OGS(P)T: The Planning Framework with a Spine

This is Part 6 in the 2026 Planning Series.

I was in a recent paid media consulting engagement, reviewing MMM results as part of a broader planning conversation.

CPMs on innovation looked high.
Short-term efficiency benchmarks like ROAS looked weak compared to the core.
So the instinct was to reallocate spend back to the portfolio workhorse and “improve” the numbers.

This is exactly how innovation dies on the vine.

Comparing innovation media results against a mature core brand is the wrong benchmark — not just because the strategic role is different, but because innovation will always look worse early.

That comparison creates a self-fulfilling loop: weaker numbers justify reduced support; reduced support ensures the results never meaningfully improve; and the next conversation becomes whether to wind it down slowly or kill it outright.

Why? Innovation always starts with lower awareness, fewer mental availability cues, and often a new format or behavior — sometimes with zero point of reference.

Of course the CPMs and short-term ROAS look worse.

My old manager used to say, “You can’t take market share to the bank.”
You definitely can't take CPMs to the bank — and chasing early ROAS won't build your brand.

This is a personal pet peeve of mine because in CPG — where innovation takes 6–18 months — this pattern isn’t just inefficient. It’s demoralizing and culturally corrosive. And it sends a clear signal to future teams: innovation isn’t truly valued.

So I pushed the question back to the team:

What happens if we don’t support innovation at this level?
And what does it mean for the next launch that depends on this one proving the format?

This is the moment OGS(P)T is meant to address — upstream, as a north star.

Because the real question isn’t “How do we improve efficiency?”

It’s: What role does innovation play in our growth model and are we willing to resource it accordingly?

Otherwise, every plan says it wants growth and every budget quietly votes against it.

The operator version of OGS(P)T (in practice)

OGS(P)T isn’t an academic framework. It’s a forcing mechanism.

Objective

The one business problem this plan must solve to matter.

If this worked perfectly, what would actually change in the business? Revenue quality? Margin? Velocity? Retention? Decision confidence?

Good objective: “Reduce customer acquisition cost by improving conversion efficiency in the consideration phase.”

Not an objective: “Grow the brand.”

Goal

The measurable proof that the objective moved.

• One primary metric

• Optional secondary metrics

• No dashboards full of “nice to watch” KPIs

If this number doesn’t move, the plan didn’t work — no matter how busy the team was.

Strategy

Your bet on how that goal will move.

A strategy is not:

• “Improve awareness”

• “Invest in lifecycle”

• “Test influencers”

• “Lean into brand”

A strategy is a causal belief: If we do X, then Y will change, because Z is currently broken or underleveraged.

You should be able to defend why this is the right lever now — not just a lever.

P — Pillars (the missing step)

Before tactics, you need constraint.

Pillars are the 3–4 strategic lanes you will allow work to happen inside — and just as importantly, what you will not do.

Pillars prevent:

• Channel sprawl

• Pet projects

• “Can we also…?” meetings

• Death by one-off initiatives

If an idea doesn’t ladder to a pillar, it doesn’t get resourced.

Example pillars:

• Owned retention (email, SMS, post-purchase)

• Paid efficiency (Meta, search)

• Strategic partnerships (retail, co-marketing)

Everything else is off the table.

Tactics

Six newsletters in, we’re finally talking tactics — and here’s where they actually matter.

Good tactics are:

• Time-bound

• Owned by someone

• Explicitly in service of a pillar

• Measurable within 30–60 days

If tactics feel exciting but don’t clearly move the goal, you’ve slipped back into motion over impact.

What this should change in your plan

The innovation example makes this visible — but this problem shows up everywhere.

Any time a plan is pressured by short-term metrics, the same failure pattern appears.

If you’re heading into planning, this should change three things:

First, decide what matters before you optimize.
Whether it’s innovation, brand investment, retention, or expansion, define the role each bet plays in the growth model upfront — so efficiency metrics don’t quietly rewrite strategy mid-year.

Second, separate the metric from the intent.
Metrics should measure progress toward the objective — not become the objective themselves. When efficiency becomes the goal, strategy disappears.

Third, use OGS(P)T as a living constraint, not a one-time agreement.
Scaling brands win when strategy is revisited quarterly — especially when new data tempts teams to undo the choices they aligned on — not ceremonially approved once a year.

If your strategy can’t survive its first optimization conversation, it wasn’t a strategy. It was a wish.

________________

👉 Next in the series:  In Part 7, I’ll break down Big Bets, Risks, and Opportunities.

👉 If you want to sanity-check your 2026 business challenge before locking your plan, I offer limited 1:1 Planning Gut-Check sessions.