Skip to content
Gallery
Early Adopters Hub
Exploring syndicate fund
Raising investment
General notes
Calls
Operations
Marketing
Product
Learning
Marketing/Content
EAH 4.0 - June new stage
More
Share
Explore

icon picker
EAH 4.0 - June new stage


Prep for call on Weds 19th June 2024


Decisions to be made

Confirm new pitch to existing investors.
Realign on what our vision and goals are for the business - are we aiming for default alive?
What is our strategic focus to achieve this? e.g. targeting international expansion etc
Definitively, what level of focus does Ben have on onboarding Vs other things?
Who is responsible for what - especially around the ideas/implementation of reducing Yohan’s hours

Pre-mortem - “It’s October 2024...”

Playing out a few different hypotheticals, to help me think out our different options.

Scenario 1 - Yohan works on his own to reduce hours, whilst Ben works on setting up a new vertical

Failure points/risks
Yohan too inundated with deal flow that it’s impossible to train someone new
New person comes in and performs poorly and [irrevocably] damages brand
Accountants lose interest
Ben constantly trying to extract information from Yohan becomes extremely time consuming and so Yohan burns out trying to do both and/or Yohan becomes a bottleneck for Ben to proceed
Ben fails to make any in-road in the new direction, or realises progress will be very expensive for some reason (e.g. hard to easily/affordably attract adopters)
Ben doesn’t manage to generate any revenue and/or existing pipeline dries up, meaning Ben has to stop early/rushes launch to try and force revenue, leading to failure. Or, simply doesn’t have resources to see the project through

General negatives
Doesn’t utilise relationship with Toby fully
Probably misaligned in terms of vertical to target - e.g. Yohan’s knowledge is best suited to Accounting adjacent niche, whereas Ben would likely perform better in B2C

Scenario 2 - Ben and Yohan’s sole focus is to work together to reduce Yohan’s hours

Failure points/risks
We pick the wrong person/systems and damage brand, fail startups, and they demand refunds
Accountants lose interest
Yohan decides that core tasks can’t be outsourced, or simply struggles to let go of core tasks due to risk damaging his access to secure income.

General negatives
Potentially doesn’t utilise Ben to highest potential - possibility to be bottlenecked behind Yohan
Risk incentives aren’t aligned - Yohan has much more to lose from this failing than Ben does (they both risk loss of income, but Yohan risks loss of brand too which is risky with baby due soon. Ben’s priority is to not waste time - so his incentive is to determine if it’s working as fast as possible, which isn’t aligned with reducing risk, as per Yohan)

Scenario 3 - Yohan works to remove himself with the process, whilst Ben goes through the process with our first ‘startup studio’ product

Pro points
In going through the process with our own product:
Ben learns the process
If we have someone new running the process, they can learn how to run the process in a safe environment
Gives us a sandbox to automate the process
Sizeable upside (sell on Acquire.com), or potential source of on-going revenue

Failure points/risks
Rushing to do this might lead to us running the process with a sub-optimal product (as we just pick the first idea)
Doesn’t help with immediate pipeline issue
Most startups fail
If first product fails and/or Ben has to take on more clients, this might not be the most efficient way for Ben to learn to run programs, thus leading to a scenario where we fail with the product, and Ben can’t add value well enough via programs

General negatives
Possibly not utilising Ben’s experiences of B2C

Possible variation on this idea
Does it make more sense to do the startup studio in a new vertical e.g. b2c? That way the playbook gets rewritten for the new niche in the process?


Scenario 4 - Full focus on getting Ben able to run programs

Failure points/risks
We implement and the pipeline dries up, meaning we are stuck without income and with now redundant training (whereas other options create potential additional revenue streams)

General negatives
Not sure it makes sense when considering the longer vision - goal is to scale in one way or another, so this is potentially not the most efficient thing for Ben to do next
Motivation concern - Ben doesn’t want to create a situation where he is solely trading time for money without a clear path to scalability. It has to have a better opportunity cost than alternative ideas. And, if the case is to scale it to replace him delivering it with someone or systems, then why not do that now.

