Find the growth loop

Memo

To: Rachel Dunn and Executive Team From: Staff PM Subject: How Tutorly grows—and where to invest before Series B

The growth loops

```text More completed lessons → more genuine reviews on tutor profiles → stronger search visibility and parent trust → more profile visits and bookings → more completed lessons [SEO/review loop]

Active parents → invites → referred parents book and become active → more invitations [parent-referral loop]

Tutors → refer tutors who complete onboarding → more tutor supply → more choice and capacity for bookings → tutors refer more tutors [tutor-supply loop] ```

Primary: the SEO/review loop. It brings 52% of new booking parents, organic profile sessions grew 40%, and organic-acquired parents have $260 net LTV and 48% six-month retention. Reviews are a durable marketplace asset: profiles with 3+ reviews receive 81% of organic profile sessions, versus 4% for profiles with none. This loop is compounding, but its conversion leg is weakening: search CTR on the top 200 keywords fell from 6.1% to 5.0%, and 61% of recent tutor profiles had no booking within 60 days—so they cannot earn reviews.

Parent referrals: contributing, not proven compounding. Referrals bring 9% of new parents; their $275 net LTV and 51% six-month retention are strong. But each active parent generates only 0.31 × 14% = 0.043 referred booking parents per active-parent month. For that alone to produce more than one direct referral per parent, average active life would need to exceed about 23 months. We do not have that evidence. Grow this channel, but do not call it self-sustaining yet.

Tutor referrals: contributing supply, while the supply loop is decaying in productivity. Tutor referrals account for 44% of new tutors, but active tutors grew 62% while booking parents grew only 20%; bookings per active tutor fell from 9.1 to 6.8, a 25% decline. The current risk is adding supply faster than demand and weakening tutor utilization—not a shortage of tutor sign-ups.

On tripling paid acquisition

I would not approve an unconditional increase from $90,000 to $270,000 per month. The stated 2.2 LTV:CAC ratio divides blended LTV ($210) by average CAC ($95). That mixes customers from channels with very different economics. Paid parents have $120 net LTV: that is 1.26× the $95 average paid CAC, and only 1.10× the $109 CAC observed after the latest spend increase. Spend rose 50% last quarter while CAC rose from $82 to $109. Those are poor grounds for assuming a threefold budget will deliver threefold growth.

At $270,000 and $109 CAC, we would acquire roughly 2,477 paid booking parents per month before churn. The 50,000 target requires 13,000 more monthly booking parents—about 2,167 net per month over six months, before accounting for losses. Paid-parent six-month retention is only 22%. We cannot responsibly claim the target is achievable from this spend without a cohort-based forecast; the simple gross-add math is not enough.

Keep paid at or below the current run rate while we test incrementality and economics. Scale only where a holdout shows genuinely incremental parents and the marginal CAC supports the channel’s LTV. More spend into a worsening auction is not automatically growth.

Squad priorities for the next two quarters

No squad should reward or pay for reviews: reviews must follow completed paid lessons and remain voluntary. The near-term growth job is to turn existing tutor supply into booked lessons and genuine reviews, recover search conversion, and prove which acquisition dollars are incremental before committing to a larger bill.

Memo: How Tutorly actually grows, and why I would not triple paid

To: Rachel Dunn, exec team From: Staff PM, Growth

Bottom line

1. Our engine is the organic search → profile → review loop. It is stalling at the review step, not at the top of the funnel.
2. Don't triple paid. The last $30k/month we added bought parents at about $319 each, against a $120 paid-parent LTV.
3. 50,000 by the raise isn't reachable with either plan. A credible number is about 41–43k, with a better quality story for diligence.

1. Growth loops

``` PRIMARY: Search/review loop (52% of new parents) Tutor profile -> bookings -> paid lessons -> 3+ reviews ^ | | v more tutors <- tutor earnings <- new parents <- organic profile sessions LEAK: 61% of new profiles get no booking in 60 days -> no reviews -> 4% of sessions

SECONDARY: Parent referral (9%) active parent -> 0.31 invites/mo -> 14% book -> new parent

SUPPLY FEED: Tutor referral (44% of new tutors, $50 at onboarding) -> more profiles

NOT A LOOP: Paid (39%) spend -> parent -> 22% still booking at 6 months. Stops when spend stops. ```

Why organic is primary. It is the largest source and has the best retention, and its output (reviews) feeds its own input (ranking and trust). It compounds for tutors who already have reviews. Profiles with 3+ reviews get 81% of organic sessions, and those with none get 4%.

Why it is weakening: - Tutors grew 62% against parents' 20%, so bookings per tutor fell from 9.1 to 6.8. - Most new supply never gets a first booking, so it never gets reviews or traffic. - Organic sessions grew 40% but parents only 20%. - Top-200-keyword click-through fell from 6.1% to 5.0% (−18%) after the results-page changes.

