# Case: Klasna's marketing plan for 2027 > Assemble the eight rows of the course into one page: situation, segments, first target, position, channels, messages and budget, offer and growth, metrics and review. Check that the rows agree and that every claim can be measured against a baseline. - Course: [Marketing Strategy: Who to Win and How](https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy.md) - Module: Did it work, and what's the plan? - Lesson 32/32, ~37 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy/marketing-plan-for-2027-case ## Eight rows, one page **Alex Tutor:** This is the last case of the course, still at Klasna. Since October the team has turned a string of campaigns into eight decisions; now they go on one page for 2027. **Leo:** I asked for one plan that says whom we're for and why the spend pays. One page, Thursday. Can I read it in five minutes? **Uliana:** I've collected what each module agreed. The order matters: each row depends on the one above it. > **What the team agreed, row by row** > > 1. **Situation.** At sign-up, families named a school teacher's paid lessons (26 of 160), free videos with an AI chatbot (43) and waiting or doing nothing (28) as what they considered; the large online school the ads copied, only 15. Spring peak, summer dip, September restart. > 2. **Segments.** Spring exam crammers, steady exam families, younger-learner families, adults paying for themselves, EU diaspora families. Parents pay and choose for teens; teachers influence. No targeting of minors or by sensitive traits. > 3. **First target.** Module 3's scoring, with weights written down and every criterion scored so that higher is better, put **EU diaspora families** first: year-round, 69% still active, found through friends and community chats. Exam families stay served; they aren't the focus of new spend. > 4. **Position.** "Qualified tutors" and "learn from home" are table stakes. The difference families value and only Klasna proves: the weekly progress note to parents. The Club is no longer filed as "a chatbot you pay for". > 5. **Channels.** Own channels (site, search, email and messengers with consent), partners (school teachers for exam families, community groups for diaspora families), referrals. The lesson marketplace has the cheapest enquiry and the dearest paying family, and Klasna doesn't own the relationship. > 6. **Messages and budget.** Choose media on cost per useful contact (parents and adult learners), not reach. Budget from the goal backwards; Feb–Apr 2027 at 300,000 a month already planned with Hanna. > 7. **Offer and growth.** AI drafts the weekly note, the tutor signs it. Programming is mature with a summer dip (new families 64 → 66 year over year): keep it. The Club is three months old (480 members, 110 of 590 joiners gone): fix the first month before any push, no price cut. Growth: current exam families start in October through own channels only, so no new paid spend goes to exam families; adults abroad get a capped test. > 8. **Metrics and review.** The September campaign claimed 410 families; against holdout cities it added about 22, a return on contribution of 19.83%. Monthly review with scale and stop rules. **Alex Tutor:** First, the skeleton. Put the eight rows in the order a reader needs them. > **Exercise:** Put the rows of the one-page marketing plan in order. **Sofia:** Why does position come before channels? **Alex Tutor:** Because a channel has to carry the message, and the message comes from the position. A school teacher can vouch for the weekly note to a parent; a banner can't. ## Do the rows agree? **Sofia:** Each row makes sense on its own. Is that enough? **Alex Tutor:** No. A plan fails at the joints. If the first target is diaspora families but every hryvnia of new spend goes to exam ads, the page contradicts itself. Read it top to bottom and ask: does this row serve the one above? **Hanna:** The spring money is already exam-season ads. That was planned before anyone scored segments. **Alex Tutor:** Then the plan says so honestly: spring spend continues for exam families, measured with holdouts, and diaspora families get their own line through partners and referrals, with a target of their own. > **Exercise:** Match each statement to the row of the plan it belongs in. **Alex Tutor:** Now read across the joints: which two rows don't agree? > **Exercise:** Which pair of draft rows contradicts each other? **Alex Tutor:** And what about money committed before the scoring? > **Exercise:** Klasna's spring exam ads were planned before the segment scoring chose diaspora families. To keep the page consistent, the plan should leave the spring spend out. ## The row Leo will read first **Leo:** I'll go straight to the money. The September campaign got us 410 families for 366 each. Put "double it" in the plan. **Alex Tutor:** That claim counts families who come back every year and families who would have come anyway. Which draft line has to change before Thursday? > **Exercise:** Which draft line must be rewritten before the plan goes to Leo? **Uliana:** Next September we'll remind returners for free and aim ads only at new families. What's the most we can spend then? **Alex Tutor:** If the campaign again adds about 22 new families at 8,170 of contribution each, spending more than that contribution loses money. That's the ceiling, before any holdout says otherwise. It also revises module 6: the 246,000 media plan there assumed the families who came after the ads were brought by them; the holdout says only about 22 were. > **Exercise:** If next September's campaign again adds 22 incremental new families, each leaving 8,170 UAH of contribution in a year, what is the **most it can cost and still break even** on contribution? In UAH. **Alex Tutor:** So which budget line goes on the page? > **Exercise:** Which budget line for next September's restart campaign is the honest one? **Sofia:** So the metrics row says how each claim on the page will be checked, not just which numbers we report. **Alex Tutor:** Yes: leading and lagging metrics with owners, a baseline or holdout for every campaign, and the monthly review with its rules. **Alex Tutor:** Check which version of the row does that. > **Exercise:** Which metrics-and-review row lets Leo check every claim on the page? > **Exercise:** Owners agreed this module: Uliana for enquiries from the target segments, the academic lead for trial-to-paid, Hanna for contribution; channel rules: scale by a quarter under 4,000 UAH per paying family for four weeks, cut to the test level over 6,000 for three weeks. Write the metrics-and-review row of Klasna's 2027 plan (3–4 sentences). ## The page **Leo:** One page. Rows in order, numbers I can trust, and the two things most likely to go wrong. **Alex Tutor:** Write each row as a decision in a sentence or two, in your own words. Then add the risks and how you'll see them early. A team of four, or one founder, should be able to run it on Monday. > **Exercise:** Write Klasna's one-page marketing plan for 2027. > **Key ideas** > > - A one-page marketing plan is eight decisions in order: situation, segments, first target, position, channels, messages and budget, offer and growth, metrics and review. > - Write each row as a decision, not a list of activities, and check the joints: each row must serve the one above it. > - Say plainly where existing commitments (like spring exam spend) don't follow the new focus, and measure them anyway. > - The metrics row decides how every claim will be checked: incremental results against a baseline or holdout, return on contribution, owners, and a monthly review with rules set in advance. > - A plan a small team can run on Monday beats a long document nobody opens. **Alex Tutor:** That's the course: from a string of campaigns to one page you can defend and check every month. The Pricing course picks up where the launch stance left off. - Previous lesson: [The monthly control loop](https://productovi.com/courses/marketing-strategy/the-monthly-control-loop.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.