# Demand Typology (Five Types)

> A diagnostic grid that classifies demand not binarily (created vs. captured) but into five types: created, captured, regulation-forced, product-as-engine (PLG), and B2B2C dual system. Each type carries different consequences for defensibility and the right go-to-market motion.

- Canonical URL: https://www.convios.com/en/methods/demand-typology
- Language version: https://www.convios.com/de/methodik/nachfrage-typologie
- Status: Convios practice framework
- Method library: https://www.convios.com/en/methods — Markdown: https://www.convios.com/en/methods.md

## Problem

You are assessing a B2B software company, your own or someone else's and the growth numbers say nothing about how durable the underlying demand is. Whether demand is self-created, merely captured, legally forced, or generated by the product itself fundamentally changes the strategic picture, yet is rarely distinguished cleanly.

## Approach

1. Assign the company's demand to one of the five types: created (own category/content builds pull), captured (existing demand is harvested), regulation-forced (law/deadline), product-as-engine (the product generates its own pipeline), or B2B2C dual (two coupled demand streams).
2. Derive the defensibility consequence of the type: created demand is the strongest moat; captured demand is none by itself; forced demand is a demand strength, not a positioning strength.
3. For regulation-forced demand, additionally apply the regulatory density test.
4. For dual systems, score both demand sides separately instead of merging them into one grade.
5. Derive the go-to-market motion from the type, deadline harvesting for forced demand, retention-first for product-as-engine.

## Example

A typical case: two B2B SaaS companies grow at similar rates. The typology reveals the difference: the first captures existing demand through paid channels, its growth is bought and stops with the budget. The second has a free tier through which users carry the product into their organizations, the product itself powers the pipeline. Same growth number, completely different defensibility, and completely different next steps.

## Limits

The typology is a Convios-internal extension of Walker's distinction, developed in scanning practice, and has not been independently validated. Real companies mix several types; the assignment requires judgment and insight into the actual channels. It describes the demand side and replaces no analysis of monetization or economics.

## Metric

A suitable observation: the distribution of new business across demand types, for instance, the share of pipeline arising without paid channels or deadline pressure.

## Sources

- Philip Kotler: The Major Tasks of Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing 37(4), 1973, S. 42–49, 1973 · academic and scholarly literature · describes the method. Kotler distinguishes eight states of demand (negative, nonexistent, latent, irregular, faltering, full, overfull, unwholesome) and derives a distinct marketing task from each state, i.e. the procedure of classifying the type of demand first and cutting the approach accordingly. (https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297303700407)
- Philip Kotler / Sidney J. Levy: Demarketing, Yes, Demarketing, Harvard Business Review 49(6), Nov.–Dez. 1971, S. 74–80, 1971 · academic and scholarly literature · supports the underlying mechanism. The earlier precursor: shows that excess demand is as much a marketing problem as insufficient demand, and distinguishes three forms of demarketing (general, selective, ostensible). Carries only one building block, the full typology of demand states appears first in 1973. (https://management.web.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/allegati/Kotler%20&%20Levy%20(1971)%20-%20Demarketing,%20yes,%20demarketing%20-%20Harvard%20Business%20Review.pdf)
- Patrick J. Robinson / Charles W. Faris / Yoram Wind: Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing, Marketing Science Institute / Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1967, 1967 · academic and scholarly literature · supports the underlying mechanism. The B2B equivalent under a different name (buygrid): three buying situations (new task, modified rebuy, straight rebuy) each require a different sales and marketing approach. Older than Kotler, but classifies buying situations rather than states of demand. (https://archive.org/details/industrialbuying0000patr)
- Primary source: Philip Kotler: The Major Tasks of Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing 37(4), 1973, S. 42–49 (https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297303700407)

## Related

- Method: [Demand Creation vs. Demand Capture](https://www.convios.com/en/methods/demand-creation-vs-capture)
- Method: [Regulatory Density Test](https://www.convios.com/en/methods/regulatory-density-test)
- Method: [Growth Loops Instead of Funnels (PLG)](https://www.convios.com/en/methods/growth-loops)