Business Model Metrics
Metrics by business model

Name your primary business model, install that model's metric tree, write a definition doc for each metric before building dashboards, and…
# Metrics by Business Model ## Table of Contents - [How to Use This File](#how-to-use-this-file) - [E-commerce](#e-commerce) - [SaaS](#saas) - [Free Mobile App](#free-mobile-app) - [Media Site](#media-site) - [User-Generated Content](#user-generated-content) - [Two-Sided Marketplace](#two-sided-marketplace) - [Hybrid Models](#hybrid-models) ## How to Use This File Name your primary business model, install that model's metric tree, write a definition doc for each metric before building dashboards, and watch the failure modes — most analytics disasters are measurement errors, not data errors. The metrics below are the canonical set; your OMTM at any moment is one of them (chosen by stage), and the rest are supporting or counter-metrics. ## E-commerce
Overview
Name your primary business model, install that model's metric tree, write a definition doc for each metric before building dashboards, and watch the failure modes — most analytics disasters are measurement errors, not data errors. The metrics below are the canonical set; your OMTM at any moment is one of them (chosen by stage), and the rest are supporting or counter-metrics.
Manual install (npx, ZIP)
npx skills add wondelai/skills --skill metrics-by-business-model -g -a claude-codeConnects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp
Files included
business-model-metrics.md13.9 KB
Read business-model-metrics.md here
wondelai/
Show the full text138 lines
Metrics by Business Model
Table of Contents
- How to Use This File
- E-commerce
- SaaS
- Free Mobile App
- Media Site
- User-Generated Content
- Two-Sided Marketplace
- Hybrid Models
How to Use This File
Name your primary business model, install that model's metric tree, write a definition doc for each metric before building dashboards, and watch the failure modes — most analytics disasters are measurement errors, not data errors. The metrics below are the canonical set; your OMTM at any moment is one of them (chosen by stage), and the rest are supporting or counter-metrics.
E-commerce
Core question: do visitors buy, and do buyers come back?
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Conversion rate | orders ÷ unique visitors | The fundamental efficiency of the store |
| Average order value (AOV) | revenue ÷ orders | Second lever on revenue besides traffic |
| Annual repurchase rate | % of buyers purchasing again within 12 months | Decides your mode (below) |
| Cart abandonment | 1 − (orders ÷ carts created) | Where intent dies; checkout friction signal |
| Revenue per customer (RPC) | revenue ÷ customers in period | Conversion × AOV × repurchase in one number |
| Customer acquisition cost (CAC) | acquisition spend ÷ new customers | Must sit far below RPC over the customer's life |
The mode decision. The annual repurchase rate determines what kind of e-commerce business you are, and the playbooks differ sharply. Under roughly 40% of buyers repurchasing in a year, you're in acquisition mode: the game is top-of-funnel efficiency, conversion, and AOV — loyalty programs are wasted spend. Above roughly 60%, you're in loyalty mode: the game is repeat behavior, recommendations, reorder flows, and share of wallet. Between the two, run a hybrid: grow acquisition while nudging the repurchase rate up. Misdiagnosing the mode is the most expensive e-commerce metric mistake — building loyalty infrastructure for a one-and-done product (mattresses) or burning ad spend where retention should compound (consumables).
Instrumentation notes: instrument the full funnel as distinct events (product view → add-to-cart → checkout start → payment → confirmation) so abandonment localizes to a step; tie every order to an acquisition source at the customer level, not the session level; deduplicate customers across devices and guest checkouts (email is the usual join key); record refunds and returns as first-class events.
Measurement failure modes: celebrating traffic while conversion slides; reporting one blended conversion rate across channels with wildly different intent (brand search converts 10x display); ignoring returns, refunds, and shipping costs so "revenue" overstates reality; comparing holiday weeks to ordinary ones instead of year-over-year; and counting sessions as shoppers, which double-counts the same person comparison-shopping on two devices.
