Natalie: Sure! I’m Natalie Marcotullio, Head of Growth and Product Marketing at Navattic. We’re an interactive demo company—basically, we let your prospects get hands-on with your product earlier in the buying journey. I’ve been here for about three and a half years now. Funny enough, I was actually a customer of Navattic before I joined.

Natalie: In product marketing, the biggest challenge is how fast the market moves—especially in martech. Not only are there constantly new competitors and features, but even our personas and what they care about shift all the time.
We also sell to product marketers, which makes it even more meta. In just the last three months, the way product marketers work has changed dramatically.

Even though I speak to customers regularly, keeping up with overall market dynamics and staying on top of how people are thinking and feeling is hard. It's a constant game of keeping up.

Natalie: Definitely. There are two sides to the change. First, as Navattic has grown, the use cases for interactive demos have expanded.
We started with top-of-funnel use cases—demand gen, growth marketing, early sales cycle, product launches. But now we see product marketers, event marketers, and content marketers using Navattic in different ways.
Each new use case means learning a whole new persona—understanding their pain points, what they care about, and what messaging resonates.
Second, even individual personas evolve rapidly. Everyone’s workflows have changed—especially with the rise of AI. So I’m constantly relearning my personas.

Natalie: In the past, I leaned heavily on G2 reviews—both ours and competitors’. But G2 has bias.
You're only hearing from customers—usually happy ones—and not getting the full picture. I also used to rely a lot on in-person conversations at events or calls with customers. Those are valuable, but they’re hard to scale or synthesize for the team.
The insights often live in my head. I try to share themes in team meetings, but it's not always scalable or structured.

Natalie: Usually, I’ll synthesize and share what I’m hearing with the team—pulling out recurring themes from conversations. Then I’ll use those to inform campaign messaging or product positioning. But it’s still pretty qualitative. I like to think of it as an ideation phase. I get a gut sense of what our audience feels, but then I need a way to validate if what I’m writing actually resonates.

Natalie: Before GetWhys, I was scraping insights from G2 reviews, sales calls, and customer chats—and trying to synthesize it all with ChatGPT. That helped, but there were issues.
One, I couldn't always trace the insight back to the original source. Two, the summaries could feel watered down or hallucinated. And three, I still wasn’t getting fresh, unbiased market insights—just perspectives from people who already knew our product or competitors.
That’s why I love GetWhys. You’re a research-first company. The interviews you provide are structured, reliable, and totally unbiased. I can trace every quote to a source, persona, and company type.
It gives me a much higher level of confidence that what I’m seeing is real—and not filtered or overly polished.

Natalie: Exactly. Whether it’s us or a competitor in the room, people tend to hold back. But when it’s a third-party interview, the feedback is more candid and unfiltered.

Natalie: I use GetWhys during the research phase to understand personas—what they care about, what frustrates them, how they think about software, and their day-to-day work. For example, if I want to understand how someone feels about video content vs. demos, I can get a lot of context—not just their opinion on demos but what they like/dislike about video more broadly.
GetWhys's message testing has been amazing for the refinement phase. That was always missing from my process. I might have initial messaging from research, but didn’t have a good way to stress test it with actual personas.
Now, I can take a piece of copy and see how well it aligns with what that persona cares about. GetWhys ties the feedback back to real insights. It’s not just “this is too long”—it’ll say “this resonates because product marketers told us videos are frustrating in these specific ways,” and link to the quote.

Natalie: Exactly. In the past, I’d ask customers or advisors, but they’re already fans of your product. Or you’d run a research study and the personas would be too high-level. You wouldn’t get that specific feedback like: “This message works because of this insight from this persona in this industry.”

Natalie: Sure—this quarter I worked on a competitive landing page for a new persona I wasn’t familiar with. I used GetWhys to understand their pain points and what they thought about our competitor—what they liked and didn’t like. That gave me a foundation to write initial copy. But I was stuck on the H1—what to say, how to make it resonate. That’s where GetWhys's message testing came in. I tested a few versions and saw which one actually clicked with the persona. GetWhys told me why something resonated and tied it back to the real research, which was incredibly helpful.

I’ve mentioned that I’ve mainly used GetWhys for one-off projects so far, but my next goal is to make it part of an ongoing process.

What I like is how GetWhys makes you pause and think about both ends of the research-to-execution spectrum. It’s so easy to jump straight into execution without doing any research, or on the flip side, to do a ton of upfront research and then forget to stress test your messaging with your actual persona.

The fact that I can use the same persona in both tools makes that process seamless. I don’t have to go find new research groups every time or bother customers again. I’ve already created this persona that I know represents our ICP—because there’s real research behind it. It’s just way more efficient and scalable.