Case: the September restart plan

A campaign calendar follows the path, not the other way round. Families decide in late August and the first weeks of September, so the order is:

1. Early August: check the opt-in list, update the parents' page and the sample progress note. Owned pages and proof come first, because paid media points at them.
2. From 20 August: campaign media on options B, C and E; search stays on as always. Paid media starts before the peak of decisions, not in the middle of it.
3. 25 August: an email to last spring's families who opted in, no paid media.
4. 1–14 September: test the school parent chats, with a stop rule.
5. 15 September: a mid-campaign review of enquiries by option; move money to what works.
6. October: second-package reminders to new families who opted in.

The test and the review sit inside the campaign so money can still move. And the second package, where the budget's payback lives, gets its own step instead of being an afterthought.

About 30% of spring families come back in September. They already know Klasna, and those who opted in can be reached directly: one email on 25 August, through an owned channel, at almost no cost.

So they don't belong in the paid campaign. Showing them paid ads would spend money on families who were coming anyway, and then count them as if the ads had brought them. That is the same mistake the budget lesson fixed in the rates: returning families inflate the results of paid media and make the next plan look cheaper than it is.

The split is clean: paid media for new families, measured against the goal of 90 new families who keep their first package; owned channels for returning families, measured separately. Each part is then judged on its own job.

And the email still follows the rules: only to parents who opted in, with an easy way to stop, in Ukrainian for families in Ukraine.

The main message of a campaign comes from the positioning statement, not from whatever sold last time. Ostap leads with a discount; Klasna's old ads led with "qualified tutors". Both miss the position.

• "Qualified tutors, learn from home" is table stakes: every alternative claims it, so it gives no reason to choose Klasna.
• "30% off every package, this week only" is not a position at all. It teaches parents to wait for the next discount and says nothing about why Klasna is different.
• "Get ahead of your class this year" speaks to the teen, not the parent who pays, and drifts towards advertising aimed at children.
• "Every week you see what changed: a progress note from the tutor, sample inside" comes from the difference families value and only Klasna proves. It speaks to the parent and carries its own proof.

So: lead with the weekly progress note, prove it with a real sample, and keep any discount out of the headline.

Pricing belongs to the Pricing course, but two rules reach every campaign, as of October 2026.

The reduction must be real. A discount from a price Klasna never charged misleads customers anywhere. The EU rule that an announced reduction shows the lowest price of the previous 30 days is written for goods, and Ukraine's similar rule is adopted but not yet in force. For tutoring, a service, treat that 30-day reference as the honest default rather than a strict requirement.

A sale ad states its dates and the real reduction. Check the current Ukrainian advertising rules before launch.

There is also a cost question. The course Finance for Product People shows that 10% off the English 16-lesson pack needs 48.73% more lessons just to stand still. Thirty percent off a whole restart is a big bet, not a headline.

These are guardrails as of October 2026; check current sources before any launch.

Ostap's draft is "Back to school: 30% off every package, this week only!" in a teen creator's video, with "last chance" repeated every Monday. Read it line by line against the rules of the module:

• A teen study creator's video aims the ad at children. Parents are the audience; that is Klasna's house rule, and the law points the same way.
• "Last chance" every Monday is false urgency: an offer that says it ends must end.
• A discount without a real previous price and a real end date misleads.
• Leading with the discount gives up the position: the weekly progress note never appears.

What in the plan is fine: a September email to spring families who opted in. Consent makes it an owned channel used properly.

The point of the exercise is the habit: a draft is not judged by how exciting it sounds but by whether every part of it passes the same rules, whoever wrote it.

If the whole campaign sat in September, the month would carry 246,000 of media, 90,000 of always-on search and 18,000 for the school-chat test: 354,000, above any month in Hanna's forecast.

The calendar already solves it. Families decide from late August, so paid media starts on 20 August. Suppose 40% of the campaign media runs in the last ten days of August:

• August: 246,000 × 40% = 98,400 UAH of campaign media, on top of August's own line;
• September: 246,000 × 60% = 147,600.

Splitting is not a trick to hide spending. It follows when decisions actually happen, and it lets the 15 September review move money while the campaign is still running.

Two lines stay separate whatever the split: always-on search (90,000 in September), which runs every month, and the test (18,000), which has its own stop rule. Mixing them into the campaign would make none of the three readable afterwards.

With 40% of the campaign media in August, add September's three lines:

• campaign media: 246,000 × 60% = 147,600;
• always-on search: 90,000;
• the school-chat test: 18,000.

September total: 147,600 + 90,000 + 18,000 = 255,600 UAH. That sits within the forecast's monthly range (160,000–340,000), where 354,000 did not.

August carries 98,400 of campaign media on top of its own line, so the August row of the plan must show it too. A plan that fits September by quietly overloading August hasn't fixed anything; both months need to fit.

This is the last of the budget checks from the previous lesson, applied to a real calendar: the cost per family against history, rates cleaned of returning families, payback on the second package, and now the total against each month's line. A plan that passes all four is one Hanna can sign.

Uliana wants a short checklist every restart message passes before it runs, whether Ostap wrote it or an AI tool. The module gives its lines:

• Parents are the audience, never teens.
• Every claim is provable, such as the weekly note with a real sample.
• Paid posts are labelled as paid.
• Discounts are real, with a real previous price and stated dates; urgency only if true.
• Emails go only to people who opted in, with an easy way out.
• Ukrainian for families in Ukraine.
• A person reviews every AI draft.

What doesn't belong: "it tested best" or "it sounds exciting". Those are reasons to prefer one passing message over another, not reasons to let a failing one run.

How it fits together: the restart plan joins the module: goals by step, tools by goal, media chosen on cost per useful contact, a budget worked back from the goal and fitted to the months, and one checklist for every message. The next module asks what Klasna offers next, and where it grows.