Tutor Acquisition Hypothesis (Tutor as Channel; Learner Pays)

Hypothesis (falsifiable)

Tutors can be a scalable acquisition channel for a learner-paid SaaS if LangListen gives tutors an immediate, reviewable workflow win that makes them comfortable inviting students.

Assumptions from your current strategy: - Learner is the payer (target ~$12/mo). - Tutors are a channel + discovery wedge and should be free (or heavily discounted). - Long-term onboarding is likely learner-driven, but tutor invites can accelerate both interviews and early growth.

Why I believe it

  • Tutors prioritize retention over pure acquisition, and retention is tied to continuity + progress visibility.
  • Tutors are willing to adopt tools that save time and increase professionalism—if they retain control.
  • Platform economics increase pressure to keep students and run efficient workflows.

Supporting quotes

  • Retention focus + incentives:
    • “Com certeza manter os alunos que você já tem… se ninguém volta, meio que invalida o que eu faço.” — “Definitely, keeping the students you already have… if nobody comes back, it kind of invalidates what I do.”
    • “Por causa do Italki, é mais importante manter os alunos, porque se eu mantenho alunos o algoritmo do Italki me dá novos estudantes.” — “Because of italki, it’s more important to keep students, because if I keep students the italki algorithm gives me new students.”
    • “Depois das mudanças do Italki, é melhor manter um aluno…” — “After italki’s changes, it’s better to retain a student…”
  • Tutor control + “no auto-send” requirement:
    • “Com certeza [seria útil]… só de estar economizando/otimizando tempo seria incrível… personalizar seria incrível, mas eu não deixaria enviar automaticamente sem eu analisar…” — “For sure [it would be useful]… just saving/optimizing time would be incredible… personalization would be incredible, but I wouldn’t let it send automatically without reviewing it…”
  • Existing “manual memory systems” hint the pain is real:
    • “Eu tenho para cada aluno um documento em Word… preciso ter anotado quais são esses assuntos para não repetir numa próxima aula.” — “For each student I have a Word document… I need to have written down which topics these are so I don’t repeat them in the next lesson.”

Tensions / counterevidence (what can break the channel)

  • Learner resistance to extra tools:
    • “Todos os alunos que eu perguntei quer que eu mande alguma coisa? Não… Não gosta. Só quer conversar, só quer falar.” — “Every student I asked, ‘Do you want me to send you something?’ No… they don’t like it. They just want to chat, just want to speak.”
  • Trust risk:
    • If outputs are generic or wrong, tutors won’t risk reputation (even if free).

Funnel definition (what we will measure)

Tutor channel is real only if we can make this funnel work:

  • Tutor_activation: tutor gets to “first value” (e.g., post-lesson summary draft + next-practice suggestions) in ≤5 minutes.
  • Tutor_invites: activated tutor invites at least one student.
  • Learner_activation: invited learner experiences first value (generate + play audio OR consume supported content).
  • Learner_conversion: learner pays after free credits are exhausted or within 30 days.

What must be true in the first 5 minutes

  • Immediate time saving: tutor sees a useful draft (summary / errors / suggested practice) without setup.
  • Reviewability: tutor can edit, approve, and send—nothing auto-sends.
  • Workflow fit: feels additive, not a new job; integrates with how they already teach.

Metrics (leading + lagging)

  • Leading
    • tutor activation rate
    • invites per activated tutor
    • invited-learner activation rate
  • Lagging
    • invited-learner conversion rate
    • week-4 retention (learner)
    • qualitative: “I’d recommend this” (tutor) and “this fits my life” (learner)

Fastest tests (2-week sprint plan input)

Aleksandra’s 10 interviews (mostly learners) should still include 2–3 tutor tests specifically for channel viability: - Tutor interviews: “Would you invite a student to this? Under what conditions? What would break trust?” - Learner interviews (via simulated invite): “If your tutor invited you, would you use it? What would you do first?”

Decision rule (double down / pivot / kill)

  • Double down on tutor-as-channel if:
    • tutors consistently reach first value quickly and are willing to invite students,
    • and invites reliably lead to learner activation (not just polite interest).
  • Pivot if:
    • tutors like it but won’t invite,
    • or invited learners don’t activate / don’t want additional tools.
  • Kill tutor channel as a focus if:
    • platform constraints + learner resistance make the funnel non-viable even when tutors like the tool.