Scenario 5 - ancillary revenue - Yohan works on his own to reduce hours, whilst Ben attempts to generate revenue via crafting marketing agency, or identifies how to acquire customers which he then sells the leads to agencies like Toby

Quick recap of idea - like Matthew’s post, one option is for us to establish all of the ancillary services that a startup studio requires, such as marketing and product development, and then uses the revenue from these to build agencies

Failure points/risks
So many unknown unknowns that it’s hard to even write the list
Saturated market, unable to cut through the noise

General negatives
Ben has limited exp in B2B lead generation
Accounting industry is mostly word of mouth, so agency in this space might not be relevant
Marketing agency probably only applicable if we are going down the idea of launching another vertical
Expensive to get started - will be lots of trial and error in figuring out what sales channels work and we’d have to pay for each test

Conclusion
Probably only makes sense in the context of B2C vertical play. Seems more like a stage two plan.



Previous notes before 18th June 2024

Goals


Revenue generation is number 1 goal

How do we become default alive?

Equity acquisition is number 2 goal


Investment

New pitch to existing investors

We are closing the round with our existing only because:
We have 2 startups wanting to deposit/increase equity (in addition to the 3 we already have)
We have secured a partnership with a development agency, thus increasing the value we can offer to the startups we work with (therefore larger equity shares in the companies and increased success rates)
Our paid pipeline has dramatically increased
External investors move too slowly and we don’t want to miss out on the momentum

Our new offering:

An increased share of the unit trust
3 year time horizon to populate the unit trust with equity
Higher chance of success thanks to our new strategic partnership


Legal process


Once we have spoken with investors, we can start drawing the contracts, unless we want to take a risk in advance?

Product

Pricing

Determine the different products we offer
Breaking down the offering into smaller ‘blocks’ which can be added on or removed
Consider freemium aspects
What we want to charge for them
Build a model to expedite the process of creating quotes
In short, standardise the service delivery so that people don’t get free extra brain space unless paying for it

Scaling/additional revenue

Reducing Yohan’s hours

Break down Yohan’s role into parts and ascertain:
What takes the most time
What is easiest to outsource
What is lowest risk to outsource
What is most painful
Evaluate options
Ben runs more UK sessions
Hire
Upwork hourly?
Full time hire?
Someone from within EAH? You often joke that some of them could do a good job moderating?
Software
Could BM help us come up with a solution? e.g. what about something that summarises all of the sessions to a high enough quality that Yohan can not be on the sessions, yet still know what is going on (thus could hire someone to run the sessions with lower risk).

Exercise idea - List out the different parts of your role, and then we have columns after it: risk level of outsourcing, desire to keep doing that yourself (because you enjoy it), ease of outsourcing.

Launch another vertical

+ Reduces risk of damaging the revenue from existing vertical
- Doesn’t fully utilise the current assets to their full potential
+ Possibly utilises Ben’s experience more
+ Allows us to experiment more freely and much faster
- Potential set up costs of getting it established
+ Reduces dependency on inbound into EAH as only source of cash

Studio

+ Utilises existing resources and skills perfectly
- Unlikely to yield immediately meaningful revenue (unless incubated businesses are sold)
+/- Possible works better in new vertical which has more low hanging fruit
+ Builds another asset (reducing dependency of EAH)
+ Largest possible upside potential
- Likely larger costs than other ideas
+ Build an ‘asset base’ of tech that can be re-used (e.g. Xero integration, or data manipulation logic can be re-used across ideas/apps)

Specific ideas
Quickbooks integrations (ask Toby)
Speaking with existing accountants and asking to speak to their customers
Customers might have a problem that accountants don’t even realise
Run survey with accountants to see if any easy things (perhaps like integrations) they might want built
Like how some products have a feature requests board and people can upvote the requests, do you think we could do some sort of survey like this to see if there are any smaller ideas that we might be able to tackle?