SaaS
Core question: do trials become long-lived, expanding subscriptions?
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| MRR / ARR | sum of active subscription value per month/year | The growth headline, normalized |
| Customer churn | customers lost ÷ customers at period start | The leak that caps growth |
| Revenue churn (gross/net) | MRR lost (gross); MRR lost − expansion (net) | Net churn below 0% means the base grows itself |
| LTV | ARPA × gross margin ÷ churn rate | What a customer is worth, honestly margined |
| CAC | sales + marketing spend ÷ new customers | What a customer costs, fully loaded |
| LTV:CAC | LTV ÷ CAC | >3 is the standard health line |
| CAC payback | CAC ÷ (ARPA × gross margin) | Months to recover acquisition; <12 is the heuristic |
| Trial-to-paid conversion | paying ÷ trials in cohort | Funnel efficiency; watch by channel |
| Time-to-value | median time from signup to first core value | The strongest onboarding lever on conversion |
| Expansion/upsell | MRR added from existing accounts | Cheapest growth; drives net churn negative |
Instrumentation notes: revenue numbers must come from the billing system, not the analytics tool — analytics events drop, double-fire, and miss dunning; model the subscription as a state machine (trial → active → past_due → paused → churned, plus upgrade/downgrade transitions) and emit an event per transition; define "active use" by core action so you can see engagement churn — accounts that stopped using but haven't stopped paying — which is next quarter's revenue churn, visible today.
Measurement failure modes: conflating MRR with cash collected (annual prepays inflate cash now and create a renewal cliff later — track both, label both); reporting gross churn as if it were net, or hiding gross churn behind healthy expansion; computing LTV without gross margin (an LTV of revenue, not profit); survivor-biased LTV from your oldest, happiest cohort; counting paused or downgraded accounts inconsistently across reports; and blending churn across plan tiers when enterprise and self-serve behave like different species.
Free Mobile App
Core question: do downloads become engaged users, and does a small slice pay enough to carry everyone?
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Launch/activation rate | users reaching first value ÷ installs | Installs are shelf-ware until first value |
| D1 / D7 / D30 retention | % of install cohort active N days later | The shape of the leak |
| DAU/MAU | daily actives ÷ monthly actives | Habit strength; how many days a month users need you |
| % paying | payers ÷ active users | The size of the monetized slice |
| ARPDAU | daily revenue ÷ DAU | Revenue intensity, comparable across days |
| ARPPU | revenue ÷ paying users | Depth of monetization among payers |
| k-factor | invites per user × invite conversion | Organic distribution multiplier |
| Churn | users inactive >N days ÷ actives | Defines the ceiling on MAU growth |
Instrumentation notes: define "active" as performing the core action, not opening the app (push-notification-driven opens flatter DAU without value); fix your retention convention — calendar-day vs rolling 24-hour windows produce different numbers, and mixing them invalidates trends; expect platform/store reporting lag and reconcile attribution SDK installs against store-reported installs; track the revenue distribution, not just the mean — monetization usually concentrates in a small cohort of high spenders, so medians and deciles tell the truth that ARPPU hides.
Measurement failure modes: treating downloads as the growth metric (it's the top of a funnel that loses ~80%+ by week one); averaging revenue across all users when a tiny whale cohort dominates it; forgetting the platform's ~30% cut so "revenue" overstates net by nearly a third; comparing retention across cohorts acquired from incentivized installs vs organic (they're different populations); and celebrating DAU spikes caused by notification blasts that simultaneously spike opt-outs — the engagement equivalent of a payday loan.
Media Site
Core question: can you grow attention and monetize it without destroying the reason it exists?
