I had the same conversation three times last week with three different founders.

‍

The specifics were different, but the frustration was identical:

‍

"We've done research. We understand our customers better. But we're still not sure what we should actually be doing differently."

‍

One of them - an engineer-turned-founder - put it particularly bluntly: "Marketing people are very eloquent. They talk a lot. But I need to know what to do on Monday morning."

‍

And honestly? He's not wrong.

‍

There's a massive gap in how most marketing research gets delivered. Beautiful decks full of insights that everyone nods along to, then... nothing really changes. The reports live in Google Drive, occasionally referenced in meetings, but they don't fundamentally shift what the business does day-to-day.

‍

The problem isn't the quality of the research. It's that we treat research as an end point rather than a starting point.

‍

We give businesses a map of the territory but forget to mark the actual route they should take.

‍

What founders actually need

Here's what I keep hearing:

‍

"Should we stop our Google Ads or not?"

‍

"Do we both need to do personal branding or just one of us?"

‍

"What are the quick wins we can tackle this week?"

‍

These aren't unreasonable questions. They're not asking for shortcuts or magic bullets. They're asking for what every good piece of research should provide: decision-ready outputs.

‍

Good research doesn't just tell you what's happening. It tells you:

‍

• What to start doing
• What to stop doing
• What to prioritise first
• How you'll know if it's working

‍

Why this matters for technical founders

If you come from an engineering or technical background, this gap is particularly painful.

‍

You wouldn't accept a technical recommendation that said "maybe try optimising the database" without specifics on what to optimise, how to measure success, and what the trade-offs are.

‍

Marketing strategy should be no different.

‍

You need the same rigour - the same clarity between "here's what we learned" and "here's what we're doing about it."

‍

For engineers, everything is either on or off. There's nothing in between. When you ask "what should we do?", you need an actual answer, not another discussion about possibilities.

‍

Bridging the gap: A practical framework

So how do you turn insights into action? Here's the approach that actually works:

‍
‍Step 1: Categorise by urgency and impact

‍

Sort every finding into three clear buckets:

‍

Quick wins (1-2 weeks to implement, immediate impact)

These are things you can tackle right now without major resources or buy-in. Homepage copy that's confusing your target audience. A broken user journey on your key landing page. Messaging that's completely missing what customers actually care about.

‍

Medium-term priorities (1-3 months, significant impact)

These require more planning but will genuinely move the needle. Repositioning your messaging based on what customers actually care about. Building out case studies that speak to real pain points. Creating a proper content engine instead of sporadic posts.

‍

Long-term strategic shifts (3-6+ months, foundational impact)

These are the bigger plays that might require budget, hiring, or pivoting your approach. Moving from transactional to strategic positioning. Building a partner ecosystem. Completely rebuilding your brand to match where the market's heading.

‍

This immediately answers "what should we do first?" without needing another meeting to prioritise.

‍
‍Step 2: Build testable hypotheses (not vague recommendations)

‍

Instead of "We recommend focusing on enterprise buyers," frame it as:

‍

"If we target CFOs at Series B+ companies with messaging focused on resource efficiency (not just cost savings), we should see higher quality demos because the research showed they're measured on optimising team output, not just cutting budgets."

‍

This format:

‍

• Makes it testable
• Shows the reasoning behind it
• Gives you a clear way to measure success
• Can be challenged and refined with real data

‍
‍Step 3: Create your testing roadmap

‍

For each hypothesis, map out:

‍

What we're testing: The specific change we're making

‍How we'll test it: The channels, timeframe, and method

‍Success looks like: The specific metrics that would validate this

‍If it works: How we'll scale it

‍If it doesn't: What we'll learn and test next

‍

No ambiguity. No waiting to "see what happens."

‍
‍Step 4: Translate into actual tasks

‍

This is where most research completely falls apart.

‍

Someone needs to own turning "improve messaging for enterprise buyers" into:

• Update homepage hero copy by Friday
• Rewrite three key case studies by end of month
• Create new email sequence for outbound by week 3
• Brief sales team on new positioning by week 4

‍

Use a simple format:

• Task
• Owner
• Deadline
• Success metric

‍

If someone picks up your research document on Monday morning, they should know exactly what they're doing that week. If they need to schedule another meeting to figure it out, the research isn't done yet.

‍

Common pitfalls to avoid

The atlas problem

Those massive Miro strategy maps that look impressive but require 30 minutes of scrolling to find anything? They don't get used. (NB we love Miro but you can get dizzy navigating if you’re careful!) 

If your insights live in a format that's hard to reference on a Tuesday afternoon when you need them, they might as well not exist.

‍

The "we'll prioritise later" trap

Don't separate the research from the prioritisation. If you've done good research, you should know enough to suggest where to start. You can always refine priorities, but giving someone 47 things to consider with no guidance is paralysing.

‍

The perfection paradox

I've watched businesses spend months refining research when they could have started testing hypotheses in week two. Research should be good enough to start, not perfect before you begin.

Speed of learning beats depth of analysis almost every time.

‍

The engineer's test

One founder I work with now applies what he calls "the engineer's test" to any strategic recommendation:

‍

"If I gave this to someone on Monday morning, would they know exactly what to do? Or would they need to schedule another meeting to figure it out?"

‍

If it's the latter, it's not actionable yet.

‍

Making this work for your business

If you're commissioning research (or you've recently done some), make sure you're getting:

‍

✅ Specific recommendations for what to start, stop, and change - not just observations about what's happening

‍

✅ Those recommendations prioritised by impact and effort - not just a long list of everything you could do

‍

✅ A testing plan that shows how you'll validate findings - not "let's try this and see what happens"

‍

✅ Clear tasks with owners and deadlines - not vague strategic directions that need translating

If any of these are missing, push back. Research without clear next steps is just expensive education.

‍

The bottom line

Research without action is just data collecting dust in your Google Drive.

‍

The goal isn't to understand your customers better (though that's a nice by-product). The goal is to make better, faster decisions that actually drive growth.

‍

And that only happens when insights translate directly into testable, prioritised, executable actions that someone can pick up and run with on Monday morning.

‍

No follow-up meetings required.

‍

Have you experienced this research-to-action gap? What's helped you bridge it? Hit reply - I'd love to hear what's worked (or spectacularly failed) for you.