Dean’s analysis is very astute. Without even an interview, he was able to pull together relevant information about our private company, connect key strategic dots, and draw very interesting conclusions. As with much of Dean’s thinking, writing, and speaking that I have observed, I agree with most of his musings in this post, and where I disagree with his conclusions, the disagreement is due to differences of perspective, focus, and business premises. I will try my best here to provide a thorough enough response and add to a productive discourse without shining too much light on our business strategies, which dean generously claims are “pretty damn smart”. And I welcome responses, either directly to me at gcigale@tutor.com or my blog, http://ceotutor.blogspot.com. Thank you for acknowledging my “strategic aptitude”. OK, I enjoy a good game of chess and do pride myself on sound strategic thinking, but the decision to put all our eggs into the library basket 6 years ago was based less on strong strategic thinking and more on three more poignant influences: 1) Survival instinct -- the realization that we’d run out of money if we maintained our original consumer-focussed business model. 2) The value of extreme focus – the realization that serving more than one type of customer would not allow us to be great at what we do 3) Listening to the customer – obvious, but so often not executed well. Working only with libraries allowed us to really understand them and meet their needs. So, to Dean’s key starting and ending points, what’s next and how? I’ll start at the end by saying that NCLB or SES programs will not be our focus, and efficacy studies showing improvements in state test scores will not become a pre-requisite for our future growth. The “what’s next and how” analysis has to start with answers to two fundamental questions: 1) who is our customer? and 2) what pain of theirs do we believe we can alleviate? Many education companies have decided that their customer is the school, the school district, or the state department of education. And that the pain they are relieving is the school’s ability to improve test scores. We may go down that path at some point, likely with a partner, but not any time soon. Our customer over the past 6 years has been the public library, and we know how to relieve their pain, help them serve their customers, and help libraries take credit for the valuable benefits they provide to the communities they serve. We will continue to maintain our focus on meeting the needs of libraries over the coming years. LSTA funding was a key seed source, and libraries are compelled to complete evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of LSTA grants. Such evaluations have nothing to do with standardized test scores, and we feel confident that the data available from Live Homework Help programs are more than sufficient to show that the money is well spent. Such evaluations are also the reason that libraries that use grant or sponsorship funds to start their LHH programs almost always find budget money to continue the programs. Because we are a company with FOCUS ingrained in its DNA, we made a deliberative decision that we could pursue and succeed in ONE more more market, not multiple markets. And that market is selling to families. When we add a new customer, the parent who will be paying for a Tutor.com Direct subscription or pay-as-you-go plan, we ask again, what pain will we strive to alleviate? Hints to the answer can be seen at a recent blog posting of mine -- http://ceotutor.blogspot.com/2007/04/power-of-on-demand-tutoring.html. The answer is a complicated one that is at the nerve of our consumer strategies, but suffice it to say that parents do not need an efficacy study showing them the percentage score improvement from on demand tutoring to know if their money is being well spent. When you’re thirsty, you don’t need a medical lab to tell you your salination level is high and you need to drink water. And when you’ve chugged a pint of water, you don’t need an efficacy study measuring your lower salination level to tell you that your thirst has been alleviated. We will help parents and students identify the symptoms that point to being able to benefit from on demand tutoring, and parents will know when their children’s pain has been alleviated. I care deeply about the school and its pain, but other capable companies and school reform advocates will need to continue trying to alleviate those pains. We are not ready for that now. My comments here may sound like we don’t plan to show test score and grade improvements that Dean suggests. Actually, we will, just not for the reasons he suggests. And the independent proof from such evaluations will not be at the heart of why our parents and students will flock to on demand tutoring. Consumer acceptance will come from a more intuitive and emotional level of understanding of the value Tutor.com provides. The intense thirst is there now, and our challenge and opportunity is to help families recognize it and understand that there is a thirst quencher a couple clicks away. George Cigale, CEO of Tutor.com gcigale@tutor.com, http://ceotutor.blogspot.com