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Audience growth | unique visitors, trended + return-visitor rate | Reach, qualified by loyalty |
| Engaged time | actively-measured time on content | Honest attention; raw time-on-page lies |
| CTR | ad clicks ÷ ad impressions | What advertisers ultimately buy |
| RPM | revenue ÷ 1,000 pageviews (or sessions) | Monetization efficiency of attention |
| Ad inventory | impressions available per period | The supply you sell |
| Content-to-ad balance | ad density per page/session | The tradeoff dial between revenue and trust |
Instrumentation notes: measure engaged time with activity signals (scroll, focus, pointer movement), not last-page timestamps — a tab open in the background is not attention; attribute traffic by source and content type so you can see which content earns loyal readers vs drive-by social spikes; track the return rate of new visitors per content category — it tells you what to commission next.
Measurement failure modes: pageview inflation via pagination and slideshows — it manufactures ad inventory while destroying engaged time and reader trust, a vanity trade that monetizes the brand to death; counting bounce-heavy viral traffic as "audience" when it never returns; chasing CTR with clickbait that raises short-term clicks and long-term unsubscribes; and reporting RPM gains that came entirely from ad density increases (the counter-metric — return-visitor rate — catches this).
User-Generated Content
Core question: do visitors climb the engagement funnel and create content that brings others back?
The defining tool is the engagement funnel — a ladder of deepening participation: visitor → voyeur (consumes content) → commenter/voter (lightweight interaction) → creator (posts original content) → sharer (distributes it outward). Participation is radically unequal — in the spirit of the 90-9-1 rule, lurkers vastly outnumber contributors, who vastly outnumber creators — so the metrics that matter are the tier sizes and the transition rates between tiers, not the total account count.
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Tier transition rates | users moving up a tier ÷ tier population | The health of the participation ladder |
| Content per active user | items created ÷ active users | Density of the content economy |
| Time between contributions | median gap per creator | Creator habit strength |
| Notification effectiveness | re-engagement CTR ÷ opt-out rate | Your main lever, and its cost |
| Spam/fraud rate | bad content ÷ total content | The tax on everything else |
Instrumentation notes: define each tier by concrete actions and make tiers mutually exclusive per period so funnel math adds up; instrument content quality signals (votes, reports, removals) alongside volume; measure notification effects as a pair — every re-engagement campaign gets its opt-out cost attached.
Measurement failure modes: counting registered accounts when creators are what the system runs on; celebrating engagement minutes that are pure passive scroll while creation flatlines (the voyeur tier grows, the ladder is broken); excluding spam from no reports so content volume looks healthy while the real feed rots; and over-notifying — DAU rises for a month, then the opt-out wave caps your re-engagement channel permanently.
Two-Sided Marketplace
Core question: liquidity — do listings meet buyers fast enough that both sides come back?
| Metric | Formula | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Fill rate / sell-through | listings transacting within window ÷ listings | The supply side of liquidity |
| Search-to-fill | searches ending in a transaction ÷ searches | The demand side of liquidity |
| Time-to-transaction | median time from listing (or search) to deal | Liquidity's speed dimension |
| Buyer/seller ratio | active buyers ÷ active sellers | Which side is the constraint |
| Take rate | platform revenue ÷ GMV | How much of the flow you capture |
| GMV | total transaction value | Context only — vanity until × take rate |
| Repeat rate per side | % of each side transacting again in period | Whether liquidity converts to habit |
| Fraud/dispute rate | disputed transactions ÷ transactions | Trust, the marketplace's real product |
Instrumentation notes: define the transaction window per category — 30 days is meaningless if cars take 60 and concert tickets take 2; instrument both sides' funnels separately (seller: list → inquiry → transact; buyer: search → view → contact → transact) because the constraint side changes over time; measure liquidity per market (city, category), never as a global blend — a marketplace is a portfolio of local liquidity pools.
Measurement failure modes: GMV as the headline while take-rate revenue stays trivial; subsidized transactions (coupons, free credits) counted as organic liquidity; concentration blindness — one power seller or one corporate buyer making aggregate liquidity look healthy while the long tail gets nothing; growing the easy side (usually supply) while the constraint is demand, so listings balloon and fill rate collapses; and blended liquidity across markets hiding the fact that you have one working city and five dead ones.
