Total Addressable Market: How to Calculate Your TAM and Plan Around It

Introduction

You’re deciding how many reps to hire, which segment to attack first, and how long to wait before calling a campaign dead. All three answers depend on one number you probably estimated once and haven’t revisited: how much revenue exists in the market you sell to. Overestimate it and you build a team for demand that isn’t there. Underestimate it and a competitor takes the segment.

Martal Group has run outbound lead generation for B2B companies since 2009, across more than 50 verticals, and the pattern is consistent. The programs that stall rarely stall because the messaging was weak. They stall because the market underneath them was smaller than the plan assumed, or because the B2B leads it should have produced were never reachable in the first place. 

Total addressable market is the figure that answers all three, and the arithmetic behind it takes about thirty seconds. Producing the two inputs is the actual work. So is the question that follows: how many of those accounts you can put a rep in front of next week, which is always fewer than the market contains. 

Total Addressable Market: The Short Answer

1. Total addressable market is the total demand for your product if every company that could buy it did so at your price, expressed in annual revenue, in units, or as a count of customers depending on the convention you pick.
2. The formula is the number of qualifying accounts multiplied by your average contract value, so 6,800 accounts at $1,500 a year is a $10.2 million TAM.
3. Three methods produce that figure: top-down narrows a published industry number, bottom-up builds up from your own pricing and account list, and value theory prices the savings your product creates.
4. Bottom-up is the defensible method, because every input is one you can show; top-down is faster and gets discounted accordingly.
5. TAM is a ceiling nobody reaches, so pair it with SAM and SOM before you act on it or present it to anyone.
6. For outbound planning, your TAM sets the prospect pool, and pool size determines how quickly a campaign starts producing qualified leads.

What Changed in 2026

The ceiling on TAM claims moved again. SpaceX filed its S-1 in May 2026 with a quantifiable TAM of $28.5 trillion, describing it as the largest actionable TAM in human history. Of that, $26.5 trillion is attributed to AI, and the estimate excludes China and Russia.

The US baseline count was revised upward. The SBA Office of Advocacy put the number of US small businesses at 36.2 million in its 2025 Small Business Profile, or 99.9% of all US businesses. That is the figure most top-down US market sizing starts from, so anything built on an older count is now understating the top of the funnel.

Contact data got slightly less bad. ZeroBounce found that at least 23% of a typical email list degrades within a year, down from 28% the year before, across more than 11 billion addresses it verified during 2025. Only 62% of the addresses submitted to it were valid and safe to send to.

The method itself didn’t change. TAM is still accounts multiplied by contract value, and that arithmetic has been stable for two decades. What moved is how much scrutiny the headline number attracts and how quickly the data underneath it goes stale.

Key Terms, Defined

TAM (total addressable market): TAM is the total demand if every qualifying account bought your product at your price, usually stated as annual revenue. 

SAM (serviceable available market): SAM is the share of TAM your business model, geography, and licensing actually let you sell into.

SOM (serviceable obtainable market): SOM is the portion of SAM you can realistically win over three to five years, once competition is accounted for.

ACV (average contract value): ACV is the average annual revenue a single customer contract produces.

ICP (ideal customer profile): An ICP is the set of firmographic and behavioral criteria that define an account worth pursuing.

Total accessible market: Total accessible market is a loose variant of TAM, used sometimes as a synonym for it and sometimes for the narrower serviceable available market, so confirm which one is meant before you compare figures.

Contact coverage: Contact coverage is the share of accounts in your TAM for which you hold current, verified contact data.

How and why we wrote this: This guide draws on public filings and research from the SEC, the SBA Office of Advocacy, ZeroBounce, and TechCrunch, paired with Martal Group’s own operator experience. Martal Group has run outbound for 2,000+ B2B brands and is ranked #1 in Lead Generation on Clutch. We put it together to help revenue leaders size a market they can act on.

What Is a Total Addressable Market?

Total addressable market is the total demand for your product if you won every customer who could possibly buy it. It answers one question: if this market were yours entirely, how big would it be? Most B2B teams answer in annual revenue, because revenue is what a hiring or budget decision runs on.

But that framing matters more than it sounds. TAM is a ceiling rather than a forecast, and its job is to tell you whether the market is worth the investment you’re about to make in it. Nobody reaches it, and that’s expected.

