# Attractiveness and ability to win > Score segments on two sides, what a segment is worth and how well you can win it, with every direction, band and weight written down, and see how one criterion scored the wrong way flips the choice. - Course: [Marketing Strategy: Who to Win and How](https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy.md) - Module: Whom do we serve first? - Lesson 10/32, ~25 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy/attractiveness-and-ability-to-win ## Two sides of the question **Alex Tutor:** Back at Klasna's marketing team: today you compare segments before the plan names a lead one. Uliana already has a favorite. **Uliana:** Exam families. The biggest group, the most money. Can we call it done? **Alex Tutor:** Size is one criterion on one side. **Segment attractiveness** asks what a segment is worth: contribution, how steady it is through the year, how many rivals chase it. **Ability to win** asks whether you can serve it better than its alternatives: fit, proof, reach and what it costs you to win a family. **Sofia:** So a big segment can still be a bad first target? **Alex Tutor:** If you can't win it, or everyone fights over it, yes. You score both sides and read them together. > **Exercise:** Which of these criteria are about Klasna's **ability to win** a segment, rather than how attractive the segment is? Select all that apply. ## Direction first **Alex Tutor:** Before any points, write for each criterion **which way is good**. Contribution: higher is better. Share of lessons in the spring peak: lower is better, because steady work is cheaper to staff. "Contested", the share of families who named a paid alternative at sign-up: lower is better. **Alex Tutor:** Directions first, then. Which way is good for each criterion? > **Exercise:** Match each criterion on Klasna's scoring sheet with the direction that earns more points. **Uliana:** Hold on. Lots of rivals proves the demand is real. Shouldn't that earn points? **Alex Tutor:** Demand is already counted in size and contribution. "Contested" measures how hard each family is to win. Score demand once, and give fewer rivals more points. **Sofia:** And how do we turn a percentage into points? **Alex Tutor:** Write the bands before you look at the segments. For "contested": 35% or less is 5 points, up to 45% is 4, up to 55% is 3, up to 65% is 2, above that 1. Then nobody can stretch a band to suit a favorite. > **Exercise:** Bands for "contested" (share of a segment's families who named a paid alternative at sign-up; lower is better): 35% or less = 5 points, up to 45% = 4, up to 55% = 3, up to 65% = 2, above 65% = 1. How many points does a segment get if **48%** of its families named a paid alternative? ## Weights are a decision **Alex Tutor:** **Weights** say what matters most, as shares that add up to 100%, each with a reason. A quick sheet with three criteria: size 40%, steadiness 30%, contested 30%. **Uliana:** My quick points. Exam families: size 5, steadiness 1, contested 2. Families in the EU: 2, 5 and 4. **Sofia:** Exam families: 0.4 × 5 + 0.3 × 1 + 0.3 × 2 = 2.9. EU families: 0.8 + 1.5 + 1.2 = 3.5. **Alex Tutor:** That's a **weighted score**. Weights are judgement, so they sit on the sheet where anyone can argue with them, and they're set before the points, not after. > **Exercise:** Same weights (size 40%, steadiness 30%, contested 30%). Adults paying for themselves get size 1, steadiness 4, contested 5. What is their weighted score? ## One arrow the wrong way **Uliana:** Confession: my first sheet gave exam families 4 on contested and EU families 2. More rivals, more points. **Sofia:** Then exam families get 2.0 + 0.3 + 1.2 = 3.5, and EU families 0.8 + 1.5 + 0.6 = 2.9. The ranking flips. **Alex Tutor:** Check the flip yourself with Uliana's first sheet. > **Exercise:** Uliana's first sheet scored "contested" the wrong way (more rivals, more points). With weights size 40%, steadiness 30%, contested 30%, exam families got size 5, steadiness 1, contested 4. What was their weighted score? **Alex Tutor:** One arrow pointing the wrong way picked the plan's lead segment. That's why the direction sits next to every criterion on the sheet. **Alex Tutor:** One more check: move each weight by five or ten points. If the winner changes, say so. Close scores mean the choice needs judgement, not more decimals. **Alex Tutor:** Now the last check on any sheet. What do you do when the weights wobble? > **Exercise:** Moving one weight by five to ten points changes which segment comes first. What should the team do? > **Exercise:** **True or false:** a segment where most families compare you with other paid tutors should score **higher** on "contested", because so many rivals prove the demand is real. ## Drafting with AI, checking yourself **Uliana:** I asked an AI assistant for criteria. It gave twelve, with market sizes for each segment. **Alex Tutor:** A fine first draft. Then check each line: can you measure it from your own data? Is it about need and behavior, never a sensitive trait? Do you target parents, not children? And a market size with no source is a guess, not a fact. **Sofia:** And the customer export stays out of the chat? **Alex Tutor:** Right. Personal data goes into an outside tool only with a lawful basis. Ask about the method, keep the rows at home. > **Exercise:** Uliana asked an AI assistant to draft criteria for scoring Klasna's segments. Which lines from its draft should come **off** the scoring sheet, or wait until checked? Select all that apply. **Uliana:** Fine, I was wrong about "contested". Write me the line for the sheet so the next person can't flip it again. **Sofia:** Name, how we measure it, direction, bands and weight? **Alex Tutor:** And one sentence on why it points that way. That sentence is what stops the argument next spring. **Uliana:** Keep it short. It goes straight under the table. > **Exercise:** Write the "contested" line for Klasna's scoring sheet (2–4 sentences): what it measures and from which data, which direction is good and why, the bands and its weight. Klasna's sheet uses: share of a segment's families who named a paid alternative at sign-up; 35% or less = 5 points, up to 45% = 4, up to 55% = 3, up to 65% = 2, above 65% = 1; weight 30%. > **Key ideas** > > - Score two sides: segment attractiveness (contribution, steadiness, how contested) and ability to win (win rate, cost per new family, proof, reach). > - Write the direction of every criterion first. For "contested", fewer rivals earn more points: demand is already counted in size and contribution. > - Write the bands before you look at the segments, so nobody stretches them for a favorite. > - Weights are a decision: shares that add up to 100%, set before the points, each with a reason. > - One criterion scored the wrong way can flip the ranking; test the weights too, and say when the scores are close. > - AI can draft the criteria; you check each against your own data, drop sensitive traits and unsourced numbers, and keep customer rows out of outside tools without a lawful basis. **Alex Tutor:** Next, a detour to Dana's own practice: a first niche she can fill with the hours she has, and whom she says no to. - Previous lesson: [One offer, a few, or one focus](https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy/one-offer-a-few-or-one-focus.md) - Next lesson: [A niche the hours can fill](https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy/a-niche-the-hours-can-fill.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.