Many thanks for the comments Owls,
Replying in one large post @'ing folks along the way.
@LemonadeAlpha: thanks for the comments. Agreed we should use this as an example, which can can strategically revisit over time too. As you say, different personas will behave differently - and we can dig into that later too. Hopefully keeping holding period to 3 years and cross sell rate to 35% - more humble than my initial numbers - helps respect churn.
@verto0912: thanks for the feedback. Really helpful. I’ve settled on holding period of 3 years and 35% cross sell rate in the revised V2 model. Great to learn your thoughts re intrinsic productivity yield too - that’s encouraging!
@MrMadila: thanks also for the feedback. In the V2 model I’ve (conservatively) used 1% yield from intrinsic productivity, which results in an implied LTVROAS of 239%. But, if we yield 1.5% LTVROAS increases to 275% - good to know.
@anon10525910: thanks for the questions.
- The desired outcome of this post is to receive feedback (which has very helpfull come in), before I make a new post with a revised V2 ROAS model and a poll. Hopefully the poll vote is sufficiently positive to settle on this update model and use it in the trenches for activities in ads, content, biz dev, etc
- Reference point frameworks would exist most closely in TradFi index providers, as you suggest. The main thing here is to account for revenue driven from client fees and the asset managers trading/lending fees - so we’re covering both bases here. See below for comments on these reveue breakdown too
- I think we need the abovementioned 2nd post and a poll vote to get the Coop’s reasonable input, then proceed with the agreed (or further revised) model in growth experiments generally
All Owls:
- Revised V2 ROAS model can be viewed here, in Tab 1
- This feels like a solid, reasonable basis to appraise our growth work against for the next few months before we revisit this with more data
- I like the fact that we’ve made holding period and cross sell rate conservative
- The implied revenue splits which flow out of this model have a quite balanced, diversified appearance (screenshot below). This seems reassuring to me, though if intrinsic productivity yield is 1.5% or more, the split does start to skew a bit
- I will leave this a few more hours to let others see it during the weekend, then create a second post on this subject with a poll at the bottom