The hidden risks of route-to-market analysis lacking an "outside-in" field lens
When numbers lie
A well-crafted route-to-market (RTM) strategy can be the linchpin of commercial success. It defines how a product flows from manufacturer to end consumer, encompassing everything from channel design to distributor incentives and execution standards. Yet, despite their strategic weight, many RTM analyses are rashly built in a vacuum.
Too often, these strategies are built "inside-out", driven by internal data, legacy assumptions, and top-down planning. What gets overlooked is a critical layer of truth: The reality on the ground. Without integrating “outside-in” field analysis – i.e., firsthand, observational insights from the market – RTM decisions risk being misaligned, ineffective, or even counterproductive.
What is "outside-in" field analysis?
"Outside-in" field analysis involves immersing oneself in the market environment by visiting retailers, riding with distributors, interviewing sales reps, speaking to informal traders, and understanding real consumer behavior. It bridges the gap between theoretical strategy and lived reality that brings to the surface frictions and opportunities invisible from behind a desk.
This isn't anecdotal. It’s evidence-based immersion.
The illusion of control: Key risks without field input
1. Mismatched channel strategies
A common pitfall of purely internal RTM design is assuming the relevance and efficiency of current channels. For instance, a company might prioritize modern retail channels based on volume data, only to realize – too late – that consumer loyalty, product availability, and sales rate are anchored in informal or traditional trade.
Without visiting outlets and seeing how shoppers behave and how goods flow, decision-makers miss the contextual forces that define channel relevance.
2. Incorrect distributor assumptions
On paper, a distributor may appear robust, covering thousands of outlets, with a sizable fleet and warehouse capacity. But field visits may reveal inefficiencies, such as delayed deliveries, low brand visibility, under-incentivized sales reps, or conflicts of interest with competing portfolios.
An RTM strategy that assumes uniform distributor capability is a strategy vulnerable to execution failure.
3. Overengineered processes that ignore on-the-ground realities
Companies sometimes deploy sophisticated sales processes, CRM systems, and service-level agreements that look impressive in boardroom decks, but crumble in execution due to poor infrastructure, limited digital literacy, or lack of motivation at the last mile.
Without field feedback, strategic designs become theoretical constructs detached from operational capacity.
4. Blindness to informal market dynamics
Especially in emerging markets, the informal sector often plays a pivotal role in product distribution, as it thrives on relationships, trust, and community integration – factors that rarely show up in structured data.
Field analysis reveals power brokers, payment habits, credit dynamics, and shopper behaviors that don’t conform to formal channel logic. Ignoring these leads to partial visibility – and partial strategies fail.
5. Failure to detect execution gaps
Even with a solid RTM blueprint, success hinges on in-market execution. Without direct field observation, companies may miss red flags like stockouts, pricing inconsistencies, non-compliance with planograms, or poor brand presence.
These execution gaps quietly erode market share – and no dashboard will flag them unless someone sees them.
The benefits of embedding fieldwork
An RTM strategy that integrates outside-in inputs is:
- More grounded in how goods actually move.
- More adaptive to consumer and shopper behavior.
- More honest about channel conflicts and tensions.
- More pragmatic in aligning ambition with capability.
It doesn’t discard data – it complements data with context.
Case in point: A tale of two launches
Consider a company launching a new beverage in two neighboring countries. In Country A, the RTM plan was crafted through spreadsheets and distributor reports. In Country B, the company combined that with two-week outside-in field immersion – riding with vans, observing shelf conditions, and interviewing shopkeepers, among others.
Six months later, Country B outperformed Country A by 40% in sales – despite similar starting points.
Why? Field analysis had revealed hidden barriers to entry, competitor trade promotions, and unique channel opportunities that the inside-out plan had missed.
Strategy needs ground truth
In route-to-market analysis, the danger is not just in making wrong assumptions, but also in not knowing you’ve made them.
No matter how advanced the modeling, how crisp the segmentation, or how detailed the sales coverage plan may be, there is no substitute for seeing the market with your own eyes. The cost of skipping the outside-in lens isn’t just a flawed plan – it’s missed revenue, broken trust, and execution failure.
The best route-to-market strategies are not invented in conference rooms. They’re discovered in the dust of the field.
