What we can offer, and what we need to learn

• Who should be able to update information for this location?
• What would help you feel confident that only the right people can claim it?
• Would reviewing the current information together be useful?

Capture: Correct business/location, claimant authority, factual corrections, verification friction.

Poor fit: A paid reach guarantee is the actual requirement.

Gate: Trustworthy dates, availability and destinations.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What could you measure, and what remained uncertain?
• Are you looking for promotional material, the stated MeanScoop treatment, or a guaranteed audience?
• This does not change organic ranking or guarantee views or attendance. Would the defined treatment itself be useful, or is proven reach essential to your decision?
• What would you want to review after the placement ends?

Capture: Exact goal, dates, prior promotion evidence, success criteria, term version, and acknowledged limits.

Poor fit: Guaranteed attendance, impressions or ranking are required.

Gate: Preserve sandbox proofs; complete real-merchant, production and activation gates.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What would need to be left after the offer's costs and fees for it to be worthwhile?
• How would staff know a purchase is valid, what has already been redeemed, and what remains?
• What restrictions, cancellation rules, or customer misunderstandings would worry you?
• For a combined package, who at each business agrees to the inclusions, availability, and payout?
• After a small pilot, what result would make you repeat it, and what would make you stop?

Capture: Supplier IDs/authority, capacity, restrictions, margin assumptions, settlement expectations, customer outcomes and actual payout response.

Poor fit: Inventory or supplier authorization is missing.

Gate: Authorized supply, purchase, redemption, refunds and reconciled settlement. Proposed pilot: three merchants, no unreconciled orders/refunds and at least 90% redemption-status completeness; willingness to repeat after payout.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What happens when a time, price, or booking link changes?
• Which part takes the most work, and roughly how often do you do it?
• What would make a finished kit useful enough that you would actually use it?
• Who would approve it, and through which existing channel would you share it?
• After seeing the approved scope and price, is it worth testing on this offering, or does your current process suit you better?

Capture: Offering, current workflow/time, needed formats, approval person, approved price shown, payment, approval, export, and later verified use.

Poor fit: Direct social publishing or invented crowd imagery is required.

Gate: Confirmed offering, direction approval, usable exports/copy, current destination and QR; approved terms and funding journey.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Where do approvals or information changes tend to get held up?
• Which part of your current tools would you keep?
• Would this be an occasional need or something you would use most weeks? What makes you say that?
• What would need to happen in month one for paying for month two to make sense?
• Who approves an ongoing subscription for this location?

Capture: Offering frequency, actual workload, needed team roles, activation date, kits used, customer-defined success, renewal decision.

Poor fit: One occasional offering is the entire need.

Gate: Advertised benefits work. Proposed decision rules: 5–10 businesses across two paid cycles, 70% core activation, half use 2+ kits in month one and 6 of 10 eligible businesses choose month two; delivery/support costs remain viable.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What would make the combined option more useful than choosing one component?
• Of the approved options shown, which would you actually choose for this offering?

Capture: Existing material, component preference, actual checkout choice and term version.

Poor fit: One component does not solve a real need.

Gate: Both components work; customers choose the combination; approved price covers delivery costs.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Which time, distance, budget, or availability restrictions matter?
• What evidence would make a suggested offering useful to you?
• This is eligibility for relevant sponsored suggestions, not guaranteed delivery or a silent addition to someone's plan. Does that fit what you need?

Capture: Offering-level fit, constraints, eligibility, actual delivery/open/save/add data.

Poor fit: Guaranteed placement volume or organic ranking is required.

Gate: Defined surfaces, relevance checks, advertising labels and separate shown/open/save/plan-add measurement.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Where would a guest actually receive and use a link or QR?
• What work would your team need to do for a pilot?
• What should be personalized to your property, and what should stay live and local?
• Would guest usefulness, staff time saved, or confirmed bookings be the most important result?
• Who could approve distributing a small pilot to real guests?

Capture: Property/partner, distribution channel and opportunity, guest questions, actual distribution, opens, downstream actions, update burden.

Poor fit: No partner can distribute the guide.

Gate: Partners distribute guides and guests use them before a hospitality subscription is built.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Is the recurring problem making the material, managing the events, buying the Featured treatment, or something else?
• What would happen in a month when you do not use the proposed allowance?
• What would make a subscription preferable to individual purchases?
• Which past use suggests you would renew rather than just try the first month?