For a B2B company the practical use is narrower still. Your TAM tells you how many accounts you get to work and what each one is worth, which is the input behind almost every resource decision you’ll make this year. How many reps you need. Which vertical to attack first. Which B2B lead generation strategies your market can actually support. Whether the plan on the board slide is arithmetically possible at all.

Are You Quoting Revenue or a Company Count? 

Both are legitimate. TAM is most often stated in annual revenue, and stating it in units or in customers is an equally standard convention. So the error isn’t picking one. The error is switching between them inside a single calculation, and that will make your model wrong by orders of magnitude.

Say you sell to US small businesses. The SBA counts 36.2 million of them. State that as your TAM and you’ve given a customer-count TAM, which is a fair answer as long as you label it. Multiply those 36.2 million by what each would pay you annually and you get a revenue TAM in the hundreds of billions. Both describe the same market. But they are not interchangeable numbers.

The failure is in the handoff. A deck defines TAM as a revenue opportunity on one slide. The next slide quotes a company count. Now you have two metrics under one label, and anyone modeling against it builds the wrong plan. So pick the convention your audience expects, which for investors and board decks is almost always revenue, and hold it for the whole calculation.

TAM vs. SAM vs. SOM: Which Number Are You Actually Quoting?

TAM, SAM, and SOM are three progressively smaller slices of the same market, and confusing them is the most reliable way to lose credibility in a pitch or a planning meeting. Each one answers a different question.

TAM: Total Demand

TAM assumes no constraints at all. Every company in the category buys from you, at your price, everywhere in the world, regardless of whether you can legally sell there or physically support them. It’s deliberately unrealistic, because its purpose is to establish the outer boundary.

SAM: What Your Model Can Serve

SAM applies the constraints that are real today. Geography, language, currency, regulatory approval, integration requirements, minimum viable company size, and anything else your product genuinely can’t accommodate. If you only sell in North America, everything outside North America leaves your TAM and never enters your SAM.

So SAM is where most sizing exercises should have started. It’s the number your go-to-market plan actually runs against.

SOM: What You Can Win

SOM subtracts competition and your own capacity. It’s the share of SAM you can plausibly capture in three to five years, given how many reps you have, how strong the incumbents are, and how long your sales cycle runs.

This is the number that should drive hiring and quota. And it’s the number founders most often skip, because it’s the smallest and the least flattering.

Why the Layers Matter More Than the Total

WeWork is the textbook illustration, and the arithmetic is instructive rather than just cautionary. Toptal’s analysis sized the workspace market for desk-based service sector workers in WeWork’s own markets at a $1.35 trillion TAM. Narrowing to urban, university-educated workers at companies under 250 people gave a SAM of $168 billion. A five-year revenue projection landed at $33.8 billion, or about 20.9% of that SAM.

Notice what happened between the first number and the last. The TAM was roughly forty times the SAM, and the achievable outcome was a fifth of the SAM. So anyone reading only the $1.35 trillion learned nothing useful about the business.

The framework’s reputation is worse than it deserves, though. That three-layer model gets dismissed as pitch-deck theater, and often it deserves to be. But the discipline of building all three is what surfaces the constraints you’d otherwise discover eighteen months into a hiring plan. The top number is close to worthless on its own. The exercise that produces it is where the value sits.

How to Calculate TAM: The Three Methods

There are three accepted ways to arrive at a TAM figure, and they use completely different inputs. Which one you pick determines how much scrutiny your number survives.

Top-Down

Top-down starts with a published industry figure and narrows it. That figure comes from secondary B2B market research rather than from anything you measured yourself. You take an analyst estimate for your category, meaning a Gartner, Forrester, or IDC number for total category spend, then apply filters for the segment you actually serve.

An example: a report puts global CRM software spend at $70 billion, you estimate that small-business CRM is roughly 28% of that, and you arrive at a $19.6 billion TAM for your slice.

Top-down is fast, and it’s useful for establishing context in an established category where good third-party data exists. But the weakness is that it inherits every assumption in the source report, and it adds your own filtering assumptions on top. Two rough percentages multiplied together produce a number nobody can audit, which is precisely why a top-down figure gets discounted the moment it’s presented alone.

Bottom-Up

Bottom-up builds the number from your own inputs. You count the accounts that fit your criteria, multiply by what one of them pays you annually, and that’s your TAM.

