each approach and test sensitivity (e.g., halve the price assumption or customer count)
- State a confidence-weighted range rather than a single point estimate
Output
Produce a structured market sizing memo with:
- Market definition: one-paragraph boundary statement
- TAM / SAM / SOM table: top-down and bottom-up figures side by side, with sources and key assumptions per line
- Timing assessment: classification (Too Early / Right Window / Late) with 3-5 supporting data points
- Key assumptions log: numbered list of every material assumption, flagged as high/medium/low confidence
- Risk factors: what would invalidate the sizing (e.g., regulatory reversal, platform risk, technology substitute)
- Recommendation: whether the market size and timing support the investment thesis, with caveats
Quality Checks
- TAM is not conflated with SAM — the segmentation step is explicit and sourced
- Bottom-up and top-down approaches are both present; divergence is explained, not ignored
- SOM is grounded in comparable company data, not aspirational percentages
- Timing assessment includes at least one quantitative signal (search trends, adoption rates, regulatory deadline) rather than pure narrative
- Every dollar figure has a cited source or is clearly labeled as an assumption
- [VERIFY] tags are present for any statistic, regulation, or market figure that is date-sensitive or jurisdiction-dependent
- No single data source accounts for more than 60% of the analysis — triangulation is required
微信扫一扫