Partnership with Blue Mongoose

BM to produce MVPs

What constitutes an MVP?
Standardised budget/hour allocation per project? 10-25K usual cost
Is this different for internal ‘studio’ style builds?
What scale are we talking - how many can you afford to build?
This frames our offering e.g. if we can only build 3, then we need to be super selective
How does a project get confirmed? e.g:
Do we have final say “we think this project is worthwhile, please build”?
Or do you have ability to disagree?
If so, what validation/data points do we need to agree upon?
Can we offer the above as a paid project instead of equity?
If so, is there a revenue split model there for us finding the customer? yes, and could be in perpetuity

All of the above really comes down to something simple:
Can we ‘package up’ an MVP offering into a standard enough bundle that it’s crystal clear how we determine whether someone is eligible to get it for equity, and when they do, it’s clear what they’ll get and, in addition to this, it’s also a sellable cash product.

No code suitable for accounting? Are no code MVPs actually good enough?

Ben has a slant towards no code being able to handle basically everything, Yohan is in the opposite direction, both views are quite entrenched and likely include biases.
Is the accounting niche suitable for no code MVPs?
Share products that have gone through and he can give his view
it’s a good match because it’s utilising the apis of other platforms
Maths is not a blocker with Xano and Supabase

Playbook for MVPs?

have you used Visily?
https://www.visily.ai/
⁠
⁠
How expensive currently to produce a clickable prototype and how much work does it take?


Connect Zhander with Toby - message sent to Zhander
consultancy with accounting companies - what are you biggest problems? can we solve them?
what about marketing for the smaller companies?

Quickbook or xero integretations that are needed ? can we run a survey?
revenue stream from building an integration and then that can be leased or sold to the founders and it's a duplicate


Another product idea is that agencies need a scoping and prototyping tool - a large portion of his cost base is this part of the project, because it takes either him or Ronald to be on those calls, which means it’s a comparably expensive part of the process.


moderation? he would get someone to do it rather than trying to get tech to replace it, but then, unprompted, he mentioned video surveys could work - a platform to manage it and can do back and forth. can then use chatgpt to rate the question that the founder has asked to make sure not leading
could do hybrid approach where you start with video and then do call after

