For Curinos's Comparative Deposit Analytics, should we prioritize expanding the number of institutions covered or enhancing the granularity of existing data?

Introduction

The trade-off we're examining today is whether to prioritize expanding the number of institutions covered or enhancing the granularity of existing data for Curinos's Comparative Deposit Analytics product. This decision is crucial for the product's growth strategy and its ability to deliver value to clients in the financial services sector. I'll analyze this trade-off by considering various factors including market demand, technical feasibility, and potential impact on our business objectives.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm thinking about the current market landscape for deposit analytics. Could you provide more insight into our market share and the competitive landscape? Why it matters: This helps us understand if expansion or depth is more critical for maintaining our competitive edge. Expected answer: We're a market leader but facing increasing competition. Impact: A highly competitive market might push us towards expansion to maintain leadership.

• Business Context: Based on our revenue model, I assume we charge based on the breadth and depth of our analytics. Is this correct, and how does it currently break down between these two factors? Why it matters: This directly impacts which option might drive more revenue growth. Expected answer: Revenue is split, with a slight bias towards depth of analytics. Impact: This might lean us towards enhancing granularity if it's our primary revenue driver.

• User Impact: I'm curious about our user segments. Do we primarily serve large institutions that need deep analytics, or a broad range of institutions with varying needs? Why it matters: Different user segments may value breadth vs. depth differently. Expected answer: We serve a mix, but larger institutions are our primary revenue source. Impact: This could suggest prioritizing granularity for our key accounts.

• Technical: Regarding our data infrastructure, how scalable is our current system for handling increased data granularity versus onboarding new institutions? Why it matters: Technical constraints could limit our options or increase costs significantly. Expected answer: Our system is more prepared for expansion than increased granularity. Impact: This might push us towards expansion if granularity requires significant tech investment.

• Timeline: Is there a particular market event or client demand driving the urgency of this decision? Why it matters: Urgent needs might force us to prioritize a quicker solution. Expected answer: No immediate pressure, but we're planning for next year's product roadmap. Impact: This gives us more flexibility to consider long-term strategic implications.