market-sizingdraft

Market Sizing: Curator (coaching operations platform)

Executive Summary

This is an assumption-labeled sizing frame, not a validated number. At concept stage there is no licensed market data in hand; every figure below is an explicit placeholder marked [ASSUMPTION] to be replaced with sourced inputs. The single most important assumption is the number of professional coaches willing to pay for a coaching-native ops tool and the per-seat price.

Market Definition

  • Included: professional/ICF-credentialed coaches running paid 1:1 or team coaching who do post-session work.
  • Excluded: unpaid/peer coaches, pure therapy/counselling, enterprise L&D platforms.
  • Geography / horizon: US-first (per studio page), 3-year horizon.

Top-Down Sizing (placeholders)

Layer Number Method Source / Assumption Confidence
TAM $[ASSUMPTION] global professional coaches × annual seat price needs ICF membership + pricing Low
SAM $[ASSUMPTION] US, credentialed, post-session workflow filter on TAM Low
SOM $[ASSUMPTION] 3-yr realistic share via coach + school channel % of SAM Low

Bottom-Up Sizing (preferred once data exists)

Segment # Customers Revenue / Customer Sub-total Method Source
US credentialed coaches [ASSUMPTION] $[ASSUMPTION]/yr $[X*Y] Bottom-up ICF data + pilot price

Bottom-up is the right method here because the unit (a coach seat) is concrete; do not fabricate the counts.

Multi-Framework Synthesis

  • Agree: both frames hinge on (coach count) × (seat price); convergence is structural, not evidentiary.
  • Diverge: none computed — inputs absent.
  • Synthesized estimate: withheld until sourced. Reporting a number now would be fabrication (hard blocker).

Sensitivity Analysis (structure only)

Assumption varied Low Mid High
Seat price $[a] $[b] $[c]
Share captured (3y) 0.5% 2% 5%

Key Assumptions

Assumption Source / Rationale Confidence What changes if wrong
Coaches pay per seat plan page: payer unresolved Low Whole model (could be client/sponsor-paid)
US credentialed coach population ICF (to be sourced) Low TAM scale

Confidence and Limitations

  • Most confident: the structure (coach-seat × price).
  • Least confident: every quantity.
  • Would improve confidence: licensed ICF membership data + pilot-derived price point.
  • Not addressed: payer ambiguity (coach vs client vs sponsor), international.

Next Steps

  • Source ICF population + run pricing discovery (interviews, 02).
  • Conviction threshold: a defensible SOM ≥ a number that justifies build cost — not yet computable.