Transcript from my voice notes re my call with Toby on 19-6-24

0:00Hey, so I just had a really good chat with Toby.
0:02Went through a lot of different stuff and super interesting.
0:05Really, really enjoyed working with him.
0:07You know, I think he Yeah, he's just a stand up guy.
0:10And just like, I just Yeah, I just think he's definitely on our level and a good guy to work with.
0:15So glad that that's continuing to go.
0:17, so, yeah, I mean, there's a lot in the conversation I had with him.
0:21, so I'm going to try and break it into chunks to try and make it most valuable for our conversation.
0:28So firstly, , I addressed some of the questions that you put over to me.
0:32So some things like, what constitutes an M.
0:34V p?
0:36How much does you know?
0:37Can you really offer it for free?
0:39Like, what sort of scale can you do with that?
0:40You asked a lot of really good questions in one of your messages last week.
0:45he said You know many good messages.
0:46You may not remember the one I'm referring to, but basically, yeah, what I was trying to figure out with him was can we actually package up an M v p as a you know, as a part of the offering.
0:57So either we get, like, an extra 2.5% and then we give them an M v p.
1:03Or, you know, we charge them however much it costs for the M V P.
1:06And then we take a cut something like that.
1:08And the answer to both of those is yes.
1:10So in the scenario, however, there seems to be one bit that I guess I misunderstood or has changed, or I'm not sure.
1:17I mean, I think it sounds like I misunderstood at some point because I thought when I had the conversation when he sent over the document first I thought that it was a case where we still have to pay to cover his costs.
1:28And then when I had the conversation with him last time, I thought that that had changed.
1:32But it turns out that's not the case.
1:33So he still needs his cost to be covered in order for the M V P to be built if, and then the upside comes from the equity that he gets in the business.
1:44So it would only be on a cost basis, which, for simple consideration, we should just assume, is about 50%.
1:52So if it costs 10 grand, then we're going to have to put up front five grand, which we can pass on to the customer.
1:57Or we can we can find ourselves, but yeah, so it's not quite as good an offering as we had first hoped.
2:04, but in the scope of us getting, I mean, it's still a really good offer.
2:10To be fair, to be able to say to a start up, we can get you a 50% discount on your on your offer on your tech build, and that's included.
2:18And maybe we do it in a position where we're like that's included in the equity that you get.
2:22I don't know, something like that.
2:24, also, by the way, I'm super running out of steam right now because, as you know, I was already tired when we started our call this morning.
2:31so, , apologies if I don't put all the detail in here, But, I mean, I'm just going to try and give you the stuff that's actually relevant for right now.
2:37Anyway.
2:38So kind of the takeaways from that, and and basically another point is the cost would be somewhere between 10 to 25 grand.
2:45That's typically what he sees M.
2:46V.
2:47P s coming out as a cost.
2:50, but yeah, the bottom line is that's kind of where we stand on that is that we can offer it.
2:55He's happy for us to offer it, and he doesn't have to have any, , oversight on that.
3:00In terms of that offering, he's happy for us to just have that included as one of the things that we can offer.
3:05So already there we potentially have some form of monetization or we have a way of getting a huge discount on tech if we want to pass the cost on or we can even give tech bills for free.
3:18And in the specific question you asked is what constitutes an M.
3:20V.
3:21P.
3:21So basically, given the fact that we're fronting 50% of the cost, and then the other 50% comes from the equity.
3:29In whatever structure we do that can direct from the company or via our unit trust the what comes to the MP, the answer is whatever.
3:40It basically it varies and it would be whatever the scope is agreed upon, that would be what would be included in that build.
3:47OK, that's the first part.
3:48So, In fact, I'll leave that as one message, cause that's kind of one point.
0:00OK.
0:00Another thing that we've done a bit of back and forth on and we've got kind of staunch opinions on either direction where, you know, is no code suitable for accounting.
0:08My default is typically, yes, your default is typically no, I would say, and you know, I say typically because we do sometimes have some variants in that, but I think that both of us are probably a little bit too biased in those directions to, to really, to see it clearly because I, you know, I think no code is so wonderful and you think that, that you've seen examples where it has not delivered like with tariffs.
0:29So I asked him specifically about this, I wanted to get his opinion on what it looks like and basically, especially in the accounting niche, that was the thing I wanted to begin with.
0:38So,, one thing he said is that if we want to and this isn't something we need to do now.
0:43But if we want to share with him some products that have been built, he can then use those as examples to figure out whether or not he thinks those are, whether they would be valid cases for a no code or not.
0:56And that will be able to give us kind of an inkling as to try and get a feel for it.
1:01That said, as a general perspective, he actually thinks that accounting is relatively a good match because a lot of the complexity comes via API calls and no code is actually very good at handling API calls.
1:15He says, and then the third part of that is that the math is not generally a blocker because as long as you use an additional backend database.
1:24So like you've heard Xana quite a lot and there's another one called Superba, which is also very popular.