Parent referral is real but small. Each active parent yields about 0.043 new booking parents a month (0.31 × 14%). Even over 12 months that is about 0.5 per parent, so k is below 1 and it contributes rather than compounds. It is also cheap ($20 credit) and retains well, so it is worth improving.

Data flag: 37,000 parents × 0.043 implies about 1,600 referred parents a month. The 9% attribution implies roughly 150–190. One of these is wrong, and we must reconcile it before it appears in a Series B deck.

Tutor referral pays $50 for onboarding, not for a booking. At least 3,900 of last year's net 8,800 new tutors came this way, so we spent at least ~$190k buying supply that mostly isn't booked.

2. Response to tripling paid

The 2.2 isn't the paid ratio. It divides blended LTV ($210) by paid CAC ($95). Paid parents are worth $120, so paid LTV:CAC is 1.3 on average and 1.1 at the current $109.

The marginal number is worse. Spend went from $60k to $90k, and CPA went from $82 to $109: - New paid parents moved from about 732 to 826 a month. - So $30k bought about 94 extra parents, or roughly $319 each. That is 0.38× their LTV.

If the same curve holds (CPA scaling with spend^0.7, my extrapolation), $270k gives a CPA near $235 and about 1,150 parents a month. The extra $180k a month then buys about 320 parents, roughly $560 each.

The 50k math doesn't work: - We need +13,000 active parents in six months. Last year we added 6,000 in twelve. - Trend alone gets us to about 40k. - The extra ~$1.1M buys about 1,900 gross parents. With 22% still booking at six months, that is roughly +1,000 active parents at the raise, so about 41k. - Even with CPA frozen at $109, which won't happen, it is about 4–5k active and ~45k.

It also dilutes quality. Paid would rise from 39% to roughly 47% of new parents, and blended LTV would fall from $210 to about $195. Series B diligence will cut by source and cohort, and this is the cut that looks worst.

Caveats: this is one quarter of data. Seasonality, competitors and the CTR drop may explain part of the CPA rise. A holdout will tell us how much.

Recommendation: - Return paid to about $60k/month now. - Re-fund only campaigns where measured marginal CAC is ≤$60 (2:1 on $120). - Redeploy about $30k/month into the tests below. - Reframe the raise target as about 42k active parents, rising organic share, and recovering bookings per tutor. I would rather show that than 45k bought at 1.1×.

3. Squads for the next two quarters

Squad 1: New-tutor activation (fix the review leak)

• Test:
• Reserve a results/matching slot for quality-gated tutors with fewer than 3 reviews on new parents' first-lesson bookings.
• Fund a small first-lesson credit for the parent, from the redeployed paid budget.
• The credit is paid at booking, never conditioned on a review. Ask only neutral post-lesson review prompts. Legal should sign off before launch.
• Second arm: move the $50 tutor-referral payout from onboarding to the referred tutor's first completed lesson.
• Threshold:
• The 60-day first-booking rate for new profiles rises from 39% to ≥50% versus control.
• Routed first lessons' rebooking and ratings stay within 3 points of control.
• Cost per referred tutor who gets a booking falls ≥30%.
• Stop: the lift is under 5 points at week 6, or the rebooking/rating guardrail is breached. Then drop the routing and keep only the payout change if that arm hit its threshold.

Squad 2: Search recovery

• Test:
• First, serve the pre-March results layout to 20% of traffic to find out whether the March change caused the CTR drop.
• In parallel, improve snippets on the top 200 keywords (rating and review count, titles, structured data), with keyword-level holdouts.
• Threshold:
• Treated-keyword CTR is ≥5.6% by week 6 while holdouts stay near 5.0%.
• Session-to-booking conversion is flat or better.
• Restoring 6.1% is worth up to +22% clicks on those terms, which is our cheapest growth.
• Stop: under +0.3 points after two iterations (about 8 weeks), or conversion falls. Then move the squad to Squad 1's ranking work.

Squad 3: Parent referral and paid measurement

• Weeks 1–2: reconcile the referral attribution gap, and set up the paid holdout (geo or campaign-level) with analytics.
• Test:
• Trigger the invite prompt after a 5-star or third completed lesson.
• Run a two-sided $20 credit arm against the current one-sided credit.
• Threshold:
• Referred share of new parents rises from 9% to ≥13%.
• Cost per referred booking parent is ≤$45.
• 90-day retention is on track for ≥45% at six months.
• Stop: cost per referred parent exceeds $60, or invites per parent are under 0.36 after six weeks. Then cut referral work to maintenance and move the squad to first-90-day retention of paid cohorts (22% at six months is our biggest leak).

What I'd ask the offsite to decide

1. Cut paid back to $60k and fund the holdout.
2. Approve the squad plan and the tutor-referral payout change.
3. Accept about 42k as the committed target, and have finance model the raise story on retained parents, organic share and bookings per tutor.

I'd revisit paid at the end of Q1 with holdout data. If marginal CAC is ≤$60 in any segment, I'd scale it there.