KLICKIE · Sprint Mid-Review
01 / 14
Team review · Half-time

The 4-Vertical
Sprint, at the turn.

What the data says about massage, cleaning, dog-walking & tattoo — and where we point the second half.

MassageCleaningDog-walkingTattoo
Klickie · 15 June 2026 · empirical review — numbers pulled live, nothing invented
01 The question we're testing

Is our bottleneck
getting seekers — or
getting providers?

The hypothesis

The hard part is demand — finding seekers. Provider supply is in our control and cheap to grow.

Amelia's early thesis. Quietly at odds with the "provider side is the challenge" view.

How we test it

Follow every request through the funnel, per vertical, from live data — not impressions.

Demand DB · all 4 ad platforms · website analytics · provider supply · market research.

Source of truth corrected mid-build: the live dashboard collapses each person to their latest request — so it undercounts repeats. These figures read the full event history instead.

02 Bottom line up front

Five things the data settles.

  • 01Supply is not the constraint. In the focus verticals, 84–100% of seekers get a match. The drop-off is seekers deciding to act.
  • 02Massage is the engine — most demand, best paid economics (€4–7 per contact), and it converts.
  • 03We're flying blind on cleaning & dog-walking — after 3 weeks, zero organic content exists for either.
  • 04Retention is real and hidden: 27% of seekers come back, and 44% of people who contact a provider are repeat seekers.
  • 05The biggest lever is off-platform — aggregators & events can take CAC from ~€24 toward near-zero.
03 The spine · company funnel (28 days)

Supply shows up. Intent is where we lose them.

Across the four focus verticals, nearly every request gets matched to a provider in seconds. The real work in Part 2 isn't finding providers — it's getting more seekers to the door, and getting matched seekers to click contact.

Request-true counts from the demand event log, last 28 days.

04 The scorecard · all verticals (28 days)

One board, the whole picture.

Seekers/Matched/Contacted = distinct people. Contact rate = contacted ÷ seekers. “Other” = the long tail outside our 4 focus verticals — nearly as much demand as massage.

05 Massage · the engine

Our proven, cheap-to-acquire engine.

Most demand by far, the highest absolute number of contacts, and it converts. Paid works here — both Google and Meta.

96
seekers in 28 days
53%
clicked to contact a provider
€4–7
per contact (Meta / Google)

Verdict · Scale it

Website pull (28d)
2,438 pageviews · 185 CTA clicks
By far the most landing-page interest of any vertical.
Paid economics
€4.37 / lead · Meta
Google €7.35/conv. Both currently paused — re-enable once tracking lands.
Market research
65/100 seeker pain · 190 posts
"Found one, then lost them" — the retention pain we can own.
06 Tattoo · the split market

Two audiences. We only serve one.

Tattoo seekers get matched (93%) but rarely click through (27%). Tourists convert on Google; locals research on Instagram — where we have no presence.

93%
of seekers matched (supply fine)
27%
clicked to contact (low intent)
€7.05
per conv · Google (tourists)

Verdict · Google for tourists, build IG for locals

The Instagram gap
€472 → 0 Meta, 0 conv
Locals don't act on our IG traffic. Research confirms: tattoo discovery lives on Instagram.
Market research
80/100 — highest pain · 318 posts
"I love this style but have no clue how to search for it." A discovery problem we could solve.
The paradox
Highest pain in the market, lowest contact rate for us — because we're absent on the channel locals use.
07 Cleaning & Dog-walking · the blind spots

We can't judge them — we never gave them a shot.

CleaningBest conversion, no volume
24
seekers
63%
contact rate — highest of all

When a cleaning seeker shows up, they convert better than anyone. There just aren't many — and we run no reels or video. Helpling left NL; the market is unserved.

Dog-walkingNo demand signal yet
2
seekers in 28 days
€0
spent · no landing page, no content

Essentially silent. Research shows real pain (Rover-fee rage), but it's a word-of-mouth / Nextdoor game. Worth one cheap Nextdoor test before we judge it.

This is the core Part-2 problem: the two organic verticals have produced zero content in 3 weeks, so we have no data to decide on them. Google is useless here — these are social / word-of-mouth markets.

08 Channels × verticals · and the content gap

Each vertical buys attention differently.

VerticalChannel that worksOur status
MassageGoogle + Meta (paid)strong
TattooGoogle = tourists · IG = localshalf-served
CleaningWord-of-mouth · Marktplaats · FBno content
Dog-walkingNextdoor · word-of-mouthno content

Google works for high-intent search (massage, tourist tattoo). It's useless for organic, social-discovery verticals (cleaning, dog-walking).

09 Retention · the hidden stickiness

People come back. We just couldn't see it.

The live dashboard showed almost no repeat behaviour — because it overwrites each person down to their latest request. The full history tells the opposite story.

26.6%
of seekers come back for another request
44%
of contacters are repeat seekers
31
people clicked “contact” on 2+ occasions
26
requests from a single power user
The power user

One seeker fired ~10 different requests — HVAC, a roof-terrace designer, a coach — and clicked “contact provider” twice.

That's a person treating Klickie as their default for anything local. The retention story is the LTV story.

Heads-up: the ops dashboard currently undercounts repeats — worth a fix.

10 Research vs reality · does it predict?

Mostly yes — with one telling exception.

Our market research (3,500+ Reddit posts) ranks pain per vertical. It lines up with where we see engagement — except tattoo: highest pain in the market, lowest contact rate for us.

That gap isn't a research error. It's our channel gap — the pain is real, but it lives on Instagram, where we're not.

research.50005000.nl · seeker pain score (0–100)

11 The big lever · aggregators & events

The cheapest users we'll ever get.

Today a paid user costs ~€24. Plugging into communities and recurring events bends that toward zero — and turns acquisition into a monthly stream.

Leadership model — illustrative targets, led by Vero & Dave. Not yet in the user data; that's exactly what we go prove.

12 Part 2 · what the data points to

Five moves for the second half.

    Proposals for discussion — not decisions. The room decides.

    13 What we need from the room

    Three asks — bring it live or as a follow-up.

    Next meeting · Vero

    Blind provider-revenue research — how much cash providers actually make from our matches. The other half of "is the provider side healthy?"