1:30Both of those give you the ability to do a lot of the complexity outside a bubble in this kind of pseudo code or no code environment, which is more advanced and dedicated to these sports specific problems.
1:42So to kind of put this to rest, generally speaking.
1:48And obviously, when I say that, you know, obviously let me know if you've got more questions and I can dig in without him with him.
1:53Generally speaking, it seems like no code with an additional piece to make it slightly more advanced is typically a good route to for accounting.
2:05But if we want to be even more confident with that hypothesis, then what we should do is send over a couple of examples to him.
2:11But realistically like I think, you know, I mean, increasingly I'm thinking that at this point where we are with everything else, we, and when we think about the pipeline that's come up recently, like how many of those need us to help them build a product?
2:23Maybe D is the only one.
2:26So let's bear that in mind as well in terms of how much we, how much we put energy we put into that side of things.
2:32Cool.
2:32All right on to the next one.
0:00OK, so then we talked about well, Toby brought up, he wanted to, to spitball a couple of product ideas with me.
0:07So one of the things that he was saying, he was thinking he just wanted to be helpful or just put some ideas out there and someone who I thought were very useful.
0:16So one of the ones he was mentioning was that, you know, well, actually this one I think is less, less relevant for us, which was consulting for a large large accounting firms.
0:26So we say to them, you know, what are your top five problems?
0:28Then when we charge them a big chunk to be able to go and figure out how to solve those problems, I don't really like that that much because I think that, you know, it's on my sort of, I mean, I'm just very opposed to this idea of non permission monetization, you know what I mean?
0:44So it's like selling it to these big companies is a real pain.
0:48But it did trigger another thing which was a really good idea is that what about the smaller companies?
0:52So, you know, if we said to all of our accountants, you know, what problems do you have with customer acquisition as an example?
1:00Could we figure out a way of solving those problems for them and building an additional arm of our business, which is a marketing arm for accounting firms, like for small accounting firms specifically, like that would be a really valuable thing for them, like who doesn't want more leads, we have access to them and we could, we could do that and that would be a very revenue, intense, revenue generating intensive and a beneficial way thing for us to set up.
1:25And it also helps us flex those muscles in terms of how we do better marketing.
1:30And if we have an additional person, we are planning on hiring for marketing anyway, that could be an additional thing that they take on.
1:36So I definitely don't want to dismiss that one.
1:38I think that could be a very good way of monetizing, but I think, you know, we've got a few things we've got to sort out first.
1:43But yeah, it's definitely one to think about.
1:46And then the other one that he had was something we talked about before, which I can't remember how much I filled you in on the previous conversation about quick books and zero integrations.
1:55So he's super keen on those from the perspective of they should be relatively light touch from his side.
2:01But he would want us to validate which ones are actually relevant.
2:05And so last time I spoke to him, I was really hesitant about this because I was like, just because it was based on this podcast that he sent over, which was basically showing, showing some maths where it's like there are very many Quickbooks integrations compared to how much activity there is on quick books.
2:19It's like 300 apps versus 20 million users or something like that.
2:23But I don't think that's a good proxy for definitely that they're going to use them or that they're even going to be able to discover them on the app.
2:29So I'm a little bit hesitant to that.
2:31However, it does is another quick fire idea.
2:34It's one thing we could do is just put a survey out to our current accountants and be like, are there any quick books or zero integrations that you wish existed?
2:42And then if there anything comes back resounding.
2:44Yes, for that, then that's another opportunity that we could potentially pursue.
2:48, ok.
2:52And then I'm gonna move on to moderation, which I think is an interesting one.
2:56I'm really glad I brought it up with him.
0:00So on to the moderation side, you know, I told him about our problem.
0:03I told him that's one of the biggest areas of bandwidth.
0:07And so I pitched, I pitched to him, well, I asked the question to him being testing out my ability to be non-biased and not leading.
0:15I said to him, you know, this is the problem we're facing.
0:17How would you solve this with technology?
0:20And his sort of viscal reaction was he wouldn't, he would get someone on up work to do the moderation, someone with a masters in, in moderation stuff basically.
0:29because he said the current, well, yeah, I, yeah, I don't think I definitely didn't tell him the idea at this point because he was like the current tech in terms of getting someone to do the moderation on our behalf.
0:40Yeah, I just told him what we do and I said, how would we solve this attack?
0:43So I told him, you know, we interject when founders are being biased, we cut people short when they're talking for too long.
0:49He said, yeah, basically, his approach would be that the tech isn't good enough and it might be quite jarring to have during the middle of the conversation and A I being like you're talking too long or, you know, that was a biased question.
1:00So he was kind of hesitant on that.
1:02So then I started to lead him a little bit where I said to him, what about the idea of having kind of like a founder dashboard?
