Develop product strategy

Tutorly: 12-Month Strategy Board paper, for decision

The problem Bookings have grown 8% while tutor supply grew 60%. We are not short of tutors or students. We are failing to connect them. Students say their top problem is finding the right tutor. Tutors say they lack students, and 70% get no bookings in a typical month. Once a student books twice, 64% keep booking, so the product works when a match happens. The leak is in the first match.

Why not paid student acquisition The board's instinct is to buy more students. I recommend against it for now: - Paid students would arrive at the same broken search and matching flow that already frustrates them. We would be paying to acquire customers we are likely to lose before their second booking. - Our tutor base is already larger than our demand. More students would mainly bring more tutors into the same competition for the few bookings available. - Acquisition spend scales with cost. Matching improvements scale with use.

The bet: fix first-match conversion (£1.2m) Over 12 months we will build a guided matching system and test it against the current search:

1. Structured intake (Months 1–4). Students give subject, exam board, year group, goals, budget, and availability. Required before search.
2. Curated shortlists (Months 2–6). Within one hour, students receive three ranked tutors with a free 15-minute intro call. A small concierge team handles hard cases such as niche subjects and last-minute exam prep.
3. Ranking that rewards fit and responsiveness (Months 3–8). Ranking weighs subject expertise, response time, and student outcomes. New tutors get guaranteed early exposure so that supply does not stall at the bottom.
4. Tutor activation (Months 4–12). Tutors with zero bookings in 30 days receive coaching on profile quality and availability, plus targeted introductions.

Budget (£1.2m) - Product and engineering: £600k - Concierge matching team: £300k - Tutor activation and targeted student tests: £200k - Measurement and contingency: £100k

Targets (12 months) - Bookings: 4,000 → 5,500 per month - Students with a first booking within 7 days of intake: baseline in Month 1, target +50% - Share of tutors with at least one booking per month: ~30% → 45% - Repeat rate (second booking): hold at or above 64%

Decision gates - Month 3: Intake and shortlist live for a test cohort. Confirm the conversion baseline and the uplift. - Month 6: If first-match conversion has not improved by at least 20% against control, stop further build and move remaining funds to a small, controlled paid-acquisition test. If it has, scale the concierge model and begin targeted acquisition in segments where our supply is deepest. - Month 9: Review unit economics. Each booking should contribute enough commission to cover concierge cost.

Runway This plan spends £1.2m over 12 months and leaves about six months of runway for the gates above. If the Month 6 gate fails, we retain the option to pivot without running out of cash.

What we are asking the board to approve 1. Fund the £1.2m matching-led plan. 2. Approve the Month 6 gate and the reallocation rule if it fails. 3. Defer paid student acquisition until conversion data supports it.

The board's instinct is right that growth needs more students. But we already have more tutors than we can match, and the evidence points to the match as the bottleneck. Fixing that first makes every future pound of acquisition work harder.

Tutorly: 12-month strategy — make every good match count

Recommendation: Put our £1.2m behind improving the first tutor match, not broad paid acquisition. Tutor supply is growing far faster than bookings, 70% of tutors get no booking in a typical month, and students say finding the right tutor is their main problem. Buying more student traffic before fixing that experience risks paying to send more families into the same frustration. The encouraging signal is that students who book again show a 64% repeat rate: when a match works, there is reason to believe students stay.

The bet: a guided matching and first-booking service

Build a faster, more trusted path from a student’s need to a first lesson. Ask about subject, exam level, goals, budget, availability and preferred teaching style; then show a short, ranked list of tutors who are available and suitable—not a directory students must search alone. Make tutor profiles clearer on relevant experience and approach, and prompt tutors to respond quickly. For students who still struggle, offer human-assisted matching.

Start with the subjects and exam levels that already have the strongest demand and enough suitable tutors. Use actual enquiries, bookings, repeat behaviour and student feedback to improve recommendations. This is one integrated liquidity bet: make existing demand easier to serve with existing supply, rather than adding supply or buying broad traffic.

How we will execute

In the first 90 days, analyse the booking funnel and pilot assisted matching in a few high-demand subject/exam segments. Compare it with the current journey on first booking, time to match, cancellations and student satisfaction. In months 4–6, automate the most successful parts and improve availability and profile information. In months 7–12, expand only where the pilot improves bookings without harming quality. Help tutors without bookings improve their profiles or availability; stop actively promoting tutors who are unavailable or consistently unresponsive.

Allocate the £1.2m across the year: £450k product and data, £300k matching and student support, £250k tutor onboarding and quality, £100k testing and measurement, and £100k contingency. Release funding in stages, with a formal review after the pilot.¹

What success looks like

By month 12, target 6,000 monthly bookings (up from 4,000) and at least 45% of active tutors receiving a booking in a typical month (up from 30%). Also improve first-booking conversion and time to first lesson, while maintaining or improving repeat booking, cancellation and satisfaction rates. Report results by subject and exam level so growth cannot hide weak or overloaded segments.

Hold broad paid acquisition for now. Run only small, measurable acquisition tests in segments where matching is working; scale spend only if the resulting students book and repeat at acceptable acquisition cost. If the pilot fails to improve first bookings, stop and reassess before committing the remaining funds. This gives the board a measurable growth bet while protecting our 18-month runway.