TAM = number of qualifying accounts × average contract value

Every term in that equation is something you can produce evidence for. The account count comes from a filtered database query you can re-run in front of someone. The contract value comes from your price book. Or from closed-won data, if you already have it. So when an investor or a board member pushes on the number, you have two defensible inputs instead of two guesses.

So bottom-up is slower, and it forces you to define your customer precisely before you can size anything. That slowness is the cost, and it’s where most of the benefit comes from too.

Value Theory

Value theory prices the value your product creates rather than counting what the market currently spends. You estimate the savings or revenue gain a customer gets, decide what share of that you can capture in your price, and multiply across the accounts that would see the same benefit.

This is the method for products with no existing category to measure. If nobody currently buys what you sell, there’s no industry spend to narrow and no comparable contract value to reference, so the only honest anchor is the economic value delivered.

But it’s also the easiest method to abuse, because the value estimate and the capture rate are both yours to choose. Use it when you have to, show your reasoning, and expect harder questions than either alternative attracts.

Which Method Investors Actually Trust

Bottom-up, consistently. But the more useful finding is that the figure itself carries less weight than founders assume.

Investors speaking at TechCrunch Disrupt in 2022 were direct about it. Aydin Senkut of Felicis Ventures said a TAM estimate is close to guaranteed to be wrong. Too large or too small, but wrong. Kara Nortman, then at Upfront Ventures, said the numbers in a pitch don’t control whether she invests, and that articulating how big something could become matters more at an early stage. Deena Shakir of Lux Capital framed TAM, SAM, and SOM as planning tools rather than fixed claims, per TechCrunch’s coverage of the panel.

Which means the reason to build a bottom-up TAM isn’t to win an argument in a pitch meeting. It’s that you’re about to make hiring and spending decisions against the number, and only one of the three methods gives you inputs you can act on.

How to Find Your Total Addressable Market, Step by Step

Doing the arithmetic takes thirty seconds. Producing the two inputs is the actual work, and this is the sequence that gets you there.

1. Define What You Actually Sell

Start by writing down the specific problem your product solves and who has that problem badly enough to pay. Be narrower than feels comfortable. A definition like “sales software for B2B companies” gives you no way to filter an account list, while “outbound sequencing for teams of five to fifty reps who already own a CRM” does.

If you’re established, note the adjacent markets you might enter later and size them separately. And they belong in a second calculation, not folded into this one.

2. Identify Your Customer Segments

Next, define the criteria that separate an account worth pursuing from one that isn’t. This is your ideal customer profile, and building it properly is a discipline in its own right, since the criteria have to be specific enough to filter a database against.

For B2B, the criteria that carry the most weight:

• Industry: the vertical where your product solves an urgent problem rather than a tolerable one. A compliance tool sells very differently to a regional bank than to a marketing agency.
• Company size: the headcount or revenue band where your product starts to make economic sense. Most SaaS buyers won’t adopt a paid CRM until they have a handful of reps to coordinate.
• Geography: the regions you can legally sell into and actually support. Channel rules differ too: cold email is available for US targets but not for EU, UK, or Canadian ones.
• Tech stack: the platforms your product integrates with or displaces. If you need a Salesforce instance to function, companies without one aren’t in your market at any price.

So build several segments using psychographic segmentation, rather than one. Segments are what let you rank the market later, and a single undifferentiated list gives you nothing to prioritize.

3. Size Each Segment

Now count the accounts in each segment. Keep the counts separate, because collapsing them into one total destroys the information you need for the prioritization step.

Precision here compounds. And loose criteria produce a large, comfortable number that overstates your market and misleads every decision downstream of it.

4. Source the Account Counts

This is the step that stops most teams, and it’s worth naming the options honestly.

• Commissioned research is the most thorough. A custom market study from a research firm runs well into five figures and takes months, which puts it out of reach for most teams and out of time for the rest.
• Government and public data is free and reliable for top-down work. The SBA’s small business profiles, Census Bureau business statistics, and Bureau of Labor Statistics data all support US sizing at no cost.
• Analyst reports from Gartner, Forrester, or IDC give you category spend figures, which is what top-down narrowing needs. Access is expensive, though individual reports are sometimes published or summarized publicly.
• A B2B contact database filtered against your ICP is the practical route for bottom-up sizing. You apply your criteria and read the account count directly, which takes minutes and produces a number you can reproduce.