Capture: Historical event cadence, repeat purchases, seasonal variation, component value, renewal criteria.

Poor fit: The business rarely runs an eligible event.

Gate: Approved bundle structure, reliable activation allowances and billing; preserve existing approved credit-only terms until a separate decision.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What did you use MeanScoop for, and what did you still do elsewhere?
• Have you used it again on another occasion? What brought you back or kept you away?
• Which repeated job would be worth paying to remove?
• What would you need to experience before choosing a paid month?

Capture: Actual planning occasions, separate-week repeat use, organizer/group role, friction, premium behavior, compute/support costs and paid-beta choice.

Poor fit: A single hypothetical outing is the only evidence.

Gate: Proposed discovery cohort: 15 consumers across two weekends; recurring premium need, retention and approved billing.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What referral or attribution arrangements already apply?
• What evidence would you need before calling a referral a completed booking?
• What would make this channel conflict with your existing partners?

Capture: Supplier/partner, authoritative destination, attribution limits, relevant terms, confirmed outcomes where available.

Poor fit: No suitable bookable supply or approved partner attribution exists.

Gate: Relevant supply, approved attribution/disclosure and confirmed booking evidence; clicks remain separate from completed bookings.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Are you already using a scheduler, and what works well about it?
• Which account permissions or approvals would a new tool need?
• Would ready-to-use exports solve enough of the problem, or is there another specific step that matters?
• What would make connecting another tool worth the effort and any additional cost?

Capture: Channel/account types, current scheduler, frequency, approval process, friction remaining after export, incremental value.

Poor fit: The merchant has not used the export workflow.

Gate: Repeated export use, persistent friction, willingness to pay and verified integration feasibility.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• How would a qualifying purchase or redemption be verified?
• What benefit could you fund without losing the margin you need?
• What work or disputes would that create for staff?
• Would your current payment or booking system already handle this?

Capture: Purchase observability, existing retention practices, reward economics, staff burden and actual repeat transactions.

Poor fit: Visits cannot be identified reliably.

Gate: Reliable transaction/redemption identity and merchant demand for repeat visits.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• How often does that decision come up?
• How local and recent would the evidence need to be?
• What would make you trust the sample, and what would make it too weak to use?
• Who acts on this information, and what would a useful test change?

Capture: Decision, cadence, current evidence/spend, required coverage/freshness, action and test criteria.

Poor fit: Interest in a dashboard without a decision to improve.

Gate: Enough trustworthy, fresh and appropriately aggregated data for a real decision.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Would a maintained link, QR, or simple What's On embed cover the need?
• What needs to be customized beyond that?
• Who would integrate and support it, and how often would it be used?

Capture: Destination, system, maintainer, data/freshness needs, simple alternatives, budget authority.

Poor fit: A link or existing integration solves the problem.

Gate: Multiple partners need the same integration; maintenance and data obligations are viable.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Where is live availability managed, and who can change it?
• What minimum net return would make filling a slot worthwhile?
• What would prevent a lower-priced offer from displacing a full-price booking?
• How would cancellations, cutoffs, and changes reach your team?

Capture: Capacity pattern, source of truth, timing, cost floor, constraints, integration and operational burden.

Poor fit: Capacity is hypothetical or cannot be kept current.

Gate: Proven commerce, authoritative capacity, viable economics and repeat supplier demand.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• What would you need to know about audience location, view definitions, duplicate views, and invalid traffic?
• How would you compare paying for delivery with paying for a completed customer transaction?
• What would make this unsuitable for your business?

Capture: Buying unit, budget evidence, delivery requirements, audience constraints, attribution expectations.

Poor fit: Unverified traffic is expected to justify a charge.

Gate: Qualified inventory, defensible billing, invalid-traffic controls and advertiser value.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1

• Would a reliable booking link or integration solve the problem?
• What would be risky about replacing your current system?
• What would we need to handle when an event changes, is canceled, or a customer disputes a purchase?

Capture: Current tool, actual failure, integration alternative, operational requirements and switching friction.

Poor fit: Existing ticketing or a booking link works well.

Gate: A distinct business case that existing ticketing integrations cannot solve.

Review windows are internal planning proposals, not customer delivery promises.

Question card: 2026-10-03-brief-A-R-v1