Hybrid Models
Most real businesses mix archetypes: a subscription box is e-commerce acquisition with SaaS retention economics; a marketplace may sell SaaS tools to its sellers; a media site may run a UGC community. The rule: pick ONE primary model — the one whose failure kills the company — and let it own the OMTM. The secondary model contributes supporting metrics and counter-metrics, not a second north star.
Deciding the primary: ask where the riskiest economics live. A subscription box dies from churn, not from cart abandonment → primary model SaaS, with AOV and cart metrics as supporting. A marketplace with seller tools dies if liquidity fails, no matter how good tool attach rates look → primary model marketplace until liquidity is proven, then revisit. If you'd describe yourself to an investor as "X with a bit of Y," X is the primary.
Two failure patterns to avoid: dual-OMTM paralysis, where two teams optimize two north stars and trade wins back and forth invisibly (the counter-metric structure exists precisely so the secondary model constrains rather than competes); and model drift, where the company quietly becomes the other model — the day your marketplace's SaaS-tool revenue exceeds take-rate revenue and retains better, re-run the model choice deliberately instead of letting the dashboard decide by inertia.
| 1 | # Metrics by Business Model |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Table of Contents |
| 4 | |
| 5 | [How to Use This File] |
| 6 | [E-commerce] |
| 7 | [SaaS] |
| 8 | [Free Mobile App] |
| 9 | [Media Site] |
| 10 | [User-Generated Content] |
| 11 | [Two-Sided Marketplace] |
| 12 | [Hybrid Models] |
| 13 | |
| 14 | ## How to Use This File |
| 15 | |
| 16 | Name your primary business model, install that model's metric tree, write a definition doc for each metric before building dashboards, and watch the failure modes — most analytics disasters are measurement errors, not data errors. The metrics below are the canonical set; your OMTM at any moment is one of them (chosen by stage), and the rest are supporting or counter-metrics. |
| 17 | |
| 18 | ## E-commerce |
| 19 | |
| 20 | **Core question:** do visitors buy, and do buyers come back? |
| 21 | |
| 22 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 23 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 24 | | Conversion rate | orders ÷ unique visitors | The fundamental efficiency of the store | |
| 25 | | Average order value (AOV) | revenue ÷ orders | Second lever on revenue besides traffic | |
| 26 | | Annual repurchase rate | % of buyers purchasing again within 12 months | Decides your mode (below) | |
| 27 | | Cart abandonment | 1 − (orders ÷ carts created) | Where intent dies; checkout friction signal | |
| 28 | | Revenue per customer (RPC) | revenue ÷ customers in period | Conversion × AOV × repurchase in one number | |
| 29 | | Customer acquisition cost (CAC) | acquisition spend ÷ new customers | Must sit far below RPC over the customer's life | |
| 30 | |
| 31 | **The mode decision.** The annual repurchase rate determines what kind of e-commerce business you are, and the playbooks differ sharply. Under roughly 40% of buyers repurchasing in a year, you're in **acquisition mode**: the game is top-of-funnel efficiency, conversion, and AOV — loyalty programs are wasted spend. Above roughly 60%, you're in **loyalty mode**: the game is repeat behavior, recommendations, reorder flows, and share of wallet. Between the two, run a **hybrid**: grow acquisition while nudging the repurchase rate up. Misdiagnosing the mode is the most expensive e-commerce metric mistake — building loyalty infrastructure for a one-and-done product (mattresses) or burning ad spend where retention should compound (consumables). |
| 32 | |
| 33 | **Instrumentation notes:** instrument the full funnel as distinct events (product view → add-to-cart → checkout start → payment → confirmation) so abandonment localizes to a step; tie every order to an acquisition source at the *customer* level, not the session level; deduplicate customers across devices and guest checkouts (email is the usual join key); record refunds and returns as first-class events. |
| 34 | |
