New "Productized" take on traditional consulting
As I have studied and looked under the hood of a lot of productized services one area I have been truly interested in has been the consulting/coaching/mentoring side of services.
There hasn't been much evolution.
A traditional consultant or coach is truly stuck in this 1:1 service business trap. The same could go for a lawyer, therapist, etc.
I was faced with this same dilemma when I started doing consulting six months ago after selling a few productized service companies. I loved helping and giving back but the current model was broken (at least for me).
I didn't want to have monthly calls and in most cases, value and problems could be fixed in a very short time frame and didn't need an hour +/-.
So I decided to launch a new angle and structure to traditional consulting/coaching leveraging an "Asynchronous" approach.
The concept is you get unlimited 1:1 access to me 24/7 via Whatsapp. I then will respond with detailed loom videos, intros, resources every Monday & Thursday.
So far the model is working wonderfully, providing tremendous value, and is scaling much further than a traditional 1:1 hourly model.
I currently have 15 people paying me monthly and quarterly for "access" to my WhatsApp "batline" to help them solve their biggest issues twice per week. My goal is to optimize and maximize my two day consulting & mentoring workweek under this model.
I would love to hear your thoughts and questions and happy to share more insights as well. It has been a blast to build this out and test it in it's previous "beta" version and not excited to launch it more publically going into the new year.
-
What questions does a model like this bring up to you?
-
Do you know anyone else who is leveraging this "Asynchronous" coaching model?
-
What ideas does this prompt for you?
Learn more here: https://gum.co/productized-mentor
This is a really really tough business. You run into adverse selection on both the supply and demand side of this equation.
The people that most need the service are the least likely to want to pay. And if they get value out of the service, they will need it less and less in the future.
The people who are the most qualified to give advice won't necessarily work for a small amount of money per customer. Therefore, you'll potentially end up with weak coaches.
Keep in mind these are just upfront generalizations and things to work through to find the right model.
I could see a partnership model that could help fund something like this rather than an end user paying directly. For instance, a city that is trying to promote entrepreneurship and would like the help of 10 advisors to work with 200 people.