For most B2B companies the fourth option is the working answer, with public data as a sanity check on it. At Martal Group we size the market this way before taking on a client, because a program’s realistic ramp depends entirely on how many accounts are in the pool.

5. Estimate Your Average Contract Value

Divide your total annual revenue by your number of customers and you have your ACV. If you’re pre-revenue, derive it from your price book and your expected mix across plans.

Two things to watch. Use annual figures throughout, since mixing monthly ACV with an annual TAM is a common and expensive slip. And segment your ACV if your pricing varies materially by company size, because a single blended number will misprice both ends of your market.

6. Calculate the TAM

Multiply the account count by the ACV.

TAM = qualifying accounts × average contract value

So do it per segment, then total. You want both figures, because the total tells you whether the market is worth entering and the segment breakdown tells you where to start.

7. Validate With a Second Method

Run the calculation again using a different method and compare. If your bottom-up and top-down figures land within roughly 15% of each other, your assumptions are probably sound. But a wide gap means one of the two has a bad input, and finding it now is considerably cheaper than finding it after you’ve hired against the number.

Document every assumption as you go. When someone challenges the figure six months from now, the assumptions are what let you defend it or correct it.

Worked Examples: TAM in Three Business Models

The same formula produces very different shapes depending on what you sell. Three builds, deliberately unalike.

Example 1: A Product Sold Per Seat

Say you’ve built a CRM for small businesses and you want a defensible TAM. The bottom-up build runs like this.

Start with the market size. Your product serves US small businesses, and the SBA counts 36.2 million of them. That’s the population you narrow down from. Your revenue TAM comes later, after the filtering and the multiplication.

Apply your ICP criteria. Your CRM is designed for SaaS companies specifically, which cuts the population dramatically. Assume your database query returns 17,000 US SaaS companies. Treat that as an input you produce yourself rather than a published fact, because company counts by category vary widely between data sources and you want the one your own criteria generated.

Apply the adoption threshold. Your closed-won data shows that SaaS companies rarely buy a paid CRM below ten employees. Filtering for that leaves roughly 8,500 accounts.

Remove what you can’t serve. About 1,700 of those already build or resell competing tooling and won’t buy. That leaves 6,800 qualifying accounts.

Estimate ACV. Your plan mix averages out to $1,500 per company per year.

Calculate.

6,800 accounts × $1,500 per year = $10.2 million TAM

So $10.2 million is the maximum annual revenue available to you if you won every qualifying account in the US SaaS segment. Note how far that sits from the 36.2 million you started with. Both figures describe the same market. Only one of them is a revenue TAM, so label whichever you quote. 

And three of the five inputs above are assumptions rather than sourced facts, which is normal. What makes the model defensible isn’t that the inputs are certain. It’s that each one is written down, so anyone can challenge a single assumption without discarding the whole calculation.

Example 2: A Professional Services Firm

Now a different shape. Say you run a fractional CFO practice serving venture-backed startups in the US, and your criteria are Series A through Series C, 20 to 200 employees, and no CFO on staff. Assume a filtered query returns 4,200 companies. Your average retainer runs $8,000 a month, which is $96,000 a year.

4,200 accounts × $96,000 per year = $403 million TAM

Notice what the services model changes. The account count is far smaller and the contract value far larger, so the figure moves sharply with churn and retainer length in a way a per-seat product’s doesn’t. And use annual contract value rather than project fees here, or the number will swing every quarter for no real reason.

Example 3: A High-ACV Enterprise Product

Now the opposite extreme. You sell a compliance platform to US hospital systems above 500 beds, and your criteria return roughly 1,100 of them. Contracts average $250,000 a year.

1,100 accounts × $250,000 per year = $275 million TAM

That TAM is close to the services example, but the motion behind it isn’t. With 1,100 named accounts at a six-figure contract, volume outreach is the wrong instrument and every account justifies individual research. So two near-identical dollar figures imply completely different hiring plans, which is the whole argument for sizing by segment instead of in aggregate.

The Gap Between Your TAM and the Accounts You Can Reach

A TAM number gets its real test the first time a rep tries to work the list it implies.

Your TAM counts accounts that exist. Outbound prospecting can only work the accounts you can reach, meaning ones where you hold a current, verified contact for a person with authority to buy. But those two sets are never the same size, and the gap between them is usually larger than anyone plans for.