| 35 | **Measurement failure modes:** celebrating traffic while conversion slides; reporting one blended conversion rate across channels with wildly different intent (brand search converts 10x display); ignoring returns, refunds, and shipping costs so "revenue" overstates reality; comparing holiday weeks to ordinary ones instead of year-over-year; and counting sessions as shoppers, which double-counts the same person comparison-shopping on two devices. |
| 36 | |
| 37 | ## SaaS |
| 38 | |
| 39 | **Core question:** do trials become long-lived, expanding subscriptions? |
| 40 | |
| 41 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 42 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 43 | | MRR / ARR | sum of active subscription value per month/year | The growth headline, normalized | |
| 44 | | Customer churn | customers lost ÷ customers at period start | The leak that caps growth | |
| 45 | | Revenue churn (gross/net) | MRR lost (gross); MRR lost − expansion (net) | Net churn below 0% means the base grows itself | |
| 46 | | LTV | ARPA × gross margin ÷ churn rate | What a customer is worth, honestly margined | |
| 47 | | CAC | sales + marketing spend ÷ new customers | What a customer costs, fully loaded | |
| 48 | | LTV:CAC | LTV ÷ CAC | >3 is the standard health line | |
| 49 | | CAC payback | CAC ÷ (ARPA × gross margin) | Months to recover acquisition; <12 is the heuristic | |
| 50 | | Trial-to-paid conversion | paying ÷ trials in cohort | Funnel efficiency; watch by channel | |
| 51 | | Time-to-value | median time from signup to first core value | The strongest onboarding lever on conversion | |
| 52 | | Expansion/upsell | MRR added from existing accounts | Cheapest growth; drives net churn negative | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | **Instrumentation notes:** revenue numbers must come from the billing system, not the analytics tool — analytics events drop, double-fire, and miss dunning; model the subscription as a state machine (trial → active → past_due → paused → churned, plus upgrade/downgrade transitions) and emit an event per transition; define "active use" by core action so you can see *engagement churn* — accounts that stopped using but haven't stopped paying — which is next quarter's revenue churn, visible today. |
| 55 | |
| 56 | **Measurement failure modes:** conflating MRR with cash collected (annual prepays inflate cash now and create a renewal cliff later — track both, label both); reporting gross churn as if it were net, or hiding gross churn behind healthy expansion; computing LTV without gross margin (an LTV of revenue, not profit); survivor-biased LTV from your oldest, happiest cohort; counting paused or downgraded accounts inconsistently across reports; and blending churn across plan tiers when enterprise and self-serve behave like different species. |
| 57 | |
| 58 | ## Free Mobile App |
| 59 | |
| 60 | **Core question:** do downloads become engaged users, and does a small slice pay enough to carry everyone? |
| 61 | |
| 62 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 63 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 64 | | Launch/activation rate | users reaching first value ÷ installs | Installs are shelf-ware until first value | |
| 65 | | D1 / D7 / D30 retention | % of install cohort active N days later | The shape of the leak | |
| 66 | | DAU/MAU | daily actives ÷ monthly actives | Habit strength; how many days a month users need you | |
| 67 | | % paying | payers ÷ active users | The size of the monetized slice | |
| 68 | | ARPDAU | daily revenue ÷ DAU | Revenue intensity, comparable across days | |
| 69 | | ARPPU | revenue ÷ paying users | Depth of monetization among payers | |
| 70 | | k-factor | invites per user × invite conversion | Organic distribution multiplier | |
| 71 | | Churn | users inactive >N days ÷ actives | Defines the ceiling on MAU growth | |
| 72 | |
| 73 | **Instrumentation notes:** define "active" as performing the core action, not opening the app (push-notification-driven opens flatter DAU without value); fix your retention convention — calendar-day vs rolling 24-hour windows produce different numbers, and mixing them invalidates trends; expect platform/store reporting lag and reconcile attribution SDK installs against store-reported installs; track the revenue distribution, not just the mean — monetization usually concentrates in a small cohort of high spenders, so medians and deciles tell the truth that ARPPU hides. |
