The analytics reporting service is discussing where small retail chains might choose a supplier in a few years. Some customers currently arrive directly. One colleague wants to prepare for intermediary catalogues; another expects digital assistants to compare offers. Where to move the budget is still unclear.
The manager needs to make a specific decision: organise product information, test another acquisition route or invest in an expensive connection. Scenarios help distinguish work that is needed now, work that needs an experiment and conditions that would justify spending more.
Separate an observation from its explanation
A signal could be a customer's account of comparing suppliers in a new service before contacting the chosen company. This is an observation about one purchase. A broader hypothesis would be that this selection method could become important to our segment. Testing it requires other cases and an understanding of the service's role in the decision.
A scenario describes possible conditions: who helps buyers choose, who controls the contact, what information the seller receives and what they pay for. A vision describes the company's desired role. A company may want to work directly, and buyers may still move to intermediaries.
The Government Office for Science Futures Toolkit treats scenarios as possible futures and proposes testing decisions under different conditions. We will apply that approach to an illustrative service. These options are not forecasts for Kazakhstan or any other country.
In an observation log, keep the source, date, context, explanation and a possible alternative. A customer might have used a catalogue once on a colleague's recommendation. That differs from a lasting habit of starting every selection there. The appropriate action depends on which explanation holds up.
Describe differences that change the economics
Consider three possible buying arrangements for the small-retail-chain service.
| Condition | What matters to the company | An unresolved question |
|---|---|---|
| Buyers choose a supplier directly | A clear offer, direct contacts and a way to demonstrate the result | How buyers find and compare suitable companies |
| An intermediary organises the comparison | Accurate information, access conditions and acquisition cost | What information and responsibilities each party receives |
| Selection and delivery happen in different places | Consistent promises and a preserved enquiry history | Who owns the handover and fixes mistakes |
A digital assistant could form part of any of these arrangements. Naming the technology does not explain who receives money, passes on the order or takes responsibility for delivery. Describe these relationships before judging the channel's appeal.
Scenarios can coexist. A company might serve direct customers while receiving some enquiries through an intermediary. The task is therefore more than choosing a single future. Identify where costs, access to buyers and the ability to fulfil a promise change.
Put one information set to a real test
Our service's offer includes two supported accounting systems, a seven-day pilot and an agreed report scope. The working description needs verified system names and versions, pilot starting conditions, limitations and an owner responsible for updates. A stable offer identifier helps match versions across the website, CRM and an exported catalogue.
This is needed now: salespeople should not promise different terms to the same customer. In direct sales, the information supports the website and staff. If an intermediary appears, it is easier to transfer and reconcile. Along a mixed route, it becomes easier to establish which offer version the buyer saw.
There is no need for one format that suits every future intermediary: check each one's requirements separately. The company retains a clear source of its own information instead of relying solely on fields in someone else's interface.
Estimate the work before starting. The illustrative pilot preparation budget allocates eight specialist hours, internally valued at 5,000 ₸ an hour, or 40,000 ₸. This covers organising a limited offer and checking an export. If pay remains unchanged, that 40,000 ₸ does not become an additional cash expense.
In the shared financial model, fixed costs of 400,000 ₸ already include fixed marketing, sales and management pay, premises and shared services. If the specialist's pay is included, deducting their 40,000 ₸ again would double-count it. For the next calculation, separately assume that the company buys additional work for the pilot: 40,000 ₸ to prepare the information and 60,000 ₸ for the connection. Additional expenses then total 100,000 ₸.
Calculate a limited test
In our example, the monthly package costs 60,000 ₸ and variable fulfilment costs are 20,000 ₸ per delivered month. Contribution before acquisition and fixed costs is 40,000 ₸. For the new intermediary, the team considers an illustrative fee of 15,000 ₸ per new customer after their first paid and delivered month. This is an assumption for the example, not an actual platform tariff.
Contribution after that fee is 25,000 ₸ per customer. Four such customers would cover the additional 100,000 ₸ preparation and connection cost. The company's shared fixed costs have not disappeared or been covered again.
The pilot plan projects six new customers. If each pays for and receives the first month, revenue will be 360,000 ₸, fulfilment will cost 120,000 ₸ and intermediary fees will total 90,000 ₸. That leaves 150,000 ₸, of which 100,000 ₸ covers preparation and connection. The projected pilot result is 50,000 ₸ before shared fixed costs and tax.
Comparison with direct acquisition requires the same cost boundary. In the month discussed earlier, 200,000 ₸ of advertising brought ten new companies, giving a media CAC of 20,000 ₸. A 15,000 ₸ intermediary fee looks lower, but the new route also involves preparation and unknown handling effort. Comparing only the two rates is insufficient. Do not include returning customers in the new-customer denominator to reduce CAC, and count a company that passes through several touchpoints only once.
Agree what would justify continuing
Before the pilot, define an eligible enquiry, how a new customer is established and when the fee is earned. Match identifiers against existing customers and open deals. Otherwise the report may credit the intermediary for a purchase that was already being prepared directly.
Set a limit on additional spending and the amount of work the team can deliver. Follow the journey through payment and fulfilment, rejection reasons, support effort and whether the result matches the promise. Offer-page views can point to failures, but they will not replace this evidence.
Conditions for the next investment might include suitable enquiries, acceptable costs per fulfilled order and the ability to maintain quality. Insufficient evidence may justify continued limited observation. If the conditions clearly do not work, stopping the pilot preserves money for other tasks.
Read news through the decision you need to make
A feature announcement, a demonstration and a reliably functioning purchase journey provide different grounds for action. For a particular platform, check its current terms, availability for the required use case and limitations. For an audience claim, examine the research method and its relevance to your segment. Treat the information as an assumption until it has been checked.
Experience from another market can suggest a question, but it cannot replace checking language, payment, trust and delivery. There is no need to collect every technology announcement. Know which new evidence would change the selected decision: buyers have started searching differently, access costs have risen, information has become unavailable or fulfilment conditions have changed.
Exercise: twelve mentions and three customers
In 12 of 100 interviews, people mentioned a new comparison service. The manager proposes moving 12% of a 700,000 ₸ budget there, or 84,000 ₸. Instead, the team ran the pilot described above with separate additional costs of 100,000 ₸. At the review date, only three new customers had paid for and received the first month; the other three remained forecasts. What conclusions can the team draw from these interviews and completed orders?
The service was mentioned in 12% of this interview group. That proportion does not establish market share or justify moving the same proportion of the budget. Reconstruct actual buying journeys and examine the intermediary's role. The three completed orders produced 180,000 ₸ of revenue, with 60,000 ₸ of fulfilment costs and 45,000 ₸ of fees. Contribution of 75,000 ₸ has not yet covered the additional 100,000 ₸, leaving a negative result of 25,000 ₸ before shared fixed costs and tax. The remaining three customers could change the result after payment and fulfilment, but they cannot be recorded as received income now.