1:10And he said that that would be more achievable, but there is complexity.
1:17It's not, he'd have to talk to Ronald about that one in terms of the complexity behind doing real time interjection.
1:22So you have to be interpreting it in real time.
1:24It's definitely not impossible.
1:26But then unprompted and this is where, you know, I thought was really cool was that he said, what about video surveys?
1:34And so, you know, I said that's interesting.
1:36You say that's something we're kind of doing it in a on our later plan.
1:39But then he came up with a really good addition to that was something that I hadn't really thought about, which was that it doesn't have to be so binary, it could be a platform.
1:47So, you know, the founders upload the questions onto the platform, the accountants then answer the questions on the platform.
1:56Oh and sorry.
1:57When the founder uploads their question, the A I then triggers and says that was a biased question, please rerecord your message, you know, and so you get the bias protection built in there and then the, it goes over to the counter, the accountant answer the question, then it's all within a platform which allows the founders to then go back in and then re ask a second question like a follow up question and then it goes back to the accountant to then answer that.
2:21So obviously, there's some stuff we have to figure out about how we actually get the accountants to do it, whether they would do it that way, whether that's still as valuable, we have to validate the value.
2:31And I said to him, you know, the risk factor there is that we don't know whether that would be perceived as valuable.
2:37And he was kind of like, why don't you do it with hybrid in the first couple of years?
2:41So you have it where they first do that and then they will jump on a call.
2:44So you do, you know the equivalent of half an hour of the call, the conversation via those messages and then you jump on a call after that when you're then allowed to do a free fall based on the answers to those questions.
2:57I really like this as an idea.
2:58I think that it makes a lot of sense, could be a really valuable thing for us to do.
3:03And from a technical perspective, he says that's very easy, that really wouldn't be too complex for him to, to put together.
3:10which I think brings me to the final point which I will do now.
0:00Cool.
0:00So then because we basically, we just had plenty of time to chat because he wasn't on a hard finish.
0:05So we ended up chatting for an hour and a half I think.
0:09But yeah, the one other idea that I pitched to him was around the idea of the start up studio.
0:13So like because I was saying to him, is there any scenario where cash doesn't need to be a component in it for this to work?
0:20Because you know, we, we want, we want you to take on some of the risk as well if we're taking, if we're doing a significant amount of deris.
0:28So this growing hypothesis I have around B to C or B to B when it's directed to the founders is that you have this very slick funnel where you start with the idea on the landing page, you drive traffic to it, you find out how much it costs to get the traffic on the landing page and how much it costs to convert those into potential leads.
0:47Those potential leads are filling in a survey to become a lead which asks a couple of questions about the product.
0:53And ask them whether they want to be a beta tester.
0:56If they pass that first stage, they then become a beta tester.
0:59And then we, we do the whatever format of moderation we do, maybe it's a new video survey or something like that.
1:05And we try and validate the idea a bit more.
1:07We then take that feedback and then repeat the loop, see whether we've improved it and see whether there's quite a high, a good cost for acquisition on the, on the acquiring the customers.
1:19If that goes well, we then have enough validation to then go to Toby and say this is what we built.
1:26I mean, this is, this is all the valuation we've done to get to this point.
1:29Would you then build this?
1:31And basically, yeah, in that scenario, you would be willing to do it completely on equity.
1:36But the caveat would be, I said, well, I said that to him in the sense of working with other start ups and he said he wouldn't be able to do that with other start ups.
1:44But I said, what about if we did that as a start up studio and then split the rewards based on that way if we know that our optimization for this journey is to then sell up and a choir or something like that.
1:55And then he was in on it.
1:56So he basically, and I said to him, you know, the only way that this would make sense would be to do it over five products because you don't want to have the risk factor of doing one and doing it wrong and then thinking all right, we failed.
2:08And he said, yeah, but he would want to do them one by one, which obviously I would too.
2:12, so basically I know we're parking this for now, but I think it's really valuable to know that he is ok with the idea of doing the first one as a start up studio.
2:23Because what if we look at this idea we've talked about which is the software for the back and forth.
2:32Sorry, I'm getting so tired, the video survey software.
2:35What if we could pitch him on that?
2:36Get him on board to build that with us as an M V P for the start up studio model.
2:41We split the IP of this business that we're building 5050 we then go out to, you know, offering this as validation for other agencies for other research and tools, all that sort of thing.
2:55Because we've just developed software that makes sense for that to be the case.
2:59Cool.
3:00I think that's everything.
3:02I've given you quite a lot there and a lot of this isn't really relevant for right now.
3:05So, apologies.
3:07But I think that this is so in my strategy message, you'll hear a message where I was saying, I want to save us time by not having each other on the calls.