| 74 | |
| 75 | **Measurement failure modes:** treating downloads as the growth metric (it's the top of a funnel that loses ~80%+ by week one); averaging revenue across all users when a tiny whale cohort dominates it; forgetting the platform's ~30% cut so "revenue" overstates net by nearly a third; comparing retention across cohorts acquired from incentivized installs vs organic (they're different populations); and celebrating DAU spikes caused by notification blasts that simultaneously spike opt-outs — the engagement equivalent of a payday loan. |
| 76 | |
| 77 | ## Media Site |
| 78 | |
| 79 | **Core question:** can you grow attention and monetize it without destroying the reason it exists? |
| 80 | |
| 81 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 82 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 83 | | Audience growth | unique visitors, trended + return-visitor rate | Reach, qualified by loyalty | |
| 84 | | Engaged time | actively-measured time on content | Honest attention; raw time-on-page lies | |
| 85 | | CTR | ad clicks ÷ ad impressions | What advertisers ultimately buy | |
| 86 | | RPM | revenue ÷ 1,000 pageviews (or sessions) | Monetization efficiency of attention | |
| 87 | | Ad inventory | impressions available per period | The supply you sell | |
| 88 | | Content-to-ad balance | ad density per page/session | The tradeoff dial between revenue and trust | |
| 89 | |
| 90 | **Instrumentation notes:** measure engaged time with activity signals (scroll, focus, pointer movement), not last-page timestamps — a tab open in the background is not attention; attribute traffic by source and content type so you can see which content earns loyal readers vs drive-by social spikes; track the *return* rate of new visitors per content category — it tells you what to commission next. |
| 91 | |
| 92 | **Measurement failure modes:** pageview inflation via pagination and slideshows — it manufactures ad inventory while destroying engaged time and reader trust, a vanity trade that monetizes the brand to death; counting bounce-heavy viral traffic as "audience" when it never returns; chasing CTR with clickbait that raises short-term clicks and long-term unsubscribes; and reporting RPM gains that came entirely from ad density increases (the counter-metric — return-visitor rate — catches this). |
| 93 | |
| 94 | ## User-Generated Content |
| 95 | |
| 96 | **Core question:** do visitors climb the engagement funnel and create content that brings others back? |
| 97 | |
| 98 | The defining tool is the **engagement funnel** — a ladder of deepening participation: **visitor → voyeur** (consumes content) **→ commenter/voter** (lightweight interaction) **→ creator** (posts original content) **→ sharer** (distributes it outward). Participation is radically unequal — in the spirit of the 90-9-1 rule, lurkers vastly outnumber contributors, who vastly outnumber creators — so the metrics that matter are the **tier sizes and the transition rates between tiers**, not the total account count. |
| 99 | |
| 100 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 101 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 102 | | Tier transition rates | users moving up a tier ÷ tier population | The health of the participation ladder | |
| 103 | | Content per active user | items created ÷ active users | Density of the content economy | |
| 104 | | Time between contributions | median gap per creator | Creator habit strength | |
| 105 | | Notification effectiveness | re-engagement CTR ÷ opt-out rate | Your main lever, and its cost | |
| 106 | | Spam/fraud rate | bad content ÷ total content | The tax on everything else | |
| 107 | |
| 108 | **Instrumentation notes:** define each tier by concrete actions and make tiers mutually exclusive per period so funnel math adds up; instrument content *quality* signals (votes, reports, removals) alongside volume; measure notification effects as a pair — every re-engagement campaign gets its opt-out cost attached. |
| 109 | |
| 110 | **Measurement failure modes:** counting registered accounts when creators are what the system runs on; celebrating engagement minutes that are pure passive scroll while creation flatlines (the voyeur tier grows, the ladder is broken); excluding spam from no reports so content volume looks healthy while the real feed rots; and over-notifying — DAU rises for a month, then the opt-out wave caps your re-engagement channel permanently. |