Two forces open it up.

Coverage. No single data provider holds usable contacts for every account in your market. Run the same ICP filter across two databases and you’ll get different account counts and substantially different contact depth per account. So a team working from one subscription is working a fraction of its own TAM without knowing which fraction.

Decay. Contact data degrades continuously as people change jobs, companies restructure, and domains get retired. ZeroBounce found that at least 23% of a typical email list goes bad within twelve months, and that only 62% of the addresses submitted to it during 2025 were valid and safe to send to. So build a list in January, and a meaningful share of it is wrong by summer. Regular email list cleaning removes the dead records, though it can’t recover the accounts behind them. 

What this means in practice: the pool your reps can work this quarter is smaller than your TAM, smaller than your SAM, and it shrinks while you use it. So a campaign that looks like it’s exhausting the market is often just exhausting the reachable slice of it.

Buying a bigger database doesn’t close the gap. What closes it is treating your lead list as something maintained rather than acquired: verified across multiple sources before outreach starts, then kept current through ongoing data enrichment while the campaign runs, so role changes and newly qualifying accounts enter the list instead of quietly falling out of it. That’s the difference between a list that decays through a campaign and one that improves during it, and it’s why Martal Group engineers each client’s list against their own criteria rather than exporting one.

One number worth tracking: your contact coverage, meaning the percentage of accounts in your SAM where you hold a verified contact. If you’ve never measured it, it’s almost certainly lower than your forecast assumes.

How to Use Your Total Addressable Market

A TAM figure you calculate and file away has cost you a week and bought you nothing. It belongs in your go-to-market strategy as a working input. Four decisions it should change:

Prioritize Segments by Revenue Density

Your segment-level TAM figures tell you where the revenue is concentrated, which is rarely where the account volume is. A segment with 400 accounts at $80,000 ACV is worth more than one with 9,000 accounts at $2,000, and it needs a completely different motion: a small named-account list worked deliberately rather than volume outreach.

This is where account-based programs earn their keep. When the arithmetic gives you a high contract value across a short list, treating each account as its own campaign is the rational response rather than a fashionable one.

Layer buying signals on top of the segment ranking to decide sequence within a segment. Your TAM tells you how many accounts qualify; funding rounds, hiring activity, leadership changes, and technology adoption tell you which of them to call this month.

Set Pipeline Coverage Targets

TAM is the denominator for market penetration, and penetration is a more honest metric than raw pipeline growth. Knowing you’ve engaged 6% of your SAM tells you something actionable, while knowing pipeline grew 12% doesn’t.

Tie it to your lead generation KPIs. Accounts touched against accounts available, meetings booked against accounts touched, and revenue won against segment TAM will show you whether a weak quarter came from a coverage problem or a conversion problem. But those need opposite fixes, and teams routinely apply one to the other.

Decide Whether to Build or Outsource the Motion

Your TAM and your ACV together tell you what a sales team can cost. A $10 million TAM won’t carry a large in-house SDR org, and running the numbers before you hire is considerably less painful than running them afterward.

The comparison worth modeling is fully loaded in-house cost against outsourced sales, for the segments you can’t justify staffing internally. Fully loaded means salary, tooling, management overhead, and ramp time, not base pay alone. You can model both sides in a few minutes with an ROI calculator. And ramp is the variable people underweight: an in-house team takes months to reach productivity, and that delay is real money against a market that isn’t waiting.

Forecast How Fast Outbound Will Show Results

Pool size and contract value together predict your ramp, and this is where TAM stops being a strategy artifact and starts being an operational one.

A large pool with a modest ACV produces qualified leads quickly, often within the first 30 to 90 days, because there are enough accounts to generate volume at normal response rates. A shallow pool with a high ACV takes longer, sometimes six months or more, because fewer accounts means fewer conversations and a longer cycle on each one.

Neither pattern is a problem in itself. The problem is expecting the first timeline while you’re operating in the second, and that’s the most common reason a working outbound program gets cut before it produces.

How to Expand Your TAM, and What PAM Means

Your TAM isn’t fixed by the market. It’s fixed by how you’ve defined your product, your pricing, and the geographies you can reach, and every one of those is a lever you control. So expanding your TAM means deliberately moving one of them until more accounts qualify.