3:14So this is an example of where I've condensed an hour and a half call into what looks like about 1015 minutes of audio messages.
3:24, so you're, you can let me know whether or not that you think that's done a good job, I guess you'll never know which bits you've missed.
3:31, but I think that we've covered some really good ground there and I think that lays down the foundation for when we are ready to go ahead with it, got some pretty solid options.
3:39So actually, I'm going to save this transcript from all these messages, so I don't lose them.
3:44just in case we go over the three months before we do anything.
3:47But yeah, hopefully that's valuable.
3:48Hope you see the value in some of those conversations I had.
3:51, he's off for the next week.
3:53So it's kind of good timing with everything we've got going on and he's totally fine with us taking as long as we, we, we want with all of this.
3:59He's already progressing with Gavin sent the proposal to him and Gavin basically, it sounds like he's been essentially said when, when can we start?
4:05Which is really encouraging.
4:07So, you know, we're not going to lose touch with him anytime soon.
4:11But yeah, so, you know, by all means, respond to anything you want, but I don't think it's necessary priority right now, but I wanted to send it all over.
4:17So we've got it succinctly cool cheers.
0:00Sorry, just one more idea that I wanted to share.
0:03Sorry.
0:03Didn't send this one over earlier.
0:06Basically, one of the other things that Toby and I talked about was this idea of how complex it is to get a prototype together for a founder.
0:17And this is something that I've thought about before, is is there a way using A I tools to get further down the line so that you can offer a huge amount of value for a client?
0:26Or in our case, we can derisk it a lot for a founder in terms of getting from their idea into a clickable prototype.
0:36Because I've been thinking that, you know, if you can take enough user interviews where you or interviews with developers who've had that conversation to, to get the scope and use those transcripts to build a A I tool, which can ask all the questions that the person would ask.
0:53Then you can probably get a scope, relatively good, relatively good scope from that.
0:58And then you can take that plug it into another tool which will then turn it into the various pages and then you have a designer come in, tidy it up and then put it all together and make it clickable.
1:07So I talked to Toby about this idea and he said, yeah, I mean, that's something they're, they're thinking about as well in terms of like, how can they offer something as valuable as that as a lead magnet.
1:16So he's toying around with some ideas of like, people pitch their idea on his website and then if they sound like a good idea and they, and they have to prove that they have some level of validation around it, so they've got a certain amount of customers or something like that, then if they prove that, then he'll offer them something like a landing page and some consulting or something like that.
1:36So yeah, basically, how does this relate to us?
1:39It could be something that we could also use as a lead generation tool as well.
1:42So the idea that, you know, founders can have a prototype created as part of the, another free thing that we offer as part of our process going through the different steps that we offer.
1:53And it's a great lead generation tool for us to then be able to sell in web development services as well.
1:59And additionally, you know, if that, for whatever reasons, if none of those things work, then it would work for other agencies.
2:05If it works for Toby, it's likely that there's, well, there's potential for there to be other agencies that might be interested in it as well.
2:11So again, you know, a bit of a distraction.
2:13, but an i, a valid idea nonetheless, I think.
2:16Cool cheers.
0:00sorry, I just remembered one more thing.
0:02I mean, this is definitely the the risk factor to counter my point earlier about the idea of only having, , one of us on the calls.
0:09, this is definitely the risk factors that we forget to tell all the other person something which is definitely in a a possibility.
0:15But, you know, I still think if we're in that 80% gain, , with two of us doing 80% it still works out better.
0:21But anyway, the point the thing that I forgot to mention from that call was around IP creation.
0:26So, , there's an example with, like, let's say that we do some sort of zero integration between Gavin's, , app and which is on bubble.
0:35And, , Zanno, , we do some sort of zero integration with that.
0:40, this is a very basic example, but there could be something in that piece of work which could then work in other scopes as well.
0:47So the idea would be that in that scenario, we could say to Gavin, , we're gonna offer you a discounted fee for us to be able to reuse this piece of tech that we're building.
0:58It's not proprietary to your app.
1:00It's not gonna cons cause any consequences or mean that any other founder would be able to get something, , better or easier than you would.
1:08But, , it would allow us to then have this piece of IP, which is that in this example, the the zero connector, which could then be used in other apps, which we could either licence to those apps, , on a monthly basis and maybe even Gavin as well.
1:20We could be like, rather than paying us the three grand to build it.
1:23You can just licence it from us for £100 a month, and then we can use the same thing over and over again with other start ups.
1:29, there's bound to be some pieces of IP which are not, , critical to the actual app itself.
1:36But our stuff that we could then resell with other founders.
1:39So that's one of the monetization idea that, , Toby was pretty keen on and just wanted to share.
1:43So you have it for context.
1:44Cool.
1:45Cheers.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.