| 111 | |
| 112 | ## Two-Sided Marketplace |
| 113 | |
| 114 | **Core question:** liquidity — do listings meet buyers fast enough that both sides come back? |
| 115 | |
| 116 | | Metric | Formula | Why it matters | |
| 117 | |--------|---------|----------------| |
| 118 | | Fill rate / sell-through | listings transacting within window ÷ listings | The supply side of liquidity | |
| 119 | | Search-to-fill | searches ending in a transaction ÷ searches | The demand side of liquidity | |
| 120 | | Time-to-transaction | median time from listing (or search) to deal | Liquidity's speed dimension | |
| 121 | | Buyer/seller ratio | active buyers ÷ active sellers | Which side is the constraint | |
| 122 | | Take rate | platform revenue ÷ GMV | How much of the flow you capture | |
| 123 | | GMV | total transaction value | Context only — vanity until × take rate | |
| 124 | | Repeat rate per side | % of each side transacting again in period | Whether liquidity converts to habit | |
| 125 | | Fraud/dispute rate | disputed transactions ÷ transactions | Trust, the marketplace's real product | |
| 126 | |
| 127 | **Instrumentation notes:** define the transaction window per category — 30 days is meaningless if cars take 60 and concert tickets take 2; instrument both sides' funnels separately (seller: list → inquiry → transact; buyer: search → view → contact → transact) because the constraint side changes over time; measure liquidity *per market* (city, category), never as a global blend — a marketplace is a portfolio of local liquidity pools. |
| 128 | |
| 129 | **Measurement failure modes:** GMV as the headline while take-rate revenue stays trivial; subsidized transactions (coupons, free credits) counted as organic liquidity; concentration blindness — one power seller or one corporate buyer making aggregate liquidity look healthy while the long tail gets nothing; growing the easy side (usually supply) while the constraint is demand, so listings balloon and fill rate collapses; and blended liquidity across markets hiding the fact that you have one working city and five dead ones. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | ## Hybrid Models |
| 132 | |
| 133 | Most real businesses mix archetypes: a subscription box is e-commerce acquisition with SaaS retention economics; a marketplace may sell SaaS tools to its sellers; a media site may run a UGC community. The rule: **pick ONE primary model — the one whose failure kills the company — and let it own the OMTM.** The secondary model contributes supporting metrics and counter-metrics, not a second north star. |
| 134 | |
| 135 | Deciding the primary: ask where the riskiest economics live. A subscription box dies from churn, not from cart abandonment → primary model SaaS, with AOV and cart metrics as supporting. A marketplace with seller tools dies if liquidity fails, no matter how good tool attach rates look → primary model marketplace until liquidity is proven, then revisit. If you'd describe yourself to an investor as "X with a bit of Y," X is the primary. |
| 136 | |
| 137 | Two failure patterns to avoid: **dual-OMTM paralysis**, where two teams optimize two north stars and trade wins back and forth invisibly (the counter-metric structure exists precisely so the secondary model constrains rather than competes); and **model drift**, where the company quietly becomes the other model — the day your marketplace's SaaS-tool revenue exceeds take-rate revenue and retains better, re-run the model choice deliberately instead of letting the dashboard decide by inertia. |
| 138 |
Details
- Updated
- Sep 10, 2026
- License
- MIT
- Stars on the repo
- ★ 2,235
- Checked
- Source
- wondelai/skills ↗
- Creator
- wondelai · 319 listings
Similar skills
See all →
SkillExperiment Dashboard Viewer
SkillLinkedIn Analytics Dashboard
SkillEarnings Report Preview
SkillPerformance Measurement Auditor
SkillApp Bug Reporter
SkillAgency Client DashboardMore from wondelai
SkillSoftware Design Philosophy
SkillActionable Metrics Guide
SkillAdvertising Media
SkillAffordance Design
SkillLean UX in Agile Teams
SkillAMP Framework Practitioner