Potential addressable market (PAM) is the term for the wider version. Your TAM is the revenue your current product can address; your PAM is the revenue a plausibly expanded product could address, including adjacent segments you can’t serve today. PAM is the figure worth modeling before you commit a roadmap, because it tells you whether the expansion is worth building.

Four levers, roughly in order of how quickly they move:

• Pricing and packaging: a lower tier pulls in accounts that were priced out. ACV is half the formula, so a new tier changes the account count and the average at the same time. Model the blended figure rather than the headline one.
• Segment definition: sometimes the accounts already qualified and your ICP was simply drawn too tight. Re-running the filter with a wider headcount band costs nothing, and it occasionally surfaces a segment nobody was working.
• Geography: opening a region multiplies the account count directly. But watch the channel rules, because a market you can sell into isn’t always one you can prospect the same way. Cold email is available for US targets and not for EU, UK, or Canadian ones.
• Product capability: a single integration can qualify a segment that failed your criteria last quarter. This is the slowest lever and usually the largest.

A concrete version: a compliance tool built only for US broker-dealers has a small and very precise TAM. Support registered investment advisers as well and the account count multiplies without the product changing much. Add a Canadian regulatory module and it multiplies again. The prospecting rules change with it, though.

There’s a condition worth naming here, because expansion is easier to justify than to execute. Widening the definition before you’ve captured a meaningful share of the current TAM usually just spreads the same sales capacity thinner across more accounts. So the sequence matters more than the ambition: win the segment, then widen it.

TAM Mistakes That Cost You Credibility

These failure modes are consistent, and every one of them is avoidable.

Quoting an unsegmented giant. A trillion-dollar TAM with no SAM or SOM behind it invites the question you least want asked, which is whether you understand your market at all. Uber’s prospectus put its market at $5.71 trillion across 175 countries and WeWork’s at $3 trillion, as Aswath Damodaran documented in 2019. He read the pattern as behavior venture investors had encouraged and rewarded, not as analysis.

Using a percentage of TAM as your SOM. “We’ll capture 1% of a $10 billion market” is not a plan, and it gets rejected because it reverses the logic. SOM is built from your capacity, your pipeline, and your win rates, then compared to TAM as a sanity check. So deriving it from TAM instead skips every step that would make it credible.

Building TAM from your own rate card. Multiplying your list price by a hypothetical user count produces a number with no relationship to what anyone currently spends. So anchoring to existing category spend is far more believable, because it points at money already changing hands.

Confusing revenue with spend. Some published market figures measure end-user spending, others measure vendor revenue, and they are not interchangeable. Mixing them mid-calculation is a quiet error that survives all the way to the board slide.

Sizing a market that doesn’t exist yet. For a genuinely new category, there’s no data to narrow and a top-down number is fiction. Value theory is the honest method, and explaining why the market is about to grow is more persuasive than a precise-looking figure nobody can source.

Treating the number as settled. A TAM calculated two years ago against pricing you’ve since changed is worse than no TAM, because it carries false authority.

When to Recalculate Your TAM

Recalculate when an input changes, not on a schedule. Four triggers:

• You change pricing. ACV is half the equation, so a pricing change moves your TAM proportionally and immediately.
• You add or drop a segment. New verticals, new company-size bands, and new geographies each bring their own account count and often their own ACV.
• Your product gains or loses a capability. A new integration can open a segment that was previously unqualifiable, and deprecating one can close it.
• The underlying market data updates. Government and analyst sources revise their figures, and top-down models built on superseded numbers drift without any signal that they have.

Beyond the triggers, an annual review is enough for most companies. Keep the assumptions from the previous version so you can see what moved and why, rather than rebuilding from scratch and losing the comparison.

Conclusion

Total addressable market is a simple calculation resting on two hard inputs. Get the account count and the contract value right and the figure will tell you which segments deserve your attention, what a sales team can cost, and how long to give a campaign before you judge it. Get them wrong, or never build them at all, and you’re allocating a budget against a number somebody estimated once.

What pays for itself is the segment-level breakdown, validated against a second method, plus a written record of every assumption you made. And then the harder follow-up: figuring out how much of that market you can actually reach with current, verified contact data, which is always less than the market itself.

If you’d like the market sized before you commit a budget to it, that’s the analysis Martal Group runs before every Outbound Lead Generation engagement goes live. Book a consultation and we’ll